The status of SA within the FI

I have a question, on wikipedia it says Socialist Action is only a sympathizing group with FI, not a full member, and that the official section is the Fourth Internationalist Caucus in Solidarity. How does that work? What is the SA comrades perspective on that?

According to reactionary anti-communist laws no US socialist organiozation can belong to a revolutionary International. So, we have sympathizing status. Because of some differences SA has had with the USFI majority over the years, the FI caucus of Solidarity gets "preferential" treatment in my opinion. Franky, I was in the FI caucus of Solidarity for years and the caucus is comatose. It barely functions except for a short meeting in the wee hours during Solidarity conventions.

Thta said, SA's participation in the FI has been less than we would have liked in recent years. A lot of fiolks read into it taht we were lreaving the FI or some such. The truth is we just didn't have the resources to build our organization /and/ participate in the International. The most recent World Congress saw a change in that situation. We sent our NatSec (Jeff Mackler) to the WC.

Well, so you will attempt to become the official section? I've never understood the idea of having multiple sections for one country (unless there are "national" questions involved for example the CWI has separate sections in Great Britain for N.Ireland and Scotland), or if you have than the view should be towards a merger. Well, not to be rough on the FI, but being just a component of broader left organizations seems to be the current line. I know this subject has come up as well. So if I am going to keep the critical angle, the FI seems to have more features of an international diwscussion club than an actual international, well that's the view I get from the outside at least. What would you say to that?

no US socialist organiozation can belong to a revolutionary International

Define "revolutionary" for the purposes of US law, and how the new International by Hugo Chavez fits in the legal scheme of things.

yeah, I am a bit curious how that law works too myself.

I don't consider the Chavez project a /revolutiojnary/ International. It's too broad and all over the map. It's been proposed to include parties like the PRD in Mexico and other populist and centrist formations. I'm very skeptical about the so-called Fifth International. The PSUV itself includes native bourgeoisie allied with Chavez. It's a popular front/multi class party. I'm also concerned that the PSUV sent a delegation of 100 leaders for "ideological training" in China by the CCP. Not a good sign.

Insofar as how you define /revolutionary/ when discussing International projects, I guess any International formation that promotes a transition to socialism might meet the requirements of the Feds. Becoming the "official" section is prohibited by law. Any group that wants to affiliate to the FI or any other International is constrained by law. Hence, "sympathizing" status. As far as I know both the FIC and SA are sympathizing organizations. The ISO is an "observer."

I'm no legal expert - just a construction worker. I also don't quite get the practice of having two or more "sections" in one country. The practicce is such that when a section splits, the FI tries relate as best it can to both sides of the split. I think the reality is that they encourage cooperation and eventual reunification, but sometimes positions and practices prohibit such. In Gernamy for instance the section is split in two. They cooperate to publish INPREKOR but take very different approaches to Die Linke - one inside as a tendency and the other outside.
In the US the differences between Solidarity and SA are sometimes harder to quantify. One is on electoral politics. Solidarity supports Green and non-socialist candidates, as do the CWI and IMT sections. SA has a policy of only supporting canidates that are /clearly/ socialist and independnet of the two bourgeois parties.
SA has a policy aimed at "party building" and developing a programmatic approach to struggles. Solidarity, it seems to me, (based on 16 years as a member) does little to educate its younger members and to build itself. Especially in labor work, where they do some good things, they separate their socialist politics from their mass politics.

As far as the "line" on broad parties goes; it's a perspective that has little traction outside of Europe as far as I can tell. We certainbly see no motion in that direction in the US. Whether you particpate in a broad formation seems to me to be a /tactical/ question. But thare are it seems some general ideas that should govern that: *keeping your own press
*organizing as a tendency in order to keep links with the International and to argue for your perspectives
*no support for any war measures or austerity programs - full stop.
*no alliances with bourgeois parties.

The formation of the NPA presents a problem. The LCR dissolved itself without any mechanism to keep the forces of the FI grouped together. A mistake IMO.

I don't consider the Chavez project a /revolutiojnary/ International. It's too broad and all over the map. It's been proposed to include parties like the PRD in Mexico and other populist and centrist formations. I'm very skeptical about the so-called Fifth International. The PSUV itself includes native bourgeoisie allied with Chavez. It's a popular front/multi class party. I'm also concerned that the PSUV sent a delegation of 100 leaders for "ideological training" in China by the CCP. Not a good sign.

Insofar as how you define /revolutionary/ when discussing International projects, I guess any International formation that promotes a transition to socialism might meet the requirements of the Feds. Becoming the "official" section is prohibited by law. Any group that wants to affiliate to the FI or any other International is constrained by law. Hence, "sympathizing" status. As far as I know both the FIC and SA are sympathizing organizations. The ISO is an "observer."

I'm no legal expert - just a construction worker. I also don't quite get the practice of having two or more "sections" in one country. The practicce is such that when a section splits, the FI tries relate as best it can to both sides of the split. I think the reality is that they encourage cooperation and eventual reunification, but sometimes positions and practices prohibit such. In Gernamy for instance the section is split in two. They cooperate to publish INPREKOR but take very different approaches to Die Linke - one inside as a tendency and the other outside.
In the US the differences between Solidarity and SA are sometimes harder to quantify. One is on electoral politics. Solidarity supports Green and non-socialist candidates, as do the CWI and IMT sections. SA has a policy of only supporting canidates that are /clearly/ socialist and independnet of the two bourgeois parties.
SA has a policy aimed at "party building" and developing a programmatic approach to struggles. Solidarity, it seems to me, (based on 16 years as a member) does little to educate its younger members and to build itself. Especially in labor work, where they do some good things, they separate their socialist politics from their mass politics.

Haha, ISO is a permanent observer? I completly forgot that. So in relation to my earlier question what does it mean to be a member of the Fourth International? And as to what you say about having different practices, doesn't that mean that the FI effectively doesn't take a position on, say, how to work in Germany? I mean, if our german group had split over that question we certainly wouldn't recognize both groups as sections, but take a decisive stand, after we've been able to evaluate the position. I mean, isn't that the purpose of an International, to build a common organization, to learn from the sections (and in order to learn you must sometimes make choices) and to use those experiences to help other sections etc?

As for Socialist Alternatives support for Nader, I hear it was pretty hotly debated internally, I myself would be a bit critical even though I can also see the point. Nader promotes building an anti-corporate left alternative to the two main parties, a project which I think, in the U.S context, we should get behind and act as a marxist opposition within, but as far as I can tell beyond running in elections he hasn't really done much to build such an alternative. To be honest I am glad we backed Nader and didn't end up supporting that fucking scab Brian Moore.

As far as the "line" on broad parties goes; it's a perspective that has little traction outside of Europe as far as I can tell. We certainbly see no motion in that direction in the US. Whether you particpate in a broad formation seems to me to be a /tactical/ question. But thare are it seems some general ideas that should govern that: *keeping your own press
*organizing as a tendency in order to keep links with the International and to argue for your perspectives
*no support for any war measures or austerity programs - full stop.
*no alliances with bourgeois parties.

The formation of the NPA presents a problem. The LCR dissolved itself without any mechanism to keep the forces of the FI grouped together. A mistake IMO.

And see, here we are in complete agreement. Oh and maybe you should tell your french comrades about those point, because I hear they have put some pressure on our french group lately regarding having our own paper.

Now, I am hardly an expert on what all the FI sections are up to, but I do have some info on how the Brazilian FI section Enlace works within P-Sol (Party for Socialism and Freedom), one of those broad formations (even though most groups involved come from a trotskyist background). For a very long time Heloisa Helena, present party president, was a member, and she is very much to the right in the party, supporting alliances even with bourgeois parties in order to gain seats. As far as I understand Enlace does not present a clear left opposition to this, but supports the other main-wing in the party, which is in conflict with the tendency around Heloisa Helena, but by no means provides a consistent left alternative. What the CWI group do, together with about five or six other groups inside is that we launched the Socialist Resistance Bloc inside the party, arguing, together for a clearly socialist politics and are not afraid to raise our own candidates internally, which is the only way to pull the party more decisively to a genuine socialist program. This is not a case of idle boasting on my part, but a case of tactic, which I think is very important, and again ties in with the questions I raised earlier.

Insofar as how you define /revolutionary/ when discussing International projects, I guess any International formation that promotes a transition to socialism might meet the requirements of the Feds. Becoming the "official" section is prohibited by law. Any group that wants to affiliate to the FI or any other International is constrained by law. Hence, "sympathizing" status. As far as I know both the FIC and SA are sympathizing organizations. The ISO is an "observer."

I just don't know. For example, no Fed agencies have tried to bust the pareconists' attempt at a Participatory Socialist International. That's why I wanted to distinguish between "transition to socialism" and "overthrow of the government."

I just don't know. For example, no Fed agencies have tried to bust the pareconists' attempt at a Participatory Socialist International. That's why I wanted to distinguish between "transition to socialism" and "overthrow of the government."

A good distinction. US trotskyists have often used "defensive" formulations to keep the party (back then, the SWP) legal and above ground. They point to "Socialism on Trial" by Cannon as an example. IMO, the book is ok, but limited.

I /do/ know that some SWPers got themselves on a US govt terrorist list back during the debate on guerilla warfare in the FI (70s) The minority tendency in the SWP (Internationalist Tendency) advocated for the FI majority line in favor of guerilla warfare. Joe Hansen's book, the Leninist Strategy of Party Building is a fairly good exposition on the SWP view. Back then my views were more guerillaist.