Which section of the Fourth International do you belong to? I'm a member of the Revolutionary Socialist League in Germany. Like Socialist Action it belongs to the left-wing minority tendency within the FI.
Which section of the Fourth International do you belong to? I'm a member of the Revolutionary Socialist League in Germany. Didn't Germany have two sections? And from this a question arises: whatever happened to the idea of "one state, one party" as this happens in more countries in the FI? Like Socialist Action it belongs to the left-wing minority tendency within the FI. Could you elaborate on this? What does this tendency stand for? What are the disagreements with the majority?
That's right, there is another group belonging to the Fourth International in Germany, which is called international socialist left. Like in most organisations (national or international) there is a left-wing and a right-wing in the Fourth International. These two wings do not exist as official tendencies, but in a few cases (especially Germany, the USA and Brazil) lead to two sections in one country which coexist for now, although they subject to an obligation of reunification. The differences of the too wings are mostly about the strategy of the Fourth International and the theoretical base. For a fair time now, the Fourth International is trying to support transformation processes of the anticapitalist left in form of broad anticapitalist parties like the left bloc in Portugal, the P-SOL in Brazil or, as the youngest example, the french NPA. Now there are some of us who are trying to trying to accelerate such procedurs by trading orthodox revolutionary marxist programmes against shorter and "more modern" programmes of action with less theoretical restrictions and, which is important, less centralisation for the organizations. Good examples in this respect are Solidarity (US) and the international socialist left from germany, which reminds myself more of a loose groupment of single persons, than a political organisation in the common sense. At least the isl is acting as good as never as such. On the other hand, there are those who advocate a far more leninist approach in strategy and tactics, like Socialist Action (US) and the Revolutionary Socialist League (Germany). Most of us, at least as I can overlook it, also support the idea of building new, and bigger anticapitalist forces through alliances and transformations of the radical left, but are fighting more intensively for such new parties to develop a revolutionary, marxist programme, strategy and tactics. These is shortened down of course, but I think it includes the most important aspects.
I belong to Socialist Action, US: Mephisto's analysis of the differences that lead to two sections in some countries is correct. The approach the FI has taken is to encourage unity, but to not sever ties with one faction if there is a split. This keeps the dialog open for possible future unity or cooperation. In my opinion, this is the correct position in this period. You can't force unity by administrative means - it would only deepen factional situations an dsplits. It's the way political differences should be addressed, as well, in a national section - to take a political and /educational/ approach to a discussion and not crack down on minorities for their views. Sometimes splits are necessary, but taking such an approach means it is less likely. Of course, giving room to the views of a minority doesn't mean you can let your organization become mired in constant discussion - you need unity in action. IMO, you achieve this through patience, persuasion and education, not top-down imposition.
I agree on the notion that unity in action is needed, but the point about having two (are more also possible?) sections in one country, both in the FI, is absurd to be frank. Why can't you "agree to disagree" and work in one party, be it with two (or more) tendencies and/or factions. Openly discuss differences (this is quite vital for reasons I point out in my blog) and let a minority be able to become a majority? This "unity in pluralism" is much better and more effective than having two organisations who's links are inevitably going to be lesser than if they shared a common party platform.
I can understand your position very well Q and normally I'd completely agree with it, but things are little bit more difficult in this case. I'll explain it on the situation we have in Germany. While the isl works mostly within DIE LINKE, the RSB rejects to do so, because DIE LINKE is not an anticapitalist party, but focusses on participation in capitalist gouvernments. In gouvernments in which it takes part (like in Berlin, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Brandenburg), DIE LINKE serves as typical neoliberal force alongside the social democrats. In Berlin for example they supported(!!) the water privatisation. However the trotskyist groups who decided to work within the party have their reasons and this is not the point of the discussion, but what is important is that a revolutionary organisation must develop a clear position about this party. If we would simply reunite before this difference is solved, one fraction of the new section would support DIE LINKE, while the other one completely rejects to support the party, while trying to build a new anticapitalist alternative in rivarly to it. A new split would be inevitable, regarding the central importance of this question. It's a situation we are all uncomfortable with, but another problem is, that the isl usually never acts as an organisation in common sense, but like an association of independent individuals. We do not want to unite as a single section only to find ourselves in a loose federation instead of a revolutionary organisation which acts like such.
