Fourth Internationalist Tendency joins Solidarity

Scan page 14

The eighth and final national conference of the Fourth Internationalist Tendency (FIT) met in Pittsburgh, Pa., Sept. 19-20. By a vote of 18 to 11 1/2, its delegates approved "the unity of the Fourth Internationalist Tendency and Solidarity."

Like Socialist Action, the FIT resulted from the degeneration of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP). In late 1983, a number of those who had been undemocratically expelled from the SWP for defending the party's historic program—or who were in the process of being driven out of the party—gathered to form Socialist Action. A minority disagreed with the proposal to build the nucleus of a new revolutionary party—with a newspaper, a functioning national office, and viable local branches.

The majority felt that such a party, demonstrating the validity of our ideas in practice, was the best way to win the ranks of the SWP. But the minority argued that this would cut across needed "programmatic clarification," and rejected the conference decisions. In early 1984, the minority split from Socialist Action and formed a separate organization, the FIT.

The FIT changed their approach once the SWP ended its fraternal association with the Fourth International. Two years ago, they declared their intention to work for unification of all U.S. supporters of the Fourth International into a single sympathizing section.

What is Solidarity?

Solidarity was formed in 1986 by the merger of three small socialist groups—International Socialists, Workers Power, and Socialist Unity. The latter group had split from Socialist Action when they were unable to win a majority to their perspective of broad left regroupment. Believing that it was impossible to construct a party with a clear program, Solidarity aimed to regroup leftists on a minimal programmatic basis.

Approximately one-fourth of Solidarity's members belong to its Fourth Internationalist Caucus, a group that, while conducting no public activities in its own name, maintains fraternal ties with the Fourth International. Members of this caucus subscribe to International Viewpoint, a magazine published under the auspices of the Fourth International, and receive sporadic informational mailings.

They do not participate—as Socialist Action does—as a fraternal group in the Fourth International's pre-World Congress debates. (U.S. legislation prohibits formal membership in international socialist bodies.) Their only meetings, approximately once every two years, are at Solidarity national conventions. These meetings, which are open to all Solidarity members, are limited to informational reports.

Solidarity as a whole has no ties with the Fourth International. Many of its members are longstanding opponents of the political views of the Fourth International. The Fourth Internationalist Caucus does not campaign for Solidarity as a whole to establish any link to the Fourth International.

Similarly, Solidarity members hold in contempt the concept of a Leninist vanguard party with a clear program and democratic centralist internal functioning. They view such a party as the height of sectarianism.

In voting to dissolve their organization to unite with Solidarity, FIT members also voted to join the present Fourth Internationalist Caucus. Despite criticisms of this caucus's inactivity, they agreed not to set up a separate caucus or tendency to represent their views.

A political convergence

Joining Solidarity marks the culmination of a process of convergence between the two organizations. Like Solidarity, the FIT papered over fundamental programmatic differences in vaguely formulated documents. The FIT never drew a balance sheet on such important questions as Nicaragua, where they falsely maintained the dictatorship of the proletariat was in power, or the former Soviet Union, where they falsely concluded that Gorbachev was opposed to capitalist restoration. Some FIT members who opposed entry into Solidarity correctly pointed to the FIT's lack of any cohesive program.

The FIT's unclarity on class independence has led to support and active participation in the Ron Daniels presidential campaign and the 21st Century Party. This coincides with Solidarity's support for such non-working class formations.

Like Solidarity, the FIT became convinced that it is impossible—or sectarian—to construct a revolutionary socialist party in the United States today. This confusion, coupled with the failure to correctly assess developments in the former Soviet Union, has led to friendly coverage of the Committees of Correspondence ("C of C," the organization that recently split from the Communist Party) in both the FIT's Bulletin in Defense of Marxism and Solidarity's Against the Current.

Solidarity and Fourth Internationalist Caucus leader Joanna Misnik calls the very basis for the existence of the Fourth International into question when she writes in the September-October 1992 issue of Against the Current:

"The C of C, among others in the world socialist movement, will have to grapple with how—or whether—to define a revolutionary current. The objective basis for a world Communism resting on the post capitalist societies and defining revolution through the prism of 'actually existing socialism' has been abruptly removed. Also removed is the basis for a world current in left opposition to that kind of Communist movement."

The FIT's dissolution into Solidarity is not a fusion, with all former FIT members welcome in the new organization. Only those who supported the unity proposal were to be immediately accepted into Solidarity. Even these members would have their membership placed on hold if an objection was raised by their local Solidarity branch.

Members who had voted against dissolving the FIT, but agreed to go along with the majority decision, would have their membership applications reviewed by a commission, including Solidarity leaders and leaders of the former FIT.

A new BIDOM?

This conference also voted to maintain the Bulletin in Defense of Marxism (BIDOM), the former FIT's theoretical journal, as an "independent" magazine for U.S. Fourth International supporters. An editorial board was elected that included members of the former FIT who had joined Solidarity as well as some who had not. It also included two members of the Trotskyist League.

The Association for Independent Socialist Politics, a group which split from Socialist Action at its August convention in order to participate in the Stalinist Committees of Correspondence, was invited to provide representatives for this editorial board. The leaders of this group who attended the conference expressed a desire to take part, although they indicated that they had to discuss their nominees further.

Supporters of the magazine, ie., subscribers who pay an additional $20 per year, will be polled by mail—not more than four times per year—on disputed questions.

Supporters must also express agreement with the editorial statement of principles, which includes the following position on regroupments: "Supporters of this magazine are committed to comradely discussion and debate as well as practical political cooperation which can facilitate eventual organizational unity of all Fourth Internationalists in the United States. At the same time, we want to help promote a broad and, within this, a revolutionary socialist regroupment in which perspectives of revolutionary Marxism, the Fourth International, and American Trotskyism will play a vital role."

Solidarity has expressed concern that the Bulletin in Defense of Marxism neither compete with its regroupment journal, Against the Current, nor publish articles critical of groups it works with, e.g. Mobilization for Survival and Committees in Support of the People of El Salvador. Conference delegates agreed that "the network of the magazine's supporters will not be organized to carry out any distinctive political activities in any social movement or organization."

Most members of the former FIT, regardless of their position on unity with Solidarity, signed on as magazine supporters. A few pointedly did not, questioning the lack of any organizational control and the largely ceremonial role to which both the editorial board members and supporters would be relegated.

Very few of the 39 percent minority who opposed dissolving the FIT will apply for membership in Solidarity. Those not joining Solidarity are neither forming a new organization nor joining any existing party. Many, regardless of whether they signed on as magazine supporters, have decided to maintain informal communication through a Fourth Internationalist Network while continuing to carry out their activities in the labor movement in their own cities.

Socialist Action's greetings to this conference stressed the importance of a clear program and the need for a party to implement it.

After commenting on the free and open discussion leading up to our convention decisions, our statement pointed out, "But, democratic as we are, we also have a clear program and a Leninist organization which functions in the best democratic centralist traditions of the old SWP to implement this program. We are working to construct the nucleus of the revolutionary party which can lead the working class in the overthrow of capitalism and the construction of a society based on human needs. This monumental task requires programmatic clarity and a Leninist party."

Pull-quote

"The FIT's dissolution into Solidarity is not a fusion, with all former FIT members welcome in the new organization. Only those who supported the unity proposal were to be immediately accepted into Solidarity."

Under the masthead of the Bulletin in Defense of Marxism, printed with the article

Solidarity is concerned that the FIT's Bulletin in Defense of Marxism might compete with Against the Current.