Donate to Links


Click on Links masthead to clear previous query from search box

GLW Radio on 3CR



Recent comments



Syndicate

Syndicate content

Unión de Militantes por el Socialismo: Resolución del Comité Central sobre la Vª Internacional/Resolution on the Fifth Int.

[English translation below.]

por Unión de Militantes por el Socialismo (Argentina)

Al Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela

Queridos compañeros y compañeras

Reciban un saludo revolucionario y nuestroamericano, con los mejores deseos para la realización del 1er Congreso Extraordinario del Psuv y el más caluroso respaldo a la propuesta del comandante Chávez de comenzar a echar las bases de una Vª Internacional.

La Unión de Militantes por el Socialismo, fundada en 1994, en medio de la más furiosa reacción mundial contra las ideas de emancipación social, se define como un destacamento comunista, empeñado en la tarea de recomposición de fuerzas revolucionarias a escala nacional, latinoamericana y mundial.

Quienes integramos las filas de la UMS provenimos de diferentes orígenes partidarios, aunados en ese momento de tanta adversidad en torno a lo que consideramos el programa científico de la revolución social, el marxismo entendido como instrumento teórico para una práctica creadora y transformadora.

Desde el primer momento comprendimos el significado de la sublevación del Movimiento Bolivariano Revolucionario 200 y respaldamos al compañero Chávez. Hemos dado lo mejor de nosotros para difundir la realidad de la revolución bolivariana en estos años. Y nos congratulamos de haber contribuido a que nuestro pueblo –y también las vanguardias de los países vecinos, adonde llegan nuestros materiales- comprendieran el significado trascendental del proceso que ustedes conducen.

Todo lo que podemos acreditar de nuestra labor militante está a la vista en nuestros materiales: el periódico Eslabón (www.uniondemilitantes.com.ar), la revista Crítica de Nuestro Tiempo (www.nuestrotiempo.com.ar), libros, folletos y otras publicaciones en las que nuestra militancia contribuye, como por ejemplo El Espejo (www.elespejodeargentina.blogspot.com), así como otros medios de la prensa comercial escrita, radial y televisiva, donde eventual o regularmente exponemos nuestras ideas.

En su reunión del 5 de diciembre de 2009 nuestro Comité Central debatió y resolvió comprometerse con el máximo de empeño en la creación de la Vª Internacional. En el transcurso de los próximos dos meses les haremos llegar nuestras opiniones, como contribución al Congreso Fundacional previsto para abril próximo. Pero desde ya pueden contar, queridos/as camaradas, con nuestra firme determinación de poner lo mejor de nuestras fuerzas y capacidades al servicio de esta formidable tarea histórica, y nuestra disposición a colaborar en todo lo que la Comisión Organizadora considere necesario y útil.

Reciban un abrazo solidario y fraternal

Patria, socialismo, o muerte

¡¡Venceremos!!

Unión de Militantes por el Socialismo Central Committee Resolution on the Fifth International

Unión de Militantes por el Socialismo [UMS – Union of Activists for Socialism]

To the Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela [PSUV – United Socialist Party of Venezuela]

Dear Comrades,

Please accept a revolutionary and “nuestroamerican” [Our America] greeting with our best wishes for the success of the First Extraordinary Congress of the PSUV, and our warmest support to the proposal of Commander Chávez to begin to lay the foundations for a Fifth International.

The Unión de Militantes por el Socialismo, founded in 1994 amidst the most violent world reaction against the ideas of social emancipation, defines itself as a communist detachment, committed to the task of recomposition of revolutionary forces on a national, Latin American and world scale.

The members of the UMS originate from various parties, uniting at this time of such adversity around what we consider the scientific program of the social revolution: Marxism understood as a theoretical instrument for a creative and transformative practice.

We understood from the very outset the significance of the uprising of the Movimiento Bolivariano Revolucionario 200[1] and we supported Comrade Chávez. We have done our best, over the years, to disseminate information about the reality of the Bolivarian revolution. And we are pleased to have helped our people, and the vanguards in the neighboring countries who receive our materials, to understand the transcendental significance of the process that you are leading.

Whatever credit we may claim for our work as activists can be seen in our materials: the newspaper Eslabón, the journal Critica de Nuestro Tiempo, and the books, pamphlets and other publications to which we contribute, such as, for example, El Espejo and other commercial print, radio and television media in which we occasionally or regularly express our ideas.

At its meeting of December 5, 2009, our Central Committee discussed and resolved to commit ourselves diligently to the creation of the Fifth International. Over the next two months, we will be developing our opinions as a contribution to the Founding Congress projected for next April. But, dear comrades, you can already count on our firm determination to devote our utmost strengths and capacities to this formidable historical task, and on our readiness to collaborate in whatever the Organizing Committee considers necessary and useful.

Please accept our fraternal embrace in solidarity,

Patria, socialismo, o muerte [Fatherland, socialism, or death]

¡¡Venceremos!! [We shall win!]

s/ Gertrudis Nagel, Alberto Cartagena, Luis Bilbao

National Executive Committee

Unión de Militantes por el Socialismo


 

Comments

El FMLN de El Salvador aprobó adherirse a la V Internacional Soc

El FMLN de El Salvador aprobó adherirse a la V Internacional Socialista

San Salvador, dic 13 - El Frente Farabundo Martí para la Liberación Nacional

(FMLN) de El Salvador aprobó este domingo en una convención adherirse a la V Internacional Socialista proclamada por el presidente de Venezuela, Hugo Chávez.

"Saludamos y damos la bienvenida a la iniciativa del Partido Socialista Unificado de Venezuela de propiciar un nuevo espacio que se ha conocido como la V Internacional Socialista para promover el debate y reflexión teórica entre las fuerzas políticas que planteamos la vía del socialismo para garantizar a los pueblos desarrollo humano", señaló el FMLN en una resolución.

"Es de primordial importancia que los movimientos y organizaciones políticas y sociales de caracter progresista y socialista en todo el mundo, intensifiquen el debate y la formulación de proyectos de desarrollo alternativo", señaló el FMLN en su resolución que fue aprobada a mano alzada por unos 500 convencionistas que se reunieron en un centro de ferias en San Salvador.

A la reunión no acudió el presidente Funes, quien ya había adelantado en días pasados que no podía hacer trabajo partidista siendo mandatario del país. ( Se sabe que hay discrepancias entre el FMLN y el presidente Funes, quien incluso ha dicho que no adherirá al ALBA)

Durante la convención de este domingo, la ex guerrilla izquierdista también aprobó reformas a sus estatutos encaminadas a hacer más expedito el procedimiento que utilizará el partido para elegir a los delegados municipales, departamentales y nacionales que tienen voz y voto en las resoluciones del partido.

LA INICIATIVA DE CREACIÓN DE LA “V INTERNACIONAL SOCIALISTA”

Here is the official FMLN resolution on this issue

RESOLUCIÓN DE LA XXV CONVENCIÓN NACIONAL ORDINARIA DEL FMLN SOBRE LA INICIATIVA DE CREACIÓN DE LA “V INTERNACIONAL SOCIALISTA”

La CONVENCIÓN NACIONAL del FMLN, CONSIDERANDO:


1. Que el Frente Farabundo Martí para la Liberación Nacional
es una organización política que tiene la responsabilidad, reconocida
por las mayorías populares y consecuencia de toda una historia de
lucha, de construir en El Salvador una sociedad con justicia social,
económicamente productiva , ambientalmente sostenible y donde se ejerzan
y respeten las libertades fundamentales y los derechos inherentes a
la persona humana, reconocidos en nuestra Constitución de la
República.

2. Que los movimientos políticos y sociales de naturaleza
progresista y de izquierda, que abanderan las luchas por la democracia
y el progreso social, viven un período de auge y avance en
diversas partes del mundo, y particularmente en América Latina y
el Caribe, proponiendo y materializando soluciones a los grandes
problemas que aquejan a las sociedades.

3. Que es evidente que el neoliberalismo, versión extrema de un
capitalismo salvaje, no logró ni podrá resolver los grandes desafíos
de la civilización contemporánea, la cual vive inmersa hoy en día
en una grave crisis económica y financiera, que ha profundizado las
condiciones de pobreza y miseria de millones de seres humanos. A
ello se agregan, entre otras calamidades que azotan a la Humanidad,
las ya evidentes y destructivas manifestaciones del cambio climático,
la proliferación de enfermedades, la crisis energética y alimenticia,
el auge de la delincuencia transnacional y las amenazas a la paz
y a la democracia en diversas regiones del planeta.

4. Que en este contexto, es de primordial importancia que los
movimientos y organizaciones políticas y sociales de carácter
progresista, de izquierda y socialistas en todo el mundo intensifiquen
el debate teórico y la formulación de proyectos de desarrollo
alternativos, que puedan ir al encuentro de las aspiraciones de
prosperidad, libertad y autodeterminación de los pueblos, y que a
la vez estimulen la solidaridad y la cooperación fraterna entre
los mismos.

5. Que es un derecho de cualquier fuerza política nacional,
cualquiera que sea su signo ideológico, fomentar vínculos de amistad
e intercambio de experiencias con organizaciones políticas con las
que guarden afinidad en el resto del mundo, sin menoscabo de su
independencia e identidad propia y respetando las realidades de cada
proceso político-social.

POR TANTO, RESUELVE:
1. Intensificar sus esfuerzos en el terreno internacional para
que se fortalezcan los espacios de reflexión, debate y construcción
de propuestas creativas y alternativas para el desarrollo económico, la
emancipación social y la soberanía de los pueblos, como lo son hoy
en día el Foro de Sao Paulo y la Conferencia Permanente de
Partidos Políticos de América Latina y el Caribe.

2. Saludar y dar la bienvenida a la iniciativa del Partido
Socialista Unificado de Venezuela de propiciar un nuevo espacio, que
se ha conocido como “V Internacional Socialista”, para promover el
debate, la reflexión teórica, política e ideológica, y solidaridad entre
las fuerzas políticas que en el mundo planteamos la vía del
socialismo para garantizar a los pueblos desarrollo humano,
prosperidad económica, democracia e independencia nacional,
preservando la paz y la sostenibilidad ambiental del Planeta.

3. Ratificar su solidaridad y la de las grandes mayorías del
pueblo salvadoreño con el pueblo de la República Bolivariana de
Venezuela y demás pueblos de Suramérica que han emprendido
transformaciones estructurales y que enfrentan ahora una nueva y severa
amenaza a su autodeterminación y soberanía, producto de la instalación
de bases militares extranjeras en las proximidades de sus fronteras
nacionales.

CONVENCIÓN NACIONAL.
San Salvador, 13 de Diciembre de 2009.

Socialist Action/LAS (Canadian state) on Fifth International

The following statement was adopted by unanimous vote of the federal steering committee of Socialist Action / Ligue pour l'Action socialiste (Canadian state) in early December, 2009.

Statement on the significance and meaning of the call for a Fifth International by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez

The call by President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela for a Fifth International goes well beyond an appeal for international solidarity against imperialism. It is a proposal for the formation of an international political movement to end capitalist rule and to build socialism on a global scale.

This is the first time since the degeneration of the Third (Communist) International that a head of state has issued such an appeal. Not even Fidel Castro, who led the first socialist revolution in the Americas by bursting the strictures of the misconceived 'stages' strategy and the fallacy of 'socialism in one country', ever issued a call for a new International. Not even the internationalist par excellence Che Guevara ventured that far.

Why does Chavez do this now? Elements of the answer can be found in the objective situation. We are witness to a triple crisis of the bourgeois order, a crisis of unprecedented scale:
* The deepest economic downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930s.
* The worst environmental threat in the history of civilization.
* The most dangerous expansion of militarism and imperialism.

For Venezuela, one can cite an additional reason: The threat of invasion by its neighbor Colombia, which possesses the biggest and best-equipped military in Latin America, fully backed by Washington which is expanding several military bases it occupies in that country.

In 1920, Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union promulgated “21 Conditions” for adherence to a new Communist International. The conditions were very precise, perhaps overly prescriptive and invasive, designed to combat the corrosive influence of reformism and opportunism across the international workers' movement.

How does the Chavez call compare? Apart from its general anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist content, it is not based on any programmatic platform. It seems that the process towards developing a program will move forward at meetings scheduled to occur in March 2010. What about the range of parties at the gathering in Caracas in November where Chavez first announced his proposal? The assembled forces included reformist, Stalinist, bourgeois, socialist and revolutionary nationalist parties. Does Chavez plan to lower the bar for inclusion so as to encompass reformists and other enemies of the working class, or does he aim to separate the revolutionaries from the reformist leaders by summoning a broad assembly into which he will aggressively intervene to crystallize a revolutionary party? It is important to recall that Lenin and his co-thinkers invited the anarcho-syndicalist IWW and the centrist Eugene Debs-led faction of the Socialist Party of America to join the Third International.

What should our attitude be towards this development? Should it be passive criticism, abstention, or should it be active solidarity and revolutionary intervention? If our aim is to affect the outcome in a positive direction, the answer should be clear. A revolutionary intervention never means leaving one's critical thinking capacity at the door.

The Fourth International, with which SA/LAS (Canadian state) is in political solidarity, responded to the Chavez appeal in a constructive and principled way. The continuation of that approach depends, at least in part, on the F.I. keeping its own house in order. Presently, leading up to the World Congress of the F.I. set for February 2010, there is a debate about political perspectives. “The Role and Tasks of the F.I.” document presented by the leadership representing the majority of sections errs in the direction of weakening the strategic line of building the F.I. as an international revolutionary Marxist organization. Socialist Action – USA, which is limited by reactionary legislation to being a 'fraternal organization' of the F.I. in the USA, has responded with questions and criticisms of the majority document. Other F.I. leaders/sections have issued their own criticisms and amendments to the majority text.

What about the situation of pro-F.I. forces in the Canadian state? In the first place, SA/LAS is not the official section of the F.I. Our organization emerged from a 1994 split in Socialist Challenge, which was the component in English Canada of the Pan-Canadian F.I. section. The split was over democratic-centralism and the Leninist strategy of revolutionary party building. We were expelled for adherence to the latter principles, which we continue to uphold. Subsequently, Socialist Challenge dissolved into an explicitly anti-Leninist formation of socialists and anarchists, the New Socialist Group. Presently, the NSG is on a fusion course with the Socialist Project, which we characterize as left-reformist. That leaves the Quebec-based Gauche Socialiste as the official FI section in the Canadian state.

SA/LAS is engaged in the process of building a revolutionary workers' party along democratic-centralist lines through our active, collective participation in the workers' movement. The latter includes the labour unions and the labour-based New Democratic Party, along with associated social protest campaigns and movements. We consider that our rightful place is as participants in the preliminary F.I. discussions and at the F.I. World Congress. SA-USA has directly communicated with the F.I. leadership to ask that a representative of SA/LAS be invited to attend the World Congress. In the spirit of building unity amongst anti-capitalist forces worldwide, a process which the FI expressly advocates, it seems elementary that this should occur.

Whether we attend, or not, our task is clear. That is to take a stand in favour of the big political opening that Hugo Chavez has provided, and in favour of a Marxist programme for a New International of revolutionary socialist organizations of the working class and oppressed peoples – a New International to be comprised of millions that will hasten the end of capitalist rule worldwide.

SA response to Call for V Socialist Internacional

Companeros:

My congratulations for recognising the importance of this call by Commandante Chavez. I believe you are now the second Canadian political organisation to respond positively, the Socialist Project being the first. As well, I understand that a discussion on this question is being organised within the ranks of the New Socialist Group who will have an observer in attendence at the inaugural meeting in Caracas.

Having said that, I am disturbed at the formulations used in your annoucement, as well as the mixing of messages which the very form of your announcement takes. Why introduce the subject of your relations with the Fourth International in a text ostensibly meant to welcome the creation of an organisation designed to create international organisational unity?

Why characterise the other Canadian socialist organisations who have responded to the call as "left reformist" or "liquidationist"? Or perhaps I should ask; What gives you the right to do so? Who are you to forsee what history will bring in the form of peoples actions? Only an egotistical sectarian schematicist would ever presume that they are "more revolutionary than thou".

Felipe Stuart C. has already admonished you as to the way in which you approach a discussion with the companeros of the FSLN of Nicaragua. I suggest you take his admonishments to heart and examine your own practice with respect to those on the left with whom you might have political differences.

Revolutionary politics is first and foremost politics; that is, it is about winning allies in the struggle against, in your case, North American imperialism. Using terms which denigrate the efforts of others with whom you disagree makes you disagreeable, not effective.

On the level of political practise, we do have disagreements which center on your conception of how to go about building instruments of struggle for the conquest of power. Let me be clear about one thing, the workers and peasants of the world have NEVER been able to take power without some type of revolutionary instrument. The 26 July movement in Cuba, the Vietnamese Communist party, the Yugoslavian partisans and the Russian Social Democratic Party (Bolshevik) have all been instruments of struggle, but each has taken a different form dependent upon the actual historical relations between the objective reality and the nature of the development of the subjective factors.

The difference between us centers on the formulation expressed in your statement: "The SA/LAS is engaged in the process of building a revolutionary workers party along democratic-centralist lines through our active, collective participation in the workers movement." The central thrust of your political priority is further expressed in the sentence..."The split was over democratic-centralism and the Leninist stratefy of party building".

To your political priority I would like to counterpose another notion, that expressed in the Second Declaration of Havana:" The duty of a revolutionary is to make the Revolution". This priority implies that the central political focus of revolutionary socialist militants is to defend the masses against the attacks of imperialism and national capitalisms, to promote the self organisation of the masses in struggling for their just demands and to defend themselves against the repression of the state and its bureacracy, and to raise the political consciousness of the masses so that they understand that they are not just the objects of history but they are the makers of history. The organisational forms which they use to do that are many, ranging from underground cell structures when operating against the dictatorships, as in Chile and soon in Honduras, to mass fronts as in the case of the FSLN and FMLN in Nicaraugua and El Salvador to organised mass politcal parties as in the case of the PSUV in Venezuela and the Communist Party of Cuba.
In each case, these organisational forms arose in response to the actual living history of each national social-political formation.In two of these cases, Cuba and Venezuela, the parties were formed on the strengths of a growing revolutionary tide after the seizure of power. In the case of Cuba the destruction of the old bourgeoise state apparatus and the flight of the Cuban compradors prefigured the transformation of the July 26 movement;in the case of Venezuela, the construction of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela took place after the mass movement defeated the golpistas of the compradors and its allies in the American and British embassies, and after some sections of the electoral front which had been part of the original intention showed their incapacity to understand the revolutionary dynamics which determined the Venezuelan political process.
In none of the cases above was the political priority of the companeros leading the revolutionary processes in their respective nations one of "the Leninist strategy of party building". Think about this for a moment.
Indeed, while you are reflecting on this, you might think about the possibility that there is not now and never was a "Leninist strategy of party building" in the sense that you presently understand it. The difference between Lenin and the SA was that Lenin intervened in the workers' movement to strengthen it, to prepare it for its historical tasks by raising the consciousness of the authentic leadership of the workers to understand that they and only they could defeat Tsarism and carry out the democratic tasks of the Russian revolution. It was to fuse socialism with the workers movement which Lenin defined as the tasks of the Russian revolutionists, not to intervene in the workers movement in order to build the Bolshevik section of Russian social democracy.
You, on the other hand, say that you intervene in the workers' movement in order to build your organisation as the key political conception of your organisation, "the Leninist strategy of party building".
Which of course leads one to wonder about your political intentions in regards to the Fifth International, especially in light of the following: "Whether we attend or not, our task is clear. That is, to take a stand in favour of the big political opening Hugo Chavez has provided, and in favour of a Marxist programme of a new international of revolutionary socialist organisations of the working class and oppressed peoples..."
It is not clear whether you are refering to attending the meetings of the Fifth International or the World Congress of the Fourth International, but in any case, let me pose the following question. Does the "big political opening" you refer to mean that it represnts a chance for your organisations to engage in a secterian "smash and grab" operation in the name of "the Leninist strategy of party building? Do you intend to intervene to bring "the Programme" to those poor benighted well intentioned but misguided revolutionists like Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro,Hugo Blanco and Evo Morales; to enlighten them as to the real meaning of the socialist revolution and proletarian internationalism?
If this is the case, you will very quickly have a face to face with the true meaning of "political irrelevancy".
For already, the call for the creation of a V Socialist Internacional, La Quinta, is in the process of uniting those whose political priority is to make the revolution, and not fetishize about organisational forms. The potential to unite, as you correctly point out "millions that will hasten the end of capitalist rule worldwide" represents an historic opportunity for revolutionists world wide to come together in a spirit of supporting one another, and learning from one another.
May I suggest that this spirit of unity begins at home. Companeros,I await you response.

Elena Zeledon L.
San Jose

A new international necessitates freedom of criticism

Elena's diatribe violates every protocol she suggests others should follow, starting with an assault on solidarity adorned with a string of political cuss-words. (A strictly literal reversal of her calumny would consist of sending a volley back at her like this: 'only a blindly opportunist, impressionistic camp-follower would try to conceal the truth about non-revolutionary tendencies.' But what's to be gained by that, other than showing the power of a mirror?)
Every revolutionary has the right, indeed the duty, to tell the truth as s/he sees it, hopefully informed by concrete political practice. I don't know what political practice Elena has, or has had, in the Canadian state, which would justify her having an opinion on the subject of our work.
Our assessment of certain Canadian organizations as being 'left reformist' and 'liquidationist' is based on facts: their position in favour of reforming the bourgeois state rather than seeking to dismantle and replace it with organs of workers' power, on their counter-posing of a 'project' to the construction of a workers' revolutionary party, and on their anti-dialectical notion that the 'socialist' organization can hold, simultaneously, a range of contradictory political positions, including no policy at all, on vital issues of the day -- which makes a mockery of the Marxist idea that only by collective practice can a policy be put to the test to be verified and further elaborated.
Unity is important, but not that alone. It begs the question: unity for what, for whom? History is clear. It is extremely unlikely, if not impossible, to make a revolution without a revolutionary programme, embodied by a revolutionary party. For Lenin there was no more important task than building his party, which was the highest expression of all strivings to smash Tsarism and capitalism, and to build a better world. It was the reason for the split in the RSDLP in 1903, and for twenty more years of sharp, uncompromising polemics against his political opponents in every camp, including potential allies.
Although Elena may be able to describe the differences between the revolutions in Cuba, Vietnam, Yugoslavia and Russia, she seems unable to grasp what those experiences had in common -- the smashing of the capitalist state in a mass struggle led by an intransigent, disciplined revolutionary movement/party, with a programme to match. That is the challenge with which the Bolivarian movement is coming to grips.
Elena does confuse and conflate accounts of the origins of our party, SA/LAS, with commentary I offered on both the actual Fourth International and the potential Fifth International. At its most recent World Congress, the Fourth Int'l. welcomed the call for the Fifth, took note that the conveners of the Fifth do not ask, much less require that existing national and international currents and organizations dissolve themselves in order to participate in the Fifth, and decided that the Fourth will continue to build itself on the basis of its historic programme, while seeking to find common ground with like-minded forces within and beyond the Fifth Int'l. I agree with that approach, although I suspect it may be too Leninist, too sharp, too 'conspiratorial' for Elena's liking.
It is too easy to dismiss those with whom one may disagree politically as "irrelevant". The proof of the pudding is a long way down the road, even in Costa Rica I suspect. We may converge with other tendencies, or further differentiate, and thus we will demonstrate our singular or collective relevance -- and that may be all to the good or to the bad for the advancement of the class struggle for workers' liberation. But we cannot move one step forward with mere impressionism and cheer leading, or by trying to silence critics into submission. As Marx famously wrote over a century and a half ago, "We disdain to conceal our views." Although Marx never made a revolution, I wouldn't toss his legacy overboard just yet.
So, Elena, please reflect on the above brief observations and consider the possibility that we may learn from one another even while respecting our right to disagree.

In solidarity, for a revolutionary Fifth International,

Barry Weisleder,
SA/LAS Canadian state

Against Secterianism

Companero Barry W.

Thank you for your reply to my critique of your communique regarding the V Socialist International. It was most instructive as to your thinking about some matters.
Let me deal with firstly the notion that a critique of your position represents a "diatribe". It is a just response to your message posted on this website which took you to task for two things: the secterianism of your policies towards other anti-capitalist organisations in Canada;and the mixed messages regarding the construction of a V Socialist International. Taking a position against what you write is hardly a diatribe. It is in fact the real essence of critical thinking: dealing with the facts of the issues within an epistimological framework of rationality.
I will return to the two issues I raised before. The first deals with your labelling of anti-capitalist organisations. I went to look at the websites of both the organisations under discussion, the New Socialist Group and the Socialist Project. In the writings of both organisations I could not find any references to them being "liquidationist" or of being "left reformist". Both write that their aim is to build movements which will put an end to capitalism. Since they both have websites and identify themselves organisationaly, I would hardly call that "liquidationist". Since they both speak of the necessity to abolish capitalism, and have a critique of social democracy and Stalinism, and identify with the democratic impulses of 21st Century Socialism, in one case has taken a public position in favor of constructing the new International, the label of "left reformism" is equally hard to swallow.
It is your OPINION that these organisations are "liquidationist" or "left reformist", it is not a FACT. Political facts emerge only after historical tests have either been passed or failed.
So the question is why label these organisations as you have done? Here we get to the second issue which I raised; the mixing of a rational for the creation of the V Socialist International and your relations with the Fourth International. Could it be that the organisation you lead, which identifies with a tiny oppositional tendency within the Fourth International (based on the voting percentage which it received at the most recent World Congress) is worried that the joint work undertaken by those two organisations leads to a fusion between them, and hence undermines your attempt to gain recognition as the official section of the Fourth International in Canada? Or is it the case that the work undertaken by the two organisations is having a greater impact in building a consciousness amongst advanced mitiants of the need for creating a left for 21st Century socialism? Or is it the case that both proceeses are at work here?
Whatever the case, what is clear is the need for Canadian revolutionists to unite and to fight together. You asked, "unity for what, unity for whom". My response is: unity to unite the forces able to confront imperialism on its home grass; unity for the workers and peasants, unity for those struggling against the imperialist monster and their national oligarchies which are murdering revolutionaries like Jose Manuel Flores, a founding member of the Socialist Party of Central America and a leader of the Honduran teachers movement. That is for what and for whom.
In the Communist Manifesto Marx speaks of the Communists having no party apart from the mass working class movement. That is, the party of communists does not seperate themselves into sects to try and impose a schema upon the workers movement. It is this BASIC notion of unity which the North American left seems to have forgotten, which has allowed your foreign minister to get away with attacking the Venezuelan revolutionary process, which has allowed your defense minister to let loose troops in Afghanistan and deny the Afghan people the right of self determination, which has allowed your finance minister to impose a neo-liberal solution to the capitalist crisis on the Canadian people without a word of protest from the corrupt and spineless trade union bureacracy- the agents of imperialism within the workers movement; which allows your prime minister to attack basic democratic rights of freedom of speech and assembly as in Vancouver Olympics repression while you worry about your potential allies as being "liquidationist" and "left reformist". What nonsense! What stupidity! What vanity!
I say these things, not to blame you personally for the shortcomings of the North American left, but to indicate to you that the North American left has a special responsibility to protect and defend the global revolutionary process. The North American imperialists have military hegemony, despite their geopolitical weakening. They are using this hegemony to prepare for a prolonged period of "low intensity" warfare against the Latin American revolutionary struggles. They have created seven new military bases in Columbia, three in Panama, have occupied Haiti, have engineered the coup against a mildly reformist leader like Zeleya in order to repress the growing mass struggle of the Honduran people, have attempted coup attempts in Venezuela and Bolivia, have continued the blockade against revolutionary Cuba, the list is endless.
They are able to operate with near political immunity because the revolutionists in the North are more concerned with their petty disagreements than with their duty. Why, for example, can not the Canadian revolutionists create a united movement to defend the Latin American revolution, to create a class struggle tendency within the trade unions, to organise a socialist womens movement, to jointly create immigrant workers centers to help protect these vulnerable people against sweatshop exploitation, to work with young indigenous people and expose them to the Indo-socialist and ecological movements of Latin America. There is a great deal of work which can be done in common with a broad common perspective.
This does not mean you have to agree with everything, that you can't have political disagreements.
Which leads me to my final point: your notion of the nature of political organisations. You said: "...their anti-dialectical notion that the 'socialist' organisation can hold, simultaneously, a range of contradictory political positions, including no policy at all, on vital issues of the day..."
This statement is most revealing and most instructive for the readers of this discussion. It reveals first and foremost that you have not understood at all the very heart and sole of 21st Century socialism: that no one leader or group of leaders, no one tendency or group of tendencies has all the answers. Your position is antheical to the organsational and political principles of the socialism we want. It is also totally ahistorical and anti-dialectical.
The holding of opposing and contradictory positions, and the discussions and debates around them, is what gives revolutionary politics its dynamics. It is precisely this characteristic which allows the development of policies and perspectives more closely aligned with reality. This is recognised in your own organisation by the right of tendency, that is, the existence within a 'socialist' organisation of contradictory and opposing views. Or are you now opposed to the right of tendencies to exist?
It is an ahistorical perspectve which suggests that a monolithic "line" has existed within revolutionary organisations which have successfully challenged imperialism's hegemony. The Russian Social Democratic Party (Bolshevik) certainly held "contradictory and oppossing positions, simultaneously" up to its degeneration into Stalinist monolithism. The Cuban 26 July movement certainly did, and the Cuban Communist party certainly does, contain tendencies with contradictory and opposing political positions. The United Socialist Party of Venezuela has tendencies and formations which hold positions which are contradictory and opposing. For without "contradictory and opposing" positions, there is no dialectical process, there can be no synthesis and unity of oppositions, no dynamic processes. Perhaps you might want to rethink your formulations to this question, for a defense of what is indefensible has dug many a grave.

Forward to revolutionary unity! Revolutionaries of all countries, unite!
Unity in the face of imperialism! Defend the Latin American revolution!
Let a 100 flowers bloom, but weed the same garden together!
Companero Jose Manuel Flores, presente! El partido socialista centroamericano, presente! Vive la resistancia del pueblo centroamericano!

Elena Z

Powered by Drupal - Design by Artinet