[p. 40]
At the Reunification Congress of the Fourth International in 1963, a tendency led by pablo, which had submitted documents in opposition to those presented by the majority, received as a minority tendency a more than proportional representation in the leading organs of the movement.
In addition,although it did not constitute a section, the Algiers group received the same representation as a (regular) section. The delegates to the congress made this special provision in order to give the right of voice and vote to members of the International who had undertaken a special task which rendered impossible their continued participation in the normal life of the sections to which they had belonged.
It was thus hoped to contribute to facilitating the consolidation of the reunification by aiding in particular the leaders of the Pablo tendency to participate fully in the collective leadership of the unified Trotskyist movement.
But immediately after the Reunification Congress this minority tendency constituted itself under Pablo's leadership as a fraction which began to crystallize and harden politically and then to violate the principles of democratic centralism.
Two months after the Reunification Congress, Pablo himself appealed directly to the membership,to demand that it exert pressure on the new leadership to reopen immediately the discussion on the Sino-Soviet conflict and to make public that discussion. The Sino-Soviet conflict had been one of the principal questions on which the Congress had just declared itself.
Shortly after, and once again bypassing the elected leadership, Pablo began to publish a public fraction organ called "Sous le Drapeau du Socialisme" (Under the Banner of Socialism). Fraudulently presented as an official publication of the Fourth International through its name -- "organ of (what Pablo chose to call) the African Commission of the Fourth International" -- this public fraction organ ignored the adopted positions and activities of the Fourth International, advancing in their place the positions of the Pablo fraction -- positions often in flagrant contradiction with those of the Fourth International.
Moreover, the Pablo fraction published its own "internal bulletin" and correspondence completely outside the control of the elected bodies of the Fourth International. These were distributed outside as well as inside the movement, according to the whims of the Pablo fraction.
[p. 41]
Thus, proceeding step by step, and utilizing the Algers group to this end, the Pablo fraction established an international centre, imposing on its adherents a discipline distinct from that of the International. It established its own financial and organizational structures, cut its financial and organizational support of the International, and launched its public organ in opposition to the publications of the International.
At the May 1964 Plenum of the International Executive Committee, held one year after the Reunification Congress, several members of the I.E.C. belonging to the Pablo fraction refused to commit themselves to respect the discipline of the elected organs of the Fourth International. The IEC was prepared to pass over the serious violations of democratic centralism committed since the Congress, the moment that they agreed to submit to discipline in the future. However, in the face of their refusal, the IEC had no other recourse but to suspend them. Even then it was made clear that the suspensions would be lifted the moment those concerned demonstrated in practice that they had decided to change their course.
Far from heeding the serious warning addressed to them, the leaders of the Pablo fraction continued to violate the principles of democratic centralism in a more and more open fashion, showing a growing public hostility toward our movement. Pablo refused to recognise (the authority of ) the new African commission designated by the IEC, insofar as its composition did not meet with his personal conceptions. The fraction continued to publish "Sous the Drapeau du Socialisme" which continued to bear the fraudulent sub-title of "organ" of the "African Commission of the Fourth International". The fraction continued to edit it own internal memoranda.
The Algiers group convened an international conference to which it invited persons not belonging to the Trotskyist movement. At the same time, it refused to admit comrades who had loyally respected the decisions of the Reunified Congress by refusing to accept the discipline of the Pablo fraction. In fact, the Algiers group, under Pablo's leadership, even "expelled" these comrades on the excuse that they could no longer be "trusted" because of "suspect" elements among their acquaintances in Algeria. Asked to place these accusations before the Control Commission elected at the Reunification Congress, Pablo refused to do so in writing, demanding that the Control Commission function by coming to hear him orally.
At its January 1965 Plenum, the IEC decided to convene a world congress of the Fourth International. This decision was taken with the agreement of all those present, including two leaders of the Pablo fraction who, not having been personally implicated in any violation of discipline, had not been suspended. A commission was struck off to publish an Internal Bulletin during the discussion period, and it was decided that a member of the Pablo fraction, chosen by it, would be included in that commission. The demand by the leaders of the minority that this discussion be conducted publicly was not rejected, but left open for a later decision in the light of the discussion.
[p. 42]
Instead of utilizing these decisions to beat a retreat from its untenable position, the Pablo fraction paid no attention to them. Just after the Plenum, it published in "Sous le Drapeau du Socialisme" documents which it claimed constituted part of the internal discussion for the congress, and which were submitted as such, thus violating the decisions of the IEC and ignoring the authority of the leadership of the Fourth International elected at the Reunification Congress.
At the same time, in its public organ,this fraction was dissociating itself more and more from the traditional positions of the world Trotskyist movement. In issue no. 17 (May 1965) there was published a declaration which in fact announced that the fraction was splitting from the Fourth International.
The members of this fraction attacked the United Secretariat for having dissociated itself publicly from "Soue le Drapeau du Socialisme" and accused the United Secretariat of intending to exclude them before the World Congress.
The truth is that the leaders of the Pablo fraction knew perfectly well that the public expression of positions contrary to those of the Fourth International in what was at the same time stated to be an official publication, would oblige the elected leadership to draw public attention to this dishonesty, and to publicly refute the arguments of the minority. It was precisely because of the serious character of the political differences that the leadership hoped to avoid a premature public discussion, in order that the discussion not take a turn endangering the unity of the movement. Some leaders of the Pablo fraction have a long experience of tendancy and fraction struggles and know that these can end in splits if the two parties do not co-operate to prevent such a development. But they acted just as coolly in forcing the International to disavow "Sous le Drapeau du Socialisme" and its views in opposition to those of the Fourth International, as they did in carrying out their violations of discipline during the past 18 months. Moreover, as they know very well, their own actions lend more than a grain of truth to their repeated prophecies of their impending expulsions. If the United Secretariat and the International Executive Committee have not resorted to expulsion for the flagrant violations of discipline committed by certain members of the Pablo fraction, it is because they have faithfully respected their commitmentson the methods to be used in enforcing discipline during the period between the Reunification Congress and the next Congress.
As to the question of their participation in this next World Congress, the members of the Pablo fraction know that the Congress of the Fourth International has never been a mere forum for polite "exchanges of views". Congresses are held to decide policies which become binding on all, not only for the
[p. 43]
majority but for all minorities which might exist. Not only have Pablo and his colleagues shown in action that they have not the least intention of submitting to the majority at the next congress, they have even declared exactly the contrary in unequivocal language: "the Revolutionary Marxist tendancy of the Fourth International... will never allow itself to be identified with such a line, for which it places the entire responsibility on P.Frank, L. Maitan, E. Germain, and several other hardened champions of a dead past without a future." (Sous le Drapeau du Socialisme, No.17, May 1965).
In a recent document, Pablo again declared in an article bearing his signature that this course is the fruit of a carefully-studied decision: "Several years ago I took the firm decision to 'take my distances", to differentiate myself politically from Germain and his group in order to make it understood to the members of the International and to whosoever wants or is able to understand..." (Documents, no. 9, April 1965, page 23)
To call the International majority champions of a dead past without a future, and to baptize his fraction as the Revolutionary-Marxist tendancy, is a thin camouflage for Pablo's decision not to recognise the next congress any more than he did the previous one. In these conditions, it is nothing but pure hypocrisy to utter cries about the "rape" of internal democracy and "expulsions" before a congress, the decisions of which are rejected in advance. It is nothing other than a manoevre seeking to throw the responsibility for the group's split with the International or the International majority -- a split that the group has itself announced through its public declarations.
At the time of the Reunification Congress, Pablo was well aware that his fraction constituted no more than a very small minority in the International. He knows just as well that he has lost considerable ground since then. He knows that to remain within the International means that his group must at least respect elementary discipline. To all this he is indifferent. The Fourth International no longer interests him, for it plays no role in relation to the line he projects: he places virtually all his hopes on the "destalinization" process in the official Communist movement.
In the light of these considerations, the IEC approves the United Secretariat's decision of May 24 in response to Pablo's split declaration in No.17 of "Soue le Drapeau du Socialisme". It refers the question of the course taken by the Pablo group in Algiers and other countries since the Reunification Congress to the next World Congress which will take the appropriate organizational decisions.