[p. 1]
THE ORGANIZATION OF THE WORLD CONGRESS
The second plenum of the International Executive Committee, following the Reunification Congress, which took place in December 1964, took the decision to convoke the present World Congress of the Fourth International. That Plenum immediately opened the preparatory discussion of the Congress. It decided on the following agenda:
(1) The crisis of the Soviet bureaucracy and the international communist movement, including therein the Sino-Soviet conflict.
(2) The situation in Western Europe and the tasks of the revolutionary marxists.
(3) The African revolution and the class nature of certain African states.
(4) The situation in Latin America.
In addition, the plenum decided that the Congress should also express its opinion on the initial results of the actions of the reunified forces of the international Trotskyist movement, and discuss the crisis of the Lanka Sama Samaja Party in Ceylon.
The discussion for the Congress was to have extended throughout 1965. The precise date of the Congress was decided at the third plenum of the International Executive Committee following the Reunification Congress, in July 1965. The July plenum also decided to remove the question of Latin America from the agenda, because there was not enough time for an adequate discussion. This question must be discussed at the first plenum of the International Executive Committee following the World Congress.
The United Secretariat has been placed in charge of the execution of the I. E. C. decisions.
The Bureau of the United Secretariat
[p. 2]
SECOND CONGRESS OF REUNIFICATION (EIGHTH WORLD CONGRESS) OF THE FOURTH INTERNATIONAL
First Day
The congress opens with the host section welcoming the delegates.
Preliminary Question
Pierre informs the delegates about the latest contacts with the Pablo faction: in November a conference of members of the International and members of the Pablo faction who no longer belong to the International took place in Paris.
With the exception of one point, we are unaware of the decisions taken at that conference.
The United Secretariat of the Fourth International received a visit from a delegation of this conference shortly before the holding of the World Congress.
This delegation presented a letter to the United Secretariat (see page three for the complete text of the letter).
Walter presents a draft resolution on this question after a report.
Discussion: Tom Peters, Livio, Pia, George Edwards, Saul, Marc, Ramos, Christos
Motion: To close the discussion. Adopted with 2 abstentions 1 against
Resolution: (only those delegates whose mandates cannot be contested can vote). The resolution presented by Walters is adopted unanimously. -2 against (Tom Peters, George Edwards) (see page 5 for the complete text of the resolution)
Livio proposes a commission of three comrades to see the supporters of Pablo: Walter, Karlo, Saul. The commission is unanimously accepted -2 abstentions: Tom Peters, George Edwards.
[p. 3]
LETTER FROM THE PABLO FRACTION ASKING TO ATTEND THE CONGRESS
November 22, 1965.
Comrades,
The following people presently in Paris:
Dennis (Australia) Raoul (Latin America) Paul (Cyprus) Eric (Denmark) Soren (Denmark) Maurice (Holland) Fritjof (Holland)
delegates to the congress from their respective sections,
Sal Santen Michel Pablo Maurel Lenoir Simone Minguet
members of the International Executive Committee and the United Secretariat elected by the 7th World Congress and the Reunification Congress,
Roger Foirier (1)
member of the International Control Commission,
Jacques Privas (2) Berri (2) Luisant (2) Michard (2) Jean (2) Dumas (2) Lerse (3)
members of the central committees of their respective sections,
Helene (4) Serge (4)
members of the African Commission elected at the 7th World Congress and at the Reunification Congress,
request to be present at the Congress, with the aim of appealing against the measures taken in connection with the Marxist Revolutionary tendency to which they belong and to defend its political line at the Congress in accordance with the statutes of the International (all of Chapter 7 and particularly points E. F. G. H.)
.../...
[p. 4]
NOTES OF THE UNITED SECRETARIAT
(1) Comrade Roger Foirier has made it known that he agreed that the Pablo group be heard at the Congress, but following the rupture he stands outside of any organization.
(2) These comrades no longer belong to the French section, consequently they are no longer members of its central committee.
(3) This comrade is no longer a member of the Austrian section therefore he is no longer on its central committee.
(4) The African Commission had not been elected by the Seventh World Congress nor the Reunification Congress but by the International Executive Committee. Later the International Executive Committee modified the composition of the African Commission to which these comrades no longer belonged after May 1964 (Article 15 of the Statutes).
[p. 5]
RESOLUTION
Congress reaffirms the nature of the IVth International, World Party of the Socialist Revolution, as an organization of combat based on democratic centralism, which implies the widest rights of political discussion inside the movement (incl. the right to form tendencies in order to try to gain victory for one's ideas inside the movement), combined with the necessity of strict discipline in action, i.e. the application of majority decisions by minorities, especially in outside activities.
If the movement would tolerate the refusal to respect this discipline it would transform the Irternational into a federation of tendencies lacking all efficiency, and would make it break with the organisational principles established and transmitted by Lenin, Trotsky and the whole communist movement prior to its bureaucratic degeneration.
These principles imply that World Congresses are not forums for oratorical contests or contradictory debates, but assemblies called upon to take decisions, binding for all those who participate in the discussion.
Under ordinary circumstances it would'nt be necessary to recall these elementary principles, elaborated in our Statutes, and in the whole tradition and past of our movement. But the congress finds itself faced with an appeal and a request of participation on behalf of a minority which for two years, has conducted itself systematically as a disloyal fraction which has constantly broken elementary discipline of the International, fighting against against it as a hostile organization.
This fraction
1) Notwithstanding the fact that before and during the 7th World Congress it enjoyed full and unlimited rights to defend its positions; that it largely participated in a discussion conducted in 30 internal bulletins; that at the Congress itself it enjoyed a time for counter-reports at least equal to the time of reports for tje majority; refused to recognize the Congress' political decisions, and has continuously defended in public the minority positions, rejected by an overwhelming majority of the Congress;
2) Started to publish a public fraction organ, in a form which violated openly the Statutes of the International, and whose English edition in Ceylon is handled by people who are not even formally members of the International;
[p. 6]
3) Refused to apply the decisions of the May 1964 and January 1965 Plenums of the International Executive Committee, which called upon it to stop publishing this public faction organ;
4) Refused to recognize the normal and statutory modification in the composition of the African Commission, decided by the May 1964 Plenum of the I.E.C., and continued to present its public faction organ fraudulently as the "organ of the African Commission of the IVth International", thereby deceiving international working class and revolutionary opinion.
5) Refused to apply the decision of the January 1965 Plenum of the IEC, relative to the initially internal character of the discussion preparatory to the World Congress;
6) Attacked publicly in a slanderous and revolting way the normally elected leadership of the International as well as that of several sections, denigrating the international organization in its whole, its traditions, its strength and its perspectives;
7) Has ceased, for more than a year, to pay its normal dues to the International, and has completely boycotted the actions of financial solidarity led by the International for its militants and sections who are leading revolutionary struggles and are victims of ferocious repression, e.g. in South Africa and Bolivia;
8) Has ceased, immediately after the 7th World Congress and the Reunification Congress, at least as regards the "Algiers group", the Dutch section and the Australian section, to have normal statutory relations with the International leadership, to inform it about its activities and to consult it before deciding upon a given course of conduct, which places the International before the dilemma either to silently comply with a minority line for which it refuses to take any responsibility, or to publicly desolidarize itself with that line (the last scandalous example of this attitude has been the publication by the Frias group, without prior consultation with the International and without its agreement, of a statement dissolving itself, "stopping all relations with the Trotskyist movement and the IVth International", and proclaiming its agreement "with the theoretical and programmatic positions of the MIR" in Peru;
9) Has organized an international faction apparatus with its own parallel international "center", its own finances and its own internal bulletins, organizing its own international conferences and trips, without prior information or consultation with the International leadership or national sections, which is an additional violation of the Statutes:
[p. 7]
10) Has expelled, without any previous procedure, from the "Algiers group" which it controled, the members politically in agreement with the International, demanding from them group discipline against discipline of the International.
11) Has organized, justified and covered the systematic violation of discipline in several sections, which culminated recently in an attempt of its French comrades to steal the paper of the French section and its finances, notwithstanding the fact that these comrades recognized to represent only a minority at the last section's congress, held regularly after a convocation approved of by the minority.
Every one of these disloyal acts of indiscipline mentioned above, and all the more so all these acts taken together, would have amply justified the expulsion of this disloyal minority from the International.
However in order to demonstrate once more its desire to regroup all those who claim to be Trotskyists, in the framework of an International based upon democratic centralism, Congress is ready to accept the presence at its sessions of all those minority representatives who have been delegated by their sections, on the express condition that these delegates undertake in advance and in writing to apply all decisions of the World Congress, including those which would apply to the prohibiting of all members of the International from writing, editing or distributing a public organ as "Under the Banner of Socialism" or any other public organ which would take its place and which would fulfil the same role of defending publicly in the name of the IVth International a political line rejected by the majority of the Congress and the leading bodies normally elected at that Congress.
Without this undertaking, the participation at the Congress of representatives of a minority which had till now systematically violated discipline would only be a force which would disintegrate the International and its organisational structure.
[p. 8]
Presidium proposed for the first day: Alan, Saul, Edouard.
Unanimously accepted with two abstentions: G. Edwards and Tom Peters.
Proposed Agenda: First day: Sino-Soviet conflict Second Day: European document Third Day: African document Fourth Day: Report of activities; Situation in Ceyon; English situation Fifth Day: Statutes, I.E.C. election.
Second Session:
I Sino-Soviet Conflict
Livio: presents the document. This document will be published separately in an internal bulletin.
Second day: First and Second Sessions. The agenda proposed for the week is unanimously accepted.
George Edwards: requests an hour and a half in order to present a counter-document in the name of the English section (R.S.L.)
Sirio: proposes 1 hour.
Proposition accepted unanimously; less 2 votes against (R.S.L.) and 4 abstentions.
George Edwards: presents the counter-document and requests that his protest against the time accorded be included in the minutes.
Discussion: Gormely Edmund Jean-Louis Ramos Lewis
Discussion Continued: Christos Eric Akhman Tom Peters Jacobs Alan
George Edwards - Summary of the spokesman for the counter-document.
Livio: Summary of the spokesman for the document. The amendments of the French and Italian comrades and part of those of Comrade Christos are accepted. It is considered that the essential idea of Comrade Edmund's amendment is found in the text but it is accepted that this idea must be developed by concrete examples. It is considered that the idea of comrade Akhman's amendment is already contained in the text.
[p. 9]
Second day: Third Session.
Report of the commission designated to meet with the delegates who are supporters of Pablo.
Walter presents the report. Two letters have been presented by them (complete text on page 10) one from Raoul (Peru) and Anderson (Australia) addressed to the "Assembled Delegates of the sections of the Fourth International" declaring that they will only reply to "the bureaucratic and unheard of declaration made by Walter" (see pages 5,6, and 7) "in the presence of the assembled delegates"; the other letter from Erik and Soren (Denmark) addressed to "the control commission of the 8th World Congress of the Fourth International" and "protesting against the disciplinary measures taken against us for having signed a letter". They demand to be present from the opening of the Congress.
The reporter proposes that the response to the first letter be a pure and simple refusal, and to restate the question of discipline to the authors of the second letter. The question is complex, adds the reporter, as the Danish section has always been a disciplined one. But on the other side, the two letters have from all evidence been prepared by common agreement. The reporter express the personal opinion that he would be in favour of the immediate admission of the Danish delegation, if Anderson's threat, to get into the Congress by force, is not connected to it.
Discussion: Jacobs Gormely Miguel Werner Eric Livio Eduard
Walter proposes a resolution
Pierre proposes an amendment
Discussion: Werner
Vote on the resolution: In favour 19, Against 6, (George Edwards, Tom Peters, Livio, Miguel, Christos, Ilario). For the text of the resolution: See page 10
Livio: explanation of his vote: the resolution is useless; he is for refusal, pure and simple.
First report of the credentials committee: Gormely.
[p. 10]
To the Assembled Delegates of the Sections of the Fourth International
In reply to the bureaucratic and unheardof statement made by Walter to us on December 6, 1965, we state that we will reply to this statement only before the assembled delegates of whom we are the duly elected representatives of our respective Sections.
Anderson (Australia) Raoul (Peru)
To the Control Commission of the 8th World Congress of the Fourth International
The two delegates of the Danish section of the Fourth International first protest sharply against the disciplinary measures taken against us for signing a letter asking that some comrades suspended and expelled in the period between the 7th and the 8th World Congress should be allowed to present their case before the 8th World Congress. No disciplinary action of any sort has ever been taken against us for breaking the discipline of the Fourth International. Both of us belong to the minority in the International (marxist-revolutionary tendency), but we are here present as delegates for the whole Danish Section, and as such we are asking to be present from the very beginning of the 8th World Congress of the Fourth International.
Søren and Erik (Denmark)
Resolution of the Congress
The World Congress:
-notes that the two Danish delegates have refused to sign the declaration demanded;
-notes that these delegates, even though being elected representatives of their section, participated at a secret fraction conference organized by the minority, after having been delegated, where they accepted the fractional discipline of a disloyal group which, after three years of constant indiscipline has decided to create an organization both independent of and hostile to the Fourth International.
-notes that the leader of the minority delegation by his behaviour and his irresponsible statements has manifested his contempt for the security of the Congress and that they have not dissociated themselves from this declaration and from these acts
-concludes therefore, not to allow them into the Congress.
[p. 11]
Second day: continued.
11. European Report
Ilario: presented the report. This report to be published separately in an internal bulletin.
Second day: Fourth session.
Ilario: continuation of report.
Praesidium: declared that the amendments submitted to the commission will be included in the text.
Walter: proposed speaking time of 15 minutes for all and 30 minutes for George Edwards.
Sirio: proposed 15 minutes for everyone without exception.
Sirio's proposition was defeated. 1 for (Sirio), 4 abstentions (pierre, Saul, Gormley, Marc), the rest against.
Discussion: George Edwards, Charlier, Walter
Third day: First session.
Election of new presidium: Marc, Pia, Lewis.
Gormley gave a report for the mandate commission:
a. Full Votes: Livio (1), Sirio (1), Ilario (1), Marchi (1), Pierre (1), Ramos (1), Eric (1), Sandor (1), Alan (1), Gormley (2), Erwin (1), Hans (1), Lothar (1), Pia (1), Bruno (1), Marc (1), Jean-Louis (1), Charlier (1), Christos (2), Edmund (3), Karlo (1), Saul (2), Valenzia (5), Albert (1), George Edwards (2), Tom Peter (1), Diego (1), Alfredo (1) Luis (1), Jose (1), Bianca (1).
b. Substitutes: Vallon (1), Dumoulin (1) for Sandor and Eric, Valin (1) for Charlier.
c. Consultative votes: Miguel, Perez (left before the votes), Akhman, Lewis Peter, Patrick.
d. The United States: an observer from the S.W.P.
Total: 41 votes, 6 consultative votes.
[p. 12]
Third day: Continued
Discussion on the European document; Tom Peters, Ramos, Sirio, Jean-Louis, Patrick, Pia.
Livio: evoked the memory of the militants who have fallen in the struggle; Bolivian comrade Cesar Lora and the Greek student Petroulas assassinated by repressive forces of the bourgeoisie. The World Congress elects as honorary presidents. the Peruvian comrades Hugo Blanco, Vladimiro Valer, Daniel Pereyra, the Bolivian comrade Elio Vasquez and the Indian comrade Kanai Pal, parliamentary deputy, West Bengal, and who are all in prison. Salutations to militants imprisonned in a number of countries, (Peru, Bolivia, Argentina, South Africa,) to Algerian militants imprisonned by Boumeddienne regime; to young revolutionaries imprisonned in the Workers States. Congress pays homage to Trotskyists and friends of the movement who have died since the last World Congress: Jules Henin (Belgium), Art Preis (U.S.A.), John Baird (England), Alfred Rosmer (France) and Raphael Zakine who we have learned has died in Algeria.
The Chairman proposed to take the African document and to vote on the European document later.
Tom Peters asked for the position of the reporter with regard to the amendments submitted by the English section.
Ilario: the English section amendments are rejected.
III African Document
Livio: presented the report. This report will be published separately in an internal bulletin.
Third day: Second session.
Livio: finished the report. Then he gave his personal position on the nature of certain African states.
The chairman proposed a longer speaking time for the African degates and those presenting a particular position. This was accepted.
Discussion: Edmund
Lewis: this contribution will be published separately in the internal bulletin and in "Quatrieme Internationale (concerning Nigeria).
Walter
[p. 13]
Third day: third session
Livio announced the arrival of the Danish comrades. He proposed that given the fait accompli, they be admitted. The proposal was adopted.
Discussion on the African document: Albert, George Edwards, Saul, Akhman, Christos, Tom Peters, Jacobs
Election of an English commission: Alan, Sirio, Pierre, Walter, Miguel; the commission can be attended by any English-speaking delegates and observers.
Agreed to include Edmund in the commission.
Tom Peters asked that Alan be removed from the commission.
Request defeated.
Fourth day: First session:
Erik and Søren asked permission to make a declaration.
The chairman asked that the political discussion on Africa be finished before hearing their statement.
Discussion on the African document: Sirio, Miguel, Ramos, Gormley.
STATEMENT
-made by the Danish delegation,
-to be incorporated in the published report of the Congress.
The Danish Delegation refuses to take part in the political discussion because they judge:
-that the representation at this Congress is deliberately very onesided:
-that the representivity of a certain number of delegates who have taken part in the discussion is very doubtful.
These facts mean a complete deterioration of the political discussion, which is not a discussion of a genuine World Congress of the Fourth International, but rather that of a political debating club.
[p. 14]
Fourth day: first session (continued)
Discussion of the African document: Pierre Michel Diego
Livio: reply by the reporter.
Election of a new praesidium: Sirio, Akhman, Ramos.
Fourth day: Second session.
A letter from Iran was read (see Volume [illegible] 1966, no. 2 of the Internal Bulletin of the United Secretariat) containing the correspondence of the Congress.
Erik requested to make a statement on the irregular character of the Congress.
The Chairman allowed 10 minutes for the discussion of this request: five minutes for the Danish delegation and 5 minutes for the contrary point of view.
Erik: put the case for his request.
Pierre: put the case for the contrary point of view, according to which a discussion of the regularity of the Congress should be held back until the discussion on the activity report.
Vote: For the request of the Danish delegation: Erik, Søren, George Edwards, Tom Peters.
Abstentions: Karlo, Charlier
23 against.
The request was rejected.
IV. POLITICAL RESOLUTION
Walter: presentation of the report. This report will be published in an Internal Bulletin.
Discussion: Charlier Edmund Akhman Bruno Gormley Marc.
Fourth day: Third session
Discussion: George Edwards Ramos
[p. 15]
Fourth day: Third session (continued)
Discussion: Valenzia
Miguel
Sirio
Lothar
Fifth day: First session.
Discussion: Alan
Livio
Pia
Tom Peters
Karlo
Jacobs
Saul
Diego
Albert
Walter: reply of the reporter.
Fifth day: second session.
Gormley gave a supplementary report of the credentials commission.
the Danish comrades will have 2 votes. This brings the total of voting delegates from 41 to 43. The number of consultative votes remains 6.
The Chairman allowed one hour for the Danish delegation; the time to be divided between the two delegates.
Erik: on the right of the minority to be present at the Congress.
Søren: on the un-representative character of the Congress.
Reply by Livio.
Fifth day: third session.
Report of the commission on the European document: Charlier.
V. ACTIVITY REPORT
Pierre: presentation of the report. This report will be published in an internal bulletin.
[p. 16]
Discussion: Edmund
Bianca
Sixth day: First session.
Hommage to comrade Raphael Zakine who had just died in Algeria.
Discussion of the report (continued): Letter from Greece read.
Participants: Søren, Erik, Miguel, Eduard, Dumoulin, Walter, Ramos, Marchi, Gormley, George Edwards, Tom Peters, Manoubia, Christos, Marc, Akhman.
Sixth day, Second session.
Discussion: Valenzia, Saul, Diego, Patrick, Albert, Livio.
Pierre: replied as reporter.
Votes: (see special chapter, page 21)
Proposition by Tom Peters that parts of the letters from the Indian comrades (on the Sino-soviet conflict) and from comrade Peng (on the African discussion) be published. This was agreed to, and the letters will be found in the Internal Bulletin Vol. 1966, no. 2.
Discussion on Ceylon
Edmund gave the report.
Sixth day, Third session.
Karlo gave the contrary report.
Contribution by Livio.
Some amendments were referred to the I.E.C. for their consideration the next day.
Edmund replied to the discussion.
Discussion on England:
Pierre: report of the commission.
George Edwards: report.
Discussion: Patrick, Tom Peters.
Seventh day:
Discussion: Gormley, Edmund, Alan, Lewis, Karlo, Ramos.
Pierre: reply, Votes (see the special chapter)
Election of the IEC and Control Commission (vote). Statutes: the Congress received a project to open the discussion for the next World Congress and submit it to the International for discussion.
Closing of the Congress.
[p. 16 cont'd]
RESOLUTION ON THE NAMING OF THE CONGRESS
The World Congress resolves to adopt the name:
Second Reunified Congress (8th World Congress)
By this designation, it aims to underline above all the continuing real importance of the reunification for the Trotskyist movement itself, and at the same time to mark its continuity since its foundation in 1938.
At the Reunification Congress, in 1963, it had been decided by general agreement that the study of the causes of the split of 1953 would be held over to a later period, since this study, although politically and historically important, was not indispensable for the determination of the policies of the International in this immediate period. This decision has shown itself to be perfectly correct by the fact that since the Reunification, the leadership of the Fourth International has functioned in a homogeneous manner.
RESOLUTION ON THE PABLO FACTION
The World Congress approves the resolution of the July 1965 plenum on the Pablo faction and notes that this faction, constituted as an independent organization, has by this fact placed itself outside the ranks of the Fourth International.
[p. 17]
RESOLUTION ON THE SPECIFIC POLITICAL TASKS OF SOME SECTIONS
(this part of the political resolution, which constitutes point 8 of Chapter VIII, "Our tasks",is internal; the public text of the political resolution will be published in "Quatrieme International".)
(a) In Bolivia and Peru, the situation continues to favor important advances on the part of the revolutionary Marxist forces. The unification of these forces must be completed, and their positions consolidated in the movement of the Peruvian peasant masses and the Bolivian miners, while at the same time systematically seeking to widen this fighting front to take in the labor unions in Peru and the peasant communities in Bolivia. The revolutionary Marxist forces will continue to draw all the necessary consequences of the fact that the dictatorial regimes in the two countries leave the people no other recourse but armed struggle in self-defence against the fierce repression and attempts to reduce their already miserable standard of living.
In Peru, the overthrow of the corrupt regime of the oligarchy constitutes a task of extreme urgency for the workers and peasants. The overthrow of the Barrientos junta, without the succession to power of a reunified MNR more than ever confined to the perspective of the national bourgeoisie, remains the number one strategic objective in Bolivia.
(b) In Argentina and Chile, the revolutionary Marxists will continue their work of regroupment within the vanguard of the workers' movement, in order to counterpose a pole of attraction to the process of demoralisation provoked by the opportunist policies of the traditional working class formations.
(c) In Ceylon, the LSSP (Revolutionary Section) will work toward the construction of an independent mass revolutionary party. In its general lines, the party will be guided by the acknowledgement of the strategic necessity for a united front of the working class parties and organisations around actions in defence of the proleteriat against the government and capitalist class. Flowing from this is the tactical necessity to advance concrete proposals for anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist struggle, with the aim ofeffectively dissociating the workers parties from the SIFP. The party shall be firmly orientated toward the recruitment and politicization of young workers, and toward patiently winning back the best among the old Trotskyist elements whom the opportunist policies of the leadership of the reformist LSSP are leading into disarray.
(d) The most urgent task facing the revolutionary Marxists in Indai is the consolidation and reinforcement of a centralised Trotskyist organisation. The S.W.P. constitutes a first important step toward such a centralised
[p. 18]
organisation, without which organisational tactics like entrism can only pay off in defeats, as the past experiences of entrism in the S.P. and R R.C.P. demonstrated. The Trotskyist organisation will pay particular attention to developments in the Left C.P. without neglecting the necessity for independent work.
(e) In South Africa, the semi-fascist regime of apartheid leaves the people no other way out than through a resolute armed struggle towards its overthrow. The first task in this direction is the creation of the largest possible united front to unleash this struggle. The revolutionary Marxists will work with every means at their command for the implementation of this orientation, while retaining the political and organisational autonomy of all the proletarian forces, with the continuing objective of opening up in this country a process of permanent revolution which will end in the expropriation of the imperialists, the South African capitalists and the large white farmers alike, and the creation of an African workers' state.
[p. 19]
RESOLUTION
In 1963 the 7th World Congress of the Fourth International issued a call for the reunification of the International. In accordance with this policy representatives of the RSL and the IG voted in favour of uniting their organizations in Britain.
Even though it was clear that there were political and tactical differences between the two organizations it was hoped that reunification would be a major step forward towards the building of a revolutionary marxist organization in Britain able to take full advantage of the many political opportunities existing for us there. It was also expected that a reunited movement would be in a better position to counteract the attacks made upon the Fourth International by the leadership of the Socialist Labour League.
In September 1964 a reunification took place. It proved to be short-lived because the spirit for mutual cooperation did not exist and because a collective leadership did not evolve to consolidate the two forces. In essence the reunification was in form only.
In January 1965 the reunification broke down and the former IG members on the National Committee of the reunified organization withdrew from the National Committee. Though no formal split took place the two groups reverted back to function as separate organizations.
The policy of the International is for one Trotskyist section in Britain and we deplore the present fragmentation of the Trotskyist movement there. We consider this to be an abnormal situation.
It is apparent to us that RSL is unable at the present stage to carry out the policies of the Fourth International because of serious political and tactical differences with the International On the other hand the IG has shown that their policies are more consistent with those of the International. Both groups operate, in varying degrees, outside the direction of the international leadership and do not measure up to the responsibilities required of a normal section.
Neither organization has proved to be able to defend the positions of the International against the sharp political attacks made on our movement by our political opponents in England.
It is with regret, therefore, that we have come to the conclusion that the International cannot take the responsibility for all the actions of these two groups or recognize either of them as the official section of the Fourth International in Britain. Membership of both organizations continue to remain members of the FI.
[p. 20]
In the light of recent experiences it is not a practical proposition to consider the possibility of a new reunification in the near future, desirable as this may be.
We consider the two groups to be sympathising groups and expect both groups to work closely with the International with the aim of building a strong, dynamic, revolutionary marxist mass party in England.
[p. 21]
VOTES
(For good comprehension of the votes, please refer to the report of the credentials commission and to the supplementary report of the credentials commission, pp. 11 and 15 of the minutes.)
i. vote on a proposition of the delegation from the Danish Section:
Proposal for a Congress decision
-submitted by the Danish delegation
-to be discussed and voted upon.
This Congress decides:
1) To call immediately for a democratic World Congress to be held in 12 months from now with the full participation of all tendencies in its preparation and holding.
2) During this period a profound discussion - on the basis of documents submitted by all tendencies - should take place.
3) A modus vivendi is to be worked out by all tendencies in common for that period.
4) All public attacks to cease in that period.
5) All expulsions and suspensions against the minority tendency to be lifted immediately and all tendencies reintegrated in sections which have suffered a split.
Rejected by 37 votes against, 6 votes in favor(Karlo, George Edwards, Tom Peters, Erik).
Consultative: 5 against.
Declaration.
My vote for the Danish Resolution in no way questions the legality of the 2nd Reunification Congress of the Fourth International (8th World Congress)
--Karlo
[p. 22]
ii. Activity report: text of the report will be published in a separate internal bulletin.
For: 38
Against:5 (George Edwards, Tom Peters, Erik)
Consultative: 5 in favour.
Adopted
Declaration A.
On the activity report: I vote for with the following remark: that it is necessary that the United Secretariat take the initiative for personal contact with Comrade Pablo in Greece to examine the possibilities of definitely avoiding a split, on the basis of respect for the Statutes and the Resolution of the I.E.C. of the F.I. of July 1965.
-- Christos.
Declaration B.
Statement of the British delegates on the activity report:
The British delegates vote against the activity report on the grounds that Comrade Frank correctly criticised Comrade Pablo for advocating and acting as an "advisor" to the Soviet bureaucracy and to the liberal Greek politician Papandreou. The British comrades pointed out that this was a "mirror image" of the activity of the United Secretariat in advocating and acting as unpaid and unsolicited "advisors" of Tito, Castro, Bresznev and Mao. This disoriented the cadres of the movement and hampered the winning over of militants from the Stalinist movement. The reporter refused to answer or even mention them in this reply.
Declaration C
Submitted by the Danish delegation.
The activity report as presented by Comrade Pierre is unacceptable
-as it contains attacks on the policies and activities of the Revolutionary Marxist Tendency of the Fourth International, while the comrades in question were not allowed to attend the Congress and defend their positions, and
-as the acceptance of the report would mean approval of the actual expulsion of this tendency.
[p. 23]
iii. Resolution on the Pablo fraction; the text is published in the part of this bulletin devoted to adopted resolutions.
For: 36
Against:5 (George Edwards, Tom Peters, Erik).
Abstentions: 2 (Christos)
Consultative votes: For: 3
Against: 2 (Akhman, Lewis).
Declaration A
Statement of the British delegates on the United Secretariat resolution concerning the minority tendency:
The British delegates vote against the resolution on the grounds that, while we disagree with the organisational indiscipline of the minority tendency since the last World Congress, we consider that the handling of the dispute by the majority facilitated, and was equally responsible for the splitting of the forces of the International.
Declaration B
I would propose a motion as follows:
The World Congress approves of the action of the Plenum on the Pablo faction and its characterisation of the faction, condemns the activities and ideological trend of this faction and its undisciplined actions, and calls on the faction to review its stand in re-integrating itself with the International. Should it fail to do this, the Congress empowers the IEC to take disciplinary actions against the Pablo faction in accordance with the statutes of the organisation.
---Lewis.
iv. vote on a propostion of the Danish delegation.
Proposition
of the Danish delegation, to be discussed and voted upon:
The Congress agrees to condemn the methods which - under different pretexts - were employed in order to keep the Danish delegation away from the Congress. Such fractional methods should be seen in the light of the fact that no disciplinary measures have been taken against the loyal Danish Section or against any of its members.
For: 6 (Bruno, George Edwards, Tom Peters, Erik)
Against: 37
Consultative: For: 1 (Peter)
Against: 4.
Rejected
[p. 24]
v. Vote on the name of the Congress: the text is published in the part of this bulletin devoted to adopted resolutions.
For: Unanimous, except for 2 against (Erik)
Adopted
Declaration
(submitted by the Danish delegation).
This proposal is an attempt to draw the attention away from the fact that the majority leadership at this very Congress have helped to split the International -- only two years after the Unification Congress.
vi. Proposal of a motion that in order to make the woek of the Congress easier, it is necessary that the Congress be at least ten days long, and asking that the IEC prepare the next Congress in this fashion.
Motion adopted unanimously
vii. Sino-Soviet Document: Amendment proposed by Comrade Edmund.(1)
For: 6 (Edmund, George Edwards, Tom Peters).
Against: 26
Abstentions: 11(Lothar, Pia, Bruno, Jean-Louis, Valenzia, Erik).
Consultative: For: 3
Against: 1 (Miguel)
Abstention: 1 (Peter.)
Rejected.
(1) The text of this amendment is not published, the person responsible for this bulletin not having it at his disposal.
[p. 25]
Declaration A
I agree with the general line covered in the document, but think this clear concise statement valuable. Among other things it will be useful to combat ultra-left "criticisms" of the text.
-- Patrick
Declaration B
We are voting against Edmund's amendment, not because of Livio's arguments, but because this text does not make the essential distinctions between the Soviet and Chinese bureaucracies, and we ask that the contents of this amendment be integrated in a different form.
--Dumoulin,
--Ramos
-- Marchi
-- Albert.
viii. Sino-Soviet Document: This amendod text will appear in the Journal Quatriame Internationale.
For: 37
Against: 3 ( George Edwards,Tom Peters )
Abstentions: 3 ( Pia. Erik )
Consultative: 5 in Favor
Adopted
ix. British document on the Sino-Soviet conflict. (appeared in the internal bulletin before the Congress .)
For: 3 (George Edwards, Tom Peters)
Against: 36
Abstentions: 4
Consultative: 5 against
Rejected
x. Albert amendment to the African document:
Text: "The designation 'workers' and peasants' government' is premature, and in any case leads to confusion." (On Algeria)
For: (Marchi, Jean-Louis, Christos, Edmund, Karlo, Valenzia, Albert, George Edwards, Tom Peters)
Against: 20
Abstentions: 6 (Erwin, Pia, Hans, Valin, Erik)
Consultative: For: 2
Against: 2 (Miguel, Peter)
Abstentions: 1 (Patrick)
Rejected
[p. 26]
xi. vote on the African Document: This amended text will appear in the "Quatrieme International".
For: 33
Against: 3 (George Edwards, Tom Peters.)
Abstentions: 7 (Jean Louis, Valin, Edmund, Erik).
Consultative: For 5.
Adopted.
xii. Vote on the proposal of Comrade Livio: this text has been published in the internal bulletin before the Congress.
For: 2 (Livio, Ilario)
Against: 30
Abstentions: 11 (Erwin, Valenzia, George Edwards, Tom Peters, Erik)
Consultative: Against: 5
Rejected
xiii. Vote on the Political Resolution: this text will appear, amended, in the "Quatrieme International", except for the last part which will be found in this internal bulletin.
For: 35
Against: 6 (Livio, Ilario, Albert, George Edwards, Tom Peters).
Abstentions: 2 (Erik).
Consultative: For: 5.
Adopted
xiv. Vote on the general line of the document on Europe: this text will appear with the amendments in "Quatrieme International".
a) British Amendments.(enclosed)
For: 3 (George Edwards, Tom Peters).
Against 38
Abstentions: 2 (Erik)
Rejected
b) general line and accepted amendments:
For: 37
Against: 3 (George Edwards, Tom Peters).
Abstentions: 3 (Erik)
xv. Vote on the English commission. Alternative vote. for the text:see pages 19-20 of this bulletin.
-text of the commission: 32
Adopted
-text - George Edwards: 6 (Karlo, George Edwards, Tom Peters, Erik).
Rejected
-text - Edmund: 3 (Edmund)
"
-abstentions: 2 (Saul)
[p. 27]
Resolution: George Edwards.
The Congress stands by the normal procedure for uniting groups. It stands for one united section in Britain. It asks that a decision be taken on the basis of a full discussion, and that a majority decision with regard to tactics be taken after a full discussion; that the minority be guaranteed full democratic rights; that a conference be called in six months. The Congress rejects the expulsion of the British section and its reduction in status to that of a sympathetic section because of political differences expressed at this Congress.
Statement on his vote by Comrade Patrick.
I consider that the resolution (adopted--cf. p.p. 19-20; NDLR) exaggerates the weaknesses of the International tendency. I support the resolution because I am confident that, by the next Congress, we will have demonstrated the correctness of our policies and our organisational methods.
XVI. Election of the CEI and of the CCI
-for: 37
-against: 1 (Carlo)
-abstentions: 2 (Erik)
absent: 3 (George Edwards, Tom Peters)
-consultative: for: 4
absent: 1 (Akhman)