Issuing body: Founding Conference of the Fourth International (International Secretariat)
---
RECORD OF PART OF THE CONFERENCE'S PROCEEDINGS
For material reasons it was not possible for us to publish a record of the entirety of the international conference's discussions, which extended over several weeks. The secretariat therefore had to limit itself to a selection, focusing particularly on the decisions taken in plenary sessions.
The conclusions of the important debates of the national sections will be found in the resolutions relating to those countries (England, Mexico, Greece, France, etc.). We believe that this brief material will usefully supplement the collection of resolutions and documents adopted by the founding conference of the Fourth International.
After the work of the commissions, conducted under the direction of the International Secretariat over the course of about a month, a plenary assembly of the conference was held — the only body mandated to take final decisions on the essential points discussed throughout the preparation of the international conference.
REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL SECRETARIAT [1]
Vilain explains the conditions under which this international conference was convened and prepared, and proposes an agenda for the work of the plenary sessions.
The plenary sessions were prepared, with the collaboration and under the direction of the IS, by special commissions which will submit the results of their work to the conference. The plenary sessions may themselves be followed by meetings of special commissions for supplementary drafting and finalising work. These commissions, appointed by the conference, will be purely executive commissions. The agenda of the plenary sessions comprises:
1. Report of the IS; 2. International theses, which may be divided into three main chapters: — Workers' questions (committees, trade unions, workers' control, etc.); — The USSR; — The question of war; the situation in Spain and China; 3. Statutes of the international organisation and determination of its role; 4. Reports of the commissions (Polish, French, English, Greek, Mexican); 5. International solidarity; 6. Youth; 7. Appointment of the International Executive Committee.
All the delegates place at the honorary presidency of the conference the names of our dear comrades Léon Sedov, Erwin Wolf, Rudolf Klement, former members of the International Secretariat of the Bolshevik-Leninists, who fell in the struggle against the Stalinist counter-revolution; of Ignace Reiss, Moulin (Freund), Rossini, Scalaios, all victims of fascist and Stalinist terror, and of all the imprisoned and the victims of the international class struggle, fighters of the Fourth International, foremost among them Ta Thu-Thau.
Vilain then gives, on behalf of the IS, a brief report summarising the IS's activity since July 1936, the date of its previous appointment.
In 1936, the conference was prepared hastily; the main documents had not been discussed within the sections. Significant progress has since been made. This conference was prepared under very difficult conditions, under the impact of unprecedented repression of our movement. Our comrade Klement was killed in the very course of the preparations. Nevertheless, we succeeded in ensuring a genuine and thorough political preparation. The general political theses were published in May, in French, German, English and Russian, and were discussed both by the leaderships of the national sections and by the rank and file.
Commissions prepared the work in various sections. A draft statute was prepared and discussed within the IS and in the main national sections. Finally, preparatory conferences were held in Mexico City for Latin America, and in New York for all the countries of the Americas and the Pacific. Questions such as those concerning the USSR were widely discussed in the national congresses of our sections, and numerous documents were published in our press. This conference truly represents a major effort of political elaboration.
At the same time, between 1936 and 1938 our sections have been far more closely involved in national and international struggles than before. Political life has been studied with a greater degree of participation by each section. Suffice it to mention, over this two-year period, the following major events:
a. The Spanish revolution and civil war are currently in a phase of decline. The work of our comrades in Spain, though few in number, has furnished the whole movement with extremely rich political and organisational material. Comrades from several countries went to Spain. The events in Spain allowed for a broad political testing of our conceptions, even within our own ranks. If the results have been inadequate, this is due above all to the prior political development in Spain, among our friends. The IS played an important role in maintaining Marxist positions within the Spanish revolution, and was the only body to do so.
b. USSR. Over the past two years, there has been an enormous advance of Stalinist Bonapartism [2]. The three trials [3] marked a stage of great importance. The entire old generation of Bolshevik leaders who had rallied to Stalin has perished. The IS and our various sections made a major effort against the Moscow trials, which made it possible to considerably broaden agitation in various countries (France, United States). The Russian question has been much discussed and has been the subject of numerous articles and documents published in our press.
c. The experience of the Popular Front. Our organisations, especially in France and Belgium, were led to intervene in strike movements, to unmask the bourgeois alliance of the Popular Front. Precisely on this point, the international theses contain the fruit of concrete experience of our European sections, and not merely directives worked out in the abstract.
d. The danger of imperialist war. Over the past two years, this danger has taken more definite shape. The practical struggle of our sections against chauvinism, the Sacred Union, and opportunist sophisms has been quite general and has likewise been grounded, in the main countries, in the experience of struggle with the working-class vanguard. Events in the Far East and in Central Europe, in particular, have been studied.
In a fuller report, it would also be fitting to note all the magnificent experiences of struggle of the Indochinese Bolshevik-Leninists, and of the South American organisations in particular.
Work of the IS — The conference of July 1936 had appointed a general council, a body which never actually existed, and several of whose members have since left us. In fact, it was the International Bureau and the International Secretariat (IS) that did the work. There have been changes in the composition of both the IB and the IS.
The IS provided international leadership on essential questions; it developed liaison links and fought for the Marxist programme. At the same time, the youth bureau, though limited, prepared a revival of our movement among the youth.
The IS of the Fourth [International] maintained political cohesion within the movement, whereas the London Bureau has, since 1936, proved to be no more than a way-station, and was left by the Norwegian Labour Party, which passed over to the Second International. The Workers' and Peasants' Socialist Party (PSOP), under pressure from its rank and file, did not join it. All that remains in it is the Independent Labour Party (ILP), which is on the point of rejoining the Labour Party. The rest consists of small groups without any clearly defined political programme. At the restricted conference it convened in the spring, this Bureau did not even explicitly break with Popular Front policy. It allied itself with the Brandlerites.
Stefan. — Asks whether there has been an increase in the number of our sections, and requests a review of the IS's practical activity.
Vilain. — Replies that there has been an increase, and gives the conference a detailed account of the IS's practical work, particularly regarding the Spanish and French situations. He stresses that practical work can only be what the actual vitality of the sections allows.
Boitel. — Asks how the invitation to the PSOP was settled. They had agreed to come, but circumstances prevented their participation. They needed to be given an official reply; failing to do so would have been a political error.
Clart. — Considers the international conference a political success, even though it involves cadre parties. Politically, the Workers' Party of Marxist Unification (POUM) has suffered a complete rout. Sneevliet is reduced to talking of a lack of tact. Several of our best comrades have been struck down as a result of political or organisational errors. The unification of the groups in certain countries is very important. The struggle against centrism must be waged positively. Publications should be produced on the main questions. For the PSOP and the POUM, a delegation could be appointed to meet with them later.
Speros. — Considers it necessary to move on to the discussion of the programme, which so far has been inadequate.
Vilain. — Reports on the organisations affiliated to, or in contact with, the International Secretariat:
Regularly affiliated organisations
France: Internationalist Workers Party, Revolutionary Socialist Youth. England: Revolutionary Socialist League. Belgium: Revolutionary Socialist Party; Revolutionary Socialist Youth. Germany: Internationalist Communists of Germany. Poland: Bolshevik-Leninist Group. United States: Socialist Workers Party; Socialist Youth. Canada: Bolshevik-Leninist Group. Spain: Bolshevik-Leninist Group of Spain. Holland: Bolshevik-Leninist Group. Greece: Internationalist Communist League; Internationalist Communist Union. Switzerland: Marxistische Aktion (contacts). Czechoslovakia: Iskra-Banner Group. Norway: Bolshevik-Leninist Group. Romania: Bolshevik-Leninist Group (contacts). Austria: Revolutionary Communists (contacts). USSR: Left Opposition (Bolshevik-Leninists). Mexico: Internationalist Communist League. Cuba: Revolutionary Workers Party. Santo Domingo: Bolshevik-Leninists. Brazil: Leninist Workers Party. Argentina: Bolshevik-Leninist Group. Chile: Revolutionary Workers Party. Bolivia: Bolshevik-Leninist Group. Uruguay: Bolshevik-Leninist Group. China: Internationalist Communist League. Indochina: Union of Bolshevik-Leninists. Australia: Workers Party. South Africa: Bolshevik-Leninist Group.
There are also two groups in contact with the IS without being affiliated to it, in Czechoslovakia (Proletar) and in Denmark.
DISCUSSION OF THE TRANSITIONAL PROGRAMME
• Trade-union and workers' questions, workers' control
Stefan. — The programme speaks of occupation strikes [sit-down strikes] in far too general a way. They are not necessarily revolutionary; they can arise in a period of despair. The same applies to factory committees. They can arise in a downward or an upward phase. They can have an eminently reformist character. It would therefore be better to speak of revolutionary factory committees.
Boitel. — Thinks the objection is correct but the proposal mistaken. That would be feeding the ultra-leftism we want to combat; it would amount to speaking of "red factory committees."
Speros. — Considers that the programme says too little about the peasants; it lacks slogans on agrarian debt and taxes, and on the state's exploitation of the peasantry.
Julien. — Returns to the question of factory committees and occupations. The point is to mobilise the workers so that the committees become democratic. In an acute situation, it is not impossible for the committees to come into conflict with the trade-union branches, especially if those branches contain members of only one party, and are bureaucratised and ossified.
Craipeau. — We must say clearly what the reformists are trying to make of the committees. For us, no form has any special virtue in itself. It becomes important only in a revolutionary situation.
Stefan. — Returns to the Polish amendment. The Polish comrades wish to stress that the path of factory committees can only take shape in a revolutionary situation, but this does not mean that we are against the creation of committees in normal times: on the contrary, such committees can be a means of reviving the labour movement.
Vilain. — Considers that the Polish comrades have misunderstood the proposed text of the programme. The committees are not meant to fight against the trade unions. But in the course of a struggle, even a partial one, the trade-union apparatus can be outflanked. We cannot therefore confine ourselves to indicating the struggle against the trade-union bureaucracy as our objective. We must also anticipate different forms of struggle. Is that not the case when a strike committee takes the leadership of the struggle into its own hands? After the struggle, these forms may dissolve again. We should not be afraid to show the relative character of the importance of the trade unions.
Clart. — We are in favour of committees regardless of the situation and of the policy they pursue; this is a field of work for the party. Broad committees can acquire revolutionary content only through the party's struggle.
Gould. — Factory committees represent the most democratic experience; their content depends on the mentality of the masses; a reformist committee can become revolutionary. They are more sensitive than the trade union to shifts in the workers' mentality. As for occupation strikes, naturally we do not pronounce on them mechanically. The thesis merely insists on the general significance of occupations, which call property itself into question.
Lebrun. — There are occupation strikes whose character is not self-evident. The programme's purpose is precisely to highlight the new cases. Examples: Brazil, France. There is a whole scale in the content of this kind of struggle.
Julien. — You speak of revolutionary factory committees? Do you mean to set them against democratic committees? Why oppose them to the others? In the course of a strike, we propose a strike committee, and we want to push it forward as far as possible: with class action, the movement and the committee will be revolutionary, but the objectives may still be limited. If you propose "revolutionary committees" as a matter of labelling, the formula is wrong ninety per cent of the time.
Stefan. — What must be stressed is the revolutionary role the committees would play. As for factory occupations, there were some in Poland in 1932 and 1933, but they were hunger strikes, gestures of despair, which did not call private property or economic management into question.
Boitel. — The occupation strike offers revolutionary possibilities, depending on the objective situation. In France too, in June '36, the workers did not dare to establish a dual power. But the struggle could have been carried to a higher level. In Poland, the situation did not allow for going further.
Julien. — The Polish workers, in despair, strike inside the factory. You do not tell them: "Leave the factory," but rather: "Do not go on hunger strike, get in touch with other factories," and so on.
Vote on the amendment presented by the Polish Central Committee (amending the corresponding passage of the draft programme):
"The Bolshevik-Leninists must not only strive to secure the renewal of the trade-union apparatus by putting forward new leaders at critical moments, but also, while rejecting any ultimatism and without skipping stages in the education of the masses, under certain conditions — which generally arise in a revolutionary situation — relying on the will of the majority of the proletariat, the Bolshevik-Leninists will not shrink from an immediate break with the conservative trade-union apparatus."
Vote: for, 1 vote; against, all the others; abstention, 1 (Craipeau).
• On the situation in the USSR
Vilain. — Reads out an amendment sent by the Political Committee of the American party, which reached the IS only belatedly. The Political Committee of the Socialist Workers Party requests the deletion of the following sentence: "The bureaucracy and the new Soviet aristocracy must be driven out of the soviets." It asks that this slogan be held over and submitted to prior discussion. On substance, the American PC states that one cannot speak of stripping the Soviet bureaucracy and aristocracy of the right to vote in the soviets, since the programme itself acknowledges that at least part of them would, in the course of the struggle, join the revolutionary ranks.
Etienne. — Reads an extract from a letter of Trotsky's, replying to this amendment, published in the Russian Bulletin.
Craipeau. — Considers there is not enough time for a thorough discussion; he presents a thesis summarising the French minority's opinion. He nonetheless stresses that the Americans' amendment is inconsistent.
Etienne. — Nevertheless, a few words are needed to situate the discussion, in reply to Craipeau's theses. If the bureaucracy is a rising class, how can one explain the trials, the executions of trust directors, because they belonged to the old generation? To speak of defeatism in the USSR is tantamount to treating that country as an imperialism. On the American amendment: what matters above all is to do without the bureaucrats. But there are honest, revolutionary people among them; they are not numerous, but they do not represent the Thermidorian class. The workers and peasants must be mobilised in the struggle against the bureaucracy. How, then, can we admit bureaucrats into the soviets?
Trent. — Asks that, on this amendment, the vote be postponed on the part of the thesis calling for the entire bureaucracy to be barred from membership of the soviets. This formula is not an old one. It is something entirely new. Trotsky's reply is satisfactory on one point: the reborn soviets in the USSR will arise against the bureaucracy. Quite right. But one cannot say in advance that this or that person will be excluded beforehand. It is likely that the bureaucracy will not enter the soviets if there is armed struggle, but one cannot say in advance that the bureaucracy will be deprived of the right to vote. That may well happen, probably will happen, but it cannot be stated as certain. In his book against Kautsky, Lenin stresses that depriving the bourgeois of the right to vote was not a matter of principle, was not laid down by the programme, and would not necessarily be the case in every country. We must keep our hands free. This is a question that deserves discussion with regard to the present-day USSR.
Craipeau. — Considers that the question can perfectly well be settled now, since we are indeed deciding on the more general question of the minority positions. The bourgeoisie still holds economic power after the seizure of power, but it will be dispossessed both politically and economically. This is an important agitational slogan.
Fischer. — The American arguments are not sound. The programme's formula is a formula of propaganda. Lenin's arguments do not apply here. If the bureaucracy is a criminal clique, the question of suffrage does not arise. This is not a question for tomorrow, but for today.
Speros. — We must say: we cannot draw pure boundaries around the bureaucracy. This position runs counter to the legalisation of Soviet parties: we cannot prevent the existence of a Soviet party, even one that is a workers'-bourgeois party.
Julien. — Does not object to referral. After the seizure of power the bourgeoisie may persist as a social force: when it comes to waging the struggle, we cannot admit the bureaucracy, but once it has lost power, it no longer has any reason to exist, it no longer has a separate existence. It may survive as a memory of the past, but it no longer has a function.
Craipeau. — Objects that if one admits the bureaucracy is a class, then it has no place in the soviets. But Trotsky is inconsistent when he admits that the bureaucracy is not a class, while at the same time excluding it entirely from the soviets. And what of the kulaks? Certain forces can be excluded from the soviets.
Clart. — We must agree to a vote and proceed to an international discussion. Judging by the American comrades' remarks, the character of the soviets is not properly grasped. They are the instrument of struggle against Stalin's power, for a political revolution. Are we going to admit its most direct enemies? The right to vote has a different meaning for classes that have fallen from power once the revolution has been stabilised.
Karl. — Craipeau's conception must be rejected from beginning to end, because it is not Marxist. What reason is there for the existence of a new privileged class? But the working class is not homogeneous. The Second International did not become capitalist, even though it is founded on a privileged layer. Within every class there are different elements: the wealthiest lean towards the bourgeoisie. One can therefore speak of a reactionary layer within the working class. A class cannot be judged by its degree of wealth, but by its role in production. Even if capitalism were restored in the USSR, the state would not necessarily cease to be a workers' state. After October, no one believed that socialism could be established immediately. It was only during the civil war that War Communism was established. The New Economic Policy (NEP) was then introduced. Yet Soviet power did not for that reason cease to exist. The point of view that starts from wealth is Bakuninist. From that point of view one could "build socialism in one country." We must maintain the same tactic that Marx defended in 1870. But Marx went on fighting against Bakunin. As for the American amendment, it must be rejected. The programme must clearly designate the social categories to be driven out.
James. — Also opposes Craipeau's conceptions, which are not Marxist. We must show the progressive character of a planned economy as against private property. Also, from an international standpoint: if the international revolution were to develop, the question would present itself differently.
Lebrun. — No one can make sense of this supposed abortive class which does not emerge from the mode of production, and which is immediately exhausted. Driving the bureaucracy out of the soviets is a slogan of revolutionary propaganda, understood as part of an overall plan. After the fall of the bureaucracy, former bureaucrats, individually, will have their place in the soviets. The political revolution will happen automatically.
Trent. — The objections have convinced me that our amendment is necessary. There must be a discussion. We agree that the bureaucracy is not a class, despite its fifteen million members. But in 1917, people said not to vote for the Mensheviks or the Socialist Revolutionaries, yet they were not excluded from the soviets. The struggle for the reborn soviets will be directed against the bureaucracy, but all the well-off layers will make common cause with the Stalinists. Even at the first stage, the soviets will win over many who will break with the Stalinist centre. We are not proposing to vote against, but there must be a discussion.
Stefan. — The question seems to come down to our attitude towards the various layers of the bureaucracy. It is not a matter of knowing what we will do at this or that stage. It is certain that important layers will go over to the side of the proletariat. But must we not, precisely for that reason, affirm that we want to drive the bureaucracy out of the soviets? On the contrary, for in doing so we are defining our general attitude. He proposes voting for the programme.
Gould. — The question is new, but he accepts the amendment, without agreeing with the way Trent poses it. He proposes postponing the vote, but a time limit must be set for the discussion.
Vilain. — One could find fifty phrases one would like to have clarified. These are theses. Discussion can continue, but a vote must be taken.
Craipeau. — Considers that a vote cannot be taken, since the Russian question has not been seriously discussed.
Vilain. — Replies that his objection is not honest. The discussion on the USSR is open in all the national sections. It has been the subject of numerous publications in internal bulletins, in the review, in Trotsky's books. It has already been endorsed at several national congresses. To contest the right to vote at the international conference is to fear for one's own positions.
In conclusion, Craipeau submits the following theses:
1. The Soviet bureaucracy has, over the last fifteen years, waged a relentless struggle both against the remnants of the private capitalist economy and against the proletariat. In the course of a muffled civil war and by means of gigantic acts of violence, it has thereby succeeded, on the one hand, in monopolising the totality of the means of production and exchange, and, on the other, in stripping the proletariat of all political power and all economic control, and in suppressing all the fundamental conquests of the October revolution.
2. It has thus progressively ceased to play the role of a mere parasite upon the dictatorship of the proletariat. It has become an exploiting ruling class, which holds in common the totality of the means of production and exchange, and which alone decides the distribution of capital and of surplus value.
3. It constitutes an original class by virtue of the form its profit takes (over-remuneration), the collective mode of its distribution, and the nationally planned structure of production on which it rests. Nevertheless, it historically constitutes an appendage of the world capitalist class. It has introduced a form of anarchy and crisis (of which the trials are one consequence) into the very heart of the planned production it directs, and is thereby drawn, though with considerably longer delays, into the general decay of the capitalist economy.
4. The Russian state has ceased to be a workers' state. It has become the board of directors of the industrial oligarchy, of the senior cadres of the army and the police, and, in part, of the higher specialists. This state rests on a deeply differentiated society, with the labour aristocracy (Stakhanovists, etc.) helping the ruling classes to exploit the workers.
5. The working class will only be able to retake power through a new social revolution. The essential task of the Russian section of the Fourth International is to guide the masses towards insurrection. It must inscribe on its programme: a. The dispossession of the oligarchy and the return of the means of production to the class of workers in town and country. The re-establishment of control over the production and distribution of all wealth. b. The placing of the plan at the service, not of the aristocracy, but of the proletariat, and its orientation towards socialism. c. The abolition of social inequality, through the abolition of privileges, of the new hierarchies, as well as of the excess pay of specialists, of piece-work, of Stakhanovism, etc. d. The maximum political guarantee against a new reaction, through the permanent renewal of the state cadres, as well as through the full restoration of Soviet democracy (legalisation of workers' parties, freedom of the press, of assembly, trade-union freedoms, etc.).
6. The Russian workers' class struggle against their exploiters can suffer no mitigation on account of their government's participation in an imperialist war. Military reverses for the Russian government will, for them, constitute the lesser evil, in that they will open the road to revolutionary uprising.
7. Russia is today integrated into the play of imperialist rivalries and interests. Under these conditions, the slogan of "unconditional defence of the USSR" loses all proletarian or anti-imperialist meaning. It can only shackle the Russian and international working class.
8. No consideration of the defence of the USSR should lead the proletarians to suspend or attenuate the practice of revolutionary defeatism in their own country, or to interrupt the systematic preparation of the revolution in their own country. Their only strategy must remain revolutionary defeatism, fraternisation with the Russian soldiers, and support for the proletarian revolution in the USSR.
Vote: for Craipeau's thesis: 1 vote; against, all the others. Motion of the American Political Committee, taken up by Trent: for, 5 votes; against, 15; abstentions, 2.
• War and the international situation
Rousset. — Considers that the thesis contains an ambiguous passage where it speaks of the progressive character of the patriotism of the oppressed. He does not think this marks a deviation towards social-patriotism, but merely expresses the retreat of the labour movement and its wish to cling to something. The idea of the fatherland contains nothing progressive, in any respect. Moreover, pacifism should not be conflated with patriotism. If there were such a thing as a healthy patriotism, it would be the one that found its expression in the Popular Front.
Clart. — Patriotism was progressive during a certain period. The patriotism of oppressed peoples is progressive. The question presents itself differently within the framework of an imperialist country. You say there can be nothing progressive in patriotism. But the programme is speaking of the oppressed. This becomes apparent in wartime, when it gets conflated with the defence of democracy. These nuances must be grasped. We would then also have to reproach ourselves for citing Lenin speaking of the patriotism of the Great Russians, while also noting how he completed his appeal.
Boitel. — This question must be judged bearing in mind the moment, and the dominant Stalinist policy. The revival of patriotism by the Stalinists only serves to bring bourgeois prejudices back to the surface. Keeping the text as it stands creates dangers. That does not mean we cannot seize upon some modest strike action, even one that appears aimed at preventing the sabotage of national defence.
Vilain. — There is something of a semi-misunderstanding arising from the use of the word "progressive." It generally denotes an idea of progression on the historical plane, whereas here it is not a matter of characterising patriotism as a historical ideology, but of certain of its particular, present-day elements. The formula could be improved to remove the ambiguity, but the underlying idea is correct and should not be obscured.
Julien. — The point is to know how to seize hold of the ring in order to go further. The expression as it stands seems correct. We must go before the masses without abstract formulas. Our theoretical explanations will get no purchase. We must explain, starting from the masses' real concerns. The fatherland is a fact, but it must be freed from the domination of the exploiters. As the objective conditions change, the ideas of the broad masses will change too. Then we shall explain to them the full content of internationalism.
Busson. — Julien's argument is dangerous. We must distinguish according to where we are speaking. There is programme, and there is programme. One must know how to speak to a backward worker. But here we are dealing with the programme. Agrees with Vilain's proposals. The formula should be simplified.
Craipeau. — Thinks the conference must be careful on this question. When we hold power, we will not have "the nation." The wording on pacifism should be modified; the distinction is not sufficient. The distinction lies in actions. The word "progressive" should be banished from the dictionary.
Rousset. — Would patriotism be progressive if it were tied to class actions? But Julien's presentation is very dangerous. Fascist propaganda could say the same. On anti-fascism, agreed, because there is at bottom a class content. In the present situation in France, we must rely on the workers' economic instinct, and not on patriotic sentiment. Insofar as we are in a period of retreat, we must put our internationalism to the fore.
Speros. — Agrees with Rousset and Boitel. Even when the proletariat has been victorious, it is the socialist revolution it defends, not the fatherland.
Lesoil. — This concerns the programme and the transitional slogans placed before us in order to respond to the current running through the working class. At first sight this distinction is jarring, and sometimes embarrasses us in front of our workers. But patriotic sentiment is also fear of war. It is not enough to say "the workers have no fatherland"; one must know how to explain it. What is progressive is only progressive on condition that we know how to make use of it.
Gould. — Rousset and Boitel want to avoid any confusion with Stalinism or fascism. But that is where they are heading. The Stalinists' aim is to exploit the patriotic sentiments of the masses for the benefit of the bourgeoisie's own. We, on the contrary, must take advantage of this difference. The danger for us does not lie in patriotism. We have been schooled. The real danger, on the contrary, lies in not understanding, in being cut off from the sentiments of the masses. The same danger exists in the United States.
James. — Lenin said: "When a poor man says, 'I want to defend the fatherland,' it is the instinct of the oppressed speaking." Calls for the adoption of the text as it stands in the French translation. As for Germany and the policy of the [German] CP, this policy must be clearly distinguished [from ours].
Johre. — The essential point of the text under debate is that every demand, even an inadequate one, must be made use of.
Stefan. — Considers the programme's formula correct. It is not a matter of theoretically assessing the nation. We are in a period of reaction, which lays bare proletarian instinct. Proletarian sentiments are progressive, even in a period of reaction. We must explain how to wage the struggle against Hitler's Germany. Submits a supplementary amendment on antisemitism:
"While ardently combating antisemitism and race hatred, the Bolshevik-Leninists declare at the same time that Zionism, which preaches the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, can never solve the Jewish question. Zionism, in all its shades, plays the role of an agent of British imperialism in Palestine, and of an ideological counterpart to the antisemitic theories of the emigration, in all the countries of the Diaspora. Only the social revolution can check the antisemitic wave, which is but one of the heads of the reactionary hydra, restore to the Jews the rights of man and of the citizen, and guarantee the free development of the culture of the Jewish masses. The revolutionary proletariat will abolish the historic wrongs that have for centuries been the lot of the Jewish people."
Vote: for, 6; against, 16.
The vote against signifies that the programme already expresses itself sufficiently on the question, and that an amendment on the specific problem of Palestine would deserve fuller elaboration. In the end, the amendment is referred to the drafting commission, which will consider how the programme might be improved on this point.
James. — Proposes opening a special discussion on the German question (in particular on Stalinist responsibilities in 1933). Several comrades (Craipeau, Julien) likewise propose opening a discussion on specific questions of general policy (Spain, war, etc.). It is decided that these questions may be debated later, but that the agenda must be followed: examination of the amendments submitted to the draft programme, and a vote on that draft.
Vote on the draft programme as a whole: for, 21; against, 1. (Subject to the reservation of the conclusion concerning the delimitation of the Fourth International, which will be discussed together with the statutes.)
Declaration of comrade Craipeau:
"The minority of the Internationalist Workers Party notes that the conference of the movement for the Fourth International is being held without there having been an international discussion in the various countries, and that a national discussion could develop in only a few countries, such as France or the United States.
The resolution issuing from the conference does not correspond to the elaboration [carried out by] the whole international organisation. We are convinced that events will before long compel the International to re-examine the question and revise its positions."
Several proposals from the English delegation for the drafting commission are submitted.
STATUTES
Comrade Vilain reports on behalf of the preparatory commission. A draft statute has been drawn up. Article 1 involves what is called the "proclamation" of the International. It would be more accurate to speak of its defined organisation and its strict discipline. This is therefore the essential point on which the present discussion must turn. This discussion has already been carried on at length, in particular within the Polish commission, with the participation of the German, Polish, English, American, French, South American and Greek delegations. It should be recalled that the rules adopted at the conference of July 1936 speak of "organisations associated on an international scale with the movement for the Fourth International." It is this that must be changed, in the direction proposed by the Transitional Programme.
Here is the proposed text:
"All proletarian and revolutionary militants throughout the world who accept and apply the principles and the programme of the Fourth International come together in a single world organisation, under a centralised international leadership and a single discipline. This organisation bears the name of ... and is governed by the present statutes."
Karl. — The question of the Fourth [International] cannot be addressed apart from the state of the labour movement. The labour movement is passing through a period of disintegration and depression in the fascist countries. In the democratic countries, Stalinist pressure is pushing the workers backwards. We are the most advanced section of the working class. The Fourth International can only be decided upon once the workers overcome this depression. The First International was built when the workers had recovered from the defeat of 1848; the Second, when the movement re-established itself after the defeat of the Commune and the creation of a labour movement in Russia. The Third was created after the victory of the Russian revolution and with a large number of Communist parties already formed. Although in 1919 the Zimmerwald left was stronger than we are today, the Spartacists were against the proclamation of the Third International. We do not have numerous organisations. Our organisations have no mass influence, especially within the trade unions. The First International created a mass movement that struck terror into the bourgeoisie. The Second set immense masses into motion. The Third led revolutionary mass movements. But the situation has changed. The workers are undergoing enormous repression. We do not have the leadership of the masses. In proclaiming the Fourth without being sure of the workers' response, we compromise the very idea of it.
The future of all humanity depends on the Fourth International. We cannot create a fiction, but a genuine International. Despite the regression, the crisis of capitalism poses the question of the proletarian revolution. It is the proletariat that will create the Fourth International. We must enlighten the workers and prepare the movement. If we remain a propaganda group, the workers will not have great expectations of us; but if we are an International, the workers will demand leadership, and we will not be able to provide it; they will be disappointed. The First International rested on the strength of the French and English proletariat. The Second, on the strength of the German proletariat. The Third, on Russian, Balkan, Polish and German forces. As long as the Fourth does not have some mass parties, it cannot be proclaimed. That is why we disagree with point 1 of the statutes.
Vilain. — Karl's arguments sum up the whole set of objections that have been raised against us in the course of the discussion. They are historical, not political. Instead of drawing arguments from analogies in the succession of Internationals, we must look at the concrete situations — the original situation in each case. The First arose out of nothing; the proletariat asserted itself as an international class; that is all. It led no struggle, and was mixed up with petty-bourgeois movements. The Second was tied to state apparatuses, had no rivals, and did not, in any case, officially regard itself as the continuator of the First International. The Third was unable to liquidate the Second. It, too, has become a state appendage. It survives side by side with the Second. That is the actual situation. It is a unique situation, which must be analysed as such. We must move beyond vagueness. We have defined ourselves at the national level; we have parties, sections, leagues, etc. Any passage into social democracy was episodic. We also want to be defined at the international level. We must have a clearly delimited organisation, and not a manoeuvring-ground for every confused current. Members will be those who accept the programme, the statutes, the decisions. This is not the "definitive" International. None is definitive. We are not proclaiming a victorious International. We want a clear-cut form, in order to prepare better conditions for struggle. The Internationals are not fixed frameworks. They are organisations of struggle. Their form corresponds to their mission at a given stage. Ours, in the present world situation, is to put an end to certain ambiguities, and thereby to facilitate the gathering of forces around us.
Stefan. — We are already, as a "movement," a defined organisation. To proclaim an International is to change a state of fact. But this state of fact does not exist. A name alone is not enough to delimit ourselves from the centrists. There must be a reversal within the masses, so that we hold not merely ideas, but a powerful lever.
Trent. — The historical analogies are false, invalid. Zimmerwald was stronger than we are, but its left wing was very small, and politically rather confused. Lenin raised the question of constituting the Third in a period of reaction. He did not do so, hoping to bring other groups along, which was our own position in 1936. At the first congress of the Comintern there was no mass Communist party, except the Russian one. They were, above all, émigrés in Moscow. The Spartacists [4] were against it: were they right?
Lebrun. — We must first organise ourselves. Large-scale struggle will come with the mass movement. If the masses demanded further decisions of us, given our name, so much the better — that would mean they are ready to march with us.
Boitel, then James. — Stress that, in general, work within the Second [International] is no longer possible. The Fourth is present in the minds of advanced workers. We must advance or retreat.
Karl. — Disputes that there were no mass parties at the first congress of the Comintern. One does not build an international organisation in order to delimit oneself, but in order to carry out mass actions. The creation of the Fourth is more difficult than that of its predecessors.
Votes. The Polish delegation proposes the following amendment:
"The Bolshevik-Leninist international organisation arises out of great events: the greatest defeats of the proletariat in history. The cause of these defeats is the degeneration and betrayal of the old leadership. The Third International, like the Second, is dead for the revolution. Long live the Fourth International! The Bolshevik-Leninists do not at this moment constitute the Fourth International; nevertheless, they proclaim the necessity of creating it. We shall form the Fourth International when the objective conditions for its creation have matured — that is, above all, when we become a mass movement, at least in certain advanced countries."
For, 3 votes; against, 19.
Article I of the draft statutes: for, 19; against, 3. Comrade Craipeau explains his vote as follows:
"Considering that the international situation may still impose on us numerous organisational turns, compelling our national groups to work within reformist or centrist parties; that consequently, and in view of the numerical weakness of the BL groups, the movement for the Fourth International can, for now, play only a propagandist role; I vote against the immediate formal proclamation of the Fourth International."
The various articles of the statutes are then examined and discussed one by one. Each point is adopted in turn. On the whole, the following vote is recorded: unanimous, minus 3 abstentions.
The Polish delegation states that, having defended to the end the position it regards as correct, and which was worked out together with the Polish Central Committee, it remains entirely disciplined within the new organisation, with which it will collaborate closely.
ELECTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Discussion opens on the composition and functioning of the IEC. In conclusion, fifteen members are appointed to constitute the IEC.
REPORTS OF THE COMMISSIONS
• Polish commission
The Polish commission devoted two sessions to examining the situation of the Polish comrades. A new situation has been created by the official dissolution of the Polish Communist Party [5]. Two resolutions are presented by the commission. The majority considers that the necessity of the new party must be proclaimed, in order to gather together all the elements currently organised either within centrist currents, or within intermediate organisations. Comrade Karl considers that the time has not yet come for such a turn. Comrades Julien and Lebrun believe that Karl underestimates the new stage, and lacks confidence in the comrades. Karl considers that the Polish comrades do not want any ambiguity with reformism, but wish to arrive at a real party and not a fiction: they must preserve their links with the masses. We must wait. Trent is against proclaiming a party as a replacement for the Polish Communist Party; nevertheless, this inevitable step must be prepared for.
Vote: the majority resolution of the commission is adopted by 11 votes to 6, with 2 abstentions.
• Greek commission
The work of the Greek commission was devoted to the fusion of the two groups which laid claim to the Fourth International, the Internationalist Communist League and the Union of Internationalist Communists. The international conference unanimously adopts the resolution presented by the commission, saluting the Greek section of the Fourth International, dozens of whose members suffer and struggle valiantly in Metaxas's prisons and penal camps.
The International Secretariat is mandated to intervene should any difficulties arise in the course of the fusion process.
• French commission
The French commission extended its work over a series of working sessions. Some thirty delegates took part. In the course of these sessions, all the essential aspects of the policy and activity of the Internationalist Workers Party were carefully examined. In particular, the commission examined questions of the united front, of the trade-union movement, of the press, and of the party's organisational functioning. A draft resolution served as the basis for discussion. The commission also concerned itself with the "La Commune" group [6], and it was with its agreement that the IS undertook the steps recounted elsewhere.
The third plenary assembly of the international conference, having heard the report, decided to extend the commission's mandate, asking it to complete its work with the adoption of a definitive resolution.
• English commission
The report records the very important step taken through the unification of the three groups which laid claim to the Fourth International, within the Revolutionary Socialist League (RSL). The conference stresses that not all difficulties have been overcome, in particular that questions relating to work within the ranks of the Labour Party have not received a definitive solution. But it welcomes this important stage in the development of Marxism in England. Delegates from the three former groups took part in the conference's proceedings. Only one small nucleus (the Lee group) remained outside the unification: the IEC is mandated to put an end to the ambiguity of its position, by offering it entry into the RSL.
• Mexican commission
The commission on Mexican affairs carried out a very thorough study of the situation in Mexico and of the crisis within the Internationalist Communist League. It examined in detail the preparatory work of the Pan-American Conference, as well as the documents, letters and bulletins submitted to the conference by the former, now-dissolved organisation. It was on the basis of this examination that it adopted a resolution which will make possible the rectification of our movement in Mexico. The conference stressed that all the Mexican comrades declared that they accepted in advance the international decisions of the movement to which they are attached. Under the impetus of the decisions of the Pan-American pre-conference, the situation has already improved in the following respects:
a) the elimination of personal quarrels and the election of new leading cadres; b) the liquidation of the leftist orientation and of trade-union isolation; c) close links with the Pan-American movement. The resolution is adopted unanimously.
• Supplementary decision
It is decided to set up a colonial commission attached to the International Executive Committee.
SESSION OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ENLARGED TO INCLUDE THE DELEGATIONS TO THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
• Formation of the International Secretariat
Vilain. — Puts forward a proposal aimed at appointing, for the IS, comrades able for the most part to work in the same location. Members do not represent sections, but should draw their support from the most active sections.
After a detailed discussion of the IS's practical working possibilities and of its composition, five comrades are appointed.
• American sub-secretariat
The IEC decides to confirm in office the Pan-American sub-secretariat appointed at the New York conference, adding one further member to it.
• Statutes (conclusion of the discussion)
After discussion, it is decided that the final drafting will be entrusted to the IS, a vote having already been taken on each article. All that remains is to settle the name of the organisation. After discussion, the name adopted is: "Fourth International (World Party of the Socialist Revolution)."
• International Solidarity
There exist solidarity organisations in three sections (France, Belgium, United States). The task is to federate these three bodies and to help their development in other sections. These committees should be oriented essentially towards supporting our movement, which is the most persecuted of all. The point is not so much to use them for political propaganda as to raise funds and organise practical actions in support of our own comrades. A secretariat must be set up attached to the IS, and sections should be established in every country to organise relief.
Trent. — Non-party members may be admitted to the committees, but, from a political and organisational point of view, our parties must take full responsibility for and control of them. In the United States, the official committee is composed exclusively of party members known for their activity in this field. Socialists or Stalinists in need receive relief. Ours do not. They must be helped. We cannot create an international leadership, but we can create a centre able to provide information and to constitute a sponsoring committee.
Lesoil. — Agrees on the need to develop the solidarity fund. Propaganda is also part of solidarity work, and the funds raised can help with that too, under rigorous control.
In the course of the discussion, the situation of International Relief in France is also examined; it was formed on a "broad" basis, that is, as a united front with other organisations. Generally speaking, efforts should be made to unify the form these movements take in the different countries.
After discussion, comrade Legrand is appointed to draft a resolution, and the IS is mandated to appoint a secretariat to provide international liaison.
• Youth movement
A youth conference is to be held alongside the conference of the Fourth International. A general discussion opens on a report by comrade Maurice.
Julien. — Considers that the Revolutionary Socialist Youth does good work on general problems, but is weak on practical work. The activity of the youth is of primary importance, especially under conditions of semi-legality or illegality.
Stefan. — Draws attention to the importance of youth in our epoch. He speaks of the betrayal of the old parties. The collapse of a party brings with it the demoralisation of an entire generation. Attention must be drawn to this in every section, and a platform of youth demands must be drawn up, using every form of action (youth hostels), education and agitation.
Gould. — Not enough consideration has been given to the youth question. The IS has neglected this question, to such an extent that in certain countries leading comrades are opposed to a special youth organisation. We must not think that capitalism does away with the distinction between young and adult. We must not try, at all costs, to turn the young into cadres of the adult party. The current existing in certain countries against work among the youth must be corrected.
Lesoil. — The situation of the Belgian youth is serious. Révolution has ceased publication. In certain regions (the Borinage) the necessity of this work has not been understood. The situation must be corrected through serious political explanation.
Harber. — Sets out the situation of the youth within the Labour Party and the need to study carefully the slogans appropriate to England.
A delegation of three members of the International Executive Committee was appointed to take part in the Youth conference.
• Theses presented by the Pan-American conference
Two draft theses were presented by the Pan-American Conference for consideration by the international conference. One on "The Situation in the Far East," and the other on "American Imperialism and the Colonies."
Given the importance of these documents, and given that there was not enough time for discussion, it is decided that they will be adopted as material for discussion, submitted for examination by the sections, and placed on the agenda of the next meeting of the International Executive Committee.
• Situation in the United States
An important discussion is taking place within the Socialist Workers Party concerning tactics. The majority advocates the struggle for a Labor Party against the bourgeois parties. The minority favours maintaining the SWP's current platform. Given the importance of this discussion for all the sections, it is decided that a special bulletin will publish the main reports on this question.
• Situation in Belgium
Comrade Lesoil gives a report on the situation within the PSR in the wake of its congress [7]. The mistake was not to have gone on the offensive against Verecken, who was demoralising the whole organisation. Verecken was invited to the congress. Called upon to defend his politics on the international plane, he preferred to resign, to desert in the face of political battle. It must be noted that, when the party was formed, Verecken's arrival was already no more than a patch-up job. His plans amount to "writing for the cadres of the world" (sic). Some fifteen members of the PSR followed him into retirement. The Belgian section now faces important tasks. It must gain in homogeneity, must not confine itself to the Borinage, and must demand truly national activity from its officers.
• England
The international conference, having been presented with a leaflet distributed by the Lee group (England), which claims before the conference the sole right to represent the international conference, recalls that the Lee group refused to enter the unification of the three groups, that it advances only personal criteria to justify its separation; that the door of the Revolutionary Socialist League remains open to it, but that, henceforward, only the RSL is the section of the Fourth International, and that the Lee group, like any group whose isolation is the result of clique considerations, will be resolutely combated. Comrade Legrand is charged with drafting a letter to the English section.
---
## Notes
1. The names and pseudonyms of participants in the conference which in 1938 were indicated only by initials have been given in full. For the pseudonyms, see the biographical notes at the end of the volume.
2. In 1933 Trotsky used the notion of Bonapartism to characterise Soviet power, following the concentration of power in Stalin's hands.
3. The three Moscow trials: August 1936 (Zinoviev-Kamenev), January 1937 (Piatakov-Radek), March 1938 (Bukharin-Rykov-Rakovsky).
4. The Spartacus League was founded by Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg and grew out of the International Group (1915). It practised entrism within the Independent Social Democratic Party (USPD) in April 1917, before founding the Communist Party at the congress of 1 January 1919, in Berlin.
5. The Communist International secretly pronounced the dissolution of the Polish CP in 1938; the members of the Central Committee summoned to Moscow, and the Polish representatives in the bodies of the Comintern, were executed on Stalin's orders.
6. "La Commune" group: the result of a split that occurred at the end of 1935, following the expulsion of the Trotskyists from the SFIO. In an attempt to draw in the maximum number of left-wing Socialist militants, Raymond Molinier and Pierre Frank, backed by a good part of the Trotskyist organisation, created the Revolutionary Action Groups, whose newspaper was La Commune. This became, in March 1936, the organ of the Internationalist Communist Party, for the building of the Fourth International. See the text "On the Molinier Group," below.
7. At the PSR congress in July 1938, Georges Vereeken, disagreeing with Trotsky's criticism of the Spanish POUM and with the proclamation of the Fourth International, officially left the party he had joined in 1936.