Statement on the IS Tendency
1.
As
we arose out of the Socialist Workers Party and the International Socialist
Tendency, the tradition represented by the SWP/IST is our political starting
point. Whatever its many faults, the SWP/IST has historically performed a
valuable role in keeping alive the classical Marxist tradition and the concept
of socialism from below.
2.
As
Marxists we are internationalists. We believe international co-ordination is
indispensable for a revolutionary political current. However, the form of that
co-ordination can be a help or a hindrance. The toy Cominternism of many
orthodox Trotskyist currents, most notably the Healy group, led to delusions of
grandeur and in some cases outright megalomania.
3.
In
the IS tradition we have rightly refused to proclaim ourselves an
“international leadership”. Rather we have traditionally sought to build a
cadre around a set of political principles. With proper modesty the IST has
always referred to itself as a “loose grouping” of organisations united by its
shared politics.
4.
However,
the very formlessness of a tendency which has no organisational existence can
lead to a democratic deficit. As by far the largest organisation in the
Tendency the British SWP has naturally taken a leading role. Furthermore, in
the absence of an international leadership body the SWP Central Committee has
become the de facto international leadership. This places a clear onus on the
SWP CC to behave with restraint, to respect the smaller groupings and not to
act like a bull in a china shop.
5.
For
much of the history of the IST the SWP CC has indeed behaved with healthy
restraint, offering advice and not orders. However, in the 1990s a pronounced
shift took place. The SWP CC, represented in the main by Comrades Cliff and
Callinicos, took an increasingly commandist approach to the Tendency. The
reasons for this lie in the failed catastrophist perspectives of the SWP and
need not be discussed here. Practically, this has led to serious splits in one
country after another and to a ridiculous situation where numerous countries
have rival IS groups sharing the same basic politics. As Fourth International
comrades have wryly observed, it is ironic that the SWP’s “loose current”
allows much less national autonomy than the FI’s “world party”.
6.
The
events of 2001, the split in the Greek SEK and particularly the purge of the
ISO-US from the Tendency represent a qualitative escalation of the gradual
degeneration of the IST. By virtue of the ISO’s size and historic weight in the
IST it could not be carved up quietly: it had to be fought in the open. As a
result, SWP members, though they were given a one-sided and distorted picture,
were at least aware that a dispute was going on. In previous splits (Canada,
Australia, New Zealand, Germany, South Africa etc.) the SWP simply did not
deign to inform its members. The open war in the IST has also raised many
important issues about the way forward for revolutionary socialists.
7.
The
ISO comrades make a very important distinction between principles and
perspectives. One manifestation of the SWP leadership’s confusion of the two is
in Scotland. After years of sectarian isolation from the SSA/SSP, refusing to
recognise its significance, the CC has abruptly done an about turn and its
members have liquidated themselves into the SSP. Likewise European groups are
currently throwing themselves into Attac, not on a united front basis of
maintaining and arguing their politics but in line with the tailist 90/10
formulation. Meanwhile the SWP CC is wantonly splitting IS groups around the
world for refusing to blindly apply a London perspective or for failing one of
Comrade Callinicos’ arbitrary tests.
8.
Having
studied the documents of both the SWP-GB and the ISO-US we conclude that the
ISO has a much more realistic perspective than the SWP. Even if it did not, we
would still defend it on democratic grounds. As national or even local
conditions can and do vary widely, national and local perspectives should be
tailored to the tasks on the ground. The idea that differences in perspectives
to take into account the differing conditions in Britain and the US cannot be
tolerated belongs to Stalin’s Comintern, not the IS tradition. We should also
point out that the SWP does not even have a realistic perspective for Britain.
9.
On
the SWP’s organisational allegations against the ISO, we claim no detailed
knowledge of the ISO’s affairs. However, we are disinclined to take on trust
any claims made by the SWP CC. Furthermore, even if the allegations were 100%
true, they would still not justify the mass expulsion of the ISO from the
Tendency. Even if they did, the record of the SWP leadership over the last ten
years or so surely means that the SWP-GB should be the first party expelled
from the Tendency for organisational breaches.
10.
We
do not propose to write off the whole history of the IS tradition simply
because of the degeneration of the IST. Recent developments in the Tendency are
contrary to the whole ethos of International Socialism. We reject the
revisionist political and organisational concepts of the SWP CC. By the same
token, we do not propose to set up a citadel of Orthodox Cliffism. One of the
best elements of the IS tradition is its scepticism of all orthodoxies, and we are
acutely aware of Cliff’s tragedy in becoming his own epigone. We seek to
preserve the best elements of the IS tradition and adapt them creatively to new
circumstances.
11.
The
position of IS dissidents towards the official Tendency is likewise
contradictory, and depends heavily on the balance of forces in each country. We
feel it would be ridiculous for the ISO-US to “relate” to the tiny cult which
is now the official IS group in the States. At the opposite extreme is Britain,
where a large SWP faces no formal oppositional IS grouping. In most countries
the dissident IS forces are numerically weak and may be politically confused.
Those groups or indeed individuals in various countries who seek to regenerate
the IS tradition must find their own line of march.
12.
It
follows that we do not favour the proclamation of a counter-tendency. We seek
the reunification of the IST on a democratic and collaborative basis. It may be
that under the present leadership in London this proves impossible. However, we
believe that this is the best strategic orientation. In the meantime, we favour
informal collaboration between those IS forces who find themselves outside the
official Tendency. If formal links develop from that collaboration, they should
develop slowly, organically and on a basis of equality between the
organisations involved.
Our
demands are:
End
the SWP’s arbitrary dictatorship in the IS Tendency!
Reunite
IS forces worldwide!
International
Socialists (Ireland)
17th
December, 2001.
