Socialist Action split from the Socialist Workers Party in the 1980s and
even though I was somewhat sympathetic to them I continued to support
the SWP. Since then the SWP has taken one turn after another that I have
felt uncomfortable with, but most of them I could live with. Recently
some of those turns have been harder to live with and Socialist Action
has come to look better and better in contrast to me. I will say this
for the SWP though. The SWP did not and would not have publicly
published an article about the internal faction that would become
Socialist Action of the kind that this article does about its own
internal faction fight. Once the split was accomplished, though,
Socialist Action became fair game for public criticism, but, in fact,
even since then the SWP has mostly just ignored them. Exposing internal
faction fights like this and in such minute detail seems to me to be a
violation of democratic centralism norms. That is rather frustrating to
me who is quite interested in those internal struggles and who really
wants to know how the SWP came to some of its recent positions. However,
there are good reasons for not publicly airing such matters that are
actually mentioned in this article. But even though I have my severe
doubts that this article should have been published anywhere but
internally I still find it very interesting. By the way, with only
twenty-nine members I wonder just how effective this minority faction
thinks it will be. I hope they will begin to publish an on line
newspaper of their own soon.
https://socialistaction.org/2019/10/22/anatomy-of-the-recent-split-in-socialist-action/
Anatomy of the Recent Split in Socialist Action
Socialist Action / 17 hours ago
Friends of Socialist Action and Interested Political Activists,
??It is indeed quite unusual when a political party, such as ours,
widely distributes a report that describes a political split from its
ranks. We do so here because, in these difficult but promising times,
the issues involved touch on some of the major political and social
movement disputes of today, wherein activists seek realistic solutions
to sometimes complicated world events.
??These include, for example, how the U.S. antiwar movement should
respond to the U.S. government???s ongoing deadly wars of intervention
across the globe???from Syria to Iran, Venezuela, Nicaragua, and
everywhere else the U.S. imperial giant spends trillions of dollars to
dominate world markets and steal the resources of poor and oppressed
nations. It also includes Socialist Action???s view, repeatedly confirmed
by national polls, that a new generation of youth and workers are
emerging who prefer socialism over capitalism. Among this generation are
the millions of young people who recently mobilized and struck for
climate justice and against the prospect of a planet that is becoming
increasingly uninhabitable. As a national party with branches across the
U.S., our orientation is to this new generation of young people???and
old-timers alike???which promises to bring impressive new forces to all
the critical social and political struggles today.
??We have attached here the lengthy Political Resolution adopted by the
October 6, 2019 special and emergency plenum of Socialist Action???s
National Committee. The plenum was called to discuss and debate key
issues that had become increasingly in dispute in our national party.
Sadly, the end result was a split wherein 29 comrades left to form a new
organization. But the lessons of the split are nevertheless noteworthy.
??Socialists have long known that the history of the struggle to build
mass working class parties and revolutionary socialist parties that aim
to challenge and abolish the profit-first-and-only capitalist system has
always included great fusions of like-minded forces as well as splits
and divisions when the best way forward is in dispute.
??Your ideas on all the above issues are welcome. Contact us at
socialistaction@xxxxxxx for further information.
??In solidarity,
??Jeff Mackler, National Secretary, Socialist Action
??October 22, 2019
Political Resolution Adopted by the Socialist Action National Committee
Plenum, October 6, 2019
Six months ago, our April 2019 National Committee (NC) plenum approved a
comprehensive political report that evaluated the main lines of U.S. and
international politics. We affirmed our party???s orientation on a wide
range of social, political and working class struggles. The general line
of our assessment, confirmed in all its aspects by the events since that
time, was marked by our view that an intensification of ruling class
attacks on working people in the U.S. and worldwide was the only
???solution??? envisioned by a crisis-ridden ruling class.
With this special NC plenum, an emergency plenum called because we face
serious internal political divisions that threaten the unity of our
party, we will shift from our traditional broad ranging or comprehensive
texts to a sharp focus on the issues in dispute ???issues that center on
our core Trotskyist programmatic foundations. This Draft Political
Resolution (DPR) is aimed at a clear presentation and reaffirmation of
the adopted positions of SA. It stands as a refutation of the views
repeatedly and factionally presented for endless debate by the
now-declared Permanent Revolution Faction (PRF). These challenge SA???s
historic position opposing all U.S. imperialist wars, our unconditional
support of the right of poor and oppressed nations to
self-determination, and the theory and practice of permanent revolution.
This DPR also affirms SA???s orientation to the generation of radicalizing
youth who, in their majority are increasingly turning to socialist ideas
and to a rejection of capitalism. Indeed, given the direct and broadside
attacks on working people more generally, interest in socialist ideas is
on the rise across all generations.
This text will not undertake a systematic review of the some 60-70
internal texts, public pamphlets and newspaper articles previously
published that detail SA???s views. We will cut to the core of the
disputed issues with the objective of a precise presentation of where
our differences lie. We fully expect that the PRF comrades will do the
same, thus affording the NC the opportunity to discuss, debate and
resolve clearly defined and opposed political positions. As always, we
undertake such debates with the central objective of clarifying
differences and moving forward as a united party to implement all
adopted positions. To date, and since our last convention one year ago,
the never-ending internal debates over an ever-increasing number of
so-called new issues has rendered SA increasingly strained to implement
adopted positions, that is, to test them in life itself ??? in the broad
range of mass movements that we join and seek to help effectively build.
Trans Liberation
In light of our present and ongoing internal literary discussion on
trans rights, we wish to include here a brief statement of our view.
Socialist Action opened this discussion with our long-standing position
of unequivocal support to the rights of trans people and implacable
opposition to any and all forms of discrimination, exclusion,
persecution, and violence against trans people. The socialist society
that we struggle to bring into being will know no such discrimination.
We stated in our Women???s Liberation Resolution:
We view the movements for trans and workers rights as part of one
struggle and understand gendered oppression to be fundamental to ruling
class efforts to discipline the working class, uphold the ideal of the
nuclear family, and maintain a ???flexible??? surplus population. Socialist
Action must advance our perspective to help build the biggest and
broadest coalitions to fight against working class divisions, including
a trans inclusive women???s movement, to unite workers with different
experiences and ultimately build a movement that can overthrow the
system of capitalist exploitation itself.
??? Socialist Action Women???s Liberation Resolution, 2019
We begin with our stance of full support to and respect for transgender
people???s fundamental right to self-identify and for the full,
unequivocal inclusion of trans people in every aspect of society. Gender
is a social construct, which is formed by economic, cultural,
historical, biological, and class factors. In matters of gender
identity, as with sexual orientation, an individual knows best what is
right for them. We reject any assertion that their identity is in any
way inauthentic or invalid. Trans women are women. Trans men are men.
We support trans people???s fight for full rights, including but not
limited to, equal access to housing, restrooms, medical care,
employment, education, sports, legal justice, body autonomy, dignity,
and the full realization of human potential.
We look forward to the final weeks of Literary Discussion and to the
creation of a more comprehensive document on Trans Liberation for the
November 17 plenum.
The Syria debate
The debate in SA began with the U.S. imperialist war on Syria. We began
this debate in 2015 during the lead up to the 2016 Kansas City National
Convention where it was resolved with the passage of several
comprehensive resolutions. The debate continued through the lead up to
our 2018 Minneapolis National Convention, where SA???s position was again
reaffirmed following a full pre-convention discussion and debate. In
total there have been several scores of counterposed texts on Syria
produced in the course of these debates. SA???s adopted positions have
been presented in a steady series of newspaper articles over the past
four years and longer. They have appeared in two SA Syria pamphlets,
including the most recent published in 2018 entitled, Syria: Anatomy of
Another U.S. Imperialist War. We have explicitly included the party???s
adopted position on Syria in the 2018 Political Resolution that was
published in full in our May 2019 pamphlet entitled, The Worldwide
Crisis of Capitalism and the Relevance of Socialism.
The essence of our view is as follows:
1) The war in Syria, including at this moment, is a U.S.-led, NATO and
Gulf State monarchy abetted imperialist war against a poor and oppressed
nation.
2) SA is not neutral with regard to this war, which has taken the lives
of some 500,000 people and driven half of the Syrian people into
internal or external exile.
3) We unequivocally and unconditionally support the right of Syria to
self-determination, including its right to request and receive aid and
military support from Russia, China, Iran and the Lebanese-based Hezbollah.
4) In this military and political sense, we stand for the victory of
Syria against the U.S.-imperialist led cabal. We are for the defeat of
this cabal.
5) SA rejects the repeatedly-stated SA minority view that the war in
Syria is a civil war between the Syrian government and the Syrian people
in rebellion. In contrast to a few years ago when the so-called rebel
forces that were supported by the minority occupied some two-thirds, if
not three-quarters of Syria, today these same ???rebels??? are isolated in
the northwestern Syrian province of Idlib. With few, if any exceptions
these ???rebels??? have almost from the beginning been armed, trained,
promoted and supported by U.S. imperialism and its NATO and Gulf State
monarchy ???coalition??? as well as the Turkish government. Today these
forces have been largely defeated by the Syrian Army and its allies.
This is a positive development, best allowing for the Syrian people to
determine their own future.
6) In Idlib today, the remaining ???rebels,??? who regularly launch missiles
into Syria???s cities, exist only because of the support of the U.S., its
NATO imperialist allies, and Turkey.?? These ???rebels,??? significantly, but
decreasingly, control and dominate, via terror, the population of Idlib.
Their calling card is the reactionary, violent and fundamentalist ideas
of Al Qaida and related reactionary forces in the pay of Saudi Arabia,
various Gulf State monarchies and U.S. imperialism. Every serious source
that we have quoted, including numerous articles in the New York Times,
repeatedly documents that these Idlib ???rebels??? exist only because they
are supported, financed and defended by U.S. imperialism. Any Syrian
government attempt to drive these forces out of Syria would be met,
according to explicit and repeated public U.S./NATO warnings and
declarations, by the united counterforce of U.S. imperialism.
7) In contrast to the SA minority, Socialist Action supports and defends
the right of the Syrian government to drive all remaining such forces
out of Syria. The minority stands opposed to this singular proposition.
8) Despite all its claims to the contrary, the minority has been
explicit in its assertion that the right to self determination of
oppressed nations does not apply to Syria since Syria, they claim, is
not fighting U.S. imperialism but rather the Syrian people. In this
battle, they state, again explicitly, that they favor the ???Syrian
people???! The minority similarly asserts that U.S. imperialism and its
allies are barely involved in Syria, that they only ???dole out aid with
an eyedropper??? to the ???rebels.??? This spurious proposition has been
refuted over and over again by all serious observers.
9) Further, the minority proposed that SA add to its demands regarding
Syria that Russia, Iran and Hezbollah should withdraw from Syria! This,
in itself, is but another manifestation of its rejection of Syria???s
right to self-determination as well as its failure to recognize the
fundamental nature of yet another U.S. imperialist war. We repeat,
Syria???s right to self-determination, as it faces U.S. imperialist war
and occupation, includes its right to seek support from any group or
nation on earth. It is for the Syrian government and only that
government to decide this matter. Indeed, it is universally agreed that
had not Syria sought and received aid from Russia, Iran and others,
Damascus today and Syria more generally would be a U.S. neo-colony or
perhaps akin to the U.S./NATO destroyed state of Libya, where
imperialist devastation and dismemberment of that oil rich nation, today
includes U.S.-dominated oil extractors pumping oil for the benefit of
U.S. capitalists.
10) In this regard we find the minority in the corner of the infamous
???third camp??? Shachtmanites, whose politics during the Vietnam War led
them to characterize it as struggle between ???Soviet imperialism??? and
U.S. imperialism. [Max Shachtman left the Socialist Workers Party in
1940 to found the ???third camp??? current that equally condemned both sides
during the cold war and McCarthy-era witch hunt period. Modern day
???third campers??? include the recently dissolved ISO and Solidarity
organizations who demand that U.S./NATO and Russian imperialism withdraw
from Syria and Venezuela.] As with Syria today, these ???third campers??? in
fact, had no ???camp??? to stand in or point to, other than the ???camp??? of a
Saigon-based group of Buddhist monks who set themselves afire to protest
???both sides??? during the Vietnam War. In the best traditions of American
Trotskyism our Socialist Workers Party predecessors stood in the ???U.S.
Out Now!??? camp, which, without formally stating so, but in the context
of the demand ???Self-determination for Vietnam,??? favored the victory of
the Vietnamese fighters against the invading imperialist beast that had
murdered four million Vietnamese. During the Vietnam War our camp, the
camp of revolutionary socialism, indeed criticized Russia and China, but
for not sufficiently aiding the Vietnamese liberation struggle.
11) Today, Socialist Action stands in the same U.S. Out Now! camp
against the same U.S. imperialism. We favor the victory of the Syrian
government against the U.S.-orchestrated war machine.
12) These ???third camp??? currents that uniformly abstained from, or worse,
mercilessly attacked the united front, mass, U.S. Out Now! antiwar
movement during the Vietnam War era do the same today with regard to the
U.S. war against Syria. These same forces, largely in a state of
disintegration, attack UNAC for its ???U.S. Out Now!??? and
self-determination demands. They are non-participants in the present
antiwar movement and often hostile and destructive opponents.
13) The PRF proposal that SA withdraw from UNAC is a tragic example of a
descent to such ???third camp??? politics. This proposal was soundly
rejected by the Political Committee, the National Committee, and two SA
national conventions.
14) We must add to the ever-increasing and baseless minority accusations
and/or insinuations in their text that SA is approaching the ???campist???
politics of the Workers World party and the Party for Socialism and
Liberation (PSL), groups from the Sam Marcy tradition that left the SWP
in 1956. Comrades should understand that this use of the word ???campist???
has absolutely nothing to do with the ???third camp??? views of yesteryear???s
Shachtman supporters. The minority???s accusation of and frequent
deployment of the ???campist??? term is meant to imply that SA, whatever the
position of U.S. imperialism, automatically takes the ???opposite??? side or
camp. In decades past, in the name of ???anti-imperialism,??? the Marcy
campists took the side of the Stalinist Soviet ???camp??? when Russian
troops from the Soviet Union invaded Hungary (1956) and Czechoslovakia
(1968), to crush workers??? rebellions and or when the Stalinists in China
similarly crushed the mass uprising during the Tiananmen Square period
in China (1989). In all three instances, SA and its predecessors
rejected this Marcyite neo-Stalinist view and championed the side of the
working class struggle against Stalinist repression. We rejected the
Marcyite campist view that the Stalinist camp was the repository of
world socialism just as we reject today their view that the Hong Kong
rebellion is counterrevolutionary because it challenges the reactionary
extradition proposals of the ???Chinese Communist Party???-led
capitalist-imperialist Chinese state. Yes, we always defended the
degenerated and deformed workers??? states against imperialism but never
against their own working masses when they revolted against Stalinist
repression. To defend Syria, or any other oppressed nation facing
imperialist attack, is to defend self-determination in its fullest
expression. Those who refuse to do so do not stand in the camp of
revolutionary socialism, but rather in the camp of reaction.
15) Today, as always, there is nothing ???campist??? about Socialist
Action???s taking the side of the Syrians, or Iranians or Venezuelans, or
Nicaraguans when the U.S. imperialist beast is at their door. It is our
revolutionary duty to do so. The minority rejects this view on the basis
of their view that self-determination is not at issue in Syria, but
rather that the war there is a civil war between the ???butcher Assad??? on
the one hand and the Syrian masses on the other. The minority demands
that ???both sides??????the U.S./NATO imperialists and their allies, on the
one hand, and the Russians, Iranians and Syria???s other allies on the
other???withdraw. Socialist Action categorically rejects this view.
16) The minority states that they are on the side of the Syrian masses,
but they have never explained who these masses are ??? what organizations,
armies, etc. they are represented by. On the other hand, the majority
has presented in the greatest detail who they, these ???rebels,??? are. They
are the armed forces of U.S. imperialism, NATO, the Saudi monarchy and
their associates.
17) In the course of this monstrous U.S. imperialist war, SA tragically
finds itself divided. In Syria, we have explained, we would be on the
side of the Syrian government. In Syria, the minority explains, they
would be on the side of the nondescript ???Syrian masses.??? In Syria the
majority insists, we demand U.S./NATO Out Now! The minority insists that
we add ???Russia Out Now!??? as well. Had we forces in Syria the minority
would be on the opposite side of the barricades! The record demonstrates
that they have never grappled with this decisive question. Their
???Everyone Out Now!??? position puts them in the Shacthmanite third camp
corner, along with the former ISO, the now-dissolved Solidarity and the
DSA.
18) It is now at least two years, perhaps three years or more, since the
facts in Syria have become absolutely clear in the eyes of all serious
antiwar activists. Virtually all U.S.-backed ???rebel??? forces have been
driven out of Syria. The record demonstrates that with the exception of
the U.S./NATO and Turkish-backed terrorists in the northwestern Idlib
province bordering on Turkey, the Syrian government, with the help of
its allies has retaken the vast areas of the country previously
conquered by the so-called rebels. Yet the U.S. continues to occupy
major portions of Syria???s northeast, where it previously employed the
pretext that it was fighting Al Qaida. Today, Al Qaida???s defeat
notwithstanding, the U.S. insists it will remain in Syria until the
Iranians depart, once again demonstrating its intentions for long-term
domination of the Middle East. We can only add that the U.S. military
today controls the oil rich northeastern portion of Syria, today the
scene of U.S.-backed extraction of Syrian oil! Prior to this now direct
U.S. oil imperialism it was the U.S.-backed Al Qaida and related forces
operating these oil refineries. The ???rebels??? trucked their booty with
impunity to Turkey where they sold it to help finance their U.S.-backed
imperialist war. We will only add that these miles long Al Qaida oil
truck caravans to Turkey somehow miraculously escaped the surveillance
of the U.S. Air Force! They travelled with their booty unhindered.
[Editor???s note: The above section was written before the Trump
administration announced its withdrawal from northeastern Syria. See
forthcoming November 2019 issue of Socialist Action newspaper where we
unequivocally demand, U.S. Out Now!]
19) We conclude this review of the SA Syria debate with a response to
the PRF claim that we have abandoned permanent revolution in Syria, that
we support the capitalist Assad government, by implication as the first
???stage??? of the Stalinist/campist ???two-stage??? theory and that we have no
independent program to offer the Syrian workers. There is not a grain of
truth in any of these assertions.
a) Unconditional support to the right of self-determination of oppressed
nations, that is, the national question, is inseparable from the class
question. There is no solution to one without a solution to the other,
that is, which class shall rule.
b) In Syria, we are for the rule of the working class, not the
capitalist class. The pre-condition for the rule of the working class is
the construction of a mass revolutionary socialist party in Syria or any
other nation on earth.
c) The building of such a party cannot be settled by ???theoretical
debates??? where one proclaims one???s fealty to ideas separate and apart
from the reality of the class struggle. In Syria, we assert, no
revolutionary socialist party can be constructed that stands
aside???neutral???with regard to an imperialist invasion, not to mention,
standing in the camp of the invader using the pretext that the
imperialist-backed ???rebels??? are revolutionaries!!!
d) The only way for serious revolutionaries to win the hearts and minds
of the Syrian masses is to be in the front lines of the battle against
imperialist intervention and invasion. This simple fact is true with
regard to every oppressed nation on earth. It stands at the core of our
existence.
e) Socialist Action supports the Syrian government???s military defense of
Syria against the U.S. invaders, without lending one iota of political
support to Syrian capitalism in all of its manifestations. We are for
the working class overthrow of the Assad government not the imperialist
overthrow of the same government. The pre-condition for the former???s
success is the construction of a mass revolutionary party that defends
Syria against its would-be U.S. imperialist colonizers.
f) Socialist Action has stated and re-stated this elementary proposition
innumerable times, in our press, pamphlets and everywhere else, but
always in the context of joining the struggle in the U.S. and worldwide
to defend Syria against the imperialist onslaught while demanding U.S.
Out Now! This has always been our focus. No serious revolutionaries in
Syria will ever win the confidence of the Syrian masses with any other
approach. Indeed, we have repeatedly referenced opinion polls conducted
by the Gallop-associated polling organization in London demonstrating
the U.S./NATO coalition and its associated components have the least
support (single-digit percentage) among the Syrian population, while the
majority of Syrians support those of the Assad government! Indeed, a
recent analysis of those who have died in Syria on the government side
informs us the vast majority are Syrians ??? mostly Syrian soldiers. In
sharp contrast the deaths on the ???rebel??? side are non-Syrians, including
the trained, paid and self-proclaimed jihadists from over 100 countries.
g) For the SA majority, permanent revolution is the fight for socialism
not capitalist reform and not support to capitalist politicians to
achieve it. For SA the fight for socialism is the fight for a mass
revolutionary party, a revolutionary international, and the winning of
the masses in struggle to achieve it. We have repeated this elementary
proposition many times. In our latest Syria pamphlet, we wrote:
???A serious challenge to Assad???s capitalist government can only emerge
with the organization of conscious forces inside Syria itself who
repudiate and reject any and all support from the U.S. government and
its allies and who set themselves upon an independent course aimed at
constructing a mass revolutionary party deeply embedded in all the
struggles of Syria???s working masses and in alliance with all others in
the region who oppose imperialist war and intervention.???
For the PRF their focus is not on the imperialist enemy at the gates,
but rather on the issuance of sterile proclamations denouncing the
leaders of poor nations in the imperialist gun sights, while promoting
long lists of so-called transitional demands purportedly aimed at
distinguishing themselves from the various capitalist governments.
The real meaning of the Syria debate
Comrades should now be asking why this DPR has thus far been strictly
focused on the past and seemingly resolved debates on Syria. Indeed, PRF
comrades have rhetorically asked the same question in the context of
their argument that while we have perhaps democratically discussed,
debated and resolved this ???single??? Syria issue in dispute, they have now
raised new issues and, therefore, we are required to thoroughly discuss
and debate each and every one of them. The answer to this elementary
question is crucial to an understanding of the real meaning of the
ever-intensifying and polarizing debates on most every ???new??? question
that has come before the PC and NC since the last convention in October
2018. These include the very same issues that were under debate on
Syria, that is, what must SA???s stance be on U.S. wars, sanctions and
interventions in Venezuela, Nicaragua, Iran and now Kashmir, not to
mention related debates on Ukraine?
In summary fashion we will examine our PC debates on these key issues of
world import.
Venezuela
The U.S. imperialist beast has sanctioned and embargoed Venezuela, the
nation with the largest oil reserves in the world, since the Obama
administration and before. These sanctions have led to mass starvation
and the death of some 50,000 Venezuelans. The sanctions are coupled with
crippling acts of sabotage of the nation???s power generating systems and
other key aspects of its infrastructure. The U.S., invoking the historic
imperialist Monroe Doctrine, warned all Latin American nations that any
that challenged the U.S. embargo of Venezuela would be similarly
sanctioned. The U.S.-engineered coup effort included attempts to bribe
Venezuelan military officers and politicians to physically seize power
by force and to stage and televise a fake military takeover of a Caracas
military base to give the impression of an ongoing military revolt. All
this was accompanied by a united corporate media effort to initiate
rebellion, including strikes initiated by pro-coup unions and a full
court U.S. international effort to recognize the U.S.-appointed
right-wing stooge, Juan Guaid?? as Venezuela???s president.
This overt U.S.-orchestrated coup effort included a media covered
international ploy to literally escort the arriving Guaid?? through
Venezuela???s Caracas Airport, surrounded by international imperialist
stooge diplomats. This culminated in Guaid?????s announcement declaring
that he was Venezuela???s new president. This was accompanied by the U.S.
literally stealing billions of dollars of Venezuela???s gold and dollars
that had been deposited in its bank accounts around the world as well as
stealing the assets of Venezuela???s CITGO oil corporation. And finally,
the U.S. stooges orchestrated a spectacle broadcast live throughout the
world by the international corporate media, showing large mobilizations
at Venezuela???s Colombian and Brazilian border bridges preparing to
militarily enter Venezuela to take power. The world was made witness to
one of the crudest U.S.-orchestrated coup efforts ever. Need we add an
unprecedented Trump administration mobilization of his vicious
appointees, Bolton, Pence and Pompeo, appearing daily before the TV
cameras of the world announcing Trump???s appointment of Venezuela???s
president while designating the elected President Nicolas Maduro as a
dictator! To be sure each and every aspect of this scenario has been
meticulously planned, prepared and implemented at the highest levels of
the CIA and U.S. government.
And what was SA???s response? We did everything within our means to
mobilize against this overt threat of a U.S. war, demanding, via united
front protests initiated by UNAC and many others, from coast to coast,
U.S. Out Now! No to the U.S. Coup! And U.S. Hands Off Venezuela!
The response of the Trotskyist Faction in Venezuela, the current to
which the PRF seeks fusion? They issued a monstrous text denouncing the
Maduro government as essentially co-responsible for Venezuela???s deep
problems. This tiny sect, in the name of ???Trotskyist??? politics and
???permanent revolution??? aimed its so-called revolutionary politics
against Maduro, while the coup effort was in progress! And SA???s minority
faction published this Trotskyist Faction diatribe in our party???s public
online website publication, SA News, without a thought to first raising
it in any elected SA body. Other so-called Trotskyist parties in
Venezuela and some union representatives that they influenced
disgracefully met with Guaid?????s representatives inside Venezuela,
presumably to find a ???solution??? to the crisis.
And the comrades of the PRF in SA? What did they propose in their April
12, 2019 ???Counter-Amendment to the Draft Political Resolution on
Venezuela????
Their motion includes the following:
???The U.S. ruling class must also take into consideration growing
economic competition from China in the region, Russian investment that
includes bailouts of PDVSA [the Venezuelan oil company] in return for
equity, and foreign policy initiatives on the part of Maduro and Ortega
that align with Russia.???
Their text continues???
???A March 19 meeting in Rome between the U.S. and Russia, in which they
aimed to find a common resolution for Venezuela, suggests that the
threats to Venezuelan sovereignty come from more than one pole of world
imperialism. The introduction of a small cadre of Russian troops
indicates that Russia, too, is concerned about its investments and
political prestige.??? [Emphasis added.]
And???
???A section of the leadership of Marea Socialista, a Trotskyist ???critical
Chavista??? current that was pushed out of the PSUV (Venezuelan United
Socialist Party) and banned from running candidates for office by the
Maduro regime, disgraced itself by meeting with Guaid?? in the hope of
averting civil war. The attempt by several Trotskyist tendencies to lead
a broad independent workers??? front, which included non-Chavista unions,
against the attacks on wages and working conditions is worth our study.
In the end, the left was defeated and the front was won over by union
bureaucrats to the Guaid?? cause. Some groups functioned with a clearer
vision than others. Consideration of the debates over these initiatives
and their subsequent corrections can contribute greatly to our
understanding of the capacities of the revolutionary socialist left in
Latin America. Such debates can be highly useful to revolutionaries in
the Northern Hemisphere who are trying to grapple with the reality of
the struggle and rebuild a revolutionary international.??? [Emphasis added.]
Their text continues???
???In recent weeks, a number of Trotskyist groups have put out emergency
plans for the working class that appear to prioritize a fight against
the Guaid?? coup effort and link this fight to immediate and transitional
demands to fight the privatizations, sackings, austerity, and giveaways
to Venezuelan and foreign business.??? [Emphasis added.]
And further???
???These emergency plans include demands such as: No payment of the
foreign debt, repatriation of the stolen millions in foreign banks
through extreme measures, imposition of a state monopoly on foreign
trade, cancellation of all agreements that hand over national resources
to the capitalists and placing them under workers??? control, occupation
and production under workers??? control of any company that lays off
workers or threatens to shut down, full adherence to collective
bargaining, and a minimum wage indexed monthly to inflation and price
controls set directly by worker and community delegates democratically
elected without interference by the government or the military. They
also call for the re-planning of the electrical system under workers???
control, complete workers??? control of the national oil system, the
annulment of the trials of workers and peasants imprisoned for protests,
an end to the repression of protests, formation of workers??? self-defense
units, and an end to the blocking of the workers??? press, like Aporrea,
by the Maduro government. These plans [presented by ???Trotskyists??? who
just now ???appear??? to have prioritized opposition to the coup] should be
of great interest to revolutionaries trying to understand the dynamics
of the class struggle in Venezuela today.???
And the PRF conclusion????
???Socialist Action, through its honest study and analysis of the
situation inside Venezuela, including coverage of the activity and
debates within the workers??? movement and other popular organizations in
the country, can attract radicalizing Latin American youth in the U.S.,
and thus play a pivotal role in the construction of a broader and more
youthful U.S. antiwar movement. The increased threat to Cuba should also
open new opportunities for united-front activities.???
Comrades will ask, Why have we quoted the minority text so extensively?
Our response, to make clear both the minority???s focus and to affirm that
the issues they raise are the same as those they pressed forward during
the Syria debate.
On the issue of Russia???s role, for example, they state their view that
Russia is involved to satisfy their own imperialist interests. This is
in accord with their previous demand that Russia too must get out of
Venezuela. We do note however, that in their latest post-April plenum
PRF declaration, for the first time, the minority comrades admit that
under certain ???circumstances??? they would not demand that all imperialist
forces (by implication Russia) leave Venezuela. It appears that our
hard-nosed comrades have begun to understand, at least with regard to
Venezuela, that to do so would mean the guaranteed further starvation of
the Venezuelan people. Our generous minority appears to concede
Venezuela???s right to receive food and medicine from anyone, imperialist
nations notwithstanding! Yes, we understand that imperialist Russia has
its own reasons for assisting Venezuela or Syria, etc. But it is for the
Venezuelans, Syrians and all other poor and oppressed nations faced with
U.S. imperialist war and intervention to assess these reasons in the
context of their exercising their right to self-determination. This
right rests with the oppressed nations only as opposed to with their
carping critics who would have then stand alone and defenseless when the
combined forces of U.S. imperialism are launched against them.
It also appears that the PRF comrades are prepared to recognize some
???mistakes??? on the part of a number of ???Trotskyists??? in Venezuela,
including perhaps their formation of an anti-Chavista ???workers??? front???
that ended up supporting the U.S. imperialist-sponsored Guaid?? coup effort!
The PRF further informs us that in advancing ???Trotskyist??? demands aimed
organizing independent forces against Maduro, we might enhance our
chances of winning to SA U.S.-based Latin American youth. Here again,
their focus is on how to differentiate SA from the overall UNAC demands
and focus on U.S. Out Now! We must stress here that we are entirely in
agreement with UNAC???s focus and will add that UNAC properly takes no
position on the nature of the Maduro government other than to support
its right to defend itself from imperialist attack. It is in this
capacity that SA has won the respect of the entire antiwar movement,
including from the Venezuelan government, even though we have repeatedly
stated, with the proper measure, emphasis and focus, that we consider
the Venezuelan government to be capitalist, and that we seek to build a
revolutionary party there to challenge capitalist rule. We must add that
if we are ever to win new members to SA of Latin American origin, it
will be primarily because they have been an integral part of the
movement to oppose U.S. imperialist war. This is our fundamental
starting point as opposed to detailed diatribes supposedly addressed to
Latin American workers telling them, in the midst of an imperialist war,
how they should formulate ???transitional demands.???
For new SA comrades, it is important to recall here that during the
Vietnam War our predecessor party, the SWP, stood out among all other
currents in the U.S. and worldwide as the champion of the demand ???U.S.
Out Now!??? and as, therefore, supporters of the Vietnamese liberation
struggle. In this regard the mass action united front-type coalitions
that we played a key role in initiating???coalitions that mobilized
millions in the streets to challenge the U.S. imperialist war???were
periodically praised by the North Vietnamese government. Our Trotskyist
presidential candidate, Fred Halsted, traveled to Vietnam during the war
and was welcomed by the North Vietnamese government. At the same time,
our party, with the proper focus, measure and at the appropriate time,
made clear that we were among the most serious critics of the
Vietnamese, who, in the previous decade had slaughtered Vietnamese
Trotskyists, who had stood in the forefront of Vietnam???s national
liberation war against the French colonizers.
In the same manner, we have zero objections when UNAC leaders visit
Venezuela and are formally welcomed by President Maduro, who, in return
praises UNAC for its support to Venezuela???s right to self-determination.
Yes, the PRF statement does include opposition to the U.S.-sponsored
coup, but its focus is in the opposite direction, that is, opposition to
the government that is in the immediate crosshairs of the U.S. war machine.
Nicaragua
Here we faced the exact same debate inside SA. The immediate inclination
of the PRF was to denounce the Ortega government and support the forces
that had been mobilized in the streets to overthrow it. The majority???s
starting point was to carefully determine who were the chief organizers
of these mass anti-Ortega protests. We soon found out. Chief among them
were the powerful COSEP (Superior Council of Private Enterprise), the
reactionary Catholic Church, and rightwing student organizations, whose
leaders visited the U.S, to publicly meet with Trump???s top coup makers.
We noted and repudiated the U.S. legislation that effectively embargoed
Nicaragua and banned its access to loans from the world???s leading
financial organizations as well as the role of U.S.-funded NGOs. We came
to the conclusion that whatever our criticisms of the capitalist
Ortega-led government and our opposition to its longstanding corruption
and abandonment of its original revolutionary anti-imperialist
struggles, we stood 100 percent against the U.S. imperialist effort to
overthrow it. That was the adopted line of SA, and not the initial line
presented by the PRF. Indeed, it was only when the Trotskyist Faction???s
leading party in Argentina pointed out that there were zero forces in
the anti-Ortega camp that were worthy of support that the comrades in
the minority relented. Before that we were witness to the spectacle of
the PRF, without PC discussion or approval, sending an article to the
UNAC discussion listserv that did not represent the adopted line of our
party.
Iran
Here, yet again in the name of raising ???new??? issues, we have been
compelled to endure one debate after another over the same questions
that were resolved during the Syria debate. The facts are clear. Iran,
the nation with the fourth largest oil reserves in the world, today
faces a U.S. imperialist-led full court press. This includes the U.S.
imposing perhaps the greatest embargo and sanctions on a poor nation
ever endured, at least in the past several decades. It includes Trump
administration threats to obliterate Iran and the associated
mobilization of a U.S. armada off the Iranian coast to literally stop
any nation from trading with Iran. This includes blocking all
ocean-going vessels that carry Iranian oil. It includes cyberwar against
Iran???s infrastructure, assassination of Iranian scientists and exclusion
of Iran from world financial institutions. The result has been a
catastrophic decline in Iran???s capacity to feed its people and massive
inflation, as in Venezuela, that has put the price of food, medical
supplies and other essentials beyond the reach of ever-increasing
millions of Iranians.
Again, the focus of SA has been ???U.S. Hands Off!??? In contrast, the focus
of the PRF, reflected in the form of proposed articles for our
newspaper, has been to direct their fire against the capitalist Iranian
government. The PC has had to twice reject articles proposed by the PRF
on Iran.
Kashmir
In recent weeks the PRF has shifted to Kashmir, beginning with our
newspaper editor/PRF leader posting on our website a line article
authored by a young South Asian comrade without bothering to ask for PC
input. Here too, as with previous articles, the National Secretary asked
that the article be removed until the PC had time to evaluate it. The
PRF leader-editor again refused and went on to post the article in our
public Socialist Action weekly online newsletter.
The essence of our difference on Kashmir revolved around the exact
issues in dispute with regard to Syria, Venezuela, Nicaragua and Iran.
In the view of the majority, SA???s focus had to be in total opposition to
India???s invasion of Kashmir, its arrest and slaughter of thousands of
protesting Kashmiri Muslims, the cutting off of Kashmir from all means
of communication with the world, the physical occupation by Indian
troops of Kashmir and the abrogation of Indian constitution provisions
regarding Kashmiri autonomy. All this was a prelude to the total
absorption of Kashmir into India and the sequestration of Kashmiri land
to the Indian government???s favored bourgeois usurpers. In this context,
the posted article in question, again without PC discussion and debate,
concluded with the unfounded demand, ???All regional powers out of
Kashmir,??? This included Pakistan, and by implication China.
The article in question mentioned that there were protest across
Pakistan and India but failed to state their demands. It did state that
there was one ???unique??? exception to this, the statement of the
Revolutionary Socialist (RS) group in India, that demanded Pakistan Out
Now! The latter is a tiny Fourth International group with perhaps a
dozen comrades. The several groups that the text did reference were all
in the streets demanding India Out Now! and demanding that the ???fascist???
Modi government cease its ???genocide??? against the Kashmiri people.
Indeed, the recent and significant demonstrations in New York City and
Toronto, if not all over the world, to our knowledge focused exclusively
on the demand India Out Now!
Yet the PRF insisted on the demand that Pakistan, which had not invaded
Kashmir, leave. To exacerbate this dispute in the extreme, we learned
during the PC discussion that it was our editor, a PRF leader, not the
South Asian comrade author, who had added the ???All Regional Powers Out
Now!??? demand.
After yet another acrimonious PC debate, all references to demanding
that Pakistan and ???all regional powers??? leave Kashmir were removed, with
the approval of the then-consulted author. Here again, we faced the same
issue that we confronted and resolved during the Syria debate AND with
regard to the same contested issues on Nicaragua, Venezuela and Iran. It
is clear that Socialist Action is not only deeply divided over these key
issues of world import, but divided by factional strife that has turned
leadership meetings into interminable debates over a long list of
so-called new issues.
Domestic policy debates: Ex-ISOer City Council Election Campaign
These fractious debates have not been limited to international matters.
When the editor-PRF leader, again without consultation, posted on our
website and proposed for publication an article that essentially touted
the Athens, Ohio City Council election campaign of ex-ISO member Ellie
Hamrick of the Athens Revolutionary Socialists, the Political Committee
objected and asked that the article be removed. The PRF refused until
confronted with resolving the issue through an emergency meeting of the
Political Committee. That fractious meeting was compelled to inform our
PRF editor that when such disputes emerge and there is little or no time
for a PC meeting to resolve them, the elected National Secretary has the
final word, until the matter can be properly placed on a PC agenda.
In dispute, among other matters, was whether Hamrick and her
Revolutionary Socialists had endorsed the campaign a Bernie Sanders
DSAer who was running for Athens mayor. When we investigated the matter
further, we found that Hamrick and her ex-ISO comrades were indeed
supporting the DSA Democrat who supported Sanders. The revised article
made clear that despite Hamrick???s several positive election planks that
supported independent working class political action and not Democrats,
her support to the Sanders DSAer undermined these positions. The revised
article that appeared in our newspaper specifically included a statement
that we did not support Hamrick???s campaign.
Here again, an issue resolved at the convention was re-raised in another
form ??? a ???new??? form. Our Minneapolis Convention resolved that our
central orientation in the period ahead was to the mass of unaffiliated
radicalizing youth who repeatedly expressed preferences for socialism
over capitalism. In contrast, the PRF platform vaguely spells out an
orientation to DSA or perhaps ex-ISOers, like Hamrick, or the Trotskyist
Faction, if not the myriad of others whose organizations have
disintegrated under the pressures of the times.
???Conspiracy theories???
One more issue, however much resolved after full discussion, debate and
counterposed PC resolutions, continues to rise again in the form of yet
again ???new??? issues. Almost immediately after the Minneapolis Convention,
the PC convened to debate over the so-called conspiracy theory arguments
presented by the minority wherein certain publications, indeed a wide
range, were said to present false and invented information and therefore
should not be used as a legitimate source of information. These, we were
told, included publications ranging from Moon of Alabama to CounterPunch
and many others. Further, we were told that we were confronted in the
U.S. with ???left??? conspiracy theorists of varying types who were
advocates or supporters of a ???red-brown alliance??? or ???right-left
alliance??? groups that allegedly included in the U.S. both communists and
fascists who have joined with Russia???s Putin to support various
proto-fascists in Europe and elsewhere.
Further, we were told that some close SA friends in the U.S. were actual
supporters of this red-brown alliance idea. These included, at various
times, people like UNAC???s Co-National Coordinator Joe Lombardo and
Margaret Kimberly, Black Agenda Report writer, as well as Black Agenda
Report???s Senior Editor Glen Ford. Workers World Party and others was
similarly thrown into the mix. The charge was based on the perceived
politics of these activists as well as the slander that some of them had
consciously attended a Moscow conference where representatives of a few
extreme rightwing groups had been invited and were present. Socialist
Action???s PC discussed this matter at length and determined that while it
was true that the Moscow conference organizers had invited some extreme
reactionary racist individuals from the U.S. to participate, it was done
without the knowledge or consent of the UNAC participants and all
others, who upon learning of these invitations, unanimously repudiated
these individuals??? participation and indeed, issued individual public
statements in Moscow supporting UNAC???s views on a broad range of issues.
Following their protests, the UNAC representatives received apologies
from the Moscow conference organizers, which, however disingenuous,
stated that they did not know the reactionary politics of those they had
invited.
SA fully accepted the above explanation by UNAC Co-National Coordinator
Joe Lombardo and the matter was closed. Had we pursued this slander
further, that is, to publicly attack Lombardo, Ford, Kimberly and
others, it would have discredited SA for years to come and created an
insurmountable barrier between us and the broad antiwar movement. Joe
Lombardo, a former SWPer many years ago, has been a steady SA supporter
and an endorser of our 2020 presidential election campaign. He stands
among the leading antiwar activists in the country.
Our ???conspiracy theory??? PC debate later took a new form when a minority
in the PC accused Canadian journalist Eva Bartlett, who had frequently
travelled to Syria, of being yet another red-brown alliance supporter.
We were told further that another Canadian antiwar journalist, Stephen
Gowans, was scheduled to speak in Connecticut, organized by a group of
former or current CPers. Gowans, the PRT insisted, would likely be
accompanied by open Nazi Party participants on the platform! We were
asked to repudiate this journalist???s and Bartlett???s national tours.
Needless to say, the PC refused. The PC did check Gowan???s website,
including printing out and reading over 100 of his articles. Not one
contained a word indicating support in any manner of any rightwing or
reactionary currents.
Indeed, SA???s National Secretary was among the central organizers of
Bartlett???s San Francisco Bay Area tour and joined her on the speakers???
platform at several successful and well-attended antiwar meetings.
Bartlett???s slideshow and talk were excellent in all respects and
appreciated by all. Needless to say, no Nazis showed up at Bartlett???s or
any other meetings in San Francisco, or at any other meetings across the
country where antiwar speakers presented the central ideas on Syria that
SA champions, that is, ???Self-determination for Syria and U.S. Hands Off!???
Democracy and Centralism
The PRF has made much of their ongoing charge that their democratic
right to discuss ???new??? ideas has been thwarted by the Majority Faction
at PC meetings. A PRF central leader (the editor of our newspaper) has
gone so far as to present this charge to the entire membership during
our Internal Discussion Bulletin (IDB) literary discussion on
transgender rights. Said this comrade in the IDB on September 11:
???I am not certain that all comrades realize that the Political Committee
and National Committee are controlled by a self-declared ???Majority
Faction,??? which gave itself an automatic two-thirds majority made up of
a number of relatively inexperienced comrades who had voted ???correctly???
on the Syria question at our last Convention. Although its members vote
unanimously on practically every question, the Majority Faction, to my
point of view, speaking as an outsider, does not appear to be very
homogeneous politically. I would suspect, for example, that just a few
Majority Faction members agree with one of their Faction comrades on the
trans question and with his view that China is still a workers??? state.
But the Faction???s insistence on limiting discussion, their rigid
unanimity on votes, and their hysterical tantrums against comrades whom
they see as opponents seem to reflect their desperation to strive to
hold their grouping together at all costs.???
The PRF leader continues:
???Non-Faction members, such as the comrades who belong to the Permanent
Revolution Tendency, like myself, are often lucky if we are permitted to
express an opinion in Political Committee sessions, let alone give a
report with adequate time to present the facts. Most political issues
are ???settled??? after an undemocratic, quickly cut-off discussion
(generally, one speaker in favor of a question, and one speaker against).???
The simple fact that the PRF uses the transgender IDB format to denounce
the Majority Faction tells us that the PRF feels no constraints
regarding resolving disputed matters. First and foremost, we have
repeatedly explained to the PRF and its predecessor formations inside SA
that, with few exceptions, the ever-expanding ???new??? issues that they
insist on raising have been settled by the adopted resolutions and
reports of the past two national conventions. The re-raising of these
issues regarding the right of oppressed nations to self-determination,
including their right to ask for and receive aid from potential allies,
has been resolved, as is SA???s focus on helping to organize broad mass
action united front-type coalitions that demand ???U.S. Out Now!??? We have
resolved the matter of how to evaluate the aid and support that Russia
and China have given to Venezuela, Nicaragua and Iran in the various
places in the world where U.S. imperialism threatens intervention.
Our adopted 2018 Political Resolution states:
???China is a major and growing imperialist power in its own right, but
considerably less developed in key areas than the U.S???.Russia is an
imperialist nation of considerably less weight in the world economy and
in many other respects. Our analysis of their respective roles in the
increasingly polarized world political situation, as with all other
analyses, is subject to an examination of the facts and context at
hand.???[Emphasis added.]
With regard to Syria, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Iran and now Kashmir, our
focus has been against U.S. imperialism, and especially so because in
all these instances, the central axis and context is a direct U.S.
intervention, or, in the case of Kashmir, the intervention of one of
U.S. imperialism???s closest allies, India. This is the position that
appears in virtually every article in our newspaper, pamphlets and
website, each of which have been approved by votes in the Political
Committee. In this regard, after such decisions have been discussed and
debated in the PC, the elected party leadership has every right and
obligation to limit further debate to short presentations and limited
rounds of discussion. The PRF comrades regularly thwart this norm when
they demand continuous discussion and debate while openly challenging
our adopted positions. When our editor regularly posts articles on our
website and in our public newsletter that have not been approved and
that carry an opposed line, he is challenging the adopted positions of
SA. Here we refer to, among others, his posts on the Athens, Ohio
ex-ISOer City Council election campaign and Kashmir.
To make matters worse, PRF leaders have posted articles directly counter
to our line on Venezuela, first on SA News and then on the UNAC public
discussion listserv. (See: ???Against The Golpist Climb On The Right???
authored by the Venezuela-based Trotskyist Faction group, LTS (League of
Socialist Workers), Thursday, January 24, 2019.)
It is in this context that PC meetings increasingly become the arena of
endless raising of so-called new ideas that had been in their essence
resolved by convention and PC votes. And when the opinions of PRF
comrades, known to be leaders of SA, were made public, as in the UNAC
listserv posting, the only conclusion that serious activists can draw is
that SA has jumped off a steep political cliff, reversed its
longstanding political positions and is headed to the reactionary ???third
campers??? full speed ahead! In an effort to put an end to this dangerous
factionalism, comrades of the majority eventually formed the Majority
Faction, if for no other reason than to keep SA on track and to enable
it to conduct vital party business as best as possible, free from the
daily disruptions that had characterized party life beginning almost
immediately after our October 2018 national convention.
Jim Cannon, the central founder of U.S. Trotskyism and the SWP, taught
us well that in the preliminary and even later stages of internal party
debates our norms should focus on political clarification of all issues
in dispute and that any organizational measures taken against dissenting
minorities who exceed the bounds of our democratic centralist party
should be subordinated to this political clarification. If there was to
be a split in the party, Cannon stressed, it must come at a time when
every comrade fully understands the issues at stake. This, in Cannon???s
view, best ensured that losses to the revolutionary party were kept to a
minimum and that its programmatic banner remained clear to everyone.
Today, we have reached a point where internal frictions and strife have
reached fever pitch. This is why the Political Committee has called for
a special or emergency plenum on October 6 to finally resolve all
outstanding issues. Much is at stake as we enter this plenum.
Who is the majority in SA?
The PRF charges that the leadership of SA today is ???a self-declared
???Majority Faction,??? which gave itself an automatic two-thirds majority
made up of a number of relatively inexperienced comrades who had voted
???correctly??? on the Syria question at our last Convention.??? Other leading
PRF members use the term ???the so-called majority.??? Perhaps these
comrades forget that following the past two national conventions, each
of which was preceded by voluminous counterposed articles and
resolutions, the elected convention delegates convened on the final day
to elect a new National Committee! It is true that PRF comrades have
periodically stated that they represent the ???real??? majority of SA, as
opposed to the ???so-called majority??? or the ???self-appointed majority.??? It
is also a fact that this ???real??? majority has explained that they are the
proletarian leadership of the party, the party???s ???theoretical??? leaders
as well as other accolades that they exclusively reserve to themselves.
Aside from this tragic misunderstanding on their part, the real
leadership of the party resides in the elected Political Committee as a
whole and the elected National Committee as a whole, that is, the team
of majority and minority comrades who were democratically elected by the
ranks to move the party forward and IMPLEMENT the decisions of the
convention. Here???s where the centralist aspect of our revolutionary
party comes in???full democracy followed by the united implementation of
the party???s adopted positions. The essence of our being is to allow the
test of life itself to determine the validity of our ideas. This is the
essence of the scientific method, where ideas or hypotheses are tested
in the real world. Unlike other parties who dabble in politics and
engage in endless debates after which each tendency or faction carries
out its own line in the political arena, a Leninist party???a party that
exists to challenge capitalist power and prerogatives???operates in a
disciplined manner wherein all comrades agree that, prior differences
notwithstanding, all will work together to test adopted positions in
practice.
Minorities are included in our leadership bodies to learn from and share
in the process of doing so and not to endlessly debate the validity of
adopted positions as has been the case since the last convention.
Comrades who do not accept this fundamental Bolshevik conception are
making a grave mistake.
Summary/Conclusions
Politics
Today???s Special National Committee plenum marks an endpoint in a
five-year internal political struggle in our party that has consumed the
energies of many comrades across the country. The political differences
that have been democratically discussed and debated over this period go
to the heart of our historic program. They have reached the point of
intensity where a minority believes that they can no longer restrain
themselves. They have to take their views outside the party, to appeal
to a broader audience, and to otherwise attempt to use party
publications to disseminate their views that have been rejected at all
levels.
Thus, we have called this special or emergency plenum to fully clarify
all outstanding issues and, once again, perhaps without hope of
resolution, seek to reign in a faction bent on a split from Socialist
Action.
Key issues in dispute
Syria: We find the minority faction, the PRF, on the opposite side of
the barricades in the U.S.-imperialist/NATO/Gulf State monarchy war
against Syria, denying Syria, a poor an oppressed nation, the right to
self-determination, including its right to seek aid from other nations
in the face of an imminent imperialist regime change effort. Their
proposed demand that Russia and China leave Syria is reactionary.
Nicaragua:?? Using the same fundamentally flawed method as in Syria, the
PRF began their analysis of the events in Nicaragua on the side of the
U.S. imperialist-supported internal forces in that country, that is, the
COSEP, the Catholic Church, and rightwing student groups directly
working with the Trump administration and funded by a host of U.S./CIA
agencies and NGOs, all aimed at the imperialist removal of the Ortega
regime.?? Socialist Action began with the demand ???U.S. Hands Off
Nicaragua! Self-determination!??? The PRF began their analysis with a
focus of ???Down with Ortega!???
Venezuela: In the face of an overt coup effort, massive sanctions, an
embargo and the outright theft of Venezuela???s financial reserves in
banks around the world,?? orchestrated by U.S. imperialism and its
allies, the PRF???s focus was on attacking the Maduro regime and opposing
its right to seek aid from other nations, including Russia and China.
Iran: In the face of overt U.S. military threats of ???obliteration,???
coupled with massive sanctions, an embargo, industrial sabotage,
cyberwar attacks, etc., the PRF focus was on attacking the Iranian
capitalist class rather than defending Iran???s right to self-determination.
Kashmir:?? In the face of the massive attack, invasion and slaughter of
Kashmiri Muslims by the extreme rightist Indian Modi government, the PRF
demanded that ???all regional powers withdraw from Kashmir.??? Here again,
the PRF focus began not with the demand of India and U.S. Out Now! but
with their focus on ???all regional powers??? withdrawing. In the case of
Kashmir, the PRF focused ???equally??? on Pakistan, because of its relations
with China, neither of which had troops in the Indian-occupied portion
of Kashmir.
Russian and Chinese imperialism: Socialist Action???s 2018
convention-adopted position on China and Russia is as follows: ???China is
a major and growing imperialist power in its own right, but considerably
less developed in key areas than the U.S???.Russia is an imperialist
nation of considerably less weight in the world economy and in many
other respects. Our analysis of their respective roles in the
increasingly polarized world political situation, as with all other
analyses, is subject to an examination of the facts and context at
hand.??? [Emphasis added.] Socialist Action???s analysis of all of the above
situations where U.S. imperialism is directly and immediately
threatening war and intervention against poor and oppressed nations is
to demand U.S. Out Now! and to defend these oppressed nations??? right to
self-determination. In sharp contrast, the PRF begins with the
proposition that ???all imperialist nations/regional powers must withdraw???
even if the oppressed nations had invited countries like Russia or China
or Iran to assist them in resisting the U.S. imperialist-led onslaught.
The PRF finds itself in the notorious ???third camp??? or ???plague on both
your houses??? camp wherein they employ their mechanical formula,
???everyone out now!??? regardless of the facts at hand and regardless of
the FACT that a poor and oppressed nation has sought aid from whatever
quarter was available.
Permanent Revolution: Socialist Action holds that the national
questions, that is, the right of poor and oppressed nations to
self-determination, cannot be separated from the class question.
Revolutionaries who seek to organize the working class for socialism in
Syria, or Nicaragua or Venezuela, or anywhere else on earth, cannot
stand aside or be ???neutral??? when a poor nation faces U.S. imperialist
attack. In all of these instances, our comrades stand front-and-center
against the U.S. imperialist intervention in all its manifestations and
on the front lines with the best fighters who resist imperialist
intervention. We stand for the military victory of all nations facing
imperialist war and intervention, while at the same time we fight for
the formation of mass revolutionary socialist parties that are deeply
integrated in the struggles of the masses to advance their cause. No
such revolutionary party in any oppressed nation can be constructed that
stands aside from an imperialist intervention and war, not to mention
one that stands on the side of the imperialist-backed ???rebels,??? as is
the case with the PRF in Syria.
Political orientation in the U.S.: Socialist Action???s central
orientation today is to the millions of radicalizing youths and workers
who increasingly and directly suffer from capitalism???s ever deepening
crises and who are increasingly attracted to socialist, as opposed to
capitalist, ideas. In contrast, the proposed PRF orientation is to the
remnants of the various splits from the now-dissolved ISO or to the DSA
as well as to a fusion with the Trotskyist Faction (based in Argentina)
and perhaps with its tiny U.S. affiliate.
Democratic Centralism: Socialist Action stands in the tradition of
Lenin, Trotsky and Cannon with regard to our organizational and
political norms, that is, full internal democracy in deciding all
questions, followed by the united testing of adopted positions as we
participate in every aspect of the class struggle. Unfortunately, we
have reached the point where the PRF finds itself so alienated from and
opposed to our adopted positions that they are increasingly incapable of
continued participation in SA within the framework of our politics and
democratic centralist norms.
Party Finances: A prerequisite for the functioning of our party is the
regular membership payment of constitutionally-mandated dues and the
regular monthly payment of sustainer contributions. With regard to the
Connecticut branch, their political differences have led them to fall
far behind in both these categories. They have effectively boycotted
party finances now for a period of two years and fallen far behind in
our constitutionally-mandated payment of dues.
Conclusion: The combination of all of the above informs us, at this
special National Committee plenum, that we face an imminent split in our
ranks. As is always the case in these matters, the many organizational
violations of our democratic centralist norms that we have thoroughly
documented and the PRF???s financial boycott in Connecticut are
subordinate to a clear understanding of the key political issues in
dispute. Such clarification has been the central objective of this NC
plenum. History will judge us on the veracity, clarity and effectiveness
of our revolutionary politics and our capacity to build our party in the
course of participating in every aspect of the class struggle fightbacks
in the U.S.
Share:
???Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
???Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
???Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
October 22, 2019 in Uncategorized.
Related posts
Interview with Heather Bradford, Socialist Action candidate for U.S.
vice president
Jeff Mackler for U.S. president! Rally launches socialist campaign
The SS Winnipeg, Pablo Neruda, and A Long Petal of the Sea
Post navigation
??? Philosopher Antonio Gramsci: How revolutionary?
Get Involved!
Donate to help support our work
Get email updates
Join Socialist Action
Search for articles
Search
Subscribe to Our Newspaper
Newspaper Archives
Newspaper Archives Select Month October 2019?? (7) September 2019 (12)
August 2019?? (14) July 2019?? (10) June 2019?? (14) May 2019 (12) April
2019?? (12) March 2019?? (13) February 2019?? (10) January 2019?? (16)
December 2018?? (12) November 2018?? (15) October 2018 (10) September
2018?? (8) August 2018?? (12) July 2018?? (13) June 2018?? (11) May 2018??
(19) April 2018?? (15) March 2018?? (17) February 2018?? (14) January 2018??
(13) December 2017?? (13) November 2017?? (13) October 2017?? (16)
September 2017?? (15) August 2017?? (16) July 2017?? (17) June 2017?? (16)
May 2017?? (17) April 2017?? (14) March 2017?? (13) February 2017?? (19)
January 2017?? (13) December 2016?? (12) November 2016?? (19) October 2016??
(12) September 2016?? (10) August 2016?? (10) July 2016?? (14) June 2016
(14) May 2016?? (9) April 2016?? (12) March 2016?? (14) February 2016?? (8)
January 2016?? (11) December 2015?? (11) November 2015 (9) October 2015??
(8) September 2015?? (10) August 2015?? (7) July 2015?? (13) June 2015?? (9)
May 2015?? (10) April 2015?? (12) March 2015?? (9) February 2015?? (11)
January 2015?? (10) December 2014 (12) November 2014?? (11) October 2014??
(9) September 2014?? (6) August 2014?? (10) July 2014?? (11) June 2014??
(10) May 2014?? (11) April 2014?? (10) March 2014?? (9) February 2014?? (11)
January 2014 (11) December 2013?? (10) November 2013?? (11) October 2013??
(17) September 2013?? (13) August 2013?? (10) July 2013?? (11) June 2013
(15) May 2013?? (14) April 2013?? (14) March 2013?? (12) February 2013??
(10) January 2013?? (17) December 2012?? (7) November 2012 (8) October
2012?? (19) September 2012?? (2) August 2012?? (27) July 2012?? (18) June
2012?? (3) May 2012?? (19) April 2012?? (14) March 2012?? (17) February
2012?? (19) January 2012?? (17) December 2011 (3) November 2011?? (33)
October 2011?? (14) September 2011?? (13) August 2011?? (34) July 2011??
(24) June 2011?? (19) May 2011?? (19) April 2011?? (15) March 2011?? (15)
February 2011?? (15) January 2011?? (15) December 2010?? (17) November
2010?? (1) October 2010 (6) September 2010?? (3) August 2010?? (8) July
2010?? (7) June 2010 (2) May 2010?? (10) April 2010?? (3) March 2010?? (8)
February 2010 (3) January 2010?? (9) December 2009?? (6) November 2009??
(5) October 2009?? (16) September 2009?? (3) August 2009?? (2) July 2009
(5) June 2009?? (2) May 2009?? (7) April 2009?? (6) March 2009?? (16)
February 2009?? (9) January 2009?? (10) December 2008?? (11) November 2008??
(8) October 2008?? (16) September 2008?? (14) August 2008 (18) July 2008??
(12) June 2008?? (3) May 2008?? (2) April 2008?? (3) March 2008?? (14)
February 2008?? (11) January 2008?? (11) December 2007?? (8) November 2007??
(1) July 2007?? (1) June 2007?? (1) April 2007?? (1) March 2007?? (1)
February 2007?? (3) December 2006?? (11) November 2006?? (11) October 2006??
(13) September 2006?? (15) August 2006?? (11) July 2006?? (18) June 2006??
(7) May 2006?? (14) April 2006?? (6) March 2006?? (14) February 2006?? (5)
January 2006?? (2) December 2005?? (9) November 2005?? (8) October 2005??
(13) September 2005?? (12) August 2005?? (9) July 2005?? (16) June 2005??
(16) May 2005?? (16) April 2005?? (12) March 2005?? (14) February 2005??
(19) January 2005?? (15) December 2004?? (14) November 2002?? (17) October
2002?? (19) September 2002?? (22) August 2002?? (21) July 2002?? (15) May
2002?? (21) April 2002?? (21) February 2002?? (15) January 2002 (15)
December 2001?? (17) October 2001?? (24) September 2001?? (18) July 2001??
(19) June 2001?? (18) October 2000?? (17) September 2000 (21) August 2000??
(19) July 2000?? (16) June 2000?? (26) May 2000 (21) April 2000?? (22)
March 2000?? (28) February 2000?? (18) January 2000?? (20) December 1999??
(20) November 1999?? (26) October 1999 (25) September 1999?? (18) August
1999?? (40) July 1999?? (38) June 1999?? (24) May 1999?? (27) April 1999??
(25) March 1999?? (26) February 1999?? (29) January 1999?? (24) July 1998??
(12)
Social Media
???View socialistactionusa???s profile on Facebook
???View SocialistActUS???s profile on Twitter
Upcoming Events
No upcoming events
View Calendar
Follow
?????????? :)
loading
--
---
Albert Einstein
???Blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth.???
??? Albert Einstein