 |
| French workers demonstrate against police violence, Sept 2023. |
Note: On April 1, 2024, the Parti de l’égalité
Socialiste (PES), The French section of the International Committee of the
Fourth International (ICFI or IC) expelled one of its leading members, Samuel Tissot,
at a jerry-rigged “trial”. Tissot’s “crime”
was that he raised concerns about the direction of the organization and its
political line and dared to express his agreement with a number of criticisms
of the ICFI that have been published on this website.
Tissot was one of the leaders of the French section of
the ICFI and a major contributor to the World Socialist Web Site (WSWS), the
online journal of the ICFI. He was one of the featured speakers at the 2023
Summer School sponsored the U.S. Socialist Equality Party. You can find his
talk here: The
Continuing Struggle against Pabloism: The Centrism of the OCI.
Previous to his work in the PES Tissot was active in
the U.S. Socialist Equality Party and was an active member for the past 6
years. We are publishing Tissot’s
account of his expulsion and the political and theoretical differences that led
up to it. None of the questions and concerns Tissot expressed were ever addressed by the
leadership of the PES and ICFI. Instead, he was vilified, slandered, portrayed
as an enemy of the party and turned into a persona non grata in party
activities literally overnight. The PES leadership even attempted to intimidate
Tissot into signing a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) in which he promised to
never publicize his differences with the party for the remainder of his life,
irrespective of his party status. This is perhaps a first in the history of
internal struggles within sectarian groups.
We are publishing here, in addition to Tissot’s analysis of his
expulsion, the complete correspondence between Tissot and the leadership of
the PES and ICFI. While it would be a gross understatement to say that the pea-sized
PES is an insignificant player in the politics of the Left in France, the
theoretical and political issue raised by Tissot are nevertheless of great importance for those seeking to build a revolutionary leadership in France or
anywhere else. We are reproducing the original documents of the correspondence
as they were written with a few minor corrections to spelling and typing
errors: Link
to Full Correspondence
ICFI Expels leading member of French section after months long smear campaign
by Samuel Tissot
I am an ex-member of the ICFI and its French and US sections. I was a member for six years across these two countries. My work for the ICFI included writing over 150 articles for the World Socialist Website (WSWS) and delivering a lecture at the ICFI’s 2023 summer school, as well as the regular political work carried out by the French and American sections.
On June 19, my expulsion from the ICFI and its French
section, the Parti de l’égalité Socialiste (PES) was finally confirmed after
months of political isolation and a smear campaign against me on the part of
the leadership. Remarkably, my expulsion was not a product of any action. I had
not broken any party rules, I had not worked with forces external to and
hostile to the party nor had I refused to carry out any aspect of party work.
Instead, the official justification for my expulsion was that I had stated the
PES leadership’s attitude toward internal party differences was alien to “the
historical continuity of Trotskyism” in a private letter. The leadership
claimed such a remark was unconstitutional, but no article of the party’s
constitution was cited to justify this claim.
Attached to this piece are a series of letters between
myself and the National Committee (NC) of the PES concerning my raising of
political differences within the party, my efforts to have a discussion within
the party and my eventual expulsion. Also included are two letters surrounding
an appeal against my expulsion I made to the International Committee of the Fourth
International (ICFI).
The letters sent to me from the PES were written in
the name of the NC but it is clear that the NC’s letters were composed almost
entirely by the hand of PES National Secretary Alex Lantier. Here I will
introduce these letters, give a short overview of how I came to be expelled
from the ICFI and discuss the political conclusions that must be drawn from
this affair.
Across the record of the letters related to my
expulsion, the ICFI shows it bears little resemblance to the international
working class party it claims to be. The conduct of its leadership at both a
national and international level shows it is a sick political organization that
has far more in common with the sectarian outfits Trotsky struggled against in
the 1930s than the revolutionary traditions defended by the great
Marxists.
Undoubtedly, I will be denounced as a subjective idealist and
“embittered” ex-Trotskyist if the ICFI’s leading figure, David North, Lantier or
anyone else from the organisation ever decides to react to the publication of
this piece. However, I urge the reader, particularly any from the ICFI, to read
what I have written with an open mind before lining themselves up with such a
smear campaign.
What were my political differences?
Before I give an overview of the correspondence, I
will briefly introduce the issues that the PES’s leadership was so reluctant to
discuss. Throughout the PES NC’s letters, I am repeatedly accused of failing to
raise substantial political criticisms. This was even repeated by the ICFI
political secretary Peter Schwarz in his letter rejecting my appeal against my
expulsion (Appeal Letter, May 7). However, from the beginning of this episode I
raised concrete political concerns, and I referred back to many of these
regularly throughout the correspondence.
 |
| Alex Lantier |
Here are the eleven points I raised in the call where
I first expressed my concerns to PES National Secretary Alexandre Lantier[1]:
1. Concern
that the party has a sectarian conception of political work: as long as we are
correct on the WSWS, the objective situation will get bad enough that people
will start to queue up to join.
2. Questions
over the [David North’s] delineation[2]
of the fifth phase of the Trotskyist movement. The other phases were marked by
major internal struggles of the Trotskyist movement whereas the fifth was just
declared.
3. Uncertainty
about “the decade of socialist revolution”[3]
[The ICFI’s theory of the 2020s]. Our conception seems to be that if we can
just raise the party’s work to a quantitatively higher level and raise the
morale of the cadre, strategic and tactical questions about how to rise to the
decade of socialist revolution don’t need to be discussed.
4. Confusion
over our reasoning on the Will Lehman campaign. We don’t see the main arena for
our work in the trade unions as was traditionally the case in the Trotskyist
movement. We have to struggle against the union bureaucracy, but it feels like
we do this shouting from the sidelines.
5. Concern
over the founding of the International Workers’ Alliance of Rank and File
Committees (IWARFC). What is it, who leads it, how do workers elect delegates
to it, how do you become a member? The same questions can be asked of the
International Youth and Students for Social Equality [the youth movement of the
ICFI].
6. The
PES feels more like the Paris bureau of the WSWS in our day-to-day practice.
7. Raised
questions over the term “pseudo-left”, even if we are irreconcilably opposed to
these forces, pseudo-left is an epithet that often replaces a careful analysis
of who these forces are and what they do.
8. Raised
questions over our carpet ban on entry work in organizations and discussion of
this as a tactic.
9. Concern
over the implications of the degeneration of trade unions after the 1970s. Did this
mean we shouldn’t do work within them? Also trade unions have been highly
degenerate at other periods of working class history but we [Trotskyists]
worked within them then.
10. Concern
as to why are we unable to win over students and workers.
11. Found some of Steiner and Brenner’s arguments quite convincing and some of the methodology we use against them unconvincing.
While it might be fair to say that these concerns are
not fully worked out, it is clear that they touch on a number of fundamental
political and programmatic issues. If anyone is to be blamed for a failure to
fully work out these differences, then it is the leadership of the ICFI. It was
my hope to discuss these points in much more detail, but as the leadership
systematically blocked a discussion of my differences, they did not allow for
this to happen.
How my differences arose
In February of this year I initially raised concerns
about the inability of the party to make any in-roads into the working class or
youth in France amidst a European political situation described as ‘objectively
revolutionary’ by the ICFI’s publication WSWS.org[4].
This declaration had been made amidst the massive pension struggles in France.
Alongside this, in the last two years Lantier repeatedly insisted that the
revolution could be with us in six months and that the party was on the cusp of
massive gains. A similar fever surrounded the party’s intervention into the
protest movement against Israel’s genocidal campaign against the population of
the Gaza Strip. In reality, despite
our persistent intervention in these struggles, neither our party nor its standing
amongst the French working class had grown one iota.
There was
no effort to discuss the results – or lack thereof – of the party’s activities
during this time. Instead, meetings would consist of comrades assuring
themselves over-and-over that the party line had been proven correct by events
and that sooner rather than later this would compel the working class to join
the PES en masse. Having passed through two major political protest
movements without winning any hearing in the working class despite the
sustained efforts of our cadre led me to reflect on deeper political questions.
This disconnect between experience and the party line exposed that the
latter was not based on a sober analysis of the political challenges and
opportunities before it but was simply crisis mongering[5].
It was in this context that I read criticisms of the WSWS by Alex Steiner and Frank Brenner published on the Permanent-Revolution.org website, particularly, the book-length analyses of the ICFI’s political record Downward Spiral of the ICFI series and Marxism without its Head or its Heart (MWHH).
On a closer reading of these criticisms of the ICFI’s political perspectives and activities, I felt that the ICFI’s responses were inadequate and in some cases outright false - particularly the response of WSWS Editorial Chairperson David North to MWHH in his volume The Frankfurt School, Post Modernism and the Pseudo-left, which I had previously only read without verifying North’s claims about Steiner and Brenner’s political positions. Furthermore, I was concerned that Steiner’s Downward Spiral series had been completely ignored by the ICFI’s leadership. It was at least an objective and wide-ranging critique of the ICFI. I thought that even if it was wrong, it was the sort of document a Marxist party ought to respond to.
After
reading these texts I raised the above list of political concerns with PES
National Secretary Alex Lantier. These concerns were raised honestly as a
result of my day-to-day experience of the party in France and internationally.
I raised them internally and, in line with the party’s Principles and
Constitution, and I did not discuss them with anyone else until after my
expulsion. I was a full member of the party, and I had never violated the
party’s rules. As such, while mindful that raising differences would distract
from the party’s work, I expected my concerns to be taken seriously.
As we shall see below, when I raised these concerns
internally to the party leadership I was immediately slandered and denounced in
vicious terms. I was labelled a supporter of Stalinism, Pabloite political
forces, the Democratic Party (including its support for Zionist crimes), and
Imperialism. After having worked closely with Lantier for over two years and
within the IC for nearly six, as soon as I raised my political concerns I was
immediately accused of dishonesty, “hating the party” and being subjectively
motivated. I was later accused of seeking to “operate as a disloyal informer
inside the PES and collaborator with the opponents of Trotskyism” (Letter 5,March 7). During my efforts to negotiate a discussion with the leadership I was
completely frozen out of political life in the PES and the IC, ejected from
party group-chats and secretly recorded at an unofficial party meeting. I have
not seen Lantier, with whom I was a close personal friend, nor any other
leading comrades once since I first raised my concerns.
I do not raise these points hoping to arouse sympathy
from the reader but instead to expose the completely unprincipled manner in
which the IC deals with internal dissent.
Behind their mudslinging and intrigue was the
leadership’s paranoid belief that I was involved in some plot against the ICFI.
The only “evidence” they had for this was that I had political concerns, and I
agreed with some of the analyses of Steiner and Brenner. In fact, I did not
contact anyone outside the ICFI until after my expulsion from the PES and ICFI.
On reflection, it is clear that this conclusion was reached the moment I raised
differences. Throughout the exchange the leadership claimed that anything I
said was really a manifestation of my desire to dissolve the IC. This meant my
right to a discussion could then be dismissed with the justification that the
IC’s existence was not up for discussion. On reflection, it is clear that from
the moment I raised differences my expulsion was only a matter of time.
If there is anyone we should feel sorry for it is the
leaders of the IC, who despite haughty declarations of self-importance and
decades of political experience cannot even put together a coherent political
response to a member’s political concerns.
Overview of the Correspondence
What follows is a brief overview of my correspondence
with Lantier and the political issues raised within it. This is not an exhaustive
review, and many additional political points made in the letters were excluded
here in the interest of length. Various arguments, claims and quotes from the
letters are cited throughout the summary. More detail on these points can be
found in the relevant letter. There are 11 letters. As a general rule those
sent by Lantier on behalf of the NC are odd numbered and my replies are even
numbered. Letters 1-9 chart how negotiations for holding a discussion of my
differences then led to my expulsion. Letters 10 and 11 concern my appeal to
the ICFI after my expulsion from the PES. For the sake of clarity, I have
provided short summaries of the calls and meetings that were not part of the
recorded correspondence below (a more in-depth description of these events can
be found in the “How Did We Get Here?” section of Letter 6).
My break with the ICFI began when I told Lantier I was
highly stressed and struggling with political work in a phone call on Feb 26.
In this call I told him I believed my stress was the result of political
concerns but that I wanted time to work them out. However, he insisted I
disclose these there and then, leading to the list reproduced above. Although
Lantier remained polite and courteous during this call I already had the
impression at the end of this phone call that Lantier was quite shaken by my concerns
and particularly by my mention of Steiner and Brenner.
Lantier suggested an informal meeting with himself and
two other leading comrades, Gnana and Kumaran scheduled for February 28. This
was originally scheduled to be in-person but was moved online at the last
minute. It was at this meeting that Lantier’s slander campaign against me was
launched. Immediately my honesty was questioned. Lantier opened the call with
the rhetorical question “are you even serious?” and then launched into a rant
that included the accusation my differences arose from emotional issues. I was
then denounced as a Stalinist, pro-Imperialist and a de facto supporter
of the Israeli genocide in Gaza through my alleged desire to join the
Democratic Party. I protested that my words were being twisted and I did not
defend any of these positions but was repeatedly talked over by Lantier. At one
point I was even told I should leave the party immediately if I was going to
refuse to drop these concerns. This was the last time I would speak directly-
even by phone- to Lantier or anyone else from the National Committee before my
expulsion meeting.
On March 5, I met an elder comrade in-person sent on
behalf of the NC (but not a member of that body) with whom I agreed to prepare
a document for discussion before the party. Later that evening I received a
letter from the NC which repeated Lantier’s slanders and continue to attribute
political positions to me that I had never defended. This included a lengthy
discussion of “the allegation against North” I had apparently made
“dishonestly.” I had told Lantier that I believed North had falsely accused Steiner
and Brenner’s of supporting Syriza in the Greek crisis of 2015. Lantier assures
us that he had “carefully reviewed the analysis made by North and the WSWS of
the response of Steiner and Brenner to the election of Syriza. There is not a
single incorrect statement to be found in any of our articles.” Even though he
lauds North’s “scathing and entirely accurate analysis,” none of the material
he cites shows Steiner or Brenner supported Syriza. Lantier’s argument consists
of citing North’s version of events[6]
and insisting they are true. There is no reference to what Steiner and Brenner
said on the issue at all. In this letter Lantier also noted my “extraordinary
attack on the PES for not agreeing to a discussion of dissolving our party into
the French Morenoite RP [the Révolution Permanente group]” which was a position
I never defended. This would become his primary justification for the denial of
my right of discussion throughout the rest of the correspondence. (Letter 1, March5).
I responded by pointing out my political differences
had either been ignored or mischaracterised, in particular the accusation that
I was really campaigning to dissolve the IC. I therefore requested more time to
prepare a document to clarify my differences precisely (Letter 2, March 6). In
response to this the NC suddenly placed conditions on any discussion of my
differences before the party, this included an unlimited Non-Disclosure
Agreement (NDA) which would apply even if my membership in the party was to be
terminated (Letter 3, March 7). This letter also revealed that I had been
quoted verbatim in the previous letter, which can only have been
possible for the phone call of February 28 was recorded secretly and
transcribed by the leadership.[7]
In response to these conditions for a discussion I
accepted the first two, which were a reassertion of my loyalty to the IC and
adherence to its constitution. These were two commitments I upheld until my
expulsion. However, I refused to accept the third condition that included the
NDA. The reasons for this are explained in greater length in the correspondence
(specifically in the “Why the Leadership’s Third Condition is Unacceptable”
section of Letter 6, March 13), but essentially, under the impression the leadership
was already planning to expel me, an NDA would allow them to do this without
being held accountable later on. It could have also made me liable to legal
action after my expulsion from the party if I ever wished to publicly protest
my expulsion. This letter is also the first of three times across
correspondence that I ask for the transcript of the February 28 call to be
shared with the entire party. This would have revealed Lantier’s bullying
approach to differences and that his arguments were based on falsifications of
my actual political positions. This time, as with each of the following, this
request was completely ignored by the leadership (Letter 4, March 8).
The NC’s response to this letter characterised it as
an “open declaration of disloyalty” and justified the NDA on the basis this was
a regular practice for employers. This latter statement perhaps gives away more
than intended about the way the IC leadership views its members. I was then
posed the ultimatum to either accept this NDA or face expulsion (Letter 5,March 10).
I rejected the ultimatum, but at this time I felt that
I ought to write a much longer letter to explain how my political differences
arose and to protest against the completely unprincipled way the leadership had
prevented a discussion. In this letter, I outlined the leadership’s actions up
to this point of the exchange and demonstrated how they were inimical with
Trotsky’s understanding of Bolshevism and democratic centralism. I also
discussed the ahistorical analogy between the current situation and Trotsky’s
struggle against the Socialist Workers’ Party Minority in 1939-1940. This
included an analysis of the leadership’s one-sided quotations from James
Cannon, which were a transparent attempt to add a veneer of legitimacy to its
conduct (Letter 6, March 13).
In the NC’s response, an overview of my political
history was given[8]. This
was followed by another round of inaccurate characterisations of my positions,
including my supposed rejection of internationalism, the role of the vanguard
party and the revolutionary role of the working class in capitalist society.
The actual political content of the points I had raised was wholly ignored.
Instead, orthogonal issues such as the short period in which I developed my
differences (which was continuously over-exaggerated by the leadership) and the
“pathetic petty-bourgeois” Steiner’s “connections” to Savas Michael Matsas were
introduced. According to the PES NC, because Steiner once hosted a meeting with
Michael means he is organically incapable of making any principled criticisms
of the ICFI. By extension my support for any of his positions could be
dismissed without actually addressing any of the political arguments made.
Lantier also made the conspiracy-theory-like argument that I must already be working with Steiner and Brenner because I had written the phrase “so be it”
(which had appeared in a letter written by an ex-US SEP member in 2021[9])!
In reality, I had no contact whatsoever with Steiner or Brenner until after I
was expelled from the ICFI. All of this supposedly proved Lantier’s point that
my criticisms were simply a manifestation of my desire to dissolve the ICFI.
The previous ultimatum proved to have been hollow, and now a new offer was put
forward by the leadership. This was that I go on political leave until July 1
to privately study the history of the ICFI, with the stipulation of course that
I was not in contact with anyone outside the party[10].
If, after this period of study of the ICFI’s approved texts, I recanted all of
my differences, then I would be allowed to resume party life (Letter 7, March23).
In response I stated that this proposed period of
isolated study was a cowardly diversion on the part of the leadership: either
they were prepared to have a discussion or they weren’t. If they weren’t then I
stated that they cannot claim to be a party within the Trotskyist or Bolshevik
tradition. I wrote, quoting Lantier’s own remark in letter 7, “Your central
point is that I have ‘concluded the ICFI historic identification as the
continuity of revolutionary Marxism has been refuted [sic].’ Unfortunately, I
have reached this conclusion, although I hope it can still be proven to me that
I am incorrect” (Letter 8, March 27).
This conditional remark would be seized on to justify
my expulsion. In this letter, I once again took up the accusation that I wanted to
dissolve the IC. I defended Steiner’s characterisations of North’s history of
the Frankfurt school as ‘crackpot philosophy’ and North’s slander campaign
against him as ‘gutter politics’[11].
I also took up the paranoid accusation that I was a hostile agent secretly working
on behalf of Steiner and Brenner within the party[12].
I then repeated that the constitutional basis for my threatened expulsion had
not been specified and asked this be explained in reference to the
constitution. Of course, it never was.
The final letter from the PES leadership informed me
that a vote was to be held on my expulsion in the NC on April 1. The specific
charge against me was that I had denied the IC and PES represented the
“historical continuity of Trotskyism.” Lantier wrote at length to justify this.
The same slanders and accusations were repeated while my response to them in
previous letters were completely ignored. A large part of the letter was taken
up by 4 pages of lengthy quotations from articles I had written a few months
prior for the WSWS in which I had defended the line of the IC as well as a
lecture in which I quoted extensively from David North. Apparently, my
questioning of some of these positions exposed my “intellectual superficiality
and political instability” and meant I am “not a politically serious person.”
What is remarkable is the complete lack of political argumentation presented
here, the only point made is that I had changed my positions. Of course,
Lantier was not at all interested in my explanation for why; he had concluded
as soon I dared to question the failure of the ICFI to grow at all in France
that I was a political scoundrel of the highest order! This was all topped off
with an arbitrary comparison with Keir Starmer, whose steps from a student radical
to the leading representative of British Imperialism I was supposedly tracing
by daring to question the ICFI. (Letter 9, March 31).
The online expulsion meeting would be my first and
last official party meeting since I first raised objections in mid-February.
This meeting had more in common with a Stalinist show trial than a genuine
examination of whether my political record had violated the party’s statutes.
In the meeting Lantier asked me if I would withdraw my positions and I said I
would not. I then tried to explain that I was not calling for the dissolution
of the IC, that many of the other accusations made against me were false and
that, even if the leadership’s claims about my beliefs were true, I had not
broken any section of the party’s constitution. However, after around a minute
of speaking I was cut off by Lantier who moved the meeting straight to a vote.
I was then expelled by a vote of 6-0 by the NC.
My appeal to the ICFI
A day later I received a short phone call from Lantier
in which he explained that I had the right to appeal my expulsion from the PES
to the IC. I asked what exact body of the IC I would be appealing to and the
details of how and when the appeal would take place. In response, Lantier said
that he could not speculate on how the ICFI would decide to deal with the
process[13].
As we will see, this vague response was a cover for a completely arbitrary
process.
I then wrote an appeal letter to ICFI Secretary Peter
Schwarz in which I protested my expulsion. I explained, “The assertion that the
ICFI embodies the historical continuity of Trotskyism cannot be reconciled with
its national sections refusing to recognize the rights of members to discuss
political differences within the organization, attempting to force a member to
sign an NDA or levelling slanderous political accusations against a member.
Either the ICFI represents the historical continuity of Trotskyism, or it is an
organization based on centralism without democracy in which the leadership has
no accountability. Both cannot be true at the same time... as long as there is
no room for discussion of political differences in the PES and this is
unopposed internationally, it is inconceivable that the ICFI actually
represents the historical continuity of Trotskyism. I was hoping to be proven
wrong and I still hold out that hope, which is why you are receiving this
appeal.”
I then asked two direct questions of the IC
leadership. These were:
“Does the ICFI believe that its members have the right
to express political disagreement with its leadership? Do they also have the
right to ask for a discussion of pressing political concerns?”
And,
“Does the ICFI endorse the PES leadership’s view that
its embodiment of the “historical continuity of Trotskyism” is valid regardless
of the principles and practice of the party?” (Appeal Letter, May 7).
 |
| Peter Schwarz |
After over a month of waiting, Peter Schwarz responded to me on behalf of the ICFI on June 19. The ICFI had concluded that, “the actions of the PES were politically justified and constitutionally correct. We therefore reject your appeal.” This letter repeated the unfounded accusations of Lantier that my sole goal was the dissolution of the IC, that I had not made any substantial political criticisms and that I had violated the US SEP’s Statement of Principles[14] (again, exactly which part of this document I had violated was not cited).
In the ICFI’s official response, Schwarz took up the
first question by just repeating the claim I only wanted to discuss the
dissolution of the IC and that the right for internal discussion does not
extend to that. In response to the second question Schwarz stated, “By continuity of Trotskyism we do
not mean apostolic succession, but the defence and development of the political
principles and perspectives historically fought for by the Trotskyist movement”
(ICFI Appeal Verdict, June 19). And with that, my six-year association with the
organisation came to a close.
The Continuity of Trotskyism
My denial of the IC’s possession of the “historical continuity of Trotskyism” was the final justification for my expulsion. In the
correspondence I compared this conception to the “Divine Right of Kings”
(Letter 8, March 27). I made this analogy on the basis that this doctrine held
monarchs were not accountable to any earthly authority, just as the IC’s
leadership invoked its “continuity” to place itself beyond criticism from the
membership or external forces. An equally suitable historical analogy could also
be the Catholic Church’s doctrine of Papal Infallibility, meaning the pope is
incapable of doctrinal mistakes when he speaks in the name of the church due to
his lineage back to Saint Peter. Schwarz seems to have picked up on the Papal
analogy in his letter backing my expulsion from the IC. In any case, both
analogies point to the same underlying conception that the ICFI has an
incontestable monopoly on political truth. Schwarz denied this, however,
dismissing my analogy as “cynical” and stated that the IC’s invocation of the
continuity does “not mean apostolic succession” (IC response to Appeal, June
19).
On closer inspection, however, it is clear that if it
is legitimate for the IC leadership to simply expel someone for denying this
‘continuity’ without any discussion then they must conceive of themselves as
possessing a God-given monopoly on the heritage of Leon Trotsky and the
traditions of Bolshevik Internationalism.
Schwarz simultaneously claims that “continuity” arises from “defence and development of the political principles and perspectives historically fought for by the Trotskyist movement” but also that it is legitimate to expel someone for questioning whether an action or political perspective falls within this tradition. Therefore, the IC has the right to expel anyone who questions it before their arguments have even been heard.
The real question here is who determines whether
the IC is engaged in the “defence and development” of the Trotskyist tradition?
Either the “continuity” is proven in the political perspectives and
struggles of the party, and can therefore be legitimately questioned, or the IC
leadership alone has a monopoly on determining this. If the latter is the case
– and Schwarz’s response shows it is – then we end up back with the very
apostolic succession the ICFI Secretary denies.
In the correspondence I argued it was legitimate to
accuse the PES leadership of acting outside of the traditions of Trotsky and
Bolshevism. I wrote “you claim to embody the historic continuity of Trotskyism
but you clearly have no trust in the membership of the Trotskyist party. This
is a violation of the basic spirit of Bolshevism (although you accuse me of not
referring to Trotsky at all, I quoted him[15]
to prove that this was a basic concept of the Bolshevik Party in my previous
letter). The fact you didn’t respond to this charge shows you think this is
either unimportant or that you are justified in treating an individual who has
worked loyally for the party for six years as a pariah for internally raising
political differences in a loyal and deferential manner. Either option is
sufficient to show the IC leadership has drifted from the Trotskyist conception
of building a vanguard party of the working class” (Letter 8, March 27).
Another example not discussed in the previous quote
was Lantier’s repeated threats to immediately expel me from the party. The
first of these was right at the beginning of this dispute. This clearly
contravenes Cannon’s notion of party members’ rights during the struggle
against the Shachtmanites (I discuss this in the Section headed “Ripping Cannon
out of Historical and Textual Context”, Letter 6, March 13).
Even if we put aside the historical struggles of the
Trotskyist movement, it is clear that the ICFI cannot even stay true to the
principles outlined in its US Section’s Statement of Principles, which states
there are “no restraints, other than those indicated by the party’s
constitution, are placed on internal discussion of the SEP’s policies and
activities.” I asked on multiple occasions throughout the correspondence for
the part of the party’s constitution I was violating to be disclosed and it
never was.
Furthermore, if I was incorrect on these points and
even if I’d violated the constitution, why did I have to be expelled? I was
quite open to being proven wrong on every concern I raised including on my conception
of democratic centralism and whether the party’s conduct fell within its guidelines.
Could a discussion on the basis of an honest analysis of my concerns not have
shown the IC leadership was in fact correct?
In the case of my expulsion the question of whether
the IC is “the continuity of Trotskyism” was really a loyalty test and the
loyalty in question was not to the programme and principles of Trotskyism, but
to the leadership of the ICFI.
What does this correspondence tell us about the ICFI?
The immediate political issue raised by my expulsion
is the ICFI’s incapacity to respond to internal disagreement. My case is hardly
the first to show this[16],
but because I did not perform any action that the leadership could seize on to
expel me instantaneously the PES leadership was forced to concoct an arbitrary
case in order to throw me out, as is documented in this correspondence.
As far as I’m concerned none of the political points I
raised have been responded to at all adequately in the letters[17].
Despite the aforementioned list of political concerns I put forward in my first
phone call with Lantier and the multiple instances in the correspondence I
expanded on these or introduced other issues, the PES and IC leadership ignored
this and continued to claim I had not raised any significant political issues.
The ICFI leadership’s endorsement of Lantier’s smear
campaign against me confirms that total disregard for democratic centralism is
the norm within the ICFI. A healthy international organisation would have
heavily sanctioned a national leader for such an unprincipled response to
internal dissent, but the ICFI’s leadership backed Lantier’s anti-Marxist
conduct to the hilt.
Whether in the French, American or Sri Lankan
sections, the ICFI’s only response to internal questioning is to divert
attention away from the issues raised through character assassination and to attempt to bully the
dissenter back into line through various forms of political intimidation and
isolation. In those cases where these measures do not work, then the individual is expelled.
Many of the ICFI’s members in other sections believe
they are part of a politically dynamic, principled and independent
international organisation that stands above national parties. However, my
expulsion shows they are thoroughly incorrect. In reality, it is a sectarian
organisation based on clique ties of a small leadership around David North.
This is shown at multiple points in the correspondence.
This small bureaucracy has an iron-tight grip on the ICFI and maintains this through unprincipled clique ties. There is a secretive atmosphere in the ICFI surrounding the leadership, even amongst experienced members. While it is generally known that North is a businessman within the party, the fact that other party-leaders used to or still hold executive positions in his businesses is not. Many leading members of the IC are personal friends with North, sit as executives in his private companies and hold leading positions within the SEP and ICFI. While there is no evidence of outright corruption, this clear conflict of political, personal and financial interest is never disclosed, let alone discussed, amongst the SEP membership or delegates of the ICFI. These clique relations, and the desire to keep the membership in the dark about them, are undoubtedly the principle causes of the intolerant and arbitrary internal regimes that pervade the ICFI’s national sections.
It is unclear if an individual can even join the ICFI
leadership except through bureaucratic promotion by the leadership of a
national section with the permission of North and company. Toward the end of my
time in the IC, I would occasionally participate in international editorial
discussions and on ICFI initiatives such as the 2023 Summer School or the US
presidential campaign.[18]
No one in France ever voted for me to have this position (I was not even an
official member of the NC in France). My access to international discussions and contributions to the WSWS was simply a product of my close relationship with Lantier, who after years as North’s personal secretary, was in his circle of trust
and vouched for my reliability.
The experiences I discuss in the letters demonstrate that the ICFI’s claimed commitment to internationalism is a fiction. The founding of new international groups or the affiliation of individuals or groups to the IC are based principally on their capacity to be amplifiers for the WSWS and bolster the internationalist credentials of the IC. The French section may be the worst of these Potemkin villages, with Lantier and a couple of regular writers for the WSWS masquerading as a full-blown party vying for leadership of the French working class! In reality these “parties” are little more than international WSWS offices and are isolated from the working class. It is also not clear if “parties” other than the US SEP in the ICFI are financially independent or if the illusion of an independent ICFI is maintained thanks to the financial support provided by the businesses centered around North.
There are also a number of instances in the
correspondence where Lantier exhibits cult-like behaviour. The designation of a political groups as a 'cult' is often thrown around by anti-communists to smear Marxist groups. However,
this does not mean it cannot be an accurate description of groups characterised
by a hostility to internal criticism, hagiography toward a leader and an
internal regime based above all else on personal loyalty. In an earlier point
of its history the IC criticized the Spartacists, various Maoist groups and, of
course most infamously, the Larouchites on this basis. And while it would be
inaccurate to claim the IC’s paranoia and personal veneration of North has
descended to the level of the followers of the late Lyndon Larouche or Bob Avakian, there are troubling
examples of uncritical defense of North and intimidation against questioning
members in the correspondence.
We see in multiple letters that criticism of North’s
work or even alleging a potential mistake is unforgivable. It is taken
instantly to expose extreme hostility toward North and the entire IC. Why is it
not possible for David North to be mistaken and unprincipled on certain
questions while correct on others? This all-or-nothing approach to North’s work
and politics are another way the IC intimidates those with differences into
keeping quiet - either you hold your tongue, or you are accused of having completely
repudiated the IC's entire political outlook no matter how small or large your
differences.
Some of my criticisms of North may well be incorrect,
but the IC’s only response is to initiate smear campaigns composed of ad
hominem attacks and arguments from guilt by association. Similarly, the letters
reveal that leaders of the ICFI have a tendency to see intrigue and conspiracy
where there is no evidence for it - including when it involves people they have
trusted and worked with closely. An all-or-nothing approach toward political
questions, a paranoia that extends to conspiracy theories and smear campaigns
against dissenters are cult-like features that have no place in a genuinely
revolutionary organisation.
The strikingly vitriolic tone throughout Lantier’s
letters is also revealing. It is ironic that Lantier accuses me of hating the
ICFI while he throws every accusation under the sun at me, accuses me of being
a spy and rabidly denounces anyone whose arguments I evince sympathy for. In
reality, my concerns about the ICFI’s political prospects do not result from a
subjective hatred toward the ICFI, but a sober reflection on its political
weaknesses and how out of touch these are with its self-aggrandizing rhetoric.
How do we explain such venom toward someone who was a
close comrade just weeks earlier? Such anger is a tell-tale feature of the sectarian, who cannot help but rage at their inability to win political
influence amongst the working class. The more the ICFI’s isolation from the
working class collides with their pretense to be leaders of a growing
international revolutionary movement the more their frustration at the
situation, themselves, and the amorphous bogeyman of the pseudo-left grows. The
highest level of contempt is reserved for members or ex-members who dare point
out these shortcomings such as myself and the “wretched”, (Letter 9, March 31)
“middle-class nobodies” (Letter 7, March 23) Steiner and Brenner. In the all-or-nothing approach of the IC,
showing sympathy for these forces is just as bad as being the men themselves
and therefore the highest degree of contempt is in order. Scorn of this sort has
no place in a Marxist analysis of individuals or political tendencies. As
Trotsky himself asked of the sectarian we can ask of Lantier; “Who slipped him
the salt?”[19]
I believe that the issues discussed above follow from
the failure to face up to many of the fundamental issues of the ICFI’s politics
that arose in the 1985/86 split. This has condemned North’s organisation to
continue to embody some of the most unhealthy and politically disastrous
aspects of Healy’s legacy (as well as forgoing some of the more positive ones,
like a genuine connection to sections of workers). One would not be far off the mark to describe
the modern ICFI as Healyism-lite. While it would be inaccurate to accuse the
leadership of descending to the same depths as Healy and his clique at the top
of the WRP in the 1980s, without an accountable leadership which defends both
democracy and centralism within the party there is no way the ICFI will
lead a mass revolutionary movement.
In response to criticisms of its internal regime, the
ICFI’s claims that such questions are purely organisational and that any
serious critique of it must start with its political analyses. Firstly, I – and
many others before me – did try to discuss the ICFI’s political analyses within
the party but this was arbitrarily blocked by the leadership. More
fundamentally, however, the ICFI’s hard dichotomy between organisational and
political issues is false and self-serving. It allows the ICFI’s leadership to avoid
the critical question of the real-life application of democratic centralism and
the role Lenin’s dialectical conception of the party played in the Russian
Revolution. It was the political struggle conducted frankly and openly within
the ranks of the Bolshevik party that allowed it to develop the correct
political line and orientation leading up to and during the critical months of
1917. In contrast, the IC seeks to nip all such struggles in the bud, confident
there is never any need to correct or even discuss the line of the leadership.
While many times in his political career Lenin even found himself on the losing
side of an inner party vote, it is my impression that since North took over the
ICFI he has never done so! It was this openness to the discussion of
differences, even sharp ones, internally that allowed Lenin to develop a cadre
capable of revolutionary success. On the other hand, North’s top-down methods
can only assure failure.[20]
This is not to deny that some activities initiated by the ICFI, and even
the PES, are capable of certain limited achievements, such as the WSWS’s volume
of coverage or the Will Lehman campaign for the United
Autoworkers’ Presidency. However, a news website and good publicity are not
sufficient conditions for a revolutionary party capable of embedding itself
within and leading a mass working class movement.
The organisation will perhaps continue to be
attractive to a small layer of students, such as my younger self, and maybe even some
workers who are looking for an alternative to the rotten politics that
dominates the left and are impressed by the IC’s claims to be a party of
history and defenders of orthodox Marxism. It is possible it could even grow
substantially amongst students and young people amidst a deep social and
political crisis, as happened to the WRP in the 1970s. However, with an
intolerant internal regime, a bureaucratic approach to international
organisation and the incapacity to critically review its experiences, it will
be unable to grow into the party of the working class required to rise to the
challenges of the epoch.
Having passed through this experience my first piece
of advice to such individuals, as well as any principled members within the
ICFI, would to consider whether they are getting an honest and full account of
the party’s history in the ICFI’s official works and whether its program and
practices really align with those traditionally associated with Trotskyism, in
particular on the question of the unions, transitional demands, the defence of
women, its attitude toward democratic centralism and Trotsky’s struggle against sectarianism - which most readers of the WSWS would be forgiven for not knowing it existed.
I can only urge these individuals to think
independently and to engage in particular with the work of Steiner and Brenner,
who have produced the only extensive critique of the ICFI in the 21st
Century. This work has either been misrepresented or has gone unanswered.
North’s work The Frankfurt School, Post-Modernism and the Politics of the
Pseudo-left is not a “scathing
and entirely accurate analysis” (Letter 1, March 5) as claimed by Lantier but a
smear campaign aimed at dissuading IC members from engaging these critiques of the ICFI’s work in good faith. In reality, North has been unable
to honestly answer the critiques put forward in MWHH and – the book
which North won’t even acknowledge exists – Downward Spiral of the ICFI.
These works are thoroughgoing critiques of its perspectives, its philosophical
outlook and its political record which cannot be ignored by a serious Trotskyist
organisation.
If you are a current or former member of the ICFI and
would like to discuss any of the issues raised in this piece or the ICFI’s
wider politics please do not hesitate to reach me at: samtissot01@gmail.com
Notes
[1] These points are based on notes taken during
the phone call by Lantier himself, which he later sent to me.
[5] This is not to say that events of
revolutionary proportions are not arising in certain parts of the world, but
that they need to be viewed soberly and from the point of view of how the
consciousness of the international working class can be raised to prepare for a
genuinely revolutionary mass movement. This form of crisis mongering to avert
discussion of political problems or to shore up comrades flagging morale - once
a target of North’s criticism - is another habit of Healy that has resurfaced in
the modern ICFI.
[6] The North passage cited by Lantier is the following, “Steiner and Brenner take responsibility for nothing. In order to justify their support for a bourgeois political party and the government it leads, they invoke the “experience” of the working class as if it were an unfolding stream of purely psychic phenomena, unaffected by class forces, which one must observe passively, in respectful silence. Above all, they insist that the conscious activity of the revolutionary party – the critical element of negativity as the ”moving and generating principle” in the dialectic of the objective historical process – must be excluded from the unfolding social experience. Steiner and Brenner argue, in effect, that it is impermissible to intrude upon that blessed psychic state of virgin innocence with critical analysis and discordant exposures. Experience must not be “denigrated.” Rather, the “experience” must be allowed to take the workers wherever it will – that is, to defeat. “A polite way of describing this passage is that it is a bunch of hot air. Steiner and Brenner did not claim that “experience” was independent of class forces, nor that it should be “observe[d] passively, in respectful silence.” As for North’s accusation they “insist that the conscious activity of the revolutionary party… must be excluded from the unfolding social experience” Steiner and Brenner write the exact opposite at multiple points through their analyses of the Syriza crisis in Greece. This is just one example of Steiner’s analysis of Syriza and the tasks its inability to fight austerity place before the Greek working class, “One has to acknowledge that any such program [for socialism] cannot under any circumstances be implemented by Syriza, not only because Syriza is wedded to a program of reforms within capitalism despite its rhetoric, but also because by its nature the transition to socialism cannot be entrusted solely to the vehicle of parliamentary politics. It will require action from the ground up, by the masses taking their destiny into their own hands and creating their own forms of organization. It is also inconceivable that such actions can succeed without a trained revolutionary leadership.”
The quote is taken from: http://forum.permanent-revolution.org/2015/03/plan-c-socialist-alternative-for-greece.html.
This makes clear that Lantier’s accusation of dishonesty is completely hollow,
and if anyone is going to be subjected to that accusation then it ought to be
North.
[7] These quotes were indeed what I said and,
contrary to Lantier’s argument that I was disputing this (March 7 letter), I
never denied this was the case. I only denied that these quotes proved my
desire to dissolve the IC and that I supported Stalinism, Imperialism, the
Democratic Party etc. It is quite clear that to reach the conclusion that I
support these forces based on these quotes requires a number of leaps in logic.
[8] This actually contains some inaccuracies,
which is remarkable because one of David North’s major criticisms of Steiner
was that he mixed up the year of his party application to the IC. Apparently,
this harmless mistake betrayed his light-minded petty-bourgeois approach to the
Trotskyist movement. One of the major ironies with the IC’s tendency to label every little
mistake or mistaken political conception of the manifestation of a deep-seated
petty-bourgeois worldview is that it often makes those very same errors itself!
[9] This quotation is taken from Shuvu’s letter to the US SEP’s New York Branch in 2021, which was latter published here: http://forum.permanent-revolution.org/p/initial-letter-from-shuvu-to-new-york.html
[10] This presumably extended to comrades in other
sections of the IC as well. After all sharing unapproved political ideas
outside of his branch was the “crime” that led to Shuvu Batta’s expulsion in
2021.
[11] Above I have already discussed one example of
North’s straw-manning against Steiner and Brenner. I will not go into other
examples here, but I would advise anyone interested to review North’s writings
in The Frankfurt School, Postmodernism and the Politics of the Pseudo-Left
and compare them to what is written in Downward Spiral of the ICFI particularly
on questions of the relationship between the Frankfurt School and
Post-Modernism discussed in chapter 5 of the latter work.
[12] Elsewhere, Steiner has in many places
described the ICFI’s approach to politics as “conspiracism.” This is not to
deny real conspiracies do exist, but points to the tendency to see conspiracies
everywhere, whether there is good evidence for them or not. Here we see a clear
example of this tendency in Letter 7 which shows the ICFI goes as far as assuming
its own members are involved in organised conspiracies when they develop
political differences.
[13] This gives the dishonest impression that the IC meets as an official body and seeks to remove personal and clique interests from its disciplinary decisions. In fact, Lantier controlled all communication to and from the IC about my differences throughout this episode, even to the point that I was instructed to send my appeal letter to the ICFI through him first! Lantier is a close personal friend of many leaders of the ICFI and of course receives a party salary as a result of his position. It should be evident that Lantier's financial dependency on North predisposes him in a directly material way to react negatively against any comrade who expresses a strong criticism of North. Any political organization with a shred of integrity is obligated to eliminate personal interests from its disciplinary procedures. Lantier's very obvious conflict of interests in this matter should have caused him to recuse himself from the disciplinary procedure against me.
[14] The US SEP’s Statement of Principles were
used as the French section does not have its own.
[15] In Letter 6 I quoted the following remarks
from Trotsky in the New Course: “You cannot demand of the party confidence in
the apparatus when you yourself have no confidence in the party. There is the
whole question. Preconceived bureaucratic distrust of the party, of its
consciousness and its spirit of discipline, is the principal cause of all the
evils generated by the domination of the apparatus.”
[16] Two other recent expulsions from the ICFI are
particularly noteworthy. In 2021, the US section arbitrarily expelled Shuvu
Batta, a member, and Peter Ross, a provisional member, for questioning the
party’s line on the unions. The details of their unprincipled treatment can be
found here: http://forum.permanent-revolution.org/2021/04/socialist-equality-party-national.html.
Meanwhile, across 2022 and 2023 at least a dozen comrades who protested the
party’s abstentionism during the mass movement to overthrow the Rajapaksa
government were expelled from the Sri Lankan section. It would be interesting
to know how many of the ICFI’s members are aware of this purge, its scale and
the issues bound up in it. While I was aware of issues in the Sri Lankan
section, the mass expulsion of 12 comrades and many others who resigned in the
last two years was never discussed in the PES or any international meetings of
the ICFI I have attended. More details of these disputes can be found at https://www.thesocialist.lk/the-fight-for-principles-and-leadership-of-the-working-class-how-sep-sl-bureaucracy-expelled-revolutionaries/
and other articles on this site published by expelled comrades.
[17] The only one Lantier does try to respond to
is my concern about the primacy of daily WSWS coverage in a tiny party’s work
(the PES boasts less than a dozen truly active members). However, this was not
a reasoned argument about why our party in the current conditions would most
benefit from regular news articles on the WSWS but was instead just a quote
from the US Socialist Equality Party’s Statement of Principles stating the site
is a primary vehicle for the party’s work.
[18] Other parties in the IC were expected to
orient their own campaigning behind the SEP’s US presidential campaign for this
election year as part of an ‘international’ initiative. This is just one
example of how the real political function of the IC sections is to bolster the
US SEP rather than actually grow organic working class parties in other parts
of the world.
[20] A particularly striking summary of the role
that sharp internal struggles played in the Bolshevik party’s capacity to lead
the Russian working class to revolutionary success can be found in Chapter 5 of
Trotsky’s work the New Course: https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1923/newcourse/ch05.htm.
This is in sharp contrast to the decades-long (!) unanimity of party
resolutions at every SEP conference reported on the WSWS.
