Scottish Debate | Home | News | Donate | Join 

Scotland, France and the International

The Programme, The Party And The International

[Back] 

APPENDIX B:- GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE CWI AND THE UIT

Dear Comrades,

Enclosed is a copy of a joint declaration, which has been issued by the Committee for a Workers International (CWI) and the Unidad de los Trabajadores Internacional (United Workers International UIT). This declaration was agreed at the end of five days of discussion which took place in Barcelona between October 30th and November 5th. This followed the participation by comrades from the UIT in the CWI summer school and the congress of the British section. Both of these events have impressed the comrades of the UIT.

The IS was represented by comrades Tony Saunois and Peter Taaffe. Comrades Virginia Rodriguez Arce and John Herd from our Spanish group also attended some of the meetings in Barcelona. The enclosed declaration was subsequently endorsed by a full meeting of the IS which took place on November 6th.

The objective of this letter is to give a brief outline of the discussions which have so far taken place. A fuller report will be given at the forthcoming meeting of the IEC together with a discussion about the prospects for future collaboration and relations between both international organisations.

During five days of intensive discussion the CWI representatives held a series of meetings with representatives of the leadership of the UIT. It was also possible to meet with the Executive Committee and Central Committee of the Spanish section of the UIT, the Partido Obrero Revolucionario (POR).

In all of these meetings the comrades of the UIT adopted an open, honest and fraternal attitude. In addition to these qualities the UIT seems to be largely a proletarian organisation. The members of it have a serious attitude and are committed revolutionaries. If it is possible to arrive at a principled political agreement between the CWI and the UIT which would permit a fusion of both organisations to take place it would clearly mark a big step forward. Such a development could mark an historical turning point in building a more powerful revolutionary international organisation of workers and young people.

However, the discussions between our two organisations are at an early stage and need to be developed further. The recent meetings have allowed the CWI and the UIT to acquire a greater knowledge and understanding of the ideas and analysis put forward by each organisation.

The comrades informed us that their international is comprised of the following forces:

Argentina - the Movimiento Socialista de los Trabajadores which has 900 members.

Brazil - Corriente Socialista de los Trabajadores which has 180 members, two members of state parliaments and currently works inside the PT.

Chile - POR/JOR (Revolutionary Workers Party/Revolutionary Young Workers) with 30 members.

Colombia - Liga Socialista Internacionalista with 25 members.

Peru - Partido Socialista de los Trabajadores which works inside the Nueva Izquierda with 20 members.

Ecuador - Movimiento Socialista de los Trabajadores with 8 members working inside PAIS.

Panama - Partido Socialista de los Trabajadores with 10 members.

Mexico - Unidad Obrera y Socialista which has 55 members.

USA - 10 members (5 in Detroit and 5 in Los Angeles inside the LP).

Portugal - Al Socialismo - with 12 members.

Spain - Partido Obrero Revolucionario with 70 members.

France - La Comuna with 60 members.

Germany - socialist League which has 5/6 members.

The UIT also has two groups of about 30 members in the-former USSR with which it is currently working.

As indicated in the declaration the discussions on international questions covered the current world economic situation/globalisation, the question of the collapse of the former Stalinist regimes in the USSR and Eastern Europe, the traditional workers parties, the colonial revolution, the national question and the building of the international.

During these discussions it was clear (hat there is much agreement between our two organisations but important differences also exist, especially on the characterisation of the former Stalinist states and the national question. In all these discussions the comrades of the UIT were open and are eager to continue debating the issues in a fraternal manner.

The discussions at the CC meeting of the Spanish party of the UIT, the FOR, concentrated on the national/language question in Catalonia and tactics in relation to the United Left (IU). Both discussions where extremely informative and beneficial to us.

The CC session on the IU was informative, at the same time how the comrades intend to work in this grouping which they have been invited to join needs to be explored further in future meetings.

The discussions and joint collaboration in solidarity campaigns between the CWI and the UIT have already been positive. The IS will present a fuller report at the forthcoming I EC meeting and outline proposals of how to develop the discussion further in the direction which is indicated in the joint declaration.

The UIT has agreed to send a representative to the forthcoming IEC meeting. The IS will be represented at the forthcoming world congress of the UIT. following this event it has been agreed that an extensive tour will take place of some countries in Latin America where the UIT has sections. In order to deepen the discussion it will be necessary to organise further visits and discussions involving IS/IEC members and produce a joint bulletin for distribution to members of both organisations. These steps and other proposals about launching joint campaigns between the CWI and the UIT will be fully discussed at the IKC meeting.

The IS urges all sections to publish the joint declaration in their journal and to contact the centre for discussion and clarification.

Comradely,

Between the 30th of October and the 4th of November a meeting took place between representatives of the leaderships of the CWI and the UIT to advance joint collaboration with the perspective of the regroupment of revolutionary and Trotskyist forces for the construction of the International. Both organisations now consider that a period of class struggle has opened in which the task is posed of building a revolutionary organisation with decisive influence amongst the international working class.

The economic globalisation by which capitalism has supposedly demonstrated its vibrancy/vigour and entered a new stage of development, has done nothing else but illustrate its sharp crisis. The recent fall of the stock markets is nothing less than an anticipation of a new crisis and consequential political convulsions flowing from its stagnant phase. The chronic unemployment throughout the world, the increase of misery and hunger for the population of the semi-colonial countries, the inbuilt social crisis in the big imperialist countries are all proof of a system which cannot take society forward and offer any lasting concessions to the movement of the masses.

Reflected in this crisis there is also the globalisation of the class struggle. During the last few days the French truck drivers have again paralysed the transport system. This action, like the French strike in November/December 1995, is nothing less than an expression of the workers struggle in Europe against Maastricht. The general strike in south Korea, the general strikes in Latin America in recent years against neo-liberal policies, the strike of UPS parcel workers of the USA are all important indications that the working class and other exploited layers, in more and more countries, are fighting with greater tenacity against the crisis of capitalism and anti-working class policies which are being implemented by governments.

In contrast to this increasingly energetic attitude of the workers, the old traditional workers parties (the social democracy and Stalinist parties) and the bourgeois and petty bourgeois movements in the semi-colonial countries, which have had a decisive influence for decades in the workers movement, have taken a pronounced turn towards the right. They have abandoned the struggle of the masses to win their demands. They increasingly have adapted to the new pro-capitalist ideologies. This has provoked crisis and fragmentation and has opened a bigger vacuum for the construction of a revolutionary party.

The world situation in all its facets is evidence that there is no progressive way out of the crisis for the working class and exploited layers other than socialism. In the face of the crisis of the capitalist system in its imperialist stage the working class has to struggle to take into its hands the destiny of the nation and economically expropriate the big capitalist monopolies and multi-nationals. Only socialism with workers democracy offers an alternative to this crisis-ridden society. This can only be won with the building of an international organisation that defends the programme of revolutionary socialism with the new layers and vanguard of workers who will be in the forefront of the workers struggle.

Based upon these issues a period of collaboration and discussion between both organisations - the U1T and CWI - has opened up. The discussion of the differences which exist relate to various questions but in particular relate to the estimation of what took place in 1989 in the countries of Eastern Europe and the USSR, the current class character of these states, the character of the social democratic parties and the national question. These discussions will be developed in a frank and loyal debate together with mutual collaboration over international campaigns in countries and at international level.

This is taking place with the objective to explore the possibility of unifying our two organisations as part of the regroupment of revolutionary currents and Trotskyists organisations, which defend revolutionary socialism.

Dear Comrades,

We have received your proposals to alter the agenda of the meeting between our two leaderships, in order to firstly have a discussion with Carlos Patroni present about a series of accusations put forward by him during a meeting of the CC of your party in the USA.

The meeting was organised to continue the process of discussion between our two organisations about the agreements and differences and to resolve some questions about common work. For this reason there were four points: the world situation, imperialism and the national question, the building of the international, and a discussion about the conduct of joint campaigns - in particularly a joint declaration to propose in the meeting of the Euro-marches and other organisations supporting the calling of a European Conference of Workers.

You had not proposed to discuss the opinions of that this comrade has about his split with the LIT, the organisation of which the UIT formed a part, and our organisation prior to discussing other issues. He raises a series of accusations and slanders which end by saying that we are preparing a factional struggle.

We are not in agreement with your proposal to have a session of the meeting with accusations and counter accusations of acts which took place ten years ago. We do not think that this will be a correct method -judgments of the balance sheet of what happened historically - to develop the political relations between our two organisations. It does not seem to us to be good to condition the relationship between our two organisations upon the opinions of a comrade who broke with our organisation. At this time, the LIT (our old organisation) judged these issues and concluded that this comrade used intrigue based upon lies.

We do not, and we do not wish to discuss and estimation of Petroni as a member of the CWI; we only have an opinion of his conduct of ten years ago. In this way we do not think that a political relationship can be constructed between two leaderships that have proposed to develop political discussions and common tasks in the class struggle in order to explore the possibility of unification.

It is a fact that there is a campaign by the LIT, with whose leadership we share many political positions, against us. They have put a proviso on all discussion. In our opinion this is a mistaken and defensive attitude to shield/defend/protect their organisation and avoid confronting a real process of reconstruction of the international based upon the unification of principled Trotskyist forces.

We can discuss each one of their accusation, and incorporate our critical estimation about their reprehensible moral conduct that impeded the development of political discussion.

But if we use the same method as the LIT, of establishing provisos, we will fall into mistaken procedures. Everything will end up in a discussion interpretation of actions of the past which will serve no useful purpose for anyone. It is not possible to make an estimation of an organisation discussing isolated balance sheets separated from the mark and conduct of the class struggle. This has been a method that has been very common as a result of the marginalisation/isolation of Trotskyism that has provoked many crisis.

It is a fact that there will be legitimate doubts between two organisations about each other's intentions. In this case, doubts have developed by you about the character and the intentions of our leadership. We are very willing to face up to these doubts because it is now beginning to limit and condition the common work that we have proposed.

Nevertheless, it worries us that after participating in the CC of the FOR in Spain, the Brazilian congress of our party, meetings of youth and chemical workers in SP, participating in our world congress and visiting various regions of our Argentine party and having every opportunity to speak freely with the cadres and the rank and file, after having visited our Peruvian party, of knowing all the documents about our objectives and our crisis and our estimation of them, that you could open a space to the idea of intrigues that we are preparing for factional work.

We think that the way to resolve doubts is for both organisations to get to know each other better, both our ideas, our internal regimes, our proletarian morals. It should be taken into account that these are always established in practice as a criteria of the truth.

It is for these reasons that we propose to postpone the meeting that was set to take place, in order to create the conditions for a political meeting between our two organisations and that during the dates of the original meeting a smaller meeting takes place to clarify these issues which have developed in order to find a way forward.

This postponement is from the point of view of resolving the problems and to be able to advance in the important road that we have taken.

With Trotskyist greetings, International Secretariat of the UIT

Dear Comrades,

We have received your letter regarding the agenda of the meeting between representatives of the CWI and the UIT that was scheduled to take place in London from 7-9 March.

Your proposal to postpone this meeting and convene a smaller one on the 7 and 8 March that will discuss the issues that have been raised by Carlos in the USA is in our opinion the best way to deal with the situation. As we have already informed you by e-mail we accept the proposal for three comrades of the UIT to visit London to meet with a delegation from the CWI. During this meeting we will be able to discuss all of the issues that you raise in your letter but we would like to comment in this reply on some of the points you make.

As you explain in your letter to us our recent proposal regarding the agenda and attendance at the meeting changed the original agreement that we had arrived at when comrade Pedro was in London on 28 January. Our proposal to change the original agreement regarding the meeting was necessary because of the issues that comrade Carlos raised during a meeting of the National Committee of our party in the USA. This was held on 31 January/1 February - after the agreement was reached between us on the agenda of the meeting scheduled for March.

We made our proposal to discuss these issues that have been raised to fully clarify them. There has been agreement between us in all the discussions that have been held between our two organisations that all doubts, questions and differences of opinion should be discussed in a full and frank manner. This has been the case in all the meetings that have taken place between us. We have used the same method in making our proposal to discuss the issues raised by comrade Carlos.

The issues that have been raised by him contain important allegations relating to aspects of your history that we are sure you have had to discuss with other organisations in the past. In our opinion it is much better to clarify these questions at this early stage in the relationship between our two organisations rather than risk them emerging as issues later on. This we feel is in accordance with the full frank nature in which the discussions have already been conducted.

We also hope that you will raise with us any aspects of our political or organisational history that any of your members wish to discuss further with a view to seeking clarification.

There is agreement between us that we cannot start our political and organisational dialogue by laying down in advance provisos on historical questions and activities. This would be a mistake and we have not conducted the discussions with you in this way. However, when issues do arise during a discussion they need to be clarified. This was and remains our intention in proposing to change the original agenda. Only in this way is it possible for the process of discussion and dialogue to be developed on a firm and solid basis.

As you point out in your letter you have allowed representatives of the CWI to participate in the numerous activities, meetings and congresses of the UIT and its national parties where it has been possible for us to freely discuss with many cadres and rank-and-file members of the party. Comrades representing the UIT have attended the European cadre school of the CWI in July 1997, the 1997 congress of the British section of the CWI, and our IEC meeting that was held in November 1997 where similarly free and open discussions were held. In addition to this exchange regular discussions and meetings are held between comrades of the CWI and the UIT in France, Germany, Brazil, Mexico and Chile.

These exchanges have been an essential part of both our organisations becoming more familiar with each other and fully understanding the varied traditions we both have and the political agreement and disagreements that exist between us. The steps that we have taken in this direction need to be built upon and developed. This will help in both our organisations getting to know each other better as you explain in your letter to us.

We hope that this brief letter helps to clarify some of the issues that led us to propose a change in the agenda. These issues and other questions such as joint activities and arrangements for a larger political meeting between us can be discussed further during the meeting in London.

With Comradely greetings, International Secretariat of the CWI

Dear Comrades,

We would like to formally confirm the proposal that we have put forward to Comrade Pedro today (4 March 98)

The comrades of our IS are disappointed with the reply of the UIT regarding the participation in the meeting arranged for 7/8 March between the UIT and the CWI.

In order to attempt to resolve this question, the CWI would like to propose that we convene a small meeting of the UIT and CWI in London on the 7 or 8 March to discuss the procedure to develop the discussions and relations between both organisations and the problems that have developed.

Comrade Carlos Patroni will not participate in this meeting. We propose that 3 or 4 comrades of our IS are present.

Revolutionary greetings,

To: IEC members and National Sections

Dear Comrades,

As you will have been informed a meeting was arranged between representatives of the CWI and the UIT in London from the 7th to the 9th of March. The original agenda for this meeting included a series of important political question that are at the centre of the discussion that has begun to take place between both international organisations. In addition to these issues the question of joint activity and campaigns, especially in Europe were included on the agenda.

After this original agenda had been agreed by both international organisations comrade Carlos Petroni, a former member of the LIT from which the UIT originated, raised some serious historical issues at a meeting of the National Committee our US section that was held on January 3lst/February 1st. This meeting was attended by comrade Peter Madden from the IEC.

The IS subsequently proposed to the UIT that an additional item be added to the agenda of the planned joint meeting that would allow a full discussion to take place of the issues raised by comrade Carlos. We proposed that comrade Carlos should be present at this meeting to facilitate the discussion.

This was verbally communicated to the UIT who, following an apparent misunderstanding, eventually rejected this proposal, stating that they would not be prepared to discuss the issues raised with Carlos present. We enclose the letter we received from the UIT on this question together with the reply of the IS.

In order to try and resolve this problem the IS eventually proposed that the UIT send a small delegation to London on the 7ih and 8th of March and the planned larger meeting was postponed. The UIT sent two representatives to London who met with four members of the IS (PT, TS, LW and PO) and one other full-timer from the international centre (NM) to keep a full record of the meeting.

During this meeting the comrades from the UIT again stated that they were not prepared to discuss these issues with comrade Carlos present.

The IS comrades attending the meeting unanimously agreed that it was not possible to accept this proposal without informing and consulting with members of the IEC and the comrades in the US section. This decision was taken because of the seriousness of the questions raised by comrade Carlos and the issues that have arisen during this discussion. This letter is a brief report of the meeting that took place.

As comrades will know Carlos was a member of the LIT, the organisation from which the UIT originates. He has a whole series of political criticisms of the MAS leadership and of both the LIT and UIT groups that emerged from it. These concern issues of perspectives, programme, strategy and method that we were, in any case, planning to discuss with the UIT leaders. However, Carlos has also raised serious allegations about the MAS leaders' methods, including extremely serious claims that they used bureaucratic intimidation and violence against their party opponents. Carlos claims that the present UIT leaders shared responsibility for these methods when they were part of the MAS leadership.

Carlos reported that he joined the MAS in 1973 and was expelled in 1987. At its peak, the MAS had a membership of around 10,000. In 1986 its international organisation had around 25 sections with a total membership of 20,000.

In a summary form, Carlos's main allegations about the UIT (former MAS leaders) are as follows:

i). The Executive Committee of the MAS used bureaucratic and violent methods during an internal struggle in 1987. Carlos says the present UIT leaders played a leading role in the MAS EC at that time. The MAS youth rebelled against the leadership, especially their "Argentinean nationalism", and presented a document. The leadership denounced them. Carlos says he did not agree with everything in their document but defended their right to raise differences. He was accused of organising a faction. Carlos alleges that in the course of the factional struggle, the leadership raided offices, bugged phones, mobilised the party's armed security section against opponents, and used violence. The youth group split away or was expelled with about 1,000 members. Carlos was then expelled and sections of their international were given the option of either ratifying his expulsion or of being expelled themselves (The US section was kicked out).

ii) The MAS later split again. Carlos says that the CC rebelled against the EC, with only one EC member siding with the CC. The CC (with about 1,000) became the Argentinean section of the UIT. Carlos claims that those who played the worst role in the 1987 split formed the UIT.

iii) Carlos argued that the method of the UIT is unchanged from the past. Their method was to open up discussions with different international groupings but then essentially try to conduct faction work (a kind of entryism) within them. Carlos himself was sent by the MAS to work with the WRP in Britain and other groups in Europe. He says he has information from personal contacts in Latin America that the UIT are conducting an internal political campaign against the CWI, on issues like the Malvinas and Ireland, claiming that we have a pro-imperialist position.

Because of the seriousness of the allegations made by Carlos the IS insisted that the issues should be discussed with him present. For the CWI to get a full understanding of the questions involved it is essential to have both sides that were present during the alleged events involved directly in the discussion. The comrades of the UIT rejected this proposal. The main reasons that they gave to defend their position were:

i) The LIT had drawn its own balance sheet on Carlos ten years ago and as a result they regarded it as a humiliation to discuss the issues again with him present. They argued that if he were present the CWI would be establishing itself as a tribunal.

ii) It was wrong to begin the discussions between our two international organisations on historical questions and argued that by doing so the CWI was imposing conditions on the discussion.

iii) The discussion should only be organised leadership to leadership.

The IS thinks that these arguments are false and they illustrate that an incorrect method is being used by the comrades from the UIT. It was therefore necessary in the meeting that took place to firmly oppose the arguments of the UIT and to agree that we consult with IEC members before proceeding with further discussion at international level.

The IS rejected the arguments of the comrades from the UIT for the following reasons:

It is not true that the CWI would be constituting itself as a tribunal on events that took place ten years ago. The purpose of the meeting would be to enable the CWI to obtain a better understanding of the UIT/LIT and its methods and traditions. If the allegations made by Carlos are not accurate then the UIT would have the opportunity to clarify the situation. If the allegations are substantially correct then it would be possible for the UIT to explain what methods they use today and what lessons they have drawn from these events.

The IS argued that although it is understandable that the comrades may feel aggrieved about having to meet with an ex-member who they concluded played a negative role it is wrong to refuse to do so. In the recent period it has been necessary for our comrades to meet with a leader of the British section of the USFI who had previously organised a faction in the British section of the CWI and split away from us.

ii) We have not begun the discussions with the UIT on historical questions. The discussions that we have had with them at the British congress, CWI summer school, at the UIT world congress and during the recent visit to Latin America have concentrated on contemporary political issues and joint campaigns.

The comrades from the UIT argue that we are placing conditions on proceeding with the discussions. However, the history of both international organisations is important and needs to be one aspect of the discussion during the exploration of the viability of a possible fusion. If doubts or questions about historical issues are expressed by the CWI or the UIT or members of either organisation they must be discussed and clarified. We are open to discuss any aspect of the history of the CWI with any member of the UIT.

iii) The leadership of both organisations will discuss all the political and organisational issues that arise. However, it is not a correct method to restrict this discussion to "leadership to leadership". A principled, solid and lasting unification will mean that at all levels of membership in both international organisations there must be a full discussion of all the issues that arise, both historical and contemporary. If this is not done then there will not be a genuine political and organisational fusion of two international organisations.

In addition to these points the IS thinks that it is wrong to accept that the UIT should in effect be able to veto who will represent the CWI in the discussions even if in this particular case one of the proposed representatives was a former member of the LIT. Because of the issues that comrade Carlos has raised and his past involvement in the events he refers to, it is clearly more practical that he participates in the meetings where these questions are discussed as it would be necessary to consult and involve him in these discussions.

Carlos should be discussed in writing and verbally between the leaderships of both international organisations without him present. The IS agreed to consult with IEC members and other comrades before replying to the UIT.

Dear Comrades,

The motive of this letter is to put in writing the opinions and proposals that we put forward in the meeting at the end of last week. As we have already communicated to you, all of our worry is centred on finding a positive way out of the incident that has developed.

Seven or eight months ago we initiated relations that have gone well and have had positive results. These first steps have reconfirmed the common idea that we developed: to explore after political discussions and common intervention in the class struggle the possibility of converging into one international organisation.

The opportunity that we have to build a revolutionary pole for the vanguard and other Marxist revolutionary forces is perhaps unique in this new stage of the international class struggle.

How can we develop our two currents that came from distinct histories and traditions - all marked by the historic crisis of the IVth? In Barcelona and then in Argentina we spoke of the agreements and disagreements with the objective of finding a common programmatic agreement through intervening in the class struggle, developing common activities and leaving to one side discussions about the past.

It is legitimate that there will be doubts between our organisations about the past. They are themes that we are prepared to take up. But the only form of discussing the past in a just way is in the first place, to leave to undertake a judgement reached around the agreements and differences that we have about the present class struggle and affirming the agreement we have about common tasks. Through this we will get to know our organisations and parties. Without this it is impossible to analyse, to understand and to be able to evaluate the past of an organisation. It has been good that recently we have initiated the process of political discussion between our two organisations. The scheduled meeting had precisely the objective of taking a significant step in this sense.

The UIT proposed that the issues raised by comrade. For these reasons we do not see that it is correct to place the participation in the meeting of a comrade as a condition to clarify accusations made by him and with whom our organisation had a sharp conflict. Such a discussion would turn the meeting into a judgement about these acts and in this manner it would only obstruct the way of making a serious political and methodological characterisation of our organisations and their methods, policy and also their histories and trajectory.

Each organisation has the right to designate their members for the meetings. Nevertheless, in this first stage of relations a lot has to be taken into account that will allow the best development of the meeting in all its aspects. If in our organisation there was somebody who had been part of your organisation we would not have chosen them to be in our delegation, even in order to clarify your past. We would be giving a mistaken message in this manner to end the relations between our organisations. Surely time will allow the overcoming of difficulties and create other conditions a more appropriate means to do so and it is towards that that we look.

To end, we reiterate to you our proposal with the sincere hope of overcoming this incident and our willingness to take the time necessary for this to happen:

To return to the programmed agenda for the meeting: (a) world political situation; (b) imperialism and the national question; (c) the building of the IVth International; (d) campaigns and common tasks.

The relation to the interest that you have shown to discuss the crisis of the LIT, of which one of the former currents forms part of the UIT, we agree to fix a discussion about this theme and to prepare a documented report as soon as possible. In relation to ourselves, we reject the proposal for the comrade of your US section to participate in the meeting that would undervalue the objective of the meeting.

With fraternal and revolutionary greetings,

Dear Comrades,

Thank you for your letter of the 13th of March in which you outline in writing the opinions and proposals that you presented to the meeting we held in London on the 7th and 8th of March.

In this reply we would like to outline why we think it was correct for us to propose that Carlos Petroni participate in the proposed meeting and why we do

not agree with the response you have made to our proposal. In this letter we also include some of the important issues that Carlos has raised with us. We include a summary of some of the points raised by him relating to certain aspects the history of the LIT. In order to help us clarify these questions we ask you to comment on them.

In raising these issues for discussion and asking for your comments on them, we are not prejudging any of them. We have raised these questions with you in order to clarify important issues that have now arisen in the discussions between out two organisations. However, before outlining the points raised by Carlos we would like to explain why we think our proposal to invite him to the meeting was correct and why we do not agree with the points you outline in your letter of the I3th of March.

As you explained in your letter relations between our two organisations began approximately eight months ago. Following the discussions that were held in Barcelona during October 1997 we jointly agreed in the declaration by us, "to explore the possibility of unifying our two organisations as part of the regroupment of revolutionary currents and Trotskyist organisations, which defend revolutionary socialism."

Since that declaration was made on November 5th 1997 both our international organisations have taken steps to explore this possibility. Our proposal, to amend the agreed agenda of the meeting between both internationals that was scheduled for the 7-9th of March, to include a discussion on certain aspects of the history of the LIT, with comrade Carlos present, was made as part of this process.

In your letter, (dated 13/3/98) you write, "In Barcelona and then in Argentina we spoke of the fact that the best method - that has permitted us to take the first steps - is to discuss the agreements and disagreements with the objective of finding a common programmatic agreement through intervening in the class struggle, developing common activities and leaving to one side discussions about the past." In the following paragraph you then continue, "It is legitimate that there will be doubts between the past of our organisations. They are themes that we are open to confront. But the only way to discuss the past in a just form, is in the first place, to begin from having a formed judgment around the agreements and disagreements that we have about the current class struggle and establishing agreements about common tasks. Through this we will get to know our organisations and parties. Without this it is impossible to analyse, understand or evaluate the past of an organisation."

You also argue that it is not correct to propose "as a condition" the presence of comrade Carlos in the meeting to "clarify accusations of a comrade with whom our (UIT) organisation had a sharp conflict."

We do not agree with these points for a number of reasons which we would like to clarify. During the discussions that took place in Barcelona and Argentina we explained that in our opinion it would not be correct to begin the discussions between our two international organisations on historical questions. We have not approached the discussions from this point of view.

However, this does not mean that historical questions should be totally "left to one side." They also form a part of the process of discussion and collaboration between two revolutionary organisations that are exploring, "the possibility of unifying..." The discussions between us have not begun on historical questions.

The comrades from the UIT have sent representatives to the congress of the CWI's British section, our European cadre school and a meeting of our IEC. We have sent representatives of our IS to your world congress and attended meetings of your national sections in Argentina, Brazil, Peru and Spain. We have held meetings with representatives from both our International Secretariats' in Barcelona and London and numerous meetings have taken place between our sections at national level in France, Germany, Mexico, Brazil and more recently in Chile.

During all of these meetings the overwhelming majority of the issues that have been discussed have been contemporary political questions and matters relating to joint activity and campaigns. All of these discussions have been conducted in a loyal and frank manner as we agreed in the joint declaration.

However, it is also important that historical questions are clarified if the solid and principled conditions are to be established that will permit a successful unification between two organisations. In our opinion if a serious issue is raised by a leading member of our organisation - in this case, a member of our US National Committee, which discussed the issue in January - then it must be discussed. The same would apply if similar questions were raised in your organisation about us. If any doubts and suspicions arise they must be fully discussed and clarified. If they are not then they will fester and lead to further complications and disagreement at a later stage. It was to avoid this situation arising that we asked for the issues raised by Carlos to be placed on the agenda of the meeting we had organised in March.

Comrades Pedro and Alejandro argued in London that these issues should be discussed on the basis of "leadership to leadership." This obviously needs to be a part of the process of discussion. However, we do not think that it is a correct method to limit the discussion "leadership to leadership". If a genuine fusion is to take place then all issues, political, organisational, current and historical must involve discussion among the whole membership of both organisations. Members of our IEC feel that it is essential for some IEC members and leading comrades from our sections, especially when they have experience of the questions we are discussing, to be directly involved in some of the discussions between our two international organisations. If this is not done then a genuine fusion of two Internationals will not be accomplished.

If a principled and lasting fusion is to be possible then it is essential that the membership of both organisations are fully aware and understand the ideas, perspectives, programme, method and tradition of both internationals. This can only be possible through a combination of discussion on contemporary and historical issues and also joint activity and intervention in the class struggle.

We understand, as you indicated in the meeting and your letter, that it would be extremely disagreeable for you to meet with Carlos to discuss historical issues relating to a major conflict that took place between you ten years ago. You have said that such a meeting is not possible. However, surely this is secondary to the importance of allowing both international organisations to acquire a greater clarity and understanding of our respective tradition and methods? For our part, the presence of Carlos in the meeting is necessary to us in this process.

As you are aware we were not active participants in the events in Argentina and the MAS at the end of the 1980s. The presence of Carlos, who obviously has a different account of the events from you, would help us clarify our understanding of the situation that developed. In our opinion his presence in the meeting could only assist us to acquire a better understanding of your history and traditions. We have made this proposal without prejudging any of these questions and with no intention of acting as some kind of tribunal on past events.

Moreover, although Carlos was previously a member of the same organisation as yourselves, he is now a member of the CWI. The UIT and the CWI must appoint their own respective representatives for each meeting and discussion. As we explained at the meeting we have recently been prepared to meet with a former member of our British section who split from us in 1972, after a factional dispute, who is now part of the leadership of one of the British groups of the USFI.

After the discussion with the representatives of the UIT on this question we still believe that it was not correct on your part to refuse to meet with comrade Carlos and discuss the issues that he has raised with us.

We emphasize again that we are fully prepared to discuss all aspects of our history, both political and organisational, in order to enable your comrades to acquire a fuller understanding of our organisation and our ideas, methods and tradition.

However, as you are not prepared to attend a meeting .with comrade Carlos present we enclose a summary of some of the issues that he has raised with us. We ask you to comment on his explanation of the situation and outline in greater detail than you have in your document, "The Historical Balance Sheet of the LIT", the political and organisational conclusions that you have drawn from this experience.

The points raised by comrade Carlos relate to the methods that were used inside the MAS/LIT during the factional struggle that erupted following the death of Moreno in 1987. We list below some of the main allegations he has raised with us, without prejudging any of them, and ask you to comment upon them. Comrade Carlos alleges that:

-Following the death of Moreno in 1987 a life history of Moreno was published that distorted the historical role of other leaders of the MAS. Former leaders (who later constituted the LSR) were wrongly discredited. Others were wrongly portrayed as heroic resistance fighters.

- A disagreement with the Colombian section of the LIT, the PST, was saddled with the use of bureaucratic and administrative methods.

- At a meeting of the CC of the MAS held in December 1987 a conflict erupted in which the leadership, that included current leaders of the UIT, was criticised for its used of bureaucratic methods. The critics included Luis Zamora.

- These methods were used by those who now make up the leadership of the UIT against the youth wing of the party that eventually formed the PTS. The leaders of youth wing were denounced by current UIT leaders on the basis of allegations about their sexual conduct.

- Carlos Petroni, a member of the IEC who was co-opted onto the IS, defended the democratic rights of he youth organisation although he did not agree with them on all the political issues they raised. He wrote a letter criticising the majority and some of the political ideas of the youth but his request for his letter to be published in an internal bulletin was refused for two months. During this time numerous declarations supporting the majority were published throughout the party. He also alleges that during this period he was denounced as a "foreigner" and a "bureaucrat", and the youth were threatened with exclusion from the CC if they formed a tendency. Physical intimidation was used by the majority supporters including three physical assaults on him.

- During the run up to the Congress of the MAS the majority provoked physical confrontation and the minority were denied access to propagate their positions and publication of their documents was delayed. When the documents of the minority were printed they were only distributed on a limited basis.

- The regional premises in La Plata that were controlled by the minority were assaulted by armed supporters of the majority. Two other premises controlled by the minority were attacked in the same way. At the same time telephone conversations of supporters of the minority were bugged and the text of conversations were reproduced. Telephone calls were made by majority supporters threatening minority supporters.

- Physical intimidation was used against the minority supporters who constituted a majority on the election list of the MAS at the university in Buenos Aires.

- Carlos Petroni was expelled from the MAS and the LIT at a meeting of the IEC prior to the congress of the MAS and was given no opportunity to defend himself or answer the charges made against him.

- The sections of the LIT were asked to ratify his expulsion or face expulsion themselves.

These are a summary of the some of the main allegations made to us by Carlos. We repeat that we are not prejudging any of them. However, they are important issues and we think it is necessary to discuss them frankly and openly in order to clarify the situation. It was for this reason that we proposed the change to the agenda of the meeting in March and suggested that comrade Carlos participate in the discussion. Because of the seriousness of the questions raised we still think that this was a legitimate and correct proposal.

The description of events that he outlines clearly raise important issues relating the question of the method used to conduct debate and discussion inside the revolutionary movement. We therefore ask you to comment in detail on the points raised and any conclusions you have drawn from your experiences during this period.

Comradely,

Tony Saunois, for the International Secretariat of the CWI

Dear Comrades,

As you will know that attitude that was adopted by the UIT to the question of Carlos Petroni and the issues he raised gave rise to serious doubts developing within the CWI about the process between our two organisations. These doubts have been reinforced by the actions of the UIT/Socialist League in Germany.

The comrades from the UIT offered to produce a full explanation of developments in Germany. This has still not been received and the letter to the UIT/SL by the SAV on 6 May 98 has not been replied to.

We are writing to ask you for an explanation and comment about the situation in Germany and also to reply to the letter sent to you by our German section.

Comradely,

Tony Saunois, for the International Secretariat

Report for IS and Belgian EC

1. This was an international "theoretical" camp, centred around the reading of basic texts of Marxism followed by a discussion whether or not the analysis is still valid in the present situation. Each day had a theme: the Communist Manifesto, the Permanent Revolution, the Transitional Program and Party Building. In the morning there was a lead off on the subject/reading of the text (9h till +/- 12h), the afternoon was free, in the evening the discussion started (20h30 till late).

2. The camp was intended to be a European camp and around 40 were expected to come. Because of financial and visa problems the comrades from Belarus were not able to attend. There were no Spanish comrades, according to the people in Montpellier they were disappointed the camp would be so small and decided not to come.

3. 14 were present: Fuentes and Pablo (1C), Martha, Dirk, Heiko and his girlfriend - she didn't attend the political discussions - (Germany, last three ex-comrades of the Berlin SAV), Gerard (IS member), Frangoise (teacher), Pablo (FT) and Eric (worker at Renault plant, NC member) (Paris), Nathan (student, NC member), Christele (student), Jean-Paul (NC member), Benoit (post office worker) (Montpellier). Other youth members from Montpellier attended parts of the camp.

4. Two comrades from Gauche Revolutionnaire (GR) were expected to attend (Renauld + another Paris comrade) but didn't turn up. La Commune comrades didn't know for what reason.

5. The Montpellier comrades of La Commune have to be mentioned for their hospitality. In order to lower my expenses they proposed that I could stay with one of them (which I did), and in general they were very comradely.

6. The discussions at the camp were at times a bit confusing. The concept of the lead off (reading out the texts and then commenting on them) made it rather unclear where the discussion was going and comments tended to remain abstract. There also was a tendency to go over to Spanish in the discussion while translation wasn't sorted out. I took part in the discussions and raised differences, by giving practical examples of our analysis and method.

7. General point of departure is that since World War I capitalism is in a permanent crisis. Since WWI we are living in an "epoch of war and revolution", the only reason why this has not yet led to a socialist transformation of society is because of the betrayal of the leadership, first social-democracy then Stalinism. Therefore the collapse of Stalinism is an entirely positive change in the objective situation. As a consequence the level of consciousness of the working class is higher at present than e.g. at the time the transitional program was written, than in 1968, etc.

8. This means that the CIS is still characterised as a workers' state, a "very much degenerated" one then. Imperialism tried to impose capitalism in Russia, but the present crash shows that they were not capable to integrate Russia in a capitalist world market. The present protectionist measures are portrayed as the counter-offensive of the bureaucracy, "an example of planned economy". The call for a political revolution is still the right demand.

9. Inside La Commune part of the rank and file doesn't agree with this analysis and portrays Russia as a capitalist state. Benoit raised it at the discussion on the Transitional Program, but the subject was further avoided.

10. The present developments in the Balkans are portrayed as revolutionary movements, and are used as an example of the theory of permanent revolution. An article in Correspondence Internationale (the French translation of the UIT IB) of June 1998 on Kosovo starts off with, "A new revolutionary movement is developing in the Balkans. It is the struggle of the Kosovar workers and peasants for national liberty".

11. These are but a few examples. What was most striking at the camp was that practical questions of members (and of myself), asking for a point of view on present developments in general weren't answered with an analysis of what was going on but with a quote of Lenin/Trotsky, etc.

12. Apart from participating in the discussions I had individual discussions with different people; with Gerard on our summer school and the process of fusion between GR and La Commune, with Pablo on our summer school, with Nathan on youth work and anti-fascist work, with Pedro Fuentes (Pablo and Gerard present) on the relationship between both Internationals. I made clear in these discussions I was asked to attend the camp by the Belgian EC and that as far as I expressed any opinion, it was my personal one.

13. Gerard was impressed with the financial appeal at the school and the fact that the interventions of the different comrades showed that our sections are "genuine revolutionary organisations, not just satellites of England". He thought the tone of the debate on Scotland was too sharp. When asked about his opinion on the political issues at stake he said he didn't agree with the Scottish proposals and personally preferred "option 2". He was annoyed about what he describes as a tendency to look at ourselves as "the only revolutionaries". When asked about examples he named the interventions of TS and PO. This he opposed to the text of PT's lead-off at the '97 school that MS had translated for him.

14. On the developments in France he made the following comments:

• he stressed that GR and La Commune are a lot closer to each other than the CWI and the UIT, and the fact that the demand for unity is from both sides.

• The main differences are on international subjects,

and these have to be sorted on an international level.

• Since the CWI summer school the GR comrades have proposed to step up common work. Joint meetings of the leadership are now planned fortnightly instead of monthly. Until now only one meeting has gone ahead.

• Joint leaflets are brought out on various issues. These are in general written by Gerard and then send to GR for amendments.

• Since the summer school there also has been proposed by the GR cdes to discuss every aspect of the work of both organisations (also in areas where there is no joint work) openly at leadership level.

• On the paper the present timing is to have a first joint issue in two to three months, with the same joint editorial board for both the paper and the magazine. When asked how he saw that in practice, what point of view they would put forward in the paper on e.g. international issues such as Northern Ireland, he said that on most of these issues there are at present differences of opinion within GR, so he didn't see the problem with one more differing opinion being added.

15. He raised that he had a problem with the way the CWI leadership intervened in France, calling it patronising and stressing his own experience with re-groupment both in the Lambertist movement and with La Commune. He was "shocked by the insinuation of fractional work in Germany" in the last letter in response of the resolution of the UIT IEC. When asked about his opinion on the political stand of the Berlin ex-minority he said he didn't know about that, as the political documents (in German) were never translated.

16. For him the main reason for the need and the urgency of unity between GR and La Commune is that it would be the only positive development in the French Trotskyist movement and therefore would attract a whole layer of new people. He gave the example of Jose Perez, one of the leaders of the '95 strike movement, who told him at the La Commune congress that in the case of unification with GR he would consider to join.

17. The discussion with Nathan (NC member responsible for La Commune youth work) started of as an exchange of experience on anti-fascist work. La Commune comrades will start YRE work next month. He stressed that as far as that aspect of the work was concerned there were no differences of opinion between GR and La Commune. First campaigning issue will be state repression. When asked why they didn't start a campaign against the FN, that is extremely strong in this region of France, he stressed that they portray the FN as an extreme-conservative party, that only can become fascist after a major workers' defeat. Therefore the main enemy at present is the state. YRE is meant to expand the anti-racist work they at present do mainly through SEUL, the student union La Commune has set up in December '95 and controls in Montpellier. In the April-May issue of La Canonniere (the monthly of SEUL, edited by Nathan) the following is said about the March regional elections: "After the regional elections the papers, the TV and the politicians didn't stop to stress the danger the parry of Jean-Marie Le Pen represents and the importance of its electoral progress. But, if you have a closer look, this doesn't seem to match the truth. With 3,270,118 votes, he loses 100.000 votes compared to 1992. In many of its old strongholds this development is undeniable... apart from Var and Vaucluse, where they control the councils of Orange and Toulon. In Bouches-du-Rhone they lost 0,5%. On the other hand the media ignore the growing abstention, that has reached 42%, with another 4,6% 'blank voters' and another 4,225,000 voters not on the voters lists, this means about 51% (21,482,092 voters). These figures show we shouldn't overestimate the real importance of the FN and of the other institutional parties." In the centre page article of the same issue of La Canonniere, 'How to really fight racism and the FN', a list of 11 demands is put forward, none of which even mention the FN.

18. Nathan raised that on the rest of the youth work there did were "important differences" of approach between GR and La Commune that still had to be sorted out. As an example he gave the student work -La Commune has set up SEUL and uses it to go in open confrontation with UNEF and UNEF-ID, the traditional student unions, while the cdes. of GR work inside these unions.

19. Pablo, international. FTer of the UIT and also present at the CWI summer school, was more negative about the school than Gerard. He said he thought the CWI leadership made a mistake in taking up the Scottish comrades so hard. He refused to comment on the political issues, and stressed that the International has to give national sections the room to make mistakes and to go through the experience with them. If you raise differences the way it was done at the school in his view working together would be hard in the future. He disagreed with the concept of international democratic centralism put forward during the school.

20. The last morning Fuentes asked for a discussion with Gerard and Pablo present. Obvious language difficulties (Spanish/English/French - none of those present understanding all three of the languages) made the discussion rather basic. First thing he stressed was that I had to bring over a report of the school and the proposal for a joint solidarity campaign with the Russian miners to the CWI International Centre. Another proposal is a campaign on Kosovo. I told him they should raise these proposals themselves with our International Centre.

21. He then wanted to start a discussion on what happened in Germany and started of with saying he didn't agree with the "insinuations" in the last letter in reply to their resolution. When asked about his opinion on the political issues, he said there surely were differences of opinion but that if their German cdes thought these were surmountable, it wasn't up to the UIT to intervene. He stressed their will for further joint work and discussion and gave France as an example of how this process should develop. He asked me repeatedly what my opinion and that of the Belgian organisation was on the issue of re-groupment in general and more in particular the possibility of fusion between the CWI and the UIT and asked Gerard (in Spanish, while the discussion was in English) to make sure he had my address or the address of the Belgian organisation. He stressed that the UIT wanted to "continue the process" but that the CWI seemed to have changed its attitude to a certain extent. I didn't comment on these questions.

22. The question of a fusion of the two internationals, and whether or not there were important political differences, is an issue that has been raised in informal discussions quite a few times by most of the people present at the school.

Some Comments on KH's Report on the UIT Summer Camp by Murray Smith, France - 11 September 1998

These remarks concern only questions of fact and detail. The political issues in relation to the UIT and La Commune will be dealt with in the document which is being prepared for the end of this month. None of the following is meant as a criticism of KH: the mistakes were probably due to misunderstandings or incomplete information.

On point 2: On the reason for the absence of the Spanish comrades: according to the comrades of La Commune, they didn't attend in protest against the presence of our ex-comrades from Berlin.

On point 4: Renaud didn't attend for financial reasons. If it hadn't been August when most other leading comrades were on holiday we would have found cither the money or a replacement.

Point 13: "Since the CWI summer school..." Actually we made no new proposals for joint work after the summer-school. At the NC of the GR on 20-21 June, although no written resolution was adopted, there was general agreement on four axes for taking forward our collaboration with La Commune: fortnightly joint EC meetings, joint fractions in the different areas of work, progress towards a common press and the launching of a joint discussion bulletin. We presented these points to La Commune at a joint EC meeting on 22 June and they were agreed.

Subsequently joint EC meetings were held on 6 July, 20 July, 3 August and after the holiday break, on 7 September. The question of these meetings discussing every aspect of the work of both organisations wasn't particularly proposed by the GR, it was mutually agreed.

On the paper no firm decision has yet been taken on the timing.

Joint leaflets are not in general written by Gerard and then sent to GR for amendments. They are usually written by one person, sometimes two, not always the same, and then shown to the leading comrades of both organisations for amendments.

Continue to Appendix C