 |
| 3 to 4 million protest on the women's marches |
We
appreciate both the content of the statement and also its non-sectarian tone.
Thank you Comrades.
The founders of Facts For Working People Blog, are former members of the
Committee For a Workers International (CWI) of which Socialist Alternative is
presently the US Section. We were expelled from the US section of the CWI and from
the CWI in 1996 when the US section was called Labor Militant. Below are our
observations based on our experience in that organization, and our experience
in relation to our expulsion from that organization and based on our political
work since.These experiences have led us
to look critically at our past work, to look critically at the work of all
self-styled revolutionary groups and draw conclusions from this. We have
concluded that as revolutionaries, it is crucial that we change, and we consider
we have changed, our way of working in several areas.
We consider the last two
decades of our political work to have been the most fruitful period of our
political lives. We have had to think about the many basic ideas and methods of
our work and have been forced, thankfully, to consider these, make judgements,
draw conclusions and, we hope, learn lessons. We have also taken note of the
approach and methods of the many self-styled revolutionary groups and
drawn conclusions in this area also. Being expelled from the CWI was
in a way the best thing that ever happened to us. It unshackled our thinking.
We wish to share our experiences and conclusions with the RI Comrades and with
the readers of our Blog. In doing so we would like to emphasize that we remain
committed to what we consider the task of tasks in this period of history. That
is, contributing to the building of a mass revolutionary international
leadership of the working class which would be capable of overthrowing
capitalism.
Having said this, we would like to offer the following
observations.
You state the following reasons for
your resignation from the SA/CWI.
1. SA's decision to endorse Sanders
in the 2016 election.
2. SA's approach to the Democratic
Party and DSA.
3. SA's approach to identity
politics and special oppression.
4. SA's position on International
issues.
5. Serious problems you have had
with the SA's leadership and you give examples.
Your setting out of these reasons so
clearly is a great help. We would like to respond to them individually. But
before doing so we would like to make a few points in relation to our thoughts
concerning the building of revolutionary currents and organizations.
Regardless of what they say, most revolutionary groups such as
the CWI, expect unity on just about every detail
and punish in one way or another, or exclude, those who do not toe the line. We
have concluded that this approach is incorrect and not only incorrect, but
damaging to the struggle to end capitalism. We have concluded that while there
has to be unity on such fundamental issues as the need to end capitalism and
the need to work to assist the international working class to come to power and
build a democratic socialist world, it is idealistic to imagine that there
can be unity on all issues at all times in a healthy revolutionary
organization. To expect this is in fact a reactionary viewpoint.
Let us see what some of the founding
leaders of the revolutionary movement had to say on this. Engels said
that the law of the internal life of the revolutionary party is struggle.
Trotsky said that the healthy period of Bolshevism was the time of factions and
even factions within factions. Lenin would get enraged when members who had
differences would not write these down and circulate them for discussion and
debate and so would not help clarify the organization’s ideas. Marx, as the
First International took shape, was involved nonstop in debate with all sorts
of groupings inside the First International. Rosa Luxembourg stated: "Self
criticism, cruel unsparing criticism that goes to the very root of the evil, is
life and breath for the revolutionary movement".
Stack this up against the approach
of the CWI and all the self styled revolutionary groups today. It is a
different world.
It is true the Bolsheviks banned
factions during the civil war. We have doubts if this decision was correct. But
this happened at the height of a ferocious military conflict and no left group
today is in anything like the same universe as the Bolsheviks were at that
time.
We keep the following in mind. It
will take a revolutionary organization of tens of millions in the US and
hundreds of millions internationally to carry through the world revolution. It
is utterly impossible to imagine such forces assembling and being built without
differences, debate, discussion, continual exchange of views and without the
recognition that there has to be factions, that there will be factions, to
express the different views. Such a concept is utterly foreign to the CWI/SA
and in fact to all self styled revolutionary organizations. Along with the
CWI/SA's bad politics, especially the tendency towards opportunism which is
rooted in its approach, and which was expressed in their relationship to
Sanders and earlier in their role in the short lived Labor Party Advocates, it
is utterly un Marxist, utterly un dialectical, utterly inorganic, to imagine as
the CWI/SA leadership and the leaders of all the self-styled revolutionary
organizations do, that they can become semi mass organizations never mind mass
organizations with their present bureaucratic centralist approach.
The bigger organizations like the
CWI become, if they become bigger, the greater will be the diversity of
opinions. But because these organizations cannot tolerate different views, the
present state of affairs where we see split after split, resignation after
resignation, expulsion after expulsion, bureaucratic repression, public
condemnation and slander, all will continue.
This does not mean that a split in a revolutionary movement or organization is
never justified. At certain times it could be justified. But the issue is that
groups like the CWI do not see that the building of a mass revolutionary
international will only happen with great majestic struggles over ideas, over
perspectives, over program, over strategy, over tactics; the cut and
thrust of real life------the cut and thrust of the great challenging
contradictory dialectic. Not the dead hand of bureaucratic centralism that
dominates the internal life of groups like the CWI and SA.
We could go on with this, but we
will leave it here except to say that one thing to be considered is how come
the British section of the CWI led a struggle like the anti-poll tax in Britain
where18 million people refused to pay the tax and where hundreds went to jail;
a struggle that brought down Thatcher, and yet they came out of it in crisis,
never mind failing to build a large revolutionary force! Even a large
anti capitalist force! Of course there was the collapse of
Stalinism which was not anticipated by the CWI, but this was not all. There was also the fear the CWI leadership had
that it would lose control and also their misunderstanding of how a mass
revolutionary force can be built, will inevitably be built if it is to be built
at all. They want to build it block by block one at a time, top down under the
direction of the chief of construction, that is the dominant figure in the British section. The madness of it. They do not
even consider what will happen when this person, now in his seventies is no
longer around. This approach is shared to a greater or lesser degree by all
self-styled revolutionary organizations.
Any organization that has the same
person heading it (generally a male figure) for decades, and this is the case
with most of the self-styled left groupings, cannot be a healthy organization. The presently leading figure in the CWI has headed that organization for over half a century. This is a reflection of a mistaken approach.
But to go directly to the
resignation statement of the RI Comrades. In doing so we approach it not with what
is the usual sectarian view of immediately seeking to find where we disagree,
like a terrier seeking to find its prey and pounce on it, shaking it up in the
air in 'triumph'. Strutting with chest out proud that some difference has been
found. We have a very different approach. We seek to see where we agree and
proceed from this point. We are pleased when we find agreement. We then seek to identify if there are areas we think
need clarification and more discussion. And also as part of this process we seek to identify
if there are areas where there might be disagreement, and if there are, can we
live with this disagreement, and if so how?
So now to the resignation statement of the RI Comrades.
On the first reason the RI Comrades
give for resigning from the SA, that organization’s relationship to Sanders. We
feel there is total agreement between us. We published a number of pieces on
our Blog and a number of fliers to do with this issue. You can read one here . There are many more on our Blog.
At the time we were reaching out to the youth to whom we had access and were
putting out our ideas mainly through this blog. We were struggling to
find a name for ourselves, hence the name on that flier. This name did not
last. We were discussing with a number of youth around the Sanders
campaign and thought correctly, that when the penny dropped and Sanders
supported Clinton as we explained he would, many of these youth would be seeking
an alternative. Having a sense of proportion we did not consider there was any
possibility of any significant numbers of such activists joining the left
sectarian groups, or for that matter grouping themselves around our
Blog.
We considered the possibility that
some of them might turn to the Greens with its somewhat of a national presence
and with it recently having adopted an eco-socialist plank in its platform. We
were in the main incorrect on this. We made a limited initiative around the
Green Party for a little time, mainly through discussing ideas on their sites
and we were able to increase the audience for our ideas, increase our little core of comrades somewhat, around our
Blog and our associated Think Tank out of which has come our weekly conference calls.
But we were mistaken in
thinking that there was a possibility that any substantial numbers of Sanders supporters when they saw his supporting of Clinton would go to the Greens. We did not fully see the
serious weakness, in fact the conscious obstruction of the leadership of the
Green Party, its right wing character as it refused to put forward its eco
socialist plank and its fear of growth. In this, the leadership of the Green
party has something in common with the sectarian organizations. A fear of
growth in case they might lose control. The same can be said of the heads
of organized labor. They too prize their control of their organizations over all else, in their case organizing the unorganized.
We did not see the rise of the DSA.
How it would to a small extent appear to many young people as an organization
through which to fight. We think it is important to openly state where we make
or made mistakes. Otherwise we cannot learn. Mistakes are inevitable. But if
honestly recognized and discussed they can lead to improvements in ideas and
ways of working. If the inevitable mistakes are not recognized openly, success
in our struggle is impossible.
On the RI Comrades second reason for
resigning from the SA/CWI------SA's approach to the Democratic Party and the
DSA.
On the Democratic Party we are in
complete agreement. We do not have to dwell on this point.
On the DSA we believe we are also in
agreement. We see the growth of the DSA as a positive development. However we
also see that it faces a very troubled future. It has attracted many very good
and sincere mostly young people. But it has a wide variety of opinions within it, and most importantly no clear strategic vision for ending capitalism. This will lead to many serious crises in the future. These will not be
avoided, in fact they will be made worse, by the decentralized nature of the
DSA. The future of the DSA will also be complicated by the myriad of
sectarian groups and sectarian and ambitious individuals of all shapes and
sizes who are hovering in or around it like vultures. We think it is important
to contribute in the effort to help the membership of the DSA in clarifying
ideas. But we do so with some humility. The DSA has grown to over 20,000
members; a growth like this inevitably presents problems. We recognize that
this membership is of a varied nature. But nonetheless, any serious
revolutionary grouping has to start by asking why the DSA has had this growth
and seek to learn from this while at the same time assisting in the
clarification of ideas.
Whether this is best done by joining
the DSA or by working in united fronts with local DSA branches is we believe a
tactical issue which is also influenced by what resources revolutionary
socialists have and the different situations that exist in different
areas.
Something to be taken into
consideration in relation to this is that DSA has its no 'democratic
centralist grouping' rule. That is that no 'democratic centralist' group can have membership. Those of us around the Facts For Working People Blog and
Think Tank and conference calls have been discussing the issue of what is known
as democratic centralism for some time now, totally separate from any thought
of the DSA. In our opinion this term has become inseparable from
Stalinism and left sectarianism and we no longer use it. It no longer
clarifies. It only confuses. We think if we tie the term democratic centralism
to our banner then it will be impossible to convince people that we are neither
Stalinists or left sectarians. This will put an unnecessary obstacle in front
of our work of campaigning for socialism.
But more important, if we use the
term democratic centralism we ourselves will not thoroughly discuss and clarify
our thinking on internal organizational questions. So we reject the term
democratic centralism, what is known as democratic centralism and what is
practiced under the name of democratic centralism, whether by Stalinists, left
sectarians or so called Trotskyist or Maoist groups.
In our opinion the method of organizing known as democratic centralism has shown itself to be an unsuccessful method of organizing.
Further, in relation to where we
feel we have full agreement with the RI comrades on the Democratic Party we
have many articles and commentaries on the Democrats, the trade union
leadership and the relationship between them if Comrades wish to check the
labels on the right of the blog. Check
Democrats, Team Concept , unions, and Labor
On the RI Comrades third reason for
resigning from the SA/CWI - identity politics and special oppression. We feel
that this is an area where we would find it very helpful for us to have further
discussion and clarification. The RI comrades’ statement where these issues are
dealt with has made us all think more. We thank the Comrades.
The RI comrades state in relation to
the SA/CWI position: "At every turn, white supremacy and anti
blackness are subordinated to an analysis of class as mere derivatives." We believe that those of us around
FFWP do not do this. The Comrades' statement also explains that the SA/CWI
position is that "fighting classism is the best - and indeed the
ONLY WAY (RI comrades' emphasis) to eradicate
racism." We are not exactly sure of the RI comrades thinking
around this sentence. We would like to explore it more. In this context we would
like to share our experience in Northern Ireland where some of our FFWP people
did political work. It was not race but religion and gender but much more
overtly religion, that was the basis for special oppression and the tool used
to divide and rule.
A personal experience of one of the
founders of Facts For Working People blog is useful here. This Comrade was from
a Protestant Orange Order background on the border of Northern Ireland and
Southern Ireland. He took the lead in building the civil rights movement in the
town of Strabane. The Northern Ireland civil rights movement was inspired by
the civil rights movement in the US. In Northern Ireland it was in opposition
to the discrimination against the Catholic population. This Comrade, as well as
leading in building the civil rights movement in Strabane also led in the
building of the Young Socialists organization in Strabane. He was also a member of the Young Socialists
and the Labor party in Derry the second biggest city in Northern Ireland.
In 1969 there was an uprising in the
Catholic area of that city of Derry. The Bogside Uprising. For more
details Google "Battle of the Bogside 1969". This comrade
physically took part in that uprising against the Protestant and British state.
A body was formed to organize that uprising called the Bogside Citizens Defense
Association (The Bogside was the name of that Catholic area of the city) This
present FFWP comrade was the only person from a Protestant background who was
on that defense committee, political people are well aware that this could have
cost him his life.
We make this point not to boast but
to try to show that we do not retreat from the defense of oppressed minorities,
just confining ourselves to repeating phrases about class unity.
After the 30 year war of the IRA there
is now a peace agreement in Northern Ireland. But Northern Ireland is more
divided along sectarian lines than ever and unless there is a socialist
revolution in England, Scotland, Wales and Southern Ireland which engulfs the
North of Ireland there will most likely be a new war in the future and most
likely ethnic (religious) 'cleansing' and a new Protestant statelet. As long as
capitalism lasts, the problem of sectarianism and discrimination against
the Catholics and against women in Northern Ireland will continue. We also
believe that here in the US as long as capitalism exists the US will be a
vicious racist and sexist society.
We agree very much with the RI
Comrades' statement that "Violence against people of color is
often counter productive from the perspective of capital". We
used to put it this way in the North of Ireland: British imperialism bases
itself on sectarianism and divide and rule and the special oppression of the
Catholics in the North. They cannot rule without this. But what we explain is
that while British imperialism cannot rule without divide and rule, without
sectarianism, they want sectarianism to simmer, not boil over. When it
threatens to boil over, in most circumstances they take action to get it back
to the simmering level. Here in the US, the ruling class is now looking at the
danger of an explosion of the oppressed minorities in race and gender and worry
that Trump will cause the whole racist situation to boil over and seriously
damage their cities and industries and institutions. As well as this having
negative affects for them at home it would further undermine their diminishing
authority around the world.
There is a book by a bourgeois
writer that draws a balance sheet of the economic cost to US capitalism of the
uprisings in the African American communities in the US in 1968. US imperialism
is aware of this. They do not want it repeated-----at least at this stage. It
would be different if they were faced with a mass revolutionary movement of the
working class challenging for power. Then they would turn to drown this
revolutionary threat in a racist blood bath and to hell with the immediate
economic consequences as their hold on power would be threatened. Defeating
the threat of losing power would be their first priority. So they would seek to unleash
the nightmare of a racist civil war.
One of the many problems US
imperialism is faced with at the moment is it does not have a conscious,
astute bourgeois in the White House at a time when there is a general
economic, political, social, environmental and military crises of US
capitalism. Having what is close to an idiot, a totally self-serving moron in
the White House, destabilizes their system further. Amongst other things,
they are worried with the racist Predator in Chief that they might not be able
to keep the racism simmering. It might boil over. So they make a few
"concessions". The racist statues for example; at least take a few
down and make some gestures to take more down. They are hesitating on DACA as
Trump threatens to take it away while at the same time blaming Republicans for
failing to make it work and giving six months for them to come up with
something. It is not inconceivable that he could make a deal with the Democrats
to “legalize” DACA as a major section of the bourgeois, especially the high
tech sector, strongly opposes taking it away. US capitalism is also fearful of an uprising of the 800,000 people covered by DACA and their supporters.
They are also worried
if their racist pot boils over, their misogynist pot boils over, their
repression of gender orientation boils over, that this will weaken their
military where approximately 40% are either minorities or women or transgender.
To draw further on the experience of
Northern Ireland. British imperialism and its Northern Protestant state had to
make some concessions over the past years to end what had degenerated into an
open sectarian thirty-year military conflict. It is very similar to how US
imperialism had to make some concessions to the 1960's black revolt, put in
place a few anti racist laws and develop a Black and Latino petit bourgeois and
leadership. As we face the consequences of their destruction of the environment
and their climate change, it is worth noting that the mayor of Houston is
African American and the mayor off Miami is Latino. Whatever the color of
the skin of whoever is in some position of power in the US, US capitalism is still,
and always will be, a vicious racist state and society.
We have numerous statements and
commentaries on this issue on our blog. We do not believe we will have any
serious disagreement with the RI comrades on this but it is in our opinion an
issue which would be useful for us to explore further.
In closing on this point. We would
again like to emphasize that under no conditions do we subordinate the fight
against racism sexism etc., to the class struggle. This is an accusation
used by much of the petite bourgeois left and left academia. These people do not
see that the struggle that is subordinated above all others and that they
assist in subordinating, is the need to pursue, to bring to the fore, the
struggle of the working class against capitalism. This struggle is practically
never mentioned in US society and unfortunately practically never mentioned
amongst the left petite bourgeois and academia.
We stand with Malcolm X when he said:
“You cannot have capitalism without racism.” We then proceed on from
that. This statement by Malcom X if it means anything, means you cannot
eliminate racism, and we would include sexism something which Malcom X did not
address in the main, without eliminating capitalism. And we would proceed further. The only
force that can end capitalism and therefore racism and sexism, is the united
working class with a revolutionary leadership. Therefore we must at all times
fight racism and sexism, and at no time subordinate the fight against racism
and sexism to the fight of the working class over wages conditions etc.
Our thinking is that we should seek
to fight racism and sexism in a manner that takes into account building working
class unity, uniting the working class, as this is the only force that can in
the last analysis overthrow capitalism which is necessary if racism and sexism
is to be ended. And of course in this way, and simultaneously, the working class
will be capable of emancipating itself.
We do not think it is an accident
that so much of the struggle of left academia, of the African American and
Latino petit bourgeois and bourgeois, never mention Malcom X except to stress
his nationalism. Never mention Martin Luther King, except on occasion
to point to his non-violence. Both Malcom X and Martin Luther King before
they were assassinated were talking about ending capitalism, were talking about socialism, about "the
unity of the oppressed” (Malcolm X), about "the need for
some sort of democratic socialism in the US" (Martin Luther King)
and Martin Luther King was organizing his "Poor Peoples
" march on Washington. And he was moving to oppose US imperialism
and its savagery in Vietnam.
This evolution of ideas and methods
of these leaders toward these conclusions was the reason the bourgeois had
these leaders assassinated when they did. No, the evolution of these leaders
towards a united movement of all the oppressed, towards the need unite all poor
people, towards the need to end capitalism and imperialism does not fit into
the approach of most of the petite bourgeois leaderships of the various groupings
and individuals opposing in one way or another racism and sexism at this time.
Here are links to a few pieces we
have written or statements we have made on this subject. We feel it would
be very useful for all if we had further discussion and clarification
on this subject with the RI Comrades and all who are involved in fighting
racism and sexism.
On the RI comrades fourth reason for
resigning from the CWI, the international issues, from what we see in the
resignation statement we have full agreement. One of the many potholes the SA got
itself into with its opportunist support for Sanders was his position on
Zionism and on US imperialism. They staggered about and waffled on Sander's
position on these issues. It would be interesting to see what position the CWI
group in Israel has on Zionism and Sanders. We hear that it may be different
from the position of the CWI. See an article on our Blog by Roger
Silverman,
the first secretary of the CWI and another Comrade whom the CWI could not
tolerate because he was a critical and independent thinker.
On the RI comrades fifth reason for
resignation-------SA/CWI's leadership and internal life------ we have complete agreement.
We have had a similar experience to the RI comrades. We have tried to draw
general conclusions from this experience. We have concluded that it is not only
a question of petty ambitious individuals running that organization, though
this is the case in the CWI, and their selection and promotion of people in the
leaderships of its various sections who are similar to themselves, petty
ambitious people who will do what they are told and who will repress others in
their sections who will not do what they are told.
The CWI is an organization which
selects those most unfit, those most incapable, to lead its sections, and
either crushes or drives out those most fit those most capable. The most fit,
the most capable, meaning those with the strongest, deepest roots in the
working class and those most willing to critically assess the ideas and methods
of the organization and put forward their views-----these comrades are either driven out, or "re-educated."
It is the case that the leadership
of the CWI is dominated by people who have petty individual ambitions. But
Comrades of the FFWP do not believe this is the only factor involved. There
is also the false method, the false understanding of the CWI leadership of how
the internal life of a revolutionary organization has to take shape. As we have
already explained, the method of the CWI is to build its organization from the
top down one block on top of another, crushing any different views by fair
means or foul, driving out any independent thinkers, seeking at all times
to have unity under the command of the top few leaders, usually male. The
CWI and SA shares this false method with all the self styled revolutionary
organizations.
Finally: This statement from FFWP is not a
statement set in stone. Unlike the old methods of the CWI where a statement, a
document, from the leadership was holy writ and had to be accepted and if later
events showed it was incorrect it was buried and anybody who tried to dig
it up and discuss it was acted against. Comrades of the FFWP share this
statement with all who are interested and in the course of discussion if there
is any change of opinion of any FFWP comrade this will be shared openly on our
Blog.
In relation to leadership. FFWP
Comrades believe there needs to be a leadership, one way or another there will
always be a leadership, but we reject the false method where all decisions are
made in advance by the leadership and then by fair means or foul these decisions
are imposed on the membership, as is the practice of the SA/CWI and all of
the self styled revolutionary left organizations. We also believe that there
has to be more emphasis on building a collective and diverse leadership.
We believe a revolutionary
organization is essential. We hesitate to use the word a centralized
organization as this has so many negative connotations given how it has been
and is used by Stalinism and the left sectarian organizations. But we oppose
the undemocratic decentralization and consensus methods of organization. We
seek a short phrase with which to describe the type of internal life of a
revolutionary organization that we seek to help build. We would more prefer
some term such as a democratic unified organization. Or perhaps a unified
democratic organization. We are exploring this and would welcome help in
developing a precise formulation.
Settling on a precise
formulation for organization is difficult. We are dealing with a
complicated issue both historically and at the present time, and one in which
all things are in a continual process of change and development, it is
difficult to adequately describe such a complicated and continually moving
phenomenon using a two or three word term. Perhaps all that is possible is to
state the principles which we believe should govern organization. We believe in
an organization with full open discussion, decisions made by majority with
minority opinion having the right to be heard and to organize as factions to
better present their opinion. But with the policies of the organization being
decided by the majority of the organization. We do not believe in the
undemocratic methods of decentralization or consensus.
The method of the CWI/SA is that the
leadership is the teacher of the membership. We reject this method; we reject
the cult of the leader. We believe that revolutionaries who play leading roles, in fact all revolutionaries have to
harness their ego to the needs of the movement. This is not the case in
groups like the CWI. The CWI leadership sees that the membership's role is to carry out
the policies of the leadership, policies which the membership never have a real
genuine role in formulating. The CWI and all the self-styled revolutionary left
organizations when they have the resources, also have a full-time apparatus
that assists them in this, very much like the staffers in the trade union
movement.
We are not against a full time
apparatus by any means but it is how their role is understood, and related to
this how the leadership sees its role. We are for leadership but we are for a
dialectical interaction between the leadership and the membership. A
dialectical relationship which would not be fixed but would be influenced by
the phase through which the organization was passing at any given time. The
situation where a tiny organization exists which has no influence on the mass
consciousness, on the working class, would be very different than if there was
a mass organization such as the Bolsheviks were in the 1917 October days
faced with taking power.
There are articles on many subjects
pinned to the top of our Blog. On the right side of our Blog there are many
labels on many different subjects. Our Blog represents a body of work, our high
tech library, which seeks to explain the process of our thinking over the past
years. Please feel free to have a look at any subject of interest and also feel
free to raise any issue. We can say we no longer hold to every detail of our
thinking on all issues, even more than that on occasion. But that is the beauty
of the method of being determined to always face up to and openly acknowledge
the evolution of our views and where we were wrong and why we were wrong, that
is, show the evolution of our ideas. We reject the method of the CWI where
every meeting is to congratulate itself on how correct it has been on
everything and take bureaucratic action against any suggestion to the
contrary.
Comrades, we are very enthused by
the statement of the RI Comrades and the steps they are taking. Many thousands
of people have gone through the CWI and other sectarian self styled
organizations and found them wanting and have either retreated into fighting on
a local basis, or even given up fighting capitalism, or given up trying to
build an international revolutionary current/organization. The statement from
the RI Comrades shows that they are taking none of these roads. They are
committed to continuing the fight, to learning the lessons from their
experiences so far and building on a healthy basis.
Speaking for the FFWP this is very
inspiring. We appeal to all the many people who have gone through revolutionary
organizations and found them wanting, to the many people who are in
revolutionary organizations and find them wanting, to continue the fight but to
do so in collaboration with those of us who have found the methods of the
existing organizations incorrect and work together to build a revolutionary
movement with a healthy culture. FFWP Comrades seek to assist in the
building of an international revolutionary movement with a healthy culture. We
hope that we can discuss with the RI Comrades and other Comrades workers and youth who are opposed to capitalism to this end.
We seek to discuss with and
collaborate with the many people who consider themselves revolutionary
socialists but who see the false methods of the existing self styled revolutionary
groups. It is a staggering fact, it is a staggering condemnation of all the
self styled revolutionary groups, that there are many, many, more people who
consider themselves revolutionary socialists outside these organizations than
there are inside them. There is something wrong with all these organizations.
Something new has to be built. Something which learns the lessons from the
past, from the mistakes of the past. Something with a healthy culture.
September 2017
