The ICMP, the “Draft Call” Group, and the Fourth International

The “Draft Call” Group, the ICMP, and the Fourth International tn the document “Ceasefire Yes - Peace Process No” (May 8 1995) prioritising the International Internal Discussion within the Fourth International (FI) was stressed.. Shortly afterwards one meeting took place to discuss the 1995 World Congress.

The decisive features of that meeting were as follows : . Less than one week’s notice . The venue had to be booked by me three days before the meeting . Inadequate circulation of documents beforehand.

. Failure to give adequate notice to supporters of the majority International Executive Committee texts to come to any Irish pre World Congress discussion and present their views.

5. A discussion where about 70% of the time was taken up by representatives of three different currents within the British Section of the Fourth International.

The majority current in the British Section was part of a small minority (10%) current within the FI (the “Draft Call” Group) ; the other two minority British currents were so small they did not even get one delegate elected to the World Congress.

AWN —

The comrade representing the international minority tendency tried to represent the views endorsed by a majority of the IEC.

One resolution was adopted at the pre World Congress meeting expressing support for the “Draft Call” (so far I have not seen a printed version of this resolution).

One comrade represented the ICMP at the World Congress. He made a verbal report at a meeting in June. This seemed to represent an effort to reverse the internal collapse of the organisation. A written report was promised for July.

To date (December 2 1995, 4% months later) no written circulated document has appeared about the World Congress from ICMP supporters of the “Draft Call”.

Part of a Trend If this was an isolated example, things would be bad enough. In fact it is part of a trend.

Since the middle of 1993 (2% years ago) the ICMP committed itself to producing a “Marxist Programme” but has repeatedly failed to complete the task within any sort of reasonable timetable.

For example at the last National Meeting of the committee (June1995) a whole series of promises were made that have not materialised.

e There was to be a “final draft” of the Programme circulated in the Summer.

e A draft perspectives document was to be circulated, and a meeting held to discuss it in September. e There was to be a meeting to adopt both in October, and the programme was to be “launched”.

At the time of writing I am informed that no national meetings are scheduled. The main speaker at a late November public meeting, John McAnulty, told the audience that the programme would be ready in the second month of February 1996 (in the light of previous experience, there is little reason to believe him).

However we have received a report on the World Congress from one of the main advocates of the “Draft Call”, Jeff Mackler. This is a welcome development and all comrades who have not seen this document are urged to get a copy and read it. It gives us a framework for a written debate on some aspects of the debate within the Fourth International today.

Mackler represented the US “Socialist Action” (SA) organisation at the World Congress. He was part of a “caucus of oppositionists” (the “Draft Call” Group) in which the ICMP delegate participated. Mackler states that the Draft Call group presented counter-reports to “all majority reports with the exception of Latin America”. The 5 reports debated were : 1. World Political Report 2. Ex-USSR/Eastern Europe 3. Europe 4. Latin America 5. Building the Fourth International.

It is further reported that SA did not agree with the rest of the “Draft Call” group who favour calling for a political revolution in Cuba. On this issue SA sided with a majority of World Congress delegates. Nobody can reasonably expect supporters of the Draft Call to agree on every minor detail, especially tactical matters. However, very grave charges have been levelled against the leadership of the FI by Draft Call supporters in Ireland. The alleged “centrism” and “programmatic revisionsism” of the FI leadership has been referred to verbally a number of times - comrades appear to support the “Draft Call” group because it espouses similar themes.

Comrade Mackler clearly sets out his views on central issues - for example on Eastern Europe. He states that To justify the majority’s view that capitalism has been restored, or is about to be restored, comrades are compelled to revise much of our programmatic acquisitions on the class nature of the deformed and degenerated workers’ states.

In the real world a process of capitalist restoration is going on in the ex-USSR and Eastern Europe.

It varies in country to country, but is in reality unstoppable unless there is a big turnaround in the level and co-ordination of resistance by the working class, its organisations and allies.

Unfortunately something of that dimension does not appear to be on the immediate or even medium term horizon. For that reason I think the approach of comrade Mackler is dangerously wrong.

Some Irish Draft Call supporters appear not to agree with Mackler on this issue - arguably the central issue - so, what therefore is the basis for their unity against the FI leadership?

The answer is that the “Draft Call” group’s basis was so general it made room for many tendencies which opposed the majority resolutions passed at the last World Congress, even if the different components could not agree a common line amongst themselves on the important questions.

The leadership of the ICMP verbally opposes liquidation of the FI abroad, this was one of the reasons stated for supporting the “Draft Call” Group.

Isn’t it weird that the record demonstrates they practice it at home?

John Meehan December 2, 1995