Why do the splits from the Fourth International keep splitting?
United revolutionary organizations require breaking from the dead end of “party-fractions’
Revolutionary left organisations have often faced challenges in balancing principled political positions with effective organisational unity, sometimes leading to fragmentation, particularly during difficult periods for the working class. This reality gives rise to the concept of the "party-fraction".
The notion of the "party-fraction" describes an organisation that operates less like a broad international revolutionary party and more like a single, tightly controlled faction. According to analysis found in Moreau's work on the history of the Fourth International's debates, such groups base their identity and cohesion not primarily on the fundamental programme of the Fourth International, such as the Transitional Programme, but rather on a specific political platform unique to their tendency. Membership within these groups can become conditional on strict adherence to the leadership's particular interpretation of the programme. Any political difference or attempt at internal debate is often viewed as disloyalty, potentially leading to sanctions. This approach essentially merges the idea of a political tendency with the entire organisation.
Several factors and internal dynamics contribute to organisations functioning as party-fractions. These groups often ground their existence in their specific version of the history of the Fourth International and its internal debates. Their publications and discussions constantly reinforce This particular historical narrative. This "official history" essentially serves as the foundational basis of the organisation itself. Within these structures, democratic norms can be manipulated or bypassed if seen as obstacles. Recruitment practices may be designed to prevent any potential shift in the majority opinion. For instance, individuals who support the fundamental programme but are suspected of holding different views or potentially aligning with internal opposition currents might be refused membership. Attempts by minorities to recruit based on the theoretical right to express diverse views within the organisation can be labelled as "fractional recruitment", leading to expulsion. This effectively reserves the right to recruit solely for the majority.
While formally acknowledging the right to form tendencies, these organisations may practically impede their formation by limiting contact between members in different locations or even within the same city, making the establishment of national tendencies very difficult. When national opposition tendencies do manage to form, they are often expelled on minimal pretexts The entire organisational system may be structured to atomise the membership, making it practically impossible to remove the leadership. Furthermore, these groups tend to elevate almost every political disagreement to the level of a fundamental principled difference, blurring the lines between core programmatic questions and tactical evaluations.
This narrow perspective means that debates that should occur internally between tendencies end up becoming the dividing lines between entirely different organisations, leading to continuous splits and increased fragmentation. According to Moreau's analysis of these groups, the true leadership of the international grouping is seen as necessarily coinciding with the national leadership of the strongest national section within it, leaving room for only one dominant national organisation. Suppose an affiliated group achieves significant growth that challenges the leading section's position. In that case, it often results in a rupture [see also Moreau's discussion on the "anti-pablist" groups' "reconstruction" efforts and their tendency to split when allies gain importance]. Moreau's work also highlights that supporters of various rival international currents often point to differences within the Fourth International itself, which, from Moreau's perspective, betrays their own expectation of a monolithic international body where they would hold a monopoly and everyone agrees on all vital issues.
Methods used in polemics by some groups critiquing the Fourth International tradition, particularly those referred to as Lambertist, are described by Moreau as involving systematic extrapolation and procès d'intention (accusing opponents of hidden motives or secret agendas). This method relies on citing phrases out of context, using hearsay to "unmask" opponents' supposed real intentions, and accusing them of duplicity. Moreau specifically discusses what he terms the "Lambertist school of falsification," which he argues involves attributing positions to their opponents (like the "pablist" current) that those opponents explicitly reject. This is said to involve inventing "horror stories" about alleged crimes or betrayals that are difficult to verify historically. These methods, Moreau notes, are used to consolidate the leadership's control and prevent questioning. He also points out that methods used against the Fourth International can be turned back against these groups when their own affiliated organisations seek more independence. Jean-Jacques Marie's book Le trotskysme is cited as an example of this approach, presenting a "manichaean vision" of the International's history as a struggle between true Trotskyists and "pablist" traitors.
In contrast to the "party-fraction" concept, the sources describe the Fourth International as having explicitly rejected this model. Instead, it functions as an international organisation based on a fundamental revolutionary programme. It operates with a flexible application of international democratic centralism [This is a general principle discussed in the context of the International's functioning in contrast to the rigidities of other groups, particularly in Moreau's analysis]. The Fourth International aims to unite comrades from diverse backgrounds who may have different political perspectives and historical evaluations. It does not adhere to an "official history". Instead, debates about the past are intended to inform future actions rather than rigidly define historical truth.
The Fourth International practices "revolutionary democracy". This approach seeks to combine the broadest possible debate with unified action. It acknowledges and upholds the right to form tendencies and factions, aiming to make the tension between unity and divergence a creative force rather than a destructive one [Moreau discusses the obstruction of this right in other groups, framing its existence and value in the Fourth International tradition. Mandel also discusses the importance of combining free discussion with necessary discipline [Mandel, On the Pablo Tendency]]. The international organisation itself plays a crucial role in providing political perspective and mediating conflicts, seen as essential support rather than bureaucratic interference [Moreau discusses the International's role in providing perspective]. Practical collaboration in concrete struggles, such as united fronts, labour organising, and social movements, is considered important for building the trust needed to overcome theoretical differences [The importance of the united front tactic is stressed in countless works of the FI, and Moreau's historical analyses of the struggle against fascism.
Ultimately, the alternative offered by the Fourth International tradition lies in fostering a "culture of revolutionary democracy". This includes engaging in rigorous debate while avoiding personal attacks, respecting minority positions, collectively evaluating political experiences, and maintaining a consistent focus on class struggle rather than becoming solely preoccupied with internal organisational life [Moreau discusses the negative methods of debate used by rival groups, implying these positive practices as the alternative]. International solidarity and a global perspective are also seen as key components [Moreau emphasizes the role and perspective of the international organisation]. By developing these methods, the Fourth International tradition seeks to counteract the forces that lead to fragmentation in revolutionary organisations, aiming to preserve its organisational framework and work towards building a mass revolutionary international capable of leading the working class to power [Moreau discusses the tendency of other groups to split, highlighting the Fourth International's effort to maintain unity and continue its project]. The struggle for socialism is a difficult and complex historical process requiring serious and systematic effort to overcome setbacks and draw lessons from history [see Hansen’s introduction to his booklet on Indonesia]. As noted in the discussion of the Indonesian bloodbath of 1965, historical analysis and a willingness to correct mistakes are crucial for the revolutionary movement to avoid repeating past errors [Soedarso, Lessons from a Defeat].