CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL SOCIALISTS 1995-1996 FACTION FIGHT [Split
between IS Canada and Political Reorientation Faction/New
Socialist]

                    LEADERSHIP AND THE TURN IN THE IS

A document for the November 1994 National Convention of the IS 
By David McNally

1. The IS is now at a crossroads. we are in a position to begin
to develop a new type of organization - not just a larger one,
but one that leads real struggles and begins to develop a growing
cadre of worker members. Yet, the shift towards this sort of
organization can only be driven forward with decisive moves
toward a different type of leading body at the national level.
Without such changes there is a very real danger that the turn in
the oprganization [sic] will stall, that we will be unable to
transform the IS into the fighting socialist alternative on the
Canadian Left that is developing a level of implantation beyond
what any revolutionary organization has achieved since the 1920s.
And the key question here is that of the national political
center which has the responsibility for leading the
transformation of the IS. Put simply, the organization cannot be
decisively transformed without decisive changes in its leading
body.

2. It is certainly true that there have been important
accomplishments of the turn so far. The IS has more than doubled
in the 15 months since August of 1993 (from about 150 to roughly
340 members). Some branches have made considerable progress away
from the talk-shop atmosphere of the 1980s and towards the new
model of rooted, activist branches. In a whole number of cities
we have led very good and serious interventions - against racism,
on picket lines, for lesbian and gay rights, against the Reform
Party -- which prefigure our capacity to lead larger struggles in
the future.
     But it has to be said that the pace of change and growth has
been too slow; that too many branches are still largely stuck in
the habits of the 1980s; and that are often slow to recognize and
seize new opportunities. And we have to be clear: in
revolutionary politics it is terribly dangerous to proceed by
half measures. It is not viable, for example, to have an
organization which is half a 1980s group, and half a group of the
future. One or the other must prevail: either the habits and
methods of the 1980s are radically broken, and replaced by those
of the fighting, interventionist organization we aspire to
become, or they will undermine the moves towards a new type of
organization.
     We have an historic opportunity to start laying the basis of
the revolutionary party of the working class that will be
necessary in the mighty battles of the future. And, with the
growth of fascist movements in Europe and elsewhere, we know too
well what the price of failure can be. That is why there is such
a premium on leadership in this period. Without a determined and
unflagging push forward, we will not rise to the occasion and
move the IS towards a whole new stage of development.

3. In fact, if one thing stands out so far in our turn, it is
that we have consistently underestimated the opportunities that
exist and the changes that are required. To take two examples: it
is now clear that there is a considerable audience for our
politics among high school students, and that there are real
prospects for interventions in strikes and around workplace that
will enable us to develop a layer of worker members and
supporters in every city in which we operate. Already, we are
recruiting high school students in cities like Guelph,
Fredericton, Toronto, Vancouver and Ottawa. Yet, there are whole
branches doing no high school work. Similarly, two recent strike
interventions in Toronto - at American Standard and in the taxi
drivers strike -- have demonstrated the real impact that
socialists can have. In each case we have recruited a strike
activist, one of whom is regularly selling Socialist Worker
inside his factory. yet again, most branches are not doing any
workplace sales and are making little effort to relate to
workplace issues. As a result, we are failing to take advantage
of real opportunities to fully shift our organization away from
being one focussed overwhelmingly on university campuses and
towards one which is building among high school students and
militant workers as well.

4. The point of this is not to paint a picture of doom and gloom.
There is genuine progress in the organization. But there is also
too much unevenness, too much persistence in the passive habits
of the 1980s, too little sense of audacity in seizing the
possibilities that exist. And the thing can least afford at the
moment is any tendency to be self-satisfied. Without being in any
way gloomy, we must have a burning dissatisfaction with where we
are and a determination to move forward more rapidly and with
greater resolve.
     And to do that, we need to acknowledge the degree to which
the organization and its leadership are still shaped by what we
have described as "the conservatism and passivity which is a
legacy of the 1980s" (D. McNally, "Going for Growth: New
Perspectives for the IS," IS Bulletin, August 1993). Formally,
there are no disagreements within the national leadership over
perspectives for building and transforming the IS ( a
perspectives document for convention is now available). But the
leadership itself is not making the changes that are required by
the period. Indeed, there is a very real sense in which the state
of the national leadership is the weak link in the chain for the
IS at the moment. That is what makes the question of leadership
so urgent.

5. It should come as no surprise that problems exist inside the
leading body and that they have produced a sharp debate inside
the national leadership. As Trotsky wrote,
     "generally speaking, crises arise in the party at every
     serious turn in the party's course, either as a prelude to
     the turn or as a consequence of it. The explanation for this
     lies in the fact that every period in the development of the
     party has special features of its own and calls for specific
     habits and methods of work. A tactical turn implies a 
     greater or lesser break in these habits and methods"
     (Lessons of October)

     For the Steering Committee, the habits of the 1980s were
created by the basic tasks of the day: a focus on general Marxist
propaganda in a period in which the opportunities for serious
involvement in struggles were few and far between. As a result,
our leadership could operate largely by way of clarifying general
arguments and analyzing key events in the class struggle and
world politics, by way of commentary in other words. The level of
centralism that is required under such circumstances is fairly
minimal. Clearly, producing a paper, organizing national meetings
and speaking tours required a level of centralized
decision-making. But much of what leading members did could be
done quite individually - giving talks, writing articles and so
on. As a result, our leading body was highly federalist in nature
-- a collection of individuals who were prepared to work together
but whose practice was largely self-directed.
     The 1990s demand of us a different type of organization and
a different type of leadership. We are required to transform a
small propaganda group into a combat-style organization which,
while continuing to make general propaganda, focuses on active
intervention and leadership in real struggles. Whereas
disseminating ideas does not require much centralization, forging
a practice of intervention does. We have to be able to weld the
activity of our members into a highly unified collective practice
--- around the Campaign Against the Reform Party, in response to
a Nazi attack in Toronto, into a campaign against job cuts in the
public service in Ottawa, and so on. And this requires not simply
that we can speak the same line, but that we can act effectively
and collectively.
     All this requires a much higher level of centralism. And it
also requires a leadership which is equally interventionist
inside the organization; one which attempts to drive the practice
of its branches forward, which takes up and pursues the debates
of the day, and which fights vigorously for its perspective on
how to move the organization forward. Effective intervention in
the outside world requires a leadership which intervenes inside
the organization, one that attempts to overcome the unevenness
inside the group, and which conducts open argument and debate to
clarify perspectives and move the organization ahead.
     The Steering Committee, in my opinion, is still dramatically
removed from this model of an interventionist leading body. its
break with the habits and methods of the past is extremely
partial. It remains too bogged down in an abstract and passive
relationship to the districts and branches of the IS. It
satisfies itself too often with vague and general pronouncements;
and it does too little to guide and direct the process of
branch-building. In short, the general problem of "abstentionism"
from the struggles of the day which characterized the
organization as it came out of the 1980s also characterizes the
Steering Committee in its relationship to the districts and
branches. We have, in other words, a tendency towards an
abstentionist political leadership, a leadership which
far too often abstains from intervention into the life of the
organization and which fails to try to guide and direct its work.
     And here we must address the question of developing a
collective leadership. There is no doubt that we lack one in the
IS. It is also the case that we won't get one through discussions
of division of labour and decision making process within the
leading body. the accountability of individuals to a collective
body is not largely a formal question of reviewing individual
performance (indeed, that tend simply to perpetuate the view of
the leading body as a collection of individuals). Instead, what
we are talking about is the accountability of the work of the
body, its practice. Just like the revolutionary party as a whole,
its collective leadership is forged in struggle - and the
struggle to win the organization to perspectives, to transform
its practice is central here. If the leadership does not work
together to win positions within the organization, it can never
develop the confidence and cohesion which are vital to an active,
interventionist collective leadership; instead it will remain
brittle and defensive.

6. It is no secret that discontent with the national body has
been widespread for some time now, particularly at the last two
national meetings (the Organizing Committee meeting at Marxism
'94 last May and the National Committee meeting last August). And
we have made a number of moves to try to address the underlying
problems. In particular, we have appointed three organizers
directly responsible for branches and districts in parts of the
organization: Shawn W, National Secretary, with special
responsibility for the Atlantic branches (Fredericton and
Halifax) and the British Columbia branches (Vancouver and
Victoria) among other tasks, David M, Toronto district organizer
(five branches), and Pam F, southern Ontario organizer (Windsor,
Guelph, London, Peterborough).
     These appointments are a step in the right direction. they
have given us a direct, hands-on involvement in a sizable number
of branches. But on their own, these moves are piecemeal; they
are half steps at a time when we need full steps forward. And the
appointment of these organizers has not really made much
difference to the nature of the Steering Committee which still
fails to address concrete problems of building in a serious and
ongoing way and which fails much of the time to argue its view of
what is to be done. In my view a number of things follow from my
assessment of the state of the Steering Committee and the
national leadership at this stage of our turn: 1) There is a need
to increase the number of full-time staff on the body as quickly
as possible. Interventionist leadership requires more people who
can actually be on the ground in branches in order to assess
things concretely and to translate general perspectives into
concrete, operational proposals; 2) We need to move towards
regional organizers throughout the IS. This is something the ISO
in the US has done to great advantage. Regional organizers who
are able to work with branches on the ground on a consistent
basis are crucial in a country of this size (and can provide
ongoing direction different from what a Steering Committee member
who comes in occasionally can do). In order to finance such
organizers its looks like a dues base of at least 100 members in
a region is necessary. I believe the first priority, therefore,
is a regional organizer for eastern Ontario and Quebec (Kingston,
Peterborough, Ottawa, Montreal, an area in which we now have
nearly 100 members) and that, if at all possible, this comrade
should be bilingual. After that we will need to begin preparing
for a British Columbia organizer; 3) We need a serious financial
plan for building our fulltime staff at the national and regional
levels. In particular, we need to develop a framework for funding
districts (we now have three -- Toronto, Vancouver, Ottawa) and
paying for regional organizers while at the same time expanding
the resources of the center. This requires a complete review of
fund-raising in the IS. We need a plan of action on fund-raising
around which we can mobilize the members and those who are
supportive of the work we do. we cannot afford to repeat the
mistakes of the current fund drive which is now into its
seventh month and is yet to reach the halfway point of its
$20,000 target; 4) Related to all of this is the question of
moving Socialist Worker towards bi-weekly publication. this is a
vitally important move (on which there will be documents and a
full discsussion [sic] at convention) and one which requires a
very serious plan with respect to staff and finances; 5) We need
to review the composition of the Steering Committee and to asses
whether it is now time to make changes in the personnel on our
leading body. Without a leading body which is prepared to operate
in a hands-on, interventionist fashion, we will not be able to
take these steps (let alone move to a bi-weekly paper). That is
what makes the composition and direction of the Steering
Committee such a crucial question at the moment.

7. The question of membership on elected bodies is often seen as
a delicate one, especially in small groups. Yet it is vital that
we be able to discuss and debate such questions in a
revolutionary organization. As Lenin argued, if we are serious
about our tasks -- building a revolutionary party with the best
leadership we can get -- then "our only consideration should be
the interests of the work and a person's suitability for the post
to which he is being elected." And Lenin insisted that it was
incorrect to suggest "that we want to cast a slur on people
personally, although we only set them aside (or shift them)
politically."
     The key question with respect to leadership is who is
actually leading in the direction required at the moment: who is
shaping and steering the group's practice in the right direction,
who is fighting for the political clarity necessary to move the
group forward, who is helping, through argument, intervention and
example, to develop cadres capable of building the organization,
and who is doing the practical work necessary to these ends.
     In a healthy and developing organization, there are always
new cadres pushing forward, giving a lead, and, because they have
been less affected by the habits of a previous period, often
these younger comrades are among the most daring and imaginative.
Leadership is always dynamic. As the organization and its tasks
change, so often will its actual leadership. In principle, this
is a necessary and healthy thing; in practice it often produces
conflict and debate. Of course there is also a need for
continuity on leading bodies. The traditions of a revolutionary
organization are vital. So, at any one point in time, the
selection of a leadership involves the need for a degree of
continuity combined the need for change, renewal and development.


8. At the Steering Committee meeting on October 24, I presented a
proposal for an SC slate to be presented to the national
convention. After debate on that proposal, it was agreed that all
positions (at that point Paul K also had elements of an
alternative position, but not a complete one, which are available
in the document he has circulated informally) should be
considered items of public discussion and debate in the IS. At
the next meeting, October 31, Paul requested that no slate
proposals be issued as formal resolutions until the Steering
Committee met once more. To honour that request, I will not issue
a slate resolution until after that meeting. nevertheless, the
discussion and debate will continue - as it should.
     I am publishing this document as an attempt to provide a
political framework for the debate over specific slate proposals.
i believe that the coming national convention has both the
opportunity and the obligation to deal with the problems of the
national leading body. But it is vital that this be done in the
context of a political debate on the tasks, direction and
responsibilities of that body. I intend this document as a
central contribution to that debate.


A PROPOSED SLATE FOR THE STEERING COMMITTEE

A document for the November 1994 National Convention of the IS
By David McNally

This document should be read in conjunction with my "Leadership
and the Turn in the IS," Pre-Convention Bulletin #2 - Supplement.

1. In Leadership and the Turn in the IS, I argued that we have
not been transforming the IS quickly and decisively enough
largely because the leading body, the Steering Committee, remains
too stuck in the habits of the 1980s. I claimed that the Steering
Committee abstains from consistent intervention inside the
organization, that it fails to fight throughout the branches and
districts for its perspectives, that it tends to content itself
with general pronouncements without concrete direction. And I
argued that the key to building a real collective leadership in
the IS hinges on developing an interventionist practice on the
leading body.
     Only a leading group which openly debates and intervenes to
push positions within the organization can develop the political
trust required to break out of the defensive posture the Steering
Committee now adopts towards the organization. That's why I see
political abstentionism by the leadership as the cause -- not a
symptom -- of our problems. The poor habits of the leading body
have a political root: the failure to move towards an
interventionist leadership. It is by changing the political
practice of the leadership that we will break old habits. Bad
habits are tied to bad practice. To focus on habits is to mistake
cause for effect. For that reason, I have insisted that one of
the key tasks of the moment is politically reorienting the
leading body.
     A political reorientation begins with open debate. And there
is no better time to conduct such a debate than the annual pre-
convention discussion period. The objective of such debate is to
win a mandate from convention delegates for a political
perspective, in this case one that addresses the problems of the
national leading body and attempts to chart a way forward.

2. My objective in publishing Leadership and the Turn in the IS
was to provoke a debate over the tasks and direction of the
leading body of the organization. At the same time, all debates
have operational conclusions. I argued that my perspective
involved five interrelated tasks. First, increasing the number of
full-time staff on the Steering Committee. Second, moving towards
regional organizers in the IS (the first for eastern Ontario and
Quebec). Third, developing a viable financial plan for the
funding of the national center, the districts and the branches to
make these moves possible. Fourth, operationalizing our desire to
move Socialist Worker toward bi-weekly publication in the context
of this financial and staff plan. Fifth, reviewing the
composition of the Steering Committee and who is leading the
organization on the ground in order to come up with a slate of
candidates which we think represents the strongest leading body
possible under the circumstances.


3. But let us be clear about a key point: in and of themselves,
changes in the personnel of the Steering Committee accomplish
little. As part of a political reorientation, however, they can
play an important role.
     That is why discussion of the Steering Committee must begin
on the level of its basic tasks and direction. the incoming body
needs a political mandate from the convention in this regard. The
new SC needs, I believe, to be empowered with a mandate to create
a much more interventionist national leadership. And it must
itself expect to be accountable to that commitment. But at the
moment, there is no mandate that is clearly spelled out. I may
have my own position on the problems of the SC and the type of
body it should become, but it is just that -- my position. The
organization through its elected delegates needs to take a stand
for or against a position such as mine. Then we will at least be
clear as to what political direction the SC is charged with.

4. A number of the arguments I have put forward here and in my
earlier document have been made during the course of our past
three national meetings: the delegated national meeting on April
29 of this year, the Organizing Committee meeting on May 1, the
National Committee meeting on August 13. Because I believe that
the Steering Committee has not moved quickly and decisively
enough to make the changes required, I opened a debate by
presenting a proposal for a Steering Committee slate to
convention at the SC meeting on October 24.
     Inherent in my doing so was a real risk: that debate over
political direction would bog down in debate over personalities.
There is no question in my mind that this happened. And for that
reason, I have changed my position on the question of replacing
individuals on the SC. In and of itself, replacements are a
legitimate option. But if debate over such proposals
depoliticizes the discussion by focussing on individuals per se,
then it can lower the level of discussion. And we need to raise
the level of debate around leadership in the IS, not lower it.
Moreover, I do not believe that any one individual or individuals
are the source of our problem. That does not mean that some slate
proposals are not stronger than others; in fact I favour the
minority slate which has been put forward within the Steering
Committee. But I believe that we can come up with an incoming
slate which is stronger than the outgoing one, one which moves in
the necessary political direction.
     At the heart of my position is the need to bring on some
younger comrades who have shown abilities which are in short
supply on the current body. On the contrary, these are comrades
of exceptional ability in a whole range of areas. But the mix of
talents is not what it should be. In particular, we have too
little sense of hands-on branch building in the SC. We have too
little sense of operationalizing general perspectives, of
translating them into real, usable directions on the ground. And
we have a real deficit when it comes to comrades who are willing
to go into branches and districts an actually conduct an argument
-- especially with the leading cadre on the ground.
     For that reason, I have argued for the addition of two new
people to the Steering Committee: Pam F and David C. Although my
arguments for Pam, unlike David, seem to be largely accepted
within the Steering Committee, I think it is important to
motivate both of them.
     Pam was hired by the Steering Committee in September as
southern Ontario organizer. She has done a very good job in this
area. Pam has a terrific flair for intervention (as anyone who
has been with her on a demonstration or picket line will know).
She has a knack for the concrete aspects of branch-building and a
willingness to fight for a perspective (her work with the Guelph
branch, which had to be won to a number of basic aspects of
branch building, is a prime example of this). Bringing Pam onto
the Steering Committee would also immediately add one full-time
organizer to the body, something we desperately need more of.
     David C has developed as one of the best concrete
propagandists in the organization. He is the author of the
widely-praised national student brochure ("Fighting Back! The
International Socialists Student Club") and of our recent Why You
Should be a Socialist pamphlet. At the same time, David has a
proven record as a builder. He has played an absolutely central
role in our work at York University over the past few years, the
campus on which we have had our strongest presences in the
country. Since June he has also been on the District Committee in
Toronto. perhaps more important, David has shown a willingness to
argue and fight for political positions within the organization.
In fact, a member of the Ottawa district committee (formally its
district organizer) has stated that dealing with David and his
willingness to argue about what is to be done on the ground has
been both a rare and a refreshing experience of a leading comrade
in the IS.
     And let us not fudge a key point: I believe both Pam and
David position themselves closely in relation to the arguments I
have put forward in Leadership and the Turn in the IS.I am not
shy about saying that I would like to see strong advocates for
that position on the SC, as well as people who are prepared to
intervene and fight for positons [sic] throughout the
organization.
     At this stage of the game, it is vital that we argue all of
these things through, even where individuals are at issue. if we
are to become an organization capable of open and principled
debate over all questions we must learn to do so. We need to
develop what Lenin called "loyal methods of Party struggle and
controversy" in which we can have sharp debate over any and all
questions of strategy, tactics and organization and then unite in
common cause after a majority decision has been taken (while
ensuring that minorities have the right to put their positions
openly before national meetings).

6. Moving forward on the question of the national leadership is a
key question of the moment for the IS. Turns put an enormous
premium on leadership, on the ability of a leading body to drive
the pace of transformation. Our national leading body has been
too slow and sluggish with respect to the needs of the moment. I
believe that the slate I am proposing should help us move towards
a leadership which will be more combative, more interventionist,
more concrete and less passive and defensive in relation to the
organization as a whole. And to that end I move the following
slate proposal:

RESOLUTION:

     That this national convention of the IS elect the following
slate as its new Steering Committee:

Abbie B, David C, Carolyn E, Pam F, Paul K, David M, Michelle R,
Shawn W





[IS National Convention November 1994 - Document: Socialists
Matter
Now Pre-Convention Bulletin #3, "The Way Forward", pp. 7-11]

The Way Forward

We are writing this document because we feel that we are at an
absolutely critical juncture in the development of the
International Socialists. The IS has grown dramatically in the
last year, and has recruited over 70 people in the last month,
more than at any time in the history of the organization. In
addition we have made several steps forward in transforming the
routine of the group in line with the needs of the period. Yet,
at the same time, there are tremendous problems, and we know the
potential is much greater. There has been a growing sense of
frustration with the functioning of the steering committee by
members both on and off that body.

It is clear that the steering committee has come up against the
limitations of old habits and methods of operating, and that
there has been a vacuum of the type of leadership necessary to
drive the IS forward. we are, all of us, tired of dramatic
pronouncements of the possibilities that lie before us, but with
few concrete direction or actions which make that perspective a
reality. We need a steering committee which committs [sic] itself
to build a united leadership, to actively lead the organization
with a shared political perspective and a clarity of ideas, and
very importantly a clear strategy to put those ideas into
practice. We need a new type of leading body.

We have read David McNally's document and find it ironic that it
was released to the membership before it was seen by the
leadership. This is symptomatic of the problems of the leading
body; an absolute inability to function in a collective or
cooperative manner, a total lack of political discussion within
that body, a refusal by leading members to argue or debate the
political direction forward. This, although the political
perspective is shared among all its members.

We agree with most of the points in the McNally document, in fact
many of them have been brought forward by members of the steering
committee over the last period. We strongly agree with his
diagnosis that we have a "tendency towards an abstentionist
political leadership". This statement however is not good enough,
because abstentionism is merely symptomatic of a deeper problem.
That deeper problem flows out of two interrelated phenomenon
[sic] which are products of the 1980's.

One the one hand [sic], the conservative era of the 80's meant
that a solid, collective leadership which had to agree and debate
the necessary twists and turns of relating to real struggles was
not forged. Members of the steering committee could satisfy
themselves with a general agreement on the nature and meaning of
world events and then carry out their work of maintaining the
organization, putting out a propaganda newspaper, giving public
talks etc. In other words steering committee members could by and
large do their own thing as leading individuals in the
organization. This created habits of individualism which are
unacceptable given the demands of the present period. Steering
committee comrades cannot simply abstain from steering committee
debates, which has been happening, because they disagree on
either tactical points or questions of personal style, or
whatever. It is absolutely irresponsible to do so.

This has been approach of David McNally for some time. He simply
removed himself from steering committee debates and operated
outside of the body. He does not argue or put issues on the
table. His document is symptomatic of this, not only in terms of
its preparation in total isolation from the body as a whole, but
also in the way in which he is conveniently absent from his
critique of that body. As a leading member of the organization
since its inception, he can not extricate himself from the
problems which are symptomatic to that body.

The second 80's habit comes about as a result of a debilitating
faction fight, itself the product of the confusion of trying to
adapt to the conservatism of the era. This has maintained itself
as a refusal to argue positions for fear of once again
factionalizing the group. This may not have been such a problem
in the 80's, but today where a collective, unified position on
tactics and strategies needs to be hammered out in order to push
the group forward in all the various aspects of the organization,
branch routine, Socialist Worker, finances, fundraising etc., it
is a serious hinderance.

Paul Kellogg and Abbie Bakan typify this habit, only debating
strongly on issues of principle. the result is also a form of
abstentionism. The two problems together blunt the ability of
those leading comrades and that of the body as a whole. We
believe that this has lead to the floundering that has taken
place, allowing the group to essentially find its own way
forward, and squandering the potential that exists for dramatic
breakthroughs.

The overall result of these habits is an abstentionist leadership
which is satisfied as McNally says "too often with vague and
general pronouncements and it does too little to guide and direct
of process of branch building". Rather the leadership attempts to
intervene but does so as isolated individuals, pushing their own
particular concern such as finances, book services or branch
routine, for instance, which might be at crosspurposes with what
other steering committee members might be arguing in the branches
or districts at a particular moment. We do not act as one unified
body pushing in the same direction. the result is confusion
around priorities and focus, which make steering committee
interventions seem like "vague and general pronouncements[.]"

Our overall arguement [sic] then is that the problems of the
steering committee are collective, political ones. No member of
that body is not implicated in these habits by action or
inaction. For any member to claim otherwise is an abdication of
responsibility in the extreme.

ENDING THE BAD HABITS: A  POSITIVE PROGRAM

A number of things flow from our perspective of the period and
from our analysis of steering committee problems. Identifying the
weaknesses of the leading body is not enough to correct them and
we must take concrete steps. the individualism and abstentionism
of the 80's must be stopped, arguments and debates must be open
and above board, and all members of that body must make the
committment [sic] to build a unified leadership, and work within
the body. this an absolute necessity if we are to move forward.

Secondly, we have to professionalize and expand the
infrastructure and personel [sic] of the organization in line
with the needs and possibilities of the period. More of the
national leadership has to become fulltime, we can not expect to
give the type of leadership and direction required on a part time
basis. It is simply not possible and we have been profoundly
conservative on this, as well as other necessary steps to
professionalize. We need fulltime organizers as quickly as
possible. David McNally makes a proposal to put on an Eastern
Ontario organizer and Paul Kellogg made a proposal adopted by the
steering committee regarding the production of materials in
French and moving to a bi-weekly newspaper. Both of these
proposals are good steps in moving the group forward but do
not go far enough. 

In British Columbia we have a district organizer Michelle Sklar,
we must work out arrangements with the region to divide expenses
and move quickly to a West Coast organizer. We must move toward
appointing an organizer for the Atlantic provinces. We would
suggest Steve Ellis. We can not wait until we have 100  members,
we must move now to take advantage of the favourable
possibilities for building, particularly in the numerous towns
and cities where we have members at large. Organizers would be
able to provide greatly needed resources to the existing branches
in the areas and help them to root and grow. This will also free
up the time of the national secretary (Shawn) to focus on new
branches and the building of branches in northern Ontario and the
Prairies (Sudbury, Winnipeg, regina, Saskatoon and Calgary).
Focusing Shawn's energies in this way would allow for us to
finally make a breakthrough in Central Canada.

With regards to work in French, it is not enough to simply move
in that direction by producing an 8 and 1/2 by 14 monthly French
supplement. (The Verdun branch in Montreal has already started on
a French language quarterly.) Abbie has proposed focusing
upcoming bookservice purchases toward liturature [sic] in French
produced by our sister organization in France. In addition, the
steering committee must make a committment towards becoming
bilingual. this means that we must immediately produce all
leaflets in French, membership cards, the proposed members kit,
IS pamphlets, ("Why You Should Be a Socialist" is already being
translated), internal documents, campaign materials (buttons,
posters etc.).

These are key to our ability to build among Francophones,
particularly given the opportunities that exist around the Quebec
referendum and the cutbacks. Already we have three branches which
operate at least partially in French. taking these measures would
be an excellent first step towards expanding in Quebec. Also, a
steering committee member should be designated to focus on work
in French by providing direct concrete support.

We support the proposal for a bi-weekly paper by next spring as a
necessary further step in changing the tempo and routine of the
organization. this move, as with all our other suggestions,
requires a unified leadership capable of campaigning throughout
the organization in order to meet the financial targets required
to sustain this, and to build the kind of routine, as laid out in
the perspectives document which is necessary to support it (door
to door sales, personal sales, etc.). A clear financial strategy
must be strongly taken up and supported by all levels of the
organization, political fundraising as well as a serious
commitment to dues checkoff must be adopted and motivated
throughout the group. Launching a fund drive and then leaving it
to essentially build itself is unacceptable. It is a critical
component to professionalizing the organization. toronto and
Ottawa, our largest districts have been particularly weak in this
area.

None of these plans will come to fruition if we don't develop a
strategic plan for the organization as a whole, in order to end
the sense of acting without clear goals and objectives within the
overall perspective of a consistent direction forward. Over the
next six months and more it is clear that the main focus of our
activity will be around the Liberal cuts, the Quebec referendum,
the anti-immigrant backlash and the struggle for lesbian and gay
rights. We want to use these focuses and the specific concrete
actions which are connected with them to do a number of things.
Through consistent united front activity which moves from the
Lloyd Axworthy hearings, to the student strike in late january
and to the NAC day of Action against the cuts on international
women's day in early March, we can position ourselves as the
group best able to take a lead and give direction to the fight
against the cuts to a whole new layer of activists.

This will require us to educate all the comrades around the
concrete application of the united front, correcting past errors
and moving in bold directions to expand our influence not only on
the campuses where we presently are, but amongst high school
students (where we have begun to have a hearing, and to which all
branches should be relating) , and on local community college
campuses. Beyond the student milieu we can begin to build rank
and file networks among working class activists, and develop a
cadre of worker members. And we must continue the fight within
the organization to win all comrades to the concept of open
recruitment, there is still resistance and this must be changed
immediately. With the steering committee providing concrete
support and direction which generalizes from our past experiences
and all of its members taking seriously the need to work together
and take up its role to pull the organization forward, we will
actually be in a position to lead real struggles, and draw more
and more people to revolutionary socialism. This will solidify
the turn toward rooted, more activist branches involved in
serious interventions.

If we carry through on the proposals to expand the infrastructure
and personnel of the IS, more decisively toward becoming a
bilingual organization and develop a comprehensive strategic plan
to build and generalize around the key issues of the day, the
cuts, the right and Quebec, while maintaining the flexibility to
respond to new issues and events, we stand to grow quantitively
[sic] and qualititively [sic] in terms of numbers, branches and
implantation, roots and the development of a broader layer of
cadre.

In order to do this we need a leadership team which reflects both
the history, traditions and experiences of our organization and
the revolutionary tradition, as well as the addition of new
cadre. The core of the steering committee consists of three long
time members, Abbie, David and Paul (Kogan is stepping down). All
of these comrades have strengths and weaknesses but each has led
the organization in various aspects and each continues to be a
key resource of knowledge, experience and hands on know how for
the growth and maintenance of our organization. We must judge the
body as a whole. McNally's argument and his difference (along
with Kogan) and the rest of the Steering Committee has centered
on the removal of one of these comrades - in particular abbie. We
strongly disagree for the reason stated above and because the key
arguments at this critical juncture are not personnel arguments.
Our organization has removed seven members of the Steering
Committee in the last five or six years and this has utterly
failed to resolve the underlying problems of developing a
collective leadership. The problem is a political one.
Furthermore, with Kogan standing down, two steering committe
[sic] members will have left the body since the last election -
the other being Phil Johnson. Any talk of their [sic] still being
too many of the "old leadership" on this body is mere deflection
of the underlying political problems; it is a continuation of the
fudge, and it obscures the real issues.

Adding two new comrades to replace those who have left is an
excellent idea that will bring fresh ideas to the body, untainted
by the habits of the past. This is particularly so if we have
identified the underlying political weaknesses which have
prevented the Steering Committee from moving forward: an
abstentionism born of inherited habits from the 80's -
individualism and fear of factionalism. We have to make these
necessary changes immediately, things cannot remain as they are.

We have to sieze [sic] the moment, build a fighting,
interventionist organization with a leadership which will
consistently provide the necessary direction forward, and we will
be laying the basis for building a revolutionary party of the
working class which is so desperately needed.



Steering Committee Slate Proposal I

There are six members of the current steering committee who are
willing to stand on a new slate. in addition, we should add two
new comrades, Pam Frache and Ritch Whyman.

Pam is a brilliant organizer who has shown an undoubted ability
to intervene in branches and push the arguments necessary to move
these branches forward. She is someone who leads with a
confidence and concreteness that gives confidence to those around
her. Ritch is also an excellent organizer with experience in the
anti-poverty movement as well as in the IS. He is very well
rooted amongst ant-poverty [sic] activists in both Ontario and
Quebec.

Slate proposal, supported by five of the outgoing steering
committee (Abbie Bakan, Carolyn Egan, Paul Kellogg, Michelle
Robidoux and Shawn Whitney):

Abbie Bakan, Carolyn Egan, Pam Frache, Paul Kellogg, David
McNally, Michelle Robidoux, Shawn Whitney, Ritch Whyman

Submitted by: Carolyn Egan, Michelle Robidoux, Shawn Whitney


            DECLARATION OF THE POLITICAL REORIENTATION FACTION
{JANUARY 1, 1996)

1.   THE I.S. TODAY
Since early 1995 there have been extremely worrying developments
in the I.S.
     Although Steering Committee members say that political
debate is important, there is less discussion and debate in the
I.S. now than there has ever been. At national branch meetings
(where only delegates can speak) there is virtually no debate. In
branches in Toronto and Ottawa, where Steering Committee members
are present every week, meetings have become dull and lifeless.
The leadership treats comrades who raise disagreements as enemies
to be smashed. Slander and name-calling ("Menshevik", "old-I.S.")
replace the debate of political positions. In. Nov. 1995 Abbie B.
of the Steering Committee approvingly quoted British S.W.P.
Central Committee member John Rees's claim that in the S.W. P.
debate means "We hammer away at them 'til they give in.'" The
Steering Committee gives little indication that it is genuinely
interested in debate.
     Elected leadership bodies are now expected to be nothing
more than conveyor belts for Steering Committee directives. In
May 1995, after Hamid S. of the Dufferin branch committee was
nominated and stood in election against the candidate for
National Committee delegate proposed by the branch committee, he
was forced off the branch committee[.] In Sept. 1995 Ottawa
branch committee member Anne S. was told by Pam F. of the
Steering Committee that branch committee members had to support
the Steering Committee unconditionally, not on an "issue by issue
basis". 
     Various members are treated as "bad elements" and not asked
to give talks or work with new members. This has led to incidents
such as the denunciation with no political basis of Myles M. and
David C. at the Toronto cadre school in Aug. 1995. In Vancouver,
Peter H. was told that he could not do contact work because he
was a "backward element" (he and three other Vancouver members
recently resigned). The culture inside the I.S. is now highly
moralistic. Leading members constantly call for members to be
more self-sacrificing.
     Worse yet, in mid-Dec. 1995 Brendan M. of the Ottawa branch
was told by Pam F. that there would likely be a "shake-down" of
the I.S. in Jan. 1996 that would leave the Ottawa branch with
around four members, whom she named. It seems that the Steering
Committee has been preparing to purge comrades seen as "bad
elements", and is prepared to drive out three quarters of a
branch to achieve this goal.
     No wonder there is such a "chilly climate" in the I.S.! This
is no small matter. As British S.W.P. member Duncan Hallas once
wrote, "The self-education of militants is impossible in an
atmosphere of sterile orthodoxy...The 'monolithic party' is a
Stalinist concept. Uniformity and democracy are mutually
incompatible." When disagreements are suppressed there is bound
to be trouble, because political mistakes are inevitable and can
only be corrected through free and open debate.
     This in part explain why the I.S. has not grown
significantly. In Nov. 1994 the I.S. had at least 340 members
(counted on the basis of all card holders). In Nov. 1995
membership was claimed as around 250 (dues-paying members).
     It is now clear that these problems are not accidental or
temporary. Nor are they caused by having the wrong people in the
elected leadership.
     They are symptoms of a deeper problem: there are serious
flaws in the I.S.'s analysis of what is happening in the world,
and in the long-held I.S. model of "party-building".
     After spending months trying to figure out what was causing
these problems, some comrades have decided that they have no
choice but to organize a formal faction. In this document the
Political Reorientation Faction (P.R.F.) explains what we think
is wrong with the leadership's analysis and perspectives for
building the I.S., and proposes alternatives.
     We call on the Steering Committee to replace the upcoming
Feb. National Committee meeting with a Special Convention to
debate the issues we raise. Several other demands to help ensure
a fair and democratic debate and to defend the rights of all
comrades afterwards are listed at the end of the document.

2. IS IT REALLY 'THE 193Os IN SLOW MOTION'?

Central to the perspectives of the Steering Committee is an
analogy between the 1990s and the 1930s. We are living through
another period of catastrophic collapse of capitalism like the
1930s, goes the argument, except that this time it's happening in
slow motion. This seriously inaccurate economic analysis leads in
turn to flawed political perspectives.
     Let's begin with the 1930s, the most severe crisis in the
history of capitalism. During the first few years of that decade,
world industrial production dropped by one third, world trade
fell by two thirds, and world unemployment quadrupled in the
space of three years (1929-32). The largest industrial economy in
Europe_Germany_was in a state of virtual disintegration.
     It is clear that nothing of this sort is happening today.
While we have returned to the classic capitalist pattern of sharp
world recessions every seven years or so (1974-75, 1980-82, 1989-
92) which have produced intense global competition, attacks on
the working class, and sustained mass unemployment, things are
still a far cry from a 1930s-type scenario.
     Since the end of the most recent recession, for example,
there has been a substantial recovery in investment and in
corporate profits. Since 1992, corporate profits in the US have
risen two and one-half times _ from $200 billion to $500 billion.
Profits in Canada have risen at almost exactly the same rate. In
both countries, 1994 saw profits surpass their pre-recession
levels. The same thing applies to stock markets: both the toronto
and New York stock exchanges hit new records in 1995 _ again, a
scenario radically different from the stock market meltdowns of
the 1930s.
     Moreover, we should be clear that much of the recovery in
profits has been fuelled by corporate restructuring which has
raised levels of labour productivity (i.e. by getting more output
per hour out of a given group of workers). In 1994, for example,
Canadian capitalism recorded its best productivity increases in a
decade. And in the first half of 1995, the US economy saw its
biggest productivity improvement since 1986.
     Most of this rising productivity is a result of shopfloor
restructuring which has cut the number of workers, reorganized
production processes, and sped up the pace of work. There are
different code names for this restructuring: lean production,
flexible specialization, Toyota system, and so on. But what they
all have in common is a series of moves that break down old job
rules and production methods in order to get more work out of
fewer workers. The following table for key sectors of the US
economy shows this trend:



ANNUAL PER CENT CHANGE 1990-95

          Output per employee      Employment
Automobiles    +9.6                     +1.5
Machine Tools  +4.6                     _1.1
Steel          +8.3                     _3.0

(SOURCE: DRI/McGraw Hill, 1995)

This table shows major rises in output per worker accompanied by
declines (or minuscule increases) in employment. Perhaps the
clearest illustration of this trend is Ford which invested $28
billion in automating and restructuring over the years 1985-94.
During that period, its global workforce was cut from 506,500 to
390,000 while productivity rose by 57 per cent.
     None of these points are made to deny that world capitalism
faces some severe difficulties associated with huge global
overcapacity, serious debt problems (in the less developed
countries and parts of the world banking system), and ruthless
competition for markets. There is no prospect at the moment of a
return to any kind of sustained boom like that of the 1950s and
1960s. We are in a period of intense competition, and of
unrelenting assaults on jobs, wages, and social services _ one in
which a serious socialist organization should be able to grow and
build. But, this period is not especially similar to the 1930s in
scope or tempo. Indeed, to talk about the 1930s in slow motion is
itself a problem, since the whole point about the 1930s is that
the crisis hit with dizzying speed, in some cases destroying
whole economies and wiping out governments and political parties
virtually overnight. For all the problems confronting ruling
classes in the advanced countries at the moment _ and these are
very real _ nowhere do they face anything on the scales of the
1930s. Not surprisingly, then, nowhere are major sections of big
business turning to fascism in order to smash the organized
labour movement.
     In making these points we are not simply engaged in economic
nit-picking. For a misunderstanding of the depth and the pace of
the crisis confronting capitalism has produced serious errors of
political analysis inside the organization. Let's take just one
example from a recent Socialist Worker. There we are told, in an
article on Ontario's new labour law Bill 7, that the Ontario
Tories "are aiming for a union-free province (Michelle Robidoux,
"Bill 7: Tory union-busting," Socialist Worker, November 15,
1995).
     We seriously doubt it. We doubt that the Tories have any
intention of trying to wipe the Canadian Auto Workers out of the
auto assembly plants, of crushing the Steelworkers union in the
steel mills (and hundreds of small factories), of driving the
Canadian Union of Public Employees from hospitals, schools,
municipal and provincial services. That they want to constrain
unions and diminish their powers _ we agree. The goal of Bill 7
is to significantly weaken unions and prevent unionization from
spreading into non-unionized sections of workers. But if the
Tories want "a union-free province", then why didn't they go the
route of US "right-to-work" style laws which have moved some
American states towards being virtually union-free?
     The answer seems clear. The economic crisis is not so severe
that the ruling class feels compelled to risk a full-scale war
with the very presence of organized labour. Nor do they want to
lose the collaborationism of the labour bureaucracy which still
provides the service of quickly diffusing growing militancy (as
CUPE recently did with hospital workers in Calgary and Edmonton).
Socialist Worker doesn't see this because the Steering Committee
has a thoroughly exaggerated view of the crisis of capital in
this country and elsewhere. The result is that Socialist Worker
leads people to expect imminent social war between labour and
capital on a mass scale _ a view which seriously disorients
members and those they work with.
     Related to these problems, of course, are further errors
when it comes to understanding the balance of class forces in
this country.

3. THE CLASS STRUGGLE AND POLITICS IN CANADA
     In the past year, the Steering Committee has consistently
exaggerated the level of the class struggle in Canada.
Furthermore, the Steering Committee has compounded the problem by
claiming that the Canadian ruling class is seriously split.
     Although such claims about the state of the class struggle
are wrong, the leadership has persisted with them because it
interprets Canadian reality through the prism of a perspective,
formulated by the British S.W.P.'s leadership, that see this
period as moving toward a sustained working class offensive (an
"upturn") in the advanced capitalist countries.
     Hence, Socialist Worker has ignored inconvenient facts,
misrepresented reality, and replaced serious analysis of the
class struggle with simplistic cheerleading.
     1995 was not _ as Socialist Worker said _ "the year we
started to turn the tables" on the ruling class. Instead, it was
a year of major defeats for our side, punctuated by a few
important acts of resistance that failed to really slow the pace
of the current ruling class assault on the social wage.
     Last year Canadian workers were hit by the worst federal
budget in history, with massive cuts in social spending, coupled
with the largest single layoff notice  ever (45,000 federal
jobs). In response, PSAC and the Canadian Labour Congress (ClC)
did nothing. In the spring, Harris' hard right Tories were
elected in Ontario, gaining seats in traditional NDP strongholds
like Oshawa. arris imposed two rounds of major budget cuts in six
months: $2 billion in cuts to welfare, and another $6 billion in
cuts to education, medical and social services.
     The Canadian ruling class shows no signs of being split over
the cuts (there are more divisions around the issue of how to
deal with Quebec than over the cuts). On the contrary, all the
political parties (from Reform to the NDP) are united in their
preoccupation with the deficit, only differing on the timetable
for reaching a balanced budget.
     Chretien, Harris and Klein have launched their savage attack
on social spending to catch up with other countries. The assault
on the social wage was central to the Reagan- Thatcher offensive
that affected many Western capitalist countries in the 1980s.
many ruling classes tried to bring down their debt load, to lower
taxes and interest rates _ and make their home countries more
attractive places for capital investment. However, in Canada,
Mulroney was too preoccupied with Quebec and the constitution and
free trade to mount an all-out assault on social spending.
Therefore, Canadian capital fell behind its competitors in
reducing working class living standing standards. Today, in the
major western nations, only France and Italy have higher public
sector deficits than Canada (as a proportion of gross domestic
product).
     In Canada, working class resistance significantly slowed the
pace and narrowed the scope of the ruling class offensive until
the 1990s. It took Trudeau's 1975 wage controls, various federal
and provincial wage restraint programs (including Bob Rae's
social contract), increased use of back-to-work legislation
against strikes, minor attacks on social programs, and the
demoralizing impact of mass unemployment to get us where we are
today: the Chretien-Klein-Harris war against labour and the poor.
     We cannot be naive. The working class resistance of the past
must eventually exhaust itself unless it shifts to a higher
level. This has not happened in Canada in the same way it has in
Italy and now France.
     Despite the misery they have inflicted on the working class,
the right wing governments in Ottawa, Alberta , Ontario, and New
Brunswick have maintained high levels of public support.
     Though some workers remain dubious about the anti-deficit
campaign, the ruling class has made serious inroads with its
claim that Canadians are living beyond their means. The NDP
provincial governments in Ontario, B.C. and Saskatchewan were
particularly important in legitimating the notion that there is
no alternative to deficit cutting measures. After twenty years in
which the labour movement has failed to halt the decline in
living standards, many workers now accept that deficit cutting is
the only way higher taxes and the further erosion of their income
levels can be avoided.
     The growing support for deficit cutting has coincided with a
deepening of divisions between private and public sector workers,
and an increase in the scapegoating of various groups for the
current economic and social problems (e.g., people on welfare,
immigrants, people of colour, and the Qu‚b‚cois). Twenty years of
retreat have pushed the ideas of many workers to the right. But
this drift to the right is not uniform. There remains a minority
that has resisted it. And among workers who have looked to
Manning, Harris or Klein disillusion can set in quickly as the
actual effects of cuts hit home (as with Alberta health care
workers).
     That is why mass working class struggle can still flare up
quickly. We saw that in Italy last year, more recently in France,
and on a much smaller scale, among hospital workers in Alberta.
But years of declining combativity and self -mobilization have
taken a real toll. Traditions of militancy have been lost, and
networks of militants no longer exist. Therefore, the occasional
burst of struggle needs to be seen in a context of a working
class movement that has taken  battering and generally _but not
always_ remains on the defensive. As a result, it remains quite
difficult to build generalized working class struggle. Quite
often _ as in Alberta _ labour leaders are able to quickly
demobilize the rank and file and negotiate settlements with far
fewer gains than escalating action might have won.
     1995 was a year in which some students, welfare recipients,
and workers resisted government attempts to reduce their living
standards. But most of their struggles were small, isolated, and
insufficient to deter the ruling class. Moreover, despite the
most savage attacks since the 1930s, the big battalions of the
working class _ the private sector unions in heavy industry, and
the large public sector unions _ remain largely inactive.
     Symptomatic of the Steering Committee's misreading of the
overall class struggle was their assessment of the January 25th
student strike against the Axworthy plan. Axworthy's "moderate"
proposals for deficit reduction were actually defeated inside the
liberal cabinet (well before Jan. 25th) by the more extreme
deficit cutting plan championed by finance minister Martin.
     The student strike failed to ignite a broader battle against
the federal budget cuts, when the CLC, the NDP and PSAC all
failed to take action. However, blinded by it conviction that a
"New Radicalization" was taking place, the Steering Committee
continued to invoke the example of the Jan. 25th success even
though most of the campuses in English Canada remained relatively
quiet throughout the rest of 1995.
     In the last few days of October, I.S. members in Ontario
were sent an emergency circular from the Steering Committee
calling on them to begin immediate preparations for a
province-wide general strike. Although the strike never took
place, there was no explanation forthcoming from the Steering
Committee about why they misread the situation so badly. (The
talk about a general strike was a fairly transparent manoeuvre by
OFL bureaucrat to defuse any potential opposition they might
encounter at their convention two weeks later. It fooled few
people other than our Steering Committee.)
     Another example of the selective perception of the Steering
Committee evident in the Socialist Worker coverage on the
hospital workers wildcat in Alberta. Readers were told that the
Alberta events showed how working class militancy can win.
However, the paper failing to comment on how easily union leaders
wee able to demobilize the spontaneous movement and broker a
settlement _ one with far fewer gains than escalating action
might have won. Again, real analysis was replaced by uncritical
boosterism.
     The Alberta strike, the Dec. 11 city-wide general strike/day
of action in London, Ont. and other demonstrations show there
some important actions being staged in opposition to the cuts.
Those protests (usually by hundreds or thousands of people)
present some valuable opportunities for socialists. however, the
current level of protest cannot halt the current ruling class
onslaught. Furthermore, those actions do not mean there is some
kind of working class radicalization taking place.
     In fact, in Canada, as in many other western capitalist
countries, the level of class struggle remains lower today than
in the 1980s, let alone the 1970s. Twenty years ago, workers
engaged in about 11 million strike days per year. By 1993, strike
days were at a historic low in the post-war period: 1.5 million.
They have stayed at this depressed level throughout 1994 and
1995.
     Most strikes are defensive and bureaucratically controlled.
The employers offensive of the 1980s, the persistence of high
levels of unemployment, the growth of part-time work, the
intensification of work, the erosion of the social safety net,
and the early 1990s recession have all increased the level of
insecurity and stress within the working class. Thus, there has
not been a major revival of working class struggle in Canada.
     To say this is not to claim Canada is exceptional. There is
no pattern of generalized working class radicalization throughout
the Western capitalist countries, regardless of what the S.W.P.
says. Despite the encouraging recent strikes and protests in
France, the level of working class struggle throughout much of
Europe and the US continued to decline during the 1980s and
1990s.

WORKING DAYS LOST PER 1000 EMPLOYEES IN SELECTED OECD COUNTRIES,
1984-1993

Country        average 1984-88     average 1989-1993

UK                  400                  70
France               60                  30
Germany              50                  20
Greece             3030                4470
Italy               370                 160
Spain               740                 430
Japan                10                 (not available)
US                   70                  60
Canada              440                 270
Australia           240                 180

While the class struggle seems to be on the upswing in France,
Italy and Greece there is little evidence of qualitative changes
in the US, Germany, Britain or Canada.

In fact, the key features of the period in which we live are: 1)
a protracted assault on working class living standards; 2) a
serious weakness of workers' organization and historically low
levels of strike activity; 3) a great deal of disaffection with
political parties and institutions; 4) a more volatile climate
where mass struggles can and do burst out but rarely assume a
generalized and sustained form because of the weakness of
independent rank and file organization; 5) a drift to the right
at the electoral level which, nonetheless, is not uniform, and a
rightward shift in the ideology of the ruling class; and 6) a
search for radical alternatives by a small but important layer of
people.
     Socialists can relate to this and grow significantly if they
acknowledge the realities of the class struggle today. However,
when a socialist group becomes cut off from reality, it risks
becoming a sect that takes its own pet theories more seriously
than the actual lived experience of the working class.

4. LENINISM AND THE I.S. TODAY
The I.S.'s problems go deeper than a mistaken analysis of the
economy and the class struggle. The political core of the problem
is a particular conception of leninist party-building which has
pushed people to attempt to skip historical stages, and in the
process to distort their reading of their own capacities and the
state of the class struggle.
     Lenin's contribution to the development of revolutionary
theory and practice remains a crucial one. The need for a
democratic mass vanguard party as part of the process of working
class self-emancipation is central to revolutionary socialism.
The unevenness of working class consciousness and the
centralization of capitalist power in the state makes a party a
key component of the process through which the majority of the
working class is won to seizing power with their own hands.
     However, this tells us little about the immediate tasks
confronting us as revolutionaries. We are a small group of
socialists on the margins of the working class movement.
     In so far as we turn to the Leninist tradition to guide us
in the task of building small groups, we run into trouble. There
is, in fact, no serious Leninist tradition of building small
groups. The key lessons of Leninism are based on the experiences
of the Bolsheviks in Russia as generalized through the first four
Congresses of the Communist International. The Congresses laid
down guidelines for building mass workers' parties in a
revolutionary period.
     The I.S. is one of many groupings that have taken these
guidelines and attempted to use them to direct the development of
small groups outside the working class in periods which are not
revolutionary. These groups have operated on the assumption that
a mass revolutionary party develops through an established series
of stages (circle/ propaganda group/ agitational group/ mass
party). It is a kind of "automatic Leninism" which works like an
escalator that you enter at a particular point with your ultimate
destination and route determined in advance.
     This approach to building small groups leads organizations
into many sorts of problems, whether that means imagining
themselves as tiny perfect versions of the revolutionary party or
attempting to speed the progress through those stages by skipping
crucial historical steps. The current claim that the I.S. is in
transition from being a propaganda group into an agitational
group capable of influencing large-scale struggles represents an
attempt to skip crucial historical steps.
     We must begin with a more modest conception of the small
group project and the immense gap that separates it from the
building of a revolutionary party. This gap is not unbridgeable,
but it cannot be crossed by sheer will. it is the specific
combination of the spontaneous development of working class
insurgency with effective socialist current that creates the
basis for a genuine mass revolutionary party. Organized
socialists matter in this process, contributing to political
clarification and acting as an organizational catalyst. However,
small organizations do not automatically "turn into" mass
revolutionary parties; they may contribute certain (necessary)
elements to something new that is qualitatively distinct from
them.
     The "Where We Stand" column is therefore wrong to claim
under the heading of Revolutionary Party that we "are beginning
to build such a party." This claim leads to a disproportionate
emphasis on building the organizations "professional apparatus
and a withering of vibrancy and debate. it also leads to silly
arguments that the I.S. is reliving the Bolshevik/Menshevik split
of 1903 and that the political core of Bolshevism was an
obsession with apparatus-building.
     We should instead say that we re working to create a
socialist current that can develop a new understanding of how
revolutionary parties can be built and contribute to that
process. We must not assume in advance that the Russian
experience provides a general model for the development of
socialist organizations. Lenin himself expressed concerns at the
way the Communist International generalized the experience of the
Bolsheviks into a universal model of party-building, arguing that
Marxist from other countries "cannot be content with hanging it
[the Russian experience] in a corner like an icon and praying to
it." Lenin always urged other marxists to recognize that new
conditions demanded a new analysis. We should not believe that
all the answers to all our problems in building a socialist
movement can be found in the writings of Lenin and the
Bolsheviks. Unfortunately, neither Lenin nor the other
Bolsheviks had much to say about our situation, as a small group
of revolutionaries who are outside the mainstream of the working
class, operating in a capitalist democracy, during a non-
revolutionary period. We need to take the best of the
revolutionary marxist tradition and bring it to life by using it
to answer the pressing question of building a small group in the
actual conditions we confront today.
     (This is a summary of the argument developed from a study of
the revolutionary socialist experience since the Russian
Revolution, which the P.R.F. presents in its other document
"Leninism, Trotskyism and Socialist Organization Today".)

5. A POLITICAL REORIENTATION FOR THE I.S.
On the basis of this analysis, the P.R.F. proposes a new
direction for the I.S. We do not advocate a return to the "old
I.S." of the late 1980s, or to the caricature of the "old I.S."
depicted by the Steering Committee in the past year.
     We also reject the direction taken by the I.S. since July
1993, commonly referred to as "the turn". Elements of "the turn"
_ presenting socialist ideas without jargon, taking initiatives,
open recruitment, and active routine and branch meetings that
connect with the issues of the day _ are good. But all versions
of "the turn" perspective put forward over the last two and a
half years have been deeply flawed.
     "The turn" pushed by the S.W.P. Central Committee and
adopted throughout the I.S. Tendency tries to take an historic
short-cut: the rapid transformation of small socialist groups
outside the working class into much larger agitational
organizations in conditions where this is not possible. In
revolutionary socialist politics, such short-cuts can lead to
disaster.
     The I.S. must drop its "Leninist party-building"
pretensions. The claim in the "Where We Stand" that "The
International Socialists are beginning to build such a party"
should be replaced with "The International Socialists are not
such a party, but seek to contribute to the building of one."
     Marxists need to understand the world we fight to change.
This requires regular honest assessments of what is happening in
the economy, the class struggle and politics in Canada and the
world. "Feel good" half-truths and the substitution of catchy
analogies for concrete analysis will not do.
     The ruling class offensive and flare-ups of resistance mean
the I.S. can grow quickly if we can connect with an audience for
whom we can be "a big fish in a small pond." Although the I.S. is
the largest socialist group in Canada, we are tiny when measured
against the working class. This is one reason why the attempt to
build small neighbourhood branches has failed.
     The main audience for the I.S. is young people, students but
also workers, who are open to our politics because of what is
happening in the world. Most have little loyalty to the system.
Many want to fight back, but few believe that the working class
can change the world because they have never experience a working
class on the offensive.
     Reaching them requires a hard turn to student work around
university campuses, a higher level of accessible politics and a
willingness to stop preaching and start listening so we can learn
how to relate Marxism to their experiences. Socialist Worker
should change to better relate to this audience.
     We have to be part of the movements that are happening,
putting forward class struggle strategies without expecting to
lead, for example, the fight against the Harris cuts except on
the campuses and other "small ponds" where we are a "big fish."
Branches also need to have a high profile through public meetings
etc. to attract individuals from outside our areas of work.
     The I.S. is extremely abstract when it talks about the
working class today. To begin to change this we need to fee the
experience of our worker members into the branches and Socialist
Worker so we can learn from it before we leap to make sweeping
claims about what the Canadian working class is thinking from the
outside.
     The way we organize should be determined by our tasks. It is
silly to organize the I.S. as a miniature version of the 9000-
strong British S.W.P. We need more initiative at the branch level
and fewer directives from the Steering Committee. We need an
elected leadership that is not so convinced in advance that it
knows everything that is unwilling to listen and learn from the
actual experiences of comrades in the branches.
     To move in this direction I.S. members need to become much
better at thinking for ourselves about how to build a stronger
socialist group in Canada today. The overbearing role of the
S.W.P. leadership is an obstacle to this. Outside Britain, the
only group in the I.S. Tendency with a genuinely strong and
independent leadership is the Greek O.S.E., which broke its links
with the S.W.P. in the early 1980s because of S.W.P. interference
and did not rejoin the tendency until 1989. Since mid-1994, the
S.W.P. has organized utterly unprincipled and damaging expulsions
of comrades in South Africa and Australia who disagreed with what
the S.W.P. thought their groups should do. We have every reason
to expect that the S.W.P. will do the same in Canada. The I.S.
should leave the tendency until this problem is resolved, while
maintaining links with all groups in the I.S. tradition.

6. WHAT MUST BE DONE TO ENSURE A FAIR AND DEMOCRATIC DEBATE
a) The Steering Committee must replace the national Committee
meeting scheduled for Feb. 24-25 with a Special Convention, in
accordance with rule III E of the I.S. Constitution. The Special
Convention will be open to all members, and all members will have
speaking rights. The pre-convention discussion period begins
immediately. The Special Convention agenda is to be jointly set
by the Steering Committee and the P.R.F. Every I.S. member will
receive a copy of all internal documents produced, No members of
other I.S. Tendency groups will attend the Special Convention.

b) All persecution by the leadership of comrades with opposing
points of view will end immediately. Drop bans on giving branch
talks, writing for Socialist Worker, working with new members and
contacts etc.

c) Special membership meetings must be held in the toronto
district and in branches outside Toronto to discuss the issues
raised.

d) The Steering Committee will provide the P.R.F. with an
accurate I.S. membership list to ensure  a fair election of
Convention delegates. The Steering Committee will also provide
Socialist Worker sales statistics.

e) The Steering Committee will provide, in writing, a promise to
actively support amendments to the I.S. Constitution at the
Special Convention to ensure; 1) an end to the election of
National Committee delegates on an annual basis, 2) explicit
recognition of faction rights, obligations and procedures, 3)
explicit recognition that the only justification for disciplinary
measures is violation of discipline, and not holding political
opinions within the bounds of "Where We Stand", 4) election of
district committees, with district aggregate meetings to be held
at least once every three months.

f) After the Special Convention, a special bi-monthly internal
bulletin, jointly edited, will be produced so that discussion of
political questions raised in the debate can be continued.
Alternatively, the discussion can be conducted through a
bi-monthly two-page spread in Socialist Worker.

g) The P.R.F.'s theoretical document, "Leninism, Trotskyism and
Socialist Organization Today", will be published, together with
any responses and replies, as a pamphlet. This will make it
possible for non-members to read various viewpoints expressed on
important questions facing revolutionary socialists today.

h) No punitive measures will be taken against any member because
of views expressed in the debate.

The P.R.F. expects a response from the Steering Committee to
demands a), b), and d) by Jan. 7, 1996.


     Moving Forward or Backward?:
     Reply to the "Political Reorientation Faction" by the
  IS National Steering Committee
  
     In the pre-convention perspective document ("Building
the International Socialists - Prospects and Problems",
October 16, 1995 bulletin), the Steering Committee wrote:
"This year, the IS has successfully become successfully
transformed into a much more serious, professional
organization, one capable of relating effectively to the new
challenges of the period....After several efforts to re-
orient the IS in Canada to meet the demands of the changed
political climate of the 1990s, the past year has
accomplished that goal....As Trotsky wrote, "Tactical turns
usually lead to internal friction in the party.'"
     The core of the argument presented by the signers of
the Political Reorientation Faction (PRF) documents is an
objection to this transformation.
     The argument presented by the PRF objects:
     (i) to the analogy of the 1990s as comparable to the
"thirties in slow motion"
     (ii) to the climate of internal debate within the IS
that has accompanied the turn over the past year
     (iii) to the long-standing view of Leninism and party
building held by the IS in Canada and our tendency
internationally, and hence calls for the removal of this
commitment in the Where We Stand For column of Socialist
Worker and
     (iv) to the role of the Socialist Workers' Party
leadership in Britain in conducting international work and
therefore calls for the withdrawal of the International
Socialists in Canada from the IS tendency.
     We will reply to each of these objections in turn.
  
  
     (i) The period: the thirties in slow motion?
  
     We begin with the PRF's disagreement with what has been
our analysis of the period since at least 1993. It can be
broken into five parts.
     According to them we have exaggerated:
  
     (a) the depth and intractability of the present crisis
of capitalism.
     (b) the degree to which the ruling class is divided in
its offensive
     (c) the degree of severity of the ruling class
offensive
     (d) the level of resistance to this offensive, and
     (e) the level of radicalization going on inside the
working class, in Canada and internationally
  
     The conclusion is that because of our incorrect
analysis of these five elements we have been forced to
resort to resort to bureaucratic means to impose this
analysis on those who disagree.
  
     (i)(a) Capitalism: a system in crisis?
  
     The PRF points to the increased profits in the
corporate sector as well as the increase in production to
argue that the crisis is not so severe as we would paint it
to be.
     But we have argued that the economy will simply go into
a tailspin from which it will never recover. No article in
Socialist Worker, no internal document, has ever stated as
much.
     That is not the pattern of capitalist crisis now and it
certainly wasn't in the thirties. partial recoveries in the
economy are in fact a feature of the crisis. But they are
partial and temporary, and cannot reverse the long-term
general decline in the rate of profit.
     As Chris Harman writes in Explaining The Crisis: "All
the efforts of [Roosevelt's] New Deal could not push the
[economic] upturn that began in the spring of 1933 beyond a
certain point....Industrial production rose from 59 per cent
of the 1924-5 figure in March 1933 to 100 per cent in july,
only to slide back to 71 percent over the next year. There
was a fall of 1,700,000 in the number of unemployed - but
that still left 12 million jobless. it was not until 1937 -
eight years after the start of the crisis - that production
reached the 1929....Yet this 'miniboom' soon gave way to a
slide back into slump". (pp. 64-5)
     Calling the 1990s the 1930s in slow motion is a
metaphor meant to map out general trends in global
capitalism. The pace of decline is slower. But in the 1990s,
as in the 1930s, there is a profound crisis in the core of
the system as a whole.
     The PRF objects to the analogy stating that "to talk
about the 1930s in slow motion is itself a problem, since
the whole point about the 1930s is that the crisis hit with
dizzying speed"... Is the analogy a contradiction in terms?
Actually, no. The conditions of the 1990s pose this
contradiction in reality.
     The key elements that characterized the 1930s -
profound crisis, political instability, ideological
uncertainty, the rise of the far right, the opening for
socialist politics, etc. - have returned in the 1990s, but
not at the same speed of development.
     Moreover, it is only an analogy. Let's look at the
1990s.
     We have seen the major collapse of the US and Japanese
banking industries. The government of Japan has recently
admitted that the real rate of unemployment in that country
is around 10 percent.
     Even in the midst of the present recovery, the third
partner in NAFTA, Mexico, saw its economy go into a massive
nose-dive. As a result unemployment increased by a whopping
one million in a few short months as that country suffers
through what is being called the worst recession in 50
years. Only a massive bail-out package to the tune of
several billions of dollars prevented a complete meltdown of
the Mexican economy.
     Canada is no exception to the global crisis.
     Bankruptcies are on the increase in the middle of this
so-called recovery.
     In the 1960s, the natural rate of unemployment was
three to five percent; in the 1970s it was five to seven
percent. Today, at the peak of the recovery, there is an
unemployment rate of 9.4 percent. Statistics released on
Friday, January 5, 1996 saw net job creation of effectively
zero.
     And who can forget the scene of 25,000 unemployed
workers lining up at the GM plant outside of Toronto on the
possibility of several hundred jobs in January of 1995? By
the end of the 1995 not a single job had materialized.
     Predictions of growth for the Canadian economy are from
between .7 and 2 percent.
     Just this week AT&T announced the immediate lay-off of
40,000 employees in the US, with another 60,000 scheduled to
go over 3 years. The Wall Street Journal announced that
according to its survey of 64 economists the US economy will
go into recession if there is not an interest rate cut. The
survey also projected growth of just 1.8 to 2 percent.
     And this is the heart of capitalism.
     Countries in the third world continue to devastated
with famines, wars and widespread poverty.
     Furthermore, short term increases in profits are of
course the case in a period of recovery. But to only look at
these as proof that the crisis is over and that capitalism
is essentially stable is take a very short term view.
     Marxists look at the big picture, historically and
internationally. And we look scientifically at the
contradictions within the system. To focus only on the
immediate ups and downs of the system is to fall into
impressionism, creating a faulty analysis of the system as a
whole.
     After all, Japan was seen as a model of growth and
profitability only a few short years ago. As of the writing
of this document the Japanese PM had just resigned - the
second to do so in as many years.
     Corporations during a recovery always try to force
profit levels as possible in order to acquire a war chest in
expectation of the next recession.
     As the chairman of AT&T, whose profits equalled $2.8
billion for the first nine months of 1995, said in
announcing the 40,000 layoffs: "This initiative is to get
ahead of the game a bit and focus on what markets may look
like two or three years hence".
     The PRF points out that profits during this present
recovery were largely fuelled by a growth in productivity at
the expense of employment. True enough.
    What they fail to mention is that this will only
exacerbate the contradictions of capitalism for the future.
On the one hand working class consumers have less to spend
and are less willing to spend money on consumer goods. (One
need only read the business reports of this year's Christmas
rush to see the massive decline in consumer spending.)
     On the other hand, a growth of productivity at the expense
of employment inevitably increases the ratio of machinery to 
wage labour. As this ratio increases throughout the system the
already declining rate of profit will accelerate.

     (i)(b) A ruling class divided?

     According to the PRF the "economic crisis is not so severe
that the ruling class feels compelled to risk a full-scale war
against the very presence of organized labour. Nor do they want
to lose the collaborationism of the labour bureaucracy"...
     This presumes a level of coherence in the ruling class that
does not exist today. The truth is that the ruling class is
divided on just how far to go in driving down workers' wages and
attacking union organizations. A crucial aspect of this division
is exactly around the issue of whether or not to try to draw the
unions into collaboration (or at the very least undercut the
likelihood of active opposition).
     The other aspect of the division is the fact that no section
or representative of the ruling class has been able to unite the
rest behind a strategy for resolving the crisis of capitalism.
     This should not be surprising given the fact that every
strategy that the ruling class has put forward since Trudeau's
wage and price controls in the 1970s has failed to prevent the
return of crisis and increasingly deep recessions.
     So for instance we see in the US the two capitalist parties,
the Democrats and the Republicans, fighting over how much to cut
in the present budget dispute. this has shut down the government
for three weeks and left 750,000 workers without pay.
     In France, the ruling Tory party, the RPR, has engaged in
fierce and public debates about the correctness of Prime minister
Alain Jupp‚'s austerity plan. Several prominent ministers
suggested he resign.
     The ruling class in countries around Europe have engaged in
a prolonged faction fight about whether or not a stronger
European Union is necessary to stabilize European capitalism.
     This division is expressed most clearly in the UK Tory party
which has hung by its finger nails onto its majority because of
defection and the loss of by-elections. They now expect that they
will have to rule in coalition with the Ulster Unionist Party by
the end of the year as government insiders say as many as six
more Tories are ready to resign from the government.
     The PRF objects to the view that "the Canadian ruling class
is seriously split".
     In Ontario, the Liberals, who of course support the cuts,
recently staged a sit-in in the legislature to demand public
hearings around the Omnibus Bill.
     Federally, one of the two historic parties of the ruling
class, the Tories, all but disappeared in the last election.
     At the federal level the historic divide in the Canadian
ruling class between English Canada and Quebec has led to a
dramatic realignment of political parties at the federal level.
The "loyal Opposition" is now the separatist Bloc Qu‚b‚cois and
the third party is the Reform Party - neither of which had any
presence in the legislature before the last election.
     Never in Canadian history has such a realignment taken place
and never before have Quebec separatists been the official
opposition.
     The referendum on Quebec sovereignty/partnership saw a 50.6
majority, the slimmest majority imaginable, in favour of the
status quo.
     These are signs of sharp division inside the ruling class.
     Socialists are not indifferent to divisions on their side.
They are all of course still fully committed to their class
project. But if we understand the specific character of these
divisions, we can use their lack of coherence to our advantage.
     The split over Quebec is partly the reason why the federal
Liberals delayed implementing many of their cuts until after the
October referendum. As we argued in the pre-convention bulletin
("Quebec Referendum: Why we say 'Oui Critique,'" bulletin Sept.
30, 1995), both sides in the referendum were forced to vie for
support by stating their opposition to cuts - which in both cases
was a clear lie about their real class project.
     Since the October 30 Quebec referendum, three provincial
premiers have resigned. Parizeau resigned at least partly over a
racist comment on the night of the referendum. BC premier
Harcourt resigned after being implicated in a money laundering
scandal called "Bingogate" and in January Wells resigned.
Further, Alberta premier Klein came close to the brink of
resignation after it was disclosed that his family had bought
massive shares in a company which the Alberta government was
promoting.
     All these conflicts and resignations indicate a period of
instability for which our rulers have no answer. Instead they
cast about for whatever works today and change their tune
tomorrow. So now for instance, sections of the business press are
saying that Mike Harris has gone too far in cutting back and is
doing damage to the economy.

     (i)(c) The ruling class offensive

     Apart from their divisions, how severe is the ruling class
offensive. Are the Ontario Tories aiming for a "union-free
province" for instance? Though the PRF claims the ruling class is
more internally united and coherent that the IS has argued, they
also maintain that the Steering Committee has exaggerated the
extent of the ruling class offensive in Ontario.
     The facts here are absolutely clear.
     The Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Dave Johnson
said: "Civil servants must be stripped of their union rights for
the economic good of Ontario".
     Bill 7, which repeals the NDP's anti-scab la, also
eliminates automatic certification - a right which has been in
place for fifty years. Successor rights no longer exist, which
means that privatized corporations will be allowed to ignore the
collective agreements of employees.
     In addition, Bill 7 removes the right to collective
bargaining for whole sections of the working class including
part-time college employees, agricultural labourers, domestic
workers and security guards.
     And the government of Alberta is looking at bringing in
"right to work" legislation. no doubt right wing provincial
governments around the country are watching how successful they
are in this endeavor. The Ontario Tories were certainly inspired
by the Alberta Tories' cutback strategy.
     Internationally we find a similar a [sic] phenomenon of
attacks on the working class. of course these are of varying
degrees of severity reflecting the current dominant strategy of
the government in power.
     In Michigan, the government threw all single employable
adults off of welfare. And in California, the Republican
government of Pete Wilson recently passed Prop 187 into law which
removed civil rights to millions of undocumented foreign workers.
     Capitalists in the US, and Canada to a lesser degree, have
engaged in wholesale union busting where they have felt confident
enough to do so. This has been the case at Caterpillar and Staley
in Illinois as the most recent and notable example.
     But it is also the case at the Irving Oil refinery in new
Brunswick where workers have been on strike for over 20 months.
Irving has said it will only take back certain workers who re-
apply for their jobs. The union executive will not be re-hired.
they have also ensured that union members are blacklisted from
getting other jobs in N.B. in order to drive them into accepting
their union busting terms.
     A similar assault on union rights happened at the ADM-
Ogilvie flour mill in Quebec, which we documented widely in
Socialist Worker. We heard directly from local leader Claude
Trembly during a public meeting at our recent national convention
about this offensive, as well as from CAW activist Lynn Lathrop
and HERE organizer Frank Curiel.
     Again, the degree to which the ruling class attacks workers
and unions depends upon how successful they have been in past
attacks and on how confident they are that they can get away with
such attacks now. But that they are attempting to eliminate
historic union rights where they can should not be subject to
doubt.

     (i)(d) Is resistance on the rise?

     The PRF claims that the Steering Committee has replaced
serious analysis of the class struggle with "simplistic cheer
leading". According to them "1995 was not...'the year we started
to turn the tables'...it was a year of major defeats for our
side, punctuated by a few important acts of resistance that
failed to really slow the pace of the current ruling class
assault on the social wage".
     This analysis is flawed for a number of reasons.
     It fails to understand that there is not a one-to-one
relationship between the development of workers' struggles and
the immediate and long term success of those struggles. In fact
workers' struggles often end in defeat. Partial or mixed
victories are common. But working class resistance can be
inspired not only by victories but also by heroic acts of
resistance.
     In France for instance, the present round of huge struggles
arguably began to take shape around the strikes at Air France.
That struggle while temporarily victorious in halting lay-offs
and privatization was reversed only a few months later. But this
fight was followed shortly afterwards by several other large
struggles which won around issues such as the minimum wage,
education funding and others.
     This led towards the five million strong public sector
general strike right before Christmas which went on for three
weeks and won many of the demands which were put forward.
     Even now, after that struggle has supposedly died down, The
Globe and Mail reported on Thursday, January 4 that "France's
labour unrest still simmers". It was reported that groups of rail
workers have once again gone on strike in protest "over how much
of their salaries should be docked for strike days." There have
also been partial strikes on the Paris equivalent of GO Transit.
     The faction's analysis also fails to take into account the
international impact of resistance.
     We understand that capitalism is a global system and that
therefore the class struggle is also global. There is a rhythm of
revolt that affects the confidence of workers internationally.
This is why the media in Canada barely covered the French general
strike, especially as it was spreading and gaining momentum.
     Internationally, there is a similar volatility in the
struggle.
     The French workers may at present be the vanguard of the
international class struggle but that is neither inevitable nor
is it permanent. For instance, immediately after the temporary
halt of the strikes in France, 60,000 marched in Belgium and
there have been national rail strikes.
     And in fact the struggle in France was undoubtedly
influenced by the earlier big struggles in italy, which in turn
were influenced by a series of big strikes in Greece.
     Does this mean that the French experience will arrive in
Canada at some pre-ordained moment? Of course not, but whole
layers of union activists have been inspired by France and have
been talking about how it could be repeated here. On December 11,
even CLC president Bob White got into the act, holding up a copy
of official greetings from the leaders of the French labour
movement to massive shouts and applause in London, Ontario.
     In a period of instability such as the present, the example
of even a partial victory can inspire other workers to want to
fight back. That was certainly the case with the wildcat strike
by hospital workers in Calgary which inspired worker and student
activists in Ontario to challenge the Harris cuts.
     Workers' growing anger at worsening conditions can be
transformed into a serious fightback or it can continue to simmer
for long periods of time. Exactly which direction it will go
cannot be predicted beforehand because there is no mechanical
formula.
     To claim however that working class struggle is following a
downward path simply because the statistics for "numbers of
working days lost" show a decrease in the 90s over the 80s is to
engage in one-dimensional analysis.

     (i)(e) Is there a new radicalization?

     The PRF accuses Socialist Worker with "ignoring inconvenient
facts." Instead, the faction's document puts forth crude
empiricism, which, while claiming to be factual, actually
distorts the reality of the struggle today.
     According to the figures which the PRF quotes, France has
one of the lowest number of strike days among all western
countries, Following their analysis, the class struggle must be
at a higher pitch in Canada than it is in France.
     Quoting strike stats as the be-all and end-all of the class
struggle also misses the point that strike days alone say nothing
about short strikes or in-plant stoppages. they say nothing about
successful strike votes which are never acted upon or political
actions by workers which are not stoppages.
     The PRF maintains that "the class struggle seems to be on
the upswing in France, Italy and Greece [but] there is little
evidence of qualitative changes in the US, Germany, Britain or
Canada." How do they know?
     Actually, according to the figures provided in their own
document, if we measure consciousness by strike days only,
internationally the early 1990s were years of a decline in
working class radicalization in all these countries relative to
the 1980s.
     According to this logic, the faction seems to view the
prospects for socialists in the 1990s to be quite grim.
Capitalism actually appears more stable in the 1990s than in the
1980s: strike days are down, profits are up, and the ruling class
is solidly united.
     There were many on the left in France who shared the
pessimistic analysis put forward by the faction. After all, look
at the rise of the fascist movement led by Le Pen, look at the
conservative electoral shift, look at the low level of class
struggle. Many held this view weeks or days before the largest
mass general strike since 1968 shook the country.
     Our comrades in the SI in France, however, rejected this
view. Instead, they launched a bi-weekly edition of their
newspaper and were well-placed to relate to the strike wave when
it erupted.
     The point is the analysis of capitalism today presented by
the PRF is not accurate. It fails to explain the contradictions
and volatility of the period. At the same time as the right wing
ideas were indeed on the rise in France, bitterness and
opposition to the system were also expressed in massive working
class solidarity.
     How does this apply to the struggle in Canada?
     The strike days stats will not tell you about the near
general strike in Nova Scotia or the near all-out strike by Nova
Scotia teachers which was called off when the government
completely backed down. Such stats do not include the wildcat
walkouts by daycare workers in Ontario or, for that matter, the
illegal one day general strike in London, Ontario.
     Furthermore a large number of strike days as an isolated
measure may indicate a weak working class. it could easily be the
case that workers are involved in long, drawn out strikes that
end in defeats. This was the character of most strikes in the
1980s, which accounts for the generally higher figures then
relative to the 1990s.
     A simple look at the struggles which have taken place over
the last couple of years makes it clear that larger[,] more
frequent actions have been taking place recently.
     The year 1995 started with the national student strike which
drew out over 80,000 and defeated the Liberal's [sic] plans to
implement the Income Contingent Loan Repayment Plan (ICLRP).
     In addition, the government felt compelled to remove Lloyd
Axworthy as the front man for the cuts and replace him with Paul
Martin who had played a much lower profile until then. And the
majority of Martin's cuts in the form of the Canada health and
Social Transfer were delayed until the 1996 budget.
     Will the government again attempt to bring in the ICLRPs? Of
course they will. this side of socialism the ruling class will
always try to take away what they can - particularly in a period
of crisis and instability. That does not negate the effects which
the original victory and struggle can have.
     This lesson has not been lost on student activists, who are
now preparing in many parts of the country for the February 7,
1996 CFS day of action with more confidence and organization than
in the period that preceded January 25, 1995.
     To have nothing more to say about the wildcat strike in
Alberta than it was demobilized by the union leaders, preventing
them from winning as much as they could is to entirely miss the
point.
     Finally, on this point, the faction states that "talk about
a general strike was a fairly transparent maneuver by OFL
bureaucrats to defuse any potential opposition they might
encounter at their convention two weeks later. it fooled few
people other than our Steering Committee."
     How then do we explain December 11 in London? It seems the
40,000 workers who walked out illegally on that day were also
fooled. At this writing, plans for the next general city-wide
strike in Ontario are expected to be announced by the Ontario
Federation of Labour before the end of January.
     Does this mean that we engage in "uncritical boosterism". On
the contrary, Socialist Worker's coverage of the London general
strike, of Alberta and of the rail strike earlier last year was
consistently critical of the role of the bureaucracy.
     We applied a similar method to the Svend robinson campaign
in the NDP when we said; "Vote for Svend. But don't wait on the
NDP." We supported the search for a left wing leader of the NDP,
but did not hesitate to challenge the reformist project of the
NDP as a whole at the same time.
     While we have claimed that there is anger and
disillusionment amongst growing numbers of workers and students,
we have never claimed that we are in the midst of an upturn or
that one is just days off. Nor have we maintained that the
direction of workers' ideas is uniformly to the left.
     As the pre-convention document on the labour movement stated
("The Working Class, the Labour Movement and the Tasks of the
IS", bulletin October 30, 1995):
     "The political climate is such that the bitterness can move
to the right as well as the left. The right has had influence on
workers on the issues of immigration, welfare and employment
equity....And although there are real indications of workers
desiring to fight, there have also been defeats such as the
Ogilvie strike in Montreal or the federal government layoffs,
accepted without a fight by the leaders of the Public Service
Alliance of Canada. The rank and file often doesn't have the
experience or confidence to challenge the bureaucracy."
     What we have argued is that ideas are not moving in one
direction. that was summed up in the pre-convention document
"Canada and the world crisis" (bulletin October 16, 1995):
     "This general economic picture coincides with a political
reality characterized by three factors, all of which have to be
seen in relation. The political climate is dominated by a) the
New Right; b) the New Realism; and c) the New Radicalization."
     The PRF document states that there is growing support for
deficit cutting. but they neglect to mention that people in
Alberta, at 48 percent, now show the highest percentage of those
in any province who think that the government has gone too far.
this is a complete reversal of previous attitudes. In Ontario, 34
percent of the population think the government has gone too far
after less than a year in office.
     When asked the question, "what is the biggest problem facing
Canada today?", unemployment tops the list at 27 percent. tied
for second and third are national unity and government spending.
     The electoral victories of Klein and Harris are of course
indications in part of the right wing side of the coin in terms
of the battle of ideas. But the high levels of support for the
various federal and provincial governments are as much an
indication of a lack of any credible electoral alternative. and
the governments of Ontario and Alberta have seen their popularity
falling in recent months.
     In Ontario, support for the Tories amongst people with
incomes of $30,000 or less has fallen below 40 percent. Further,
former Ontario premier and provincial NDP leader Bob Rae is
seeing his popularity increase, only months after many of his
erstwhile supporters were refusing to support his re-election.
     In New Brunswick, the reason that the Liberals are
completely dominant is because the Tory regime of a few years ago
fell apart in scandal and the previous official opposition, the
bigoted CoR party was wiped out in the last election. In New
Brunswick today there are frequent demonstrations of thousands
against UI cuts in places such as Bathurst and St. John.


     ii) The internal climate

     The revolutionary tradition is founded on the premise of
maximum freedom of discussion, unity in action. In the past year,
the steering committee committed itself to implementing the
national perspective of the organization by adopting three
simultaneous practical changes in our work. these were; (i) the
publication of a bi-weekly Socialist Worker and a monthly edition
of Socialisme International; (ii) putting on four full-timers at
the centre; and (iii) bringing the IS dues base in line with the
increased expenses of the organization that this would entail.
     We argued that we had to break the habits of being a small
group on the margins of the class struggle, and that these
organizational changes presented a mechanism, a means, through
which we could begin to do that.
     Most importantly, the bi-weekly paper compelled a change in
the pace of work of the organization. To maintain and increase
circulation of Socialist Worker, we need a membership that took
its own activity and its own commitment more seriously. We at no
point argued that we were no longer a propaganda group. But the
tasks of how we carry our propaganda - how we make it concrete,
how wide the audience is for our ideas, how influential we could
be in linking that propaganda to agitational demands and sinking
roots to earn real influence - had to be changed in keeping with
the new demands of a new period.
     We also had to break a series of old habits that were a
barrier to making this turn. One of the most problematic habits
of the past was a lack of attention to cadre training.
     Instead, a reliance on informal, private and unaccountable
methods of decision-making made it difficult for new members to
influence the life of the group or to develop their political
confidence. Informality, a necessary feature of the operation of
a tiny group on the margins of struggle, now became a barrier.
     New members, may women members, members for whom English was
not their first language, working class members, young people -
commonly found it difficult or impossible to join and influence
the leadership. Far from the last year being dominated by an
internal regime of stifling debate, for the majority of members
of the IS the last year has been one of very dramatic political
development and encouragement.
     The PRF maintains that there has been an atmosphere of
purging, banning and stifling discussion. What is this based on?
The faction has relied on hearsay and rumour rather than on any
formal evidence. For example, there is a claim that "[i]t seems
the Steering Committee has been preparing to purge comrades [in
Ottawa] seen as 'bad elements', and is prepared to drive out
three quarters of a branch to achieve its goal."
     Actually, there are no plans for such a "purge" nor have
there ever been. Brenden M. defended this conclusion in a
supplementary letter...which only confirms that he interpreted a
conversation with a steering committee member to mean this. At
our national convention, on the initiative of the steering
committee, one leading member of the Ottawa branch, Jacques R.,
was nominated for and elected to the first Appeals Committee
formed in the IS. Why would the steering committee have promoted
a member of a branch it was planning to "purge"?
     As for the "banning" of talks and SW articles, again, where
is the formal evidence? What proposals for speakers have been
banned, what articles submitted and rejected, what debates have
been suppressed?
     What has changed over the last year is a replacement of an
informal, and to be honest clique-ridden approach to internal
decision-making, with formal, elected and accountable leadership
bodies at every level of the organization.
     In the lead up to the national convention, none of the
signers of the faction documents challenged the national
perspective formally in the branch discussions, nor were
delegates with opposing perspectives put forward for election.
     The IS has democratic structures available to ensure open
and honest debate. Why have supporters of the PRF, who are
concerned to ensure democratic discussion, chosen not to make use
of these structures?
     Since the PRF has been formed, at this writing despite
requests there have been no open meetings of the faction.
Moreover, several members of the IS, including David McNally,
resigned on the basis of an identical argument to the faction
within days of the circulation of the PRF documents. At least one
meeting under the auspices of something called "The New
Socialist" that has nothing to do with the International
Socialists has been publicized in Toronto, featuring David
McNally as the speaker.
     Are all of the signers of the faction documents genuinely
interested in fair and democratic debate, or in splitting the IS?
     The tradition of open debate in the revolutionary movement
is based on maximum freedom of discussion, but the purpose of
debate is to conclude in united practice. this is the only way to
conduct a principled and healthy argument, based on building the
IS, not on weakening it or competing against it.

     (iii) Lenin and the party

     When the IS was formed in 1975, we carried on an argument
among those remaining in the Waffle, the left wing movement
forced to leave the NDP, that it was time to build a genuinely
revolutionary party in Canada. We argued against both the
hardened reformism of the NDP, and against the centrist "broad
church" approach of the Waffle - socialist in words but passive,
loose and ultimately reformist in practice. The basis of that
argument was summarized in Chris Harman's essay, Originally
drafted in 1968, entitled "Party and Class."
     The IS exists as a distinct organization because that
commitment is as true today as it was in 1975. the core of our
perspective is based on an understanding of party building drawn
distinctly from the experience of Lenin and the Bolsheviks.
     In the PRF document, this principle of our operation is
explicitly abandoned. In fact, the document maintains that "there
is no serious Leninist tradition for building in small groups."
     Leninism is a guide to revolutionary organization and
practice, most importantly a guide from moving from being a very
small number of revolutionaries, even handfuls of individuals, to
a mass party capable of leading the struggle for socialism. This
was the experience of the Bolsheviks in Russia. Its relevance
today is confirmed by the experience of the SWP in Britain (which
has grown from 4000 to 9500 in the 1990s), and the experience of
the ISO in the US (which has grown from 250 to 700 in the 1990s),
and the experience of OSE in Greece (which has grown from 300 to
1000 in the 1990s), and the experience of our sister
organizations in many other parts of the world.
     While we are not a party now, the Where We Stand column's
statement in Socialist Worker that "The International Socialists
are beginning to build such a party" is an accurate description
of our perspective to become one. moreover, it is the practical
conclusion to our commitment to revolution versus reformism.
Otherwise, we would be relegated to being a talk-shop, even if
one armed with bold evolutionary rhetoric.

     (iv) The SWP and the IS tendency

     The PRF maintains that the SWP [UK] leadership "has
organized utterly unprincipled and damaging expulsions of
comrades in South Africa and Australia who disagreed with what
the SWP thought their groups should do."
     What are the facts? First, in South Africa there were no
expulsions, although some people left the organization. In
Australia, after years of internal debate, five expulsions took
place. This decision was made on the basis of the democratic
decision-making process of the Australian comrades themselves.
they are, in fact, the only ones who have the means to take such
a decision.
     As far as the central committee of the Socialist Workers'
Party is aware, these are the only expulsions that have taken
place anywhere in the international tendency in the last year.
     The SWP is not the leadership of a new communist
international. it has no authority in regard to other socialist
organizations other than the respect its leadership has earned by
building the largest and most effective revolutionary
organization anywhere in the English-speaking world. its
influence has over recent years attracted the respect and
compelled invitations for advice from many corners of the world
where like-minded revolutionaries hope to learn from their
success.
     The SWP provides nothing to the sister organizations in the
tendency other than argument, persistent and hard argument. it
cannot expel members from other countries; it has no means to do
so.
     Over recent years, many groups in the tendency have, like
ours, sought the advice of the leadership of the SWP to assist in
developing more serious and larger organizations. The record is
one of clear success, not failure.
     To argue, again on the basis of apparent hearsay, that the
SWP leadership has damaged organizations in the rest of the
tendency, and further to suggest on the basis of such hearsay
that IS Canada should abandon the tendency, is extraordinarily
flippant.
     The PRF further maintains that they "have every reason to
expect" that the SWP leadership will organize to expel those who
differ with the central committee's advice here in Canada.
     John Rees, a member of the central committee of the
Socialist Workers' party in Britain and editor of the
International Socialism Journal, was in Canada at our national
convention. he was present at our invitation. The advice he
offered was public and clear, stated in a session entitled "Party
and Class in the 1990s" at the convention itself.
     There he argued not for a way to shrink our numbers, but
shared the experience of the SWP in how they had succeeded in
increasing theirs. One of the most important lessons from the Swp
arises from their experience in holding the nazi threat at bay,
despite the growth of organized fascists in almost every other
country in Europe. John Rees stated then:
     "The election of [NF Council Member] Derek Beacon was a
shock. The perspective today is to expect the unexpected. people
thought the Isle of Dogs was a no-go area, full of hard-core
racists and nazis. If we'd believed that, we couldn't have
mobilized to have him turfed. Don't accept the impressions of the
day."
     Moreover, Rees specifically addressed the issue of internal
debate in the IS in Canada. There he argued, again publicly in
the convention, "If people want to argue about the perspective,
we welcome that. if they want to sit quietly at the back of the
room, we are not looking to provoke an argument." In the IS in
Canada, there have been no expulsions at all this year, nor were
any ever planned. Neither the SWP leadership nor the IS
leadership have ever privately or publicly argued for expulsions
as a means of settling debates in our organization.
     If the PRF objects to the activity of the SWP leadership in
the tendency, surely the signers should raise their disagreements
directly with members of the central committee who are apparently
responsible for them. Why then do they call for a national
meeting that excludes these very people?
     Revolutionaries in over twenty countries in the world - some
in places such as South Korea or Turkey where they face
conditions of extreme repression - look to the SWP and the IS
tendency it has built as the continuation of the thread of
revolutionary socialist politics. Rejection of this tendency is a
rejection of that thread.

     Conclusion

     The results of the last year are clearly measurable. We have
more than doubled our dues base, and the print run of our paper
as well as paid sales are more than double where they were less
than two years ago. And most branches which seriously attempted
to implement the turn saw not only increased paper sales but also
an increase in the amount of activity amongst their membership.
To presume that we have not grown by counterposing the number of
cards signed a year ago to the number of dues-paying members now
is to move the goal post. We have five times as many dues-paying
members now than last year; and twice the number of cards were
signed by November of this year than members counted on that
basis last year.
     These changes have created the basis for us to grow in a
serious way over the next period of time.
     The IS welcomes debate and argument. It is only in this way
that we can move forward because any given situation has many
possible outcomes. We hope that all those who are presently in
the PRF will have a full debate in the IS so that we can clarify
our ideas. to this end, the steering committee is committed to
full and open discussion regarding any aspect of this debate.
     But after we have had that debate out and reached a
conclusion, all members are expected to abide by that decision.
     The world we live in is in a serious crisis. Millions go
hungry every day and tens of thousands die because of war and
famine. here in Canada our rulers are trying to make us pay for
their crisis by driving down our living standards.
     Never has this country and the world needed a socialist
alternative more than we do now. We believe that the IS can play
a small but important role in building small struggles today and
that we can grow in that process.
     Out of those struggles we can move closer towards becoming
the revolutionary socialist party of the future which brings
together all those who are conscious of the need to replace
capitalism with a world where human needs are put before profits.
it is with this goal in view that we must argue what the next
step is to push people's confidence forward.
     The ferment in ideas posed by the current crisis creates an
opening for us which is larger than anything we can fill. that is
why, after all, several thousand people joined or re-joined the
NDP in order to campaign for left-winger Svend Robinson who came
on top in the first ballot at the NDP leadership convention. We
have always been aware of this fact, which is why we related to
the Svend campaign.
     Because this ferment is so much larger than we are, the only
limitations upon our growth are our limited resources and how
well we organize ourselves to relate to this new mood of
politicization.
     Now is the time to move forward, not backward. The number of
socialists in Canada today are small. Within the IS, we have more
in common than the issues over which we differ. On the basis of
our common goals, we can become a stronger organization through
open and honest debate. We appeal to all the signers of the PRF
documents to stick with the IS and work out our differences
openly with this in mind.