For an independent youth organization!
"We are for the complete independence of the youth leagues" - Lenin
We live in times in which the traditional organizations of the workers' movement are in decline. Social democratic and Stalinist parties are losing influence amongst the workers – this lack of organization means that the class is less and less able to defend its historic gains. But at the same time it means that reformism is less and less able to hold back nascent struggles.
In these times the youth movement can play a key role. In the last ten years we have repeatedly seen mass movements which were incited or even led by young people. In the last six months radical students' protests in France and Chile ignited movements which peaked in general strikes. In Europa and the USA hundreds of thousands of young activists built up the anticapitalist movement at anti-summit protests and social forums.
But these movements lack their own leadership which emerges from the movement and is controlled by it. The question "Where to?" is inevitably answered by reformist or purely bourgeois parties, which direct the urge to mass protests towards in the direction of christian reform movements (Anti-G8 in Scotland) or useless discussion events (ESF in London). In this situation revolutionaries must call on young activists to take the leadership of their movements into their own hands, by organizing themselves, by forming an independent revolutionary youth organization.
The slogan for the independence of the revolutionary-communist youth movement has a double meaning in this context: firstly it should serve to break the young people who are moving to the left from the reformist organizations and guide their spontaneous radicalism in a revolutionary direction. Secondly young activists should, by building up and consolidating their own organization, acquire the necessary skills to intervene in the wider movement.
The slogan of a youth international, as a step towards the creation of a revolutionary workers' international, is correct in every situation, even when we are a long way from the creation of such a world-wide mass organization. But this slogan only becomes concrete when we, in our own work, build up the most independent youth organization possible. Through our own activity we can prove that young people are capable of organizing themselves independently.
"In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice.
But in practice, there is" - Jan L.A. van de Snepscheut
At the level of pure theory there are presumably few differences in our organization. But the continuing crisis in REVOLUTION based on the fact that the practice of the LFI faction in Revo often contradicts these principles. A few examples:
- The LFI-IS worked out and decided upon the constitution for REVOLUTION
- The LFI-IS overruled the first democratic-centralist decision of the conference in Vienna in 2005, without even informing the RIC or the delegates of this conference
- The LFI-IS wrote the balance sheet for the second conference of REVOLUTION, and as at the first conference, the LFI members (13 of 18 delegates) were obliged to vote for this document
- The LFI faction receives precise instructions at all international conferences
How can we speak of REVOLUTION as an independent organization in light of such practices? In this case we clearly have to speak of a subordinate organization. For us it doesn't make any difference if the LFI-IS acts directly or via a subcomitee, for example a RIC which it controls completely. We totally reject this subordination, both in theory and in practice.
At least the LFI recognizes theoretically, that according to Lenin and Trotsky youth organizations should be "free from any tutelage or domination". Their practice represents – despite the denials that such practices take place – a form of youth oppression. It is simply tutelage.
Additionally, the LFI uses their greater financial resources to determine the composition of Revo conference. How do you call it when adults use their financial privileges to influence young people? Trotsky called it blackmail.
The LFI used to officially support, leaning on Lenin, the "complete independence of the youth leagues", but now they reject this position completely in practice and are slowly adapting their theory to their inability to deal with young people and new ideas. Thus the terms of the LFI change more and more from "complete independence" to "organizational independence", "structural independence" and demands for political subordination (sometimes camouflaged with the term "political solidarity", which was put in our constitution by the LFI). These positions would fit in perfectly in a Stalinist or Maoist Party, but have little in common with the positions of the Communist International or the LFI itself.
"The truth is always revolutionary" - Trotsky
We can accept neither the decisions the LFI-IS made nor the conference it stage-managed. It is not so much a question of what individual decisions were made – for example we also believe that a big international mobilization against the G8 in Heiligendamm is urgently necessary – but rather how they were made: by the structures of the LFI, with the structures of Revo as nothing more than a rubber stamp.
We used to hear there was no LFI faction in Revo. Now it's said that there is a faction, but no "secret faction". When we nonetheless call it "secret", we are not referring to the members (which Revo member belongs to the "League" is not always clear, but it is easy to find out) but to the practice of the LFI. It makes decisions which are binding for its members in Revo, which leads any kind of discussion at the conference or in the RIC ab absurdum. Not the better arguments for the development of REVO are pushed through, only the positions laid down beforehand by the LFI, based on their majority.
Thus the LFI mistakes and denies the character and tasks of a youth organization, which cannot obstinately repeat "old truths" (as correct as they might be), but rather must develop itself and the entire movement. In this sense a mistake young people make themselves, from which they can learn, can be a hundred times more useful than a "correct" decision which is imposed by someone else.
This practice has been going on for several years and is in no way an "exception" for "special circumstances". There are no signs that this practice will stop any time soon, because the LFI denies per se that young people can develop their own perspectives and possibilities for action on the terrain of Marxism. From the paternalist standpoint of "we know everything better", they are obliged to force us down the road which they have chosen as the best with undemocratic means like secret factions.
Therefore we see no point in being a minority in an LFI body, in which we could object to the decisions of the IS, but not co-determine anything in the slightest.
As we wrote three months ago: "In a formal democratic sense there is nothing wrong with the whole operation. In a democratic organization the majority can do what the majority wants. But that leaves us with the question why we need an international conference at all."
But actually this practice does not fit into any conception of democracy: the IS instructions and decisions are given out after the election of delegates in Revo, and we saw at the last conference concretely that LFI delegates deny they will act on the basis of IS instructions, and further are not committed to the positions they argued for in their group and thus to their own thoughts, but rather to the positions of the IS.
The current RIC, composed of 100% LFI members, but not even elected by 100% entitled delegates, is a farce and lacks any legitimacy. As far as we know, not a single independent member has been found who supports the factionally-motivated decisions of the LFI at the last conference, for example the expulsion of Revo Australia. To talk about an "authoritative leadership" in this situation is absurd!
"Our tendency is necessary as long as a closed majority faction controls the organization." - iRevo founding statement
The foundation of iRevo was necessary to create a counterweight to the LFI faction and to give the independents in REVOLUTION the opportunity to organize aside from the micromanagement of the LFI leadership. Again we call on the LFI to end their destructive practice of secret faction work. We call on the LFI to remove the imperative mandate for their members in Revo, as this makes democracy impossible. But for this it is necessary to have total openness about their work. Concretly: if the LFI has a particularly revolutionary constitution for REVOLUTION, it should propose the text to Revo and allow all members, i.e. LFI-members and independents, to discuss it. Imposing the constitution bureaucratically, by ordering the LFI faction to vote for it, is not acceptable.
We reject the claim that the structural problems of Revo can be solved if there is more centralism or more members in Revo. At most the problems can be reproduced in a larger framework.
There are important political differences between the LFI youth and iRevo. But we believe the so-called differences about campaign work are a distraction. As REVO/DE presented to the conference their plans for intervening in the mobilization for a school students' strike, they were denounced as "passive propagandists". The alternative that the LFI-RIC proposes? They should intervene in the mobilization for a school students' strike! The only difference that perhaps exists is that REVO/DE gives red flags to such young people who know why they are holding this flag.
Our differences center on the question of independence – on the question of whether the LFI should make decisions for Revo or if "independent youth organization" is a mere phrase to attract leftist youth; if these young people can and should organize independently, or if a youth organization which according to its members "simply wouldn't work" without the day-to-day leadership of a 40-year-old functionary can be considered independent, youthful, or even revolutionary.
We are firmly convinced that young communists can and must organize independently. We agree in principle with the demand of independent Revos from England that there should be a majority of non-LFI-members in all leading bodies. But we feel the dissolution of the LFI faction is much more important. As we have shown again and again, neither in the YSA/US in the 50s, nor in the YPSL/US in the 30s, nor anywhere in the history of the communist youth movement was the practice of a "party" faction in the youth movement normal.
REVOLUTION is a political youth organization: this means it cannot be limited to the simple "actionism" advocated by the LFI, with the LFI in the background as the inofficial leadership and think tank. As Trotsky said more than sixty years ago: "The worst thing that could happen to us would be to establish a division of labour within the youth organisation: the young rank and file play with colours and trumpets and the selected cadres attend to the politics." Reading this quote it's hard not to think of Revo...
In fact an organization must be based on uniting actions with a political profile that the youth develop themselves. REVOLUTION is an independent organization, which must work out its politics itself, not simply have them presented on a platter. Only if the members of REVOLUTION participate in building up and designing the organization and are thus able to identify with the organization and its goals, can the crisis be solved.
For us a "tendency" does not mean that we submit to every decision of the LFI-IS. If we could accept this practice of obedience, we would not need a tendency. For us, "tendency" means we base ourselves on the program and the concept of REVOLUTION and remain a part of REVOLUTION internationally, just like the LFI faction.
There are still no structures which can speak for REVOLUTION, which can speak for more than one faction and the three sections it controls. A legitimate RIC would have to include one representative of every Revo group, including the Australian, and of course representatives who enjoy the trust and support of their group, not simply LFI members. Therefore we demand a complete reorganization of the RIC, with representatives of thefour sections not represented, and without the "representing" LFI members who have no support in their group. A RIC that is not committed to the LFI but has to be won by argument for the LFI’s (or any other) positions.
Such a structure can, in our opinion, only be created in the form of a provisional RIC formed and recognized by all sections. But the unity of REVOLUTION will only be guaranteed when the LFI faction – call it secret or not – is dissolved and our structures are no longer controlled by external organizations.
"I heard you saying, closer to quiet than loud, that the young people built this up for themselves" - Tocotronic
We continue to work under the banner of REVOLUTION, the banner of an independent communist youth organization. It is regrettable that the LFI has thrown over board the principle of organizational and political independence for the youth, hoping for a quick fix to recruit new members for their propaganda group. It is regrettable because, as a member of the LFI-IS wrote just a year ago: "Any attempt to limit their political and organisational independence only serves the interests of reformism and reaction." (The First Youth International)
We for our part will try to prove, by theoretical argument and practical work, to the LFI and to the broader youth movement, that real independence brings with it immediate and strategic advantages for the entire working class movement. Until they accept this, the LFI faction members are free to consider themselves sympathizers of the only independent collectives in Revo, grouped together in the iRevo tendency.
iRevo Coordination, October 4, 2006