that they were asiovalty. bent on 'political suicide •Party and -nat me uor. is the and that to or politically [the that existed at re-unification]. not a matter of principle The arguments and language of the statements from the I-CL and Workers Power [Red Weekly, 30 September), had a very familiar ring for us. We were once members of Workers Fight, and, although our politics appear to be significantly different …rom nose or workers rower. ike mem we founc ourselves opposing many of the policies of the leadership. Also them, we expected the differences to be debated properly and thoroughly within the framework of democratic centralism. But we soon found that democratic centralism did not exist; in its place we found ourselves facing an endless tirade of slander and distortion, the political content of which was almost nil.
in the spring of 1975, the leadership summarily expelled three of our comrades within weeks of our faction, the Democratic Centralist Faction, being declared. All the charges of 'unprincipled combinationism', "cliquism', 'circle politics', "a-political factionalism', 'catastrophism', 'vendetta against S. Matgamna' were levelled against us, just as they have been against Workers Power. The language has barely changed In the sectarian world of the I-CL there is no opposition, only heresy; no difference of opinion, only 'disloyalty": no debate, only 'circle politics against party spirit. The ex-WF leadership see themselves as uncompromising and resolute J.P. Cannons facing hordes of Burnhams and Shachtmans. They alone possess the principles of Marxism - all the rest of us being Perhaps the Workers Power comrades should have formed a Obviously it is impossible to detail all the criticisms that the I-CL makes of the USFI and IMG in a letter of this sort - question go suffice it to say that we do not accep that the USFl is such an International either organisationally (e.g. the Leninist Trotskvist Faction minority's ability 1o breach democratic centralism with impfailure of the USFI to clarify fundamental differences on Stalinism and the colonial revolution WAS not tactical alterences split meeting and none However, even if one were to adopt a position of 'critical support for the US. as the 'mainstream' of world Trotskyism (a position once held by Workers Fight], Do ltical citerences membership of the British section is still the early history of the International Group/IMG fortnight previously.
like up' La few weeks back now regard regroupment?
parallels with the treatment of the WP and to MARXIST WORKER GROUP (Bolton)
new conclusion Red Weekly draws from the split.
Workers Power! I-CL split.
Healy's Socialist Outlook of the same Denoa. ciean our almerences far beyond tactics, and involve a difference over programmatio independence (as opposed to organisational flexibility] vis-à-vis left reformism.
How ironic, then, that Red Weekly SOIlT should welcome a split from the I-CL that even motivated by coherent majority. I attended the Workers Powe of those present Twith the exception of D. Stocking, wne talked vaguely of unspecified differences of method'] were able to articulate any of tactics or princ iple with the I-CL. Most of the splitters from outside London had had no inkling ot ine bossibily ora soias late as a