The disagreement over whether the Fourth International’s International Secretariat called for Soviet troop withdrawal during the 1953 East Berlin uprising reveals something important about how organized Trotskyist tendencies conduct polemic.
Regarding “How Sectarian Dishonesty Distorts Revolutionary History”, I have a more recent example. This one is from the [ex-] Morenoist International Socialist League/Liga Internacional Socialista (LIS-ISL) whose largest section, the Argentine Movimiento Socialista de los Trabajadores is active in the Frente de Izquierda y de Trabajadores -Unidad (Workers Left Front-Unity or FIT-U) an electoral formation.
An article by Alberto Giovanelli, “Malvinas: the anti-imperialist struggle, teachings and polemics” dated April 4, 2025 and published on-line at https://lis-isl.org/en/2025/04/malvinas-the-anti-imperialist-struggle-teachings-and-polemics/ deals partly with the “controversy with the Left” that the 1982 invasion of the Malvinas Islands by the British armed forces highlighted.
Giovanelli writes, “While the Argentine PST defended and promoted a very clear revolutionary policy, a large part of the Argentine and world left (including currents that claimed to be Leninist and Trotskyist) chose the wrong paths: they oscillated between shameful support for Great Britain and a pacifist policy of “neutrality” that, in practice, served imperialism.”
He then writes, “For example, the USFI (Unified Secretariat of the Fourth International) issued on April 12 a statement by the Trotskyist International Liaison Committee that, in its point 5, states: “In doing so the Argentine dictators have trampled upon the rights of the Falkland inhabitants, who in themselves oppress and threaten no one and should have the right to decide their own future. (…) We do not support this action and call for the withdrawal of Argentine troops.”
Aside from mis-translating, the name of the leading body of the Fourth International at the time as “Unified”, (it is correctly, the United Secretariat in English) Giovanelli states that the USFI issued a statement on April 12 by the Trotskyist International Liaison Committee (TILC) which called amongst other things, for the withdrawal of Argentine troops.
In reality the USFI did no such thing and the Fourth International had no connection at all to the TILC. As for the position of the FI at the time, it came out clearly against the British invasion and called for the defeat of the British side. The FI took this position in Britain, in Argentina and world-wide.
In response I wote to the LIS-ISL, advised them that the article was incorrect and requested that they make a correction on-line. (The article had been published in hard copy format so I assumed that they would run a “correction” in whatever issue of the magazine was coming up.
Some time later, I received an i-phone message from the author of the article, Alberto Giovanelli, “…attentive to your comment on my note in commemoration of the Malvinas War, I would like to know if we can exchange some ideas in this way.” Two days later, on April 13, 2025, I replied with my email address stating that that was the easiest way for me to follow through on debate.
As I had not received a response eight days later, on April 21, 2025, I wrote to the comrade that, “I note that your article still retains the lie about the Fourth International’s position on the Malvinas War.”
Close to two months later, and still without a response from the LIS-ISL, on June 4, 2025, I queried the comrade’s silence.
Just over a month later, on July 6 I wrote to the comrade I wrote, “Almost 3 months later and still no response. Can you please send me a link to your corrected article? Thank you.”
On July 14, 2025, still awaiting a response—any response—I wrote to the comrade again requesting a response. It is now November 20, 2025 and not a word from the comrades of the LIS-ISL, despite “Alberto Giovanelli” having read all of my messages.
What I find especially interesting is not just that the comrades of the LIS-ISL have lied about the political positions of another left current, but that they have gone to such lengths to simply ignore the issue when a brief and simple, “sorry” along with a correction would have sufficed.
And what links this to the original article, “How Sectarian Dishonesty Distorts Revolutionary History: The 1953 East Berlin Uprising and the Fourth International” published on November 4, this year is that the political ancestors of the LIS-ISL had been, for several years, in a common organisation with the Lambertists: originally with the 1953 split in the FI and then later after the Morenoists “Bolshevik Faction” split with the FI they joined an ill-fated and ultimately brief lash-up with them again in 1980 in the “Parity Committee for the Reorganization (Reconstruction) of the Fourth International”.
Is their something in the DNA of the organisations that make them incapable of self-criticism (or indeed criticism of any type.)?
It’s ridiculous to attribute TILC’s positions to the FI. After all, TILC was closed to the positions of the Lambert-Moreno co-operation in the early 80s. But also I would have expected that the TILC itself would have called for the defeat of Britain in the war.
I assumed that myself but I figure that someone in the TILC or their political heirs could respond to that. My beef with the LIS-ISL is that when challenged on the accuracy of their statements rather than honestly deal with their lies they have hidden from any discussion. Same as the Lambertists. In the case of Socialist Alternative here in Australia who have some sort of relationship with the LIS-ISL it really is a case of caveat emptor.
Regarding “How Sectarian Dishonesty Distorts Revolutionary History”, I have a more recent example. This one is from the [ex-] Morenoist International Socialist League/Liga Internacional Socialista (LIS-ISL) whose largest section, the Argentine Movimiento Socialista de los Trabajadores is active in the Frente de Izquierda y de Trabajadores -Unidad (Workers Left Front-Unity or FIT-U) an electoral formation.
An article by Alberto Giovanelli, “Malvinas: the anti-imperialist struggle, teachings and polemics” dated April 4, 2025 and published on-line at https://lis-isl.org/en/2025/04/malvinas-the-anti-imperialist-struggle-teachings-and-polemics/ deals partly with the “controversy with the Left” that the 1982 invasion of the Malvinas Islands by the British armed forces highlighted.
Giovanelli writes, “While the Argentine PST defended and promoted a very clear revolutionary policy, a large part of the Argentine and world left (including currents that claimed to be Leninist and Trotskyist) chose the wrong paths: they oscillated between shameful support for Great Britain and a pacifist policy of “neutrality” that, in practice, served imperialism.”
He then writes, “For example, the USFI (Unified Secretariat of the Fourth International) issued on April 12 a statement by the Trotskyist International Liaison Committee that, in its point 5, states: “In doing so the Argentine dictators have trampled upon the rights of the Falkland inhabitants, who in themselves oppress and threaten no one and should have the right to decide their own future. (…) We do not support this action and call for the withdrawal of Argentine troops.”
Aside from mis-translating, the name of the leading body of the Fourth International at the time as “Unified”, (it is correctly, the United Secretariat in English) Giovanelli states that the USFI issued a statement on April 12 by the Trotskyist International Liaison Committee (TILC) which called amongst other things, for the withdrawal of Argentine troops.
In reality the USFI did no such thing and the Fourth International had no connection at all to the TILC. As for the position of the FI at the time, it came out clearly against the British invasion and called for the defeat of the British side. The FI took this position in Britain, in Argentina and world-wide.
In response I wote to the LIS-ISL, advised them that the article was incorrect and requested that they make a correction on-line. (The article had been published in hard copy format so I assumed that they would run a “correction” in whatever issue of the magazine was coming up.
Some time later, I received an i-phone message from the author of the article, Alberto Giovanelli, “…attentive to your comment on my note in commemoration of the Malvinas War, I would like to know if we can exchange some ideas in this way.” Two days later, on April 13, 2025, I replied with my email address stating that that was the easiest way for me to follow through on debate.
As I had not received a response eight days later, on April 21, 2025, I wrote to the comrade that, “I note that your article still retains the lie about the Fourth International’s position on the Malvinas War.”
Close to two months later, and still without a response from the LIS-ISL, on June 4, 2025, I queried the comrade’s silence.
Just over a month later, on July 6 I wrote to the comrade I wrote, “Almost 3 months later and still no response. Can you please send me a link to your corrected article? Thank you.”
On July 14, 2025, still awaiting a response—any response—I wrote to the comrade again requesting a response. It is now November 20, 2025 and not a word from the comrades of the LIS-ISL, despite “Alberto Giovanelli” having read all of my messages.
What I find especially interesting is not just that the comrades of the LIS-ISL have lied about the political positions of another left current, but that they have gone to such lengths to simply ignore the issue when a brief and simple, “sorry” along with a correction would have sufficed.
And what links this to the original article, “How Sectarian Dishonesty Distorts Revolutionary History: The 1953 East Berlin Uprising and the Fourth International” published on November 4, this year is that the political ancestors of the LIS-ISL had been, for several years, in a common organisation with the Lambertists: originally with the 1953 split in the FI and then later after the Morenoists “Bolshevik Faction” split with the FI they joined an ill-fated and ultimately brief lash-up with them again in 1980 in the “Parity Committee for the Reorganization (Reconstruction) of the Fourth International”.
Is their something in the DNA of the organisations that make them incapable of self-criticism (or indeed criticism of any type.)?
It’s ridiculous to attribute TILC’s positions to the FI. After all, TILC was closed to the positions of the Lambert-Moreno co-operation in the early 80s. But also I would have expected that the TILC itself would have called for the defeat of Britain in the war.
I assumed that myself but I figure that someone in the TILC or their political heirs could respond to that. My beef with the LIS-ISL is that when challenged on the accuracy of their statements rather than honestly deal with their lies they have hidden from any discussion. Same as the Lambertists. In the case of Socialist Alternative here in Australia who have some sort of relationship with the LIS-ISL it really is a case of caveat emptor.