The Fourth International: From activist origins, through splits, to theoretical growth

A reflection on "Combats et débats de la Quatrième Internationale"

Below is a note we previously decided not to use in an article on splits in the Fourth International. We're sharing it because it relates to a discussion with a reader about Pierre Moreau’s book, Combats et débats de la Quatrième Internationale.

The Fourth International (FI), founded in 1938, emerged from the failures of social democracy and the rise of Stalinism. Its roots trace back to the Left Opposition formed within the Communist Party of the USSR in 1923, which fought against the party's increasing bureaucracy and advocated for socialist workers' democracy and a global revolutionary policy. From its start, the FI has navigated complex revolutionary politics, beginning as an activist group rather than an immediate mass movement. It has grown and refined its ideas through many internal debates and divisions.

From Broad Ambition to Activist Foundation

Initially, the Fourth International aimed to unite all revolutionary groups breaking away from both Stalinism and social democracy, not just Trotskyists. Many non-Trotskyist organizations, some with larger memberships, were part of this early vision. Examples included the Independent Labour Party (ILP) in Great Britain, the Socialist Workers and Peasants Party in France, and the Workers' Party of Marxist Unification (POUM) in Spain. The "Declaration of the Four," signed by the International Communist League and three left-socialist organizations in Germany and Holland, showed that Trotskyists were willing to be a minority in a new International.

However, groups like the POUM did not join the formal establishment of the Fourth International. These parties no longer exist. The POUM, despite its importance among independent communist groups in the 1930s, failed to overcome its political isolation and internal divisions. Its indecisiveness during key moments, like the May 1937 workers' uprising in Spain, was criticized. As a result, the Fourth International was officially founded by only Trotskyists in 1938, justified by other groups' refusal to join.

At its formation, the Fourth International was numerically small, with groups from 28 countries. Most of these groups were newly formed and had only dozens of members. Despite criticisms of it being a sectarian self-proclamation, Leon Trotsky noted that the movement had waited five years before formally founding it. The debate on its foundation also highlighted the connection between building national parties and the International. Trotsky argued against different criteria for mass influence for national versus international bodies. While always aiming for mass influence, the FI began as a crucial ideological current, a "propaganda international" that had to struggle to preserve and strengthen its limited group of dedicated members.

Navigating Splits and Theoretical Revisions

The Fourth International's history has been marked by a series of significant splits and internal debates. These disagreements have, perhaps surprisingly, helped to update and refresh its theory.

One of the most significant divisions was the 1953 split, largely started by the US Socialist Workers Party (SWP). This split arose partly from disagreements over Michel Pablo's views on the transition to socialism. Critics, including the Lambertists, accused Pablo of giving too much importance to Stalinist bureaucracies, thus undermining the need for the Fourth International's independent struggle. The SWP, acting with what was described by others as "national messianism," saw itself as "the most important party in the world" and the "legitimate leader of the Trotskyist movement," resenting guidance from the International Secretariat (IS) in Paris. Cannon, the central SWP leader, famously declared that "a few people in Paris" would not dictate to the SWP. This led to the SWP's "Open Letter to Trotskyists Throughout the World" in November 1953, effectively rejecting the elected international leadership. Despite this break, the international leadership of the 1950s is credited with preventing sectarian decline and defending against tendencies that would have dissolved the movement, successfully preserving the Fourth International's organizational structure, and paving the way for reunificaiton of the public factions in 1963.

Michel Pablo's own later split in the mid-1960s was another important event. After the 1963 reunification, Pablo's changing political analysis and disagreements with the International's approach led to his departure and the formation of the Marxist Revolutionary Tendency International (TMRI). While the TMRI aimed for broader revolutionary regroupings by having members join larger parties (generalized entrism), it had limited success and eventually dissolved in 1991, with some of its members rejoining the Fourth International.

Another major internal conflict was the Morenoite split, led by Nahuel Moreno in Argentina. His group initially aligned with the SWP after the 1963 reunification, but significant political and tactical differences emerged, especially over the Portuguese Revolution (where the US SWP was particularly disoriented, and while Moreno and the FI leadership each had different parts of the needed solution) and the Angolan Civil War. This led to the breakup of the Leninist Trotskyist Faction (LTF) in 1976 and the formation of the Bolshevik Faction (BF), which increasingly acted like an "International within the International." The split of the BF and the Leninist Trotskyist Tendency (LTT) in 1979 accounted for a large minority of the International's forces, particularly in Latin America. Moreno later questioned Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution, favoring a "democratic revolution" concept instead. While his international tendency (LIT) remained primarily regional and experienced significant split from 1988, as elements like the Uruguayan section of the LIT later rejoined the Fourth International.

The US Socialist Workers Party (SWP) itself underwent a significant shift, arguably beginning in 1979 and accelerating in the 1980s. Its leadership, under Jack Barnes, openly attacked the global Trotskyist movement and rejected the theory of permanent revolution in 1983, returning to pre-1917 Leninist ideas. This resulted in purges within the SWP, leading to the formation of groups of FI members in Solidarity and the Fourth Internationalist Tendency. By the 12th World Congress in 1985, the SWP and its supporters were reduced to less than 10% of the International's membership. The SWP in Australia, initially aligned with the US SWP, also moved towards explicitly anti-Trotskyist positions.

The two parts of the IC which refused to reunify in 1963, the Healyites (Socialist Labour League in Britain) and the Lambertists (Organisation Communiste Internationaliste in France), consistently criticized the Fourth International for "Pabloism" and "revisionism." These groups diverged soon afterwards, with Healy’s WRP breaking into multiple factions in 1985 and the Lambertists experiencing significant splits, ultimately moving towards dissolving into social democracy. While the Fourth International managed to preserve its organizational framework, many of the "anti-Pablist" groups often suffered further fragmentation, with many now struggling to survive.

Endurance, Growth, and Future Paths

Despite these numerous challenges and splits, the Fourth International has shown remarkable vitality and continuity. It has consistently functioned as "an international organization based on a fundamental revolutionary program and a flexible application of international democratic centralism," rejecting the idea of a "party-fraction" that characterized many rival groups. The ability to hold world congresses regularly, even during difficult times, has been crucial for its ongoing existence.

The Fourth International experienced significant expansion from 1968 to 1975, marked by the rise of a new revolutionary generation. While entrism (having members join larger workers’ parties to influence the masses), as seen with the "French Turn" in the 1930s, allowed Trotskyists to grow in numbers and influence, the "Italian Lesson" in the 1960s highlighted the dangers of staying too long in mass parties and missing broader waves of youth radicalization.

In the 1980s, despite a general conservative backlash and the working class being largely on the defensive in developed capitalist countries, the Fourth International maintained its membership levels in most imperialist countries. New young members compensated for losses. Its sections grew in Latin America, particularly in Mexico and Brazil, as military dictatorships faced increasing difficulties. The Mexican section, for example, became the main revolutionary, socialist, and workers' political force in the country after the dissolution of the Communist Party in 1989.

The Fourth International has consistently acknowledged its relative success compared to other revolutionary groups, such as the Maoists, whose appeal faded in the late 1970s and early 1980s. It also notes the failure of rival Trotskyist groups to establish enduring mock Internationals ("Internationales-bidon"). As Moreau argued, the Fourth International today represents "the principal framework" for those claiming to be Trotskyist, regrouping the largest number of members, national sections, and significant organizations across continents.

The Fourth International continues to seek growth and new ways to build a mass revolutionary international. These potential pathways include: breakthroughs by existing national sections into mass parties (like in Mexico); a new independent mass workers' party (such as the Brazilian Workers' Party, PT) launching a call for a new international; a convergence of revolutionary forces (for example, in Central America); or the refounding of the communist movement on new bases after the rejection of Stalinism in Eastern Europe. In all cases, the Fourth International sees itself as an active agent rather than a passive observer.

The history of the Fourth International demonstrates that its growth and decline have generally mirrored global class struggles. Its lasting contribution lies in its "uninterrupted revolutionary continuity rooted in the best period of the Communist International," a "wealth of experience in struggles across the three sectors of the world revolution," and "revolutionary activists embedded in mass movements in dozens of countries." By preserving its organizational framework and engaging in continuous theoretical self-correction through its debates and splits, the Fourth International aims to make an irreplaceable contribution to the formation of a future revolutionary international of the masses.