The Fourth International and the United Front

by The Organizer

Excerpts from a report by Pierre Lambert presented to the Fifth World Congress of the Fourth
International, Berlin, 2002.

I. It would be illusory to think that the Fifth World Congress of the International will solve all the
problems. We are realists and we know that, as much in the preparation of the Congress as in the
time we have available to us here, it will not be possible to resolve a certain number of questions.
Our method, let us repeat, the Marxist method, the method of Lenin, of Trotsky, has taught us that
our difficulties, the errors that we have committed, can and should be resolved through free
discussion among us.

To begin my report, I will rely on texts written by Trotsky, who taught us to consider with a clear
head, taking theory as our starting point, those questions which need to be resolved. Trotsky wrote:
“A normative, idealist way of thinking wants to build a world in its own image, and simply turns
away from phenomena that it does not like.”

Experience, discussion and workers’ democracy will permit us to appreciate the content of that
quote.

Listening to those who spoke on the first report, I remembered the experience we had a very long
time ago, since, as an old militant activist, I am certainly the oldest participant in this congress. At
the end of the war, when German imperialism was collapsing, when the revolutionary crisis was
setting the continent on fire, we said: no, the German people are not responsible. We fought for
fraternization. Again today, we who are in favor of a democratic, secular, independent Palestinian
republic with its two component parts sharing equal rights, especially the right to return, we say: the
Jewish people are not responsible.

At the end of the war, we unconditionally defended the USSR, the gains of October, as we have
always done. There again, we did not change our line. We defended the USSR that was being led by
the bureaucracy, knowing that if the world revolution did not triumph, then that bureaucracy would
drag the nationalities that made up the USSR into decline and ruin under the control of imperialism.

What is our method? In one of his texts, Trotsky compared the Soviet Union with a trade union in
order to explain what it was. Essentially he gave the following programmatic definition: a trade
union sets itself the aims of, firstly, struggling against capital in order to improve the workers’
situation; secondly, participating in the revolutionary struggle to overthrow the bourgeoisie; thirdly,
participating in the organization of the economy on a socialist basis. If one compares these norms to
reality, there is not one trade union that conforms to the “norm”. To cling to this assertion would be
to fail to understand that it is not a question of “building a world in one’s own image”: the idealist
way of thinking “counterposes the norm to the facts”, in other words the general expression of
development to a particular expression of that same development.

The general expression of this development is that the trade unions are class organizations built to
defend the interests of the working class, its immediate interests and its historic interests. And
today, in a period when the choice is between socialism and barbarism, the historic interests of the
class demand more than ever that the trade union organizations be independent. But it must be
noted that the trade unions have deviated and are deviating from their task. The particular situation

1
in which they are struggling is one where, most of the time, the leaders of the apparatuses are there
to prevent the trade unions from playing their role. However, there still remain—as long as they are
not destroyed as demanded by the IMF, the World Bank and the European Union—trade unions that
through the class struggle are indispensable for defending our gains and conquests.

There, I think, we have the real content of what Trotsky teaches us, in other words: abandon formal,
ultimatist, undialectical positions that counterpose the programme to reality. In 1944, I and other
comrades of the organization were convinced that we were going to “set up soviets” with the
masses. Our policy was this: the imperialist war was going to transform itself into the workers
revolution. Clearly, what actually happened was something different. And I would like to recount to
you how those of us who remained faithful to the programme managed to overcome that dogmatic
point of view (that wanted to “build a world in one’s own image”).

One day, on August 20th, 1944, having failed to build soviets, I visited an old comrade, a former
founding cadre of the Communist party, to discuss with him. I told him: “The workers are useless.”
He asked me why. I answered: “They don’t want to set up soviets.” He said to me: “Are you
Secretary of your trade union branch? Go to the factory and speak to the 3,500 workers in a mass
meeting.” I asked him: “What should I say to them?” He replied: “If you aren’t able to speak to the
workers, you will never be a communist.”

The next day, I spoke at the mass meeting, and tried to go as far as possible in the direction of
helping the workers to build independent paths, saying to the workers who had varying degrees of
political experience, including cadres who had joined the trade union: the bosses have collaborated
with the Nazis, let us seize our demands, let us organize. On August 20th, 1944, the liberation of
Paris had not yet been completed, but in the days that followed, the trade unions attracted thousands
upon thousands of workers in the factories and enterprises. Power lay in the hands of the workers
organized in trade unions, but not in soviets.

This does not mean to say that if the developments in the struggle that began with the trade unions
had not been held back and diverted, the problem of workers’ councils would not have been posed.

Let us continue. Trotsky wrote: “The historical justification for every class has always consisted in
that the system of exploitation led by it [should give way] to a class whose mission will be to
develop the productive forces to a higher level.” It is in relation to this analysis that we say, with
Trotsky, with Lenin: the capitalist class has been a progressive class that has allowed the
development of the working class, which itself is constituted as a class, within the framework of
bourgeois society, by its organizations. Today, the decaying system of private ownership of the
means of production, the bourgeois system, is destroying the working class, is destroying the labor
force, the productive forces. But the working class is still there.

Man’s exploitation of man is still there, the extraction of surplus value is still there.

And seen from this point of view, the working class can take back the initiative, both on the
international and national levels. This will certainly be a long and difficult process. But bourgeois
society and the system of private ownership of the means of production are under a death sentence.
If we do not remain firm on this programmatic point, that the decaying system of private ownership
of the means of production is condemned to be destroyed, we will be incapable of helping the
workers to step out of the dead end.

We help the working class fight to defend the independent organizations, especially the trade
unions. To fight on the line of transition (the International Liaison Committee) to build independent
2
workers’ parties. This is the task of the sections of the Fourth International. And we are confident,
comrades, because while the perspective is full of pitfalls, the dead end of capitalist society is such
that despite the defeats, the setbacks, despite the treachery of the Kremlin bureaucracy and the
Socialist International, the working class is still there, the youth is still there, the will to overcome
can never be snuffed out.

We must go further. Speaking about the American trade unions, Trotsky explained: “The selection
and education of a genuinely revolutionary leadership, one capable of withstanding the pressure of
the bourgeoisie, is an extraordinarily difficult task.” Of course, it is difficult. But there are trade
unions, and as long as the trade unions remain independent in an organized form, there will be
within them contradictions between the necessities of the defense of the interests of the working
class, and the reality of a capitalist world that is dragging the workers, civilization itself, towards
ruin and decline.

Yes, it is difficult. But must we think that the defeats have been such that they have destroyed the
working class’s capacity to rescue humanity? Trotsky wrote: “The question consequently stands as
follows: Will objective historical necessity in the long run cut a path for itself in the consciousness
of the vanguard of the working class; that is, in the process of this war and those profound shocks
which it must engender, will a genuine revolutionary leadership be formed capable of leading the
working class to the conquest of power?” We must acknowledge the fact that this did not happen
following WWII. However—and this is not a paradox—what Trotsky was saying was confirmed in
several aspects of his analysis.

There was a revolutionary crisis, the most profound that humanity has ever known. And in that
crisis, imperialism, driven by its fear of losing power, allowed the working class to win many
important gains. Not only in the most developed countries, but also in the so-called “Third World”
countries, where political independence and a whole series of progressive measures had to be
conceded to the oppressed nations. Everything that was won was the product of the revolutionary
action of the working class and the oppressed peoples, certainly not an act of exemplary charity by
the possessing classes. Today we know what can be said about the goodwill of the possessing
classes.

Of course, the revolutionary crisis did not mature into revolution. But are we to deduce from this
that the working class, which was obliged to draw back by the constraining force of the bureaucratic
apparatuses, is no capable of taking on its historic mission? In passing, this is the position of the
organizations such as ATTAC and all the others, who call for the financing of NGOs by the World
Bank, by the institutions of globalization, to help humanity to endure the “ravages of globalization”!

Trotsky also added: “A genuine leadership is very difficult, and maybe we will achieve it, maybe
not.” Marxism is a scientific method. But in any case, it should be admitted that things did not
happen exactly as Trotsky and we ourselves would have wished. Similarly, the destiny of the
Russian Revolution led by the Bolshevik Party of Lenin and Trotsky was crucified by the
bureaucracy.

Marx considered in 1848 that the revolution would result in victory. It didn’t turn out as he hoped.
So what?

Of course, if we are to fight, then we must fight to win. And in the class struggle, there are
obstacles, not only the obstacle that the ruling class represents, but the internal obstacle. These
problems demand that we have the most serious discussion, without any illusions, always looking
for the positive outcome. Just like during a strike, on whatever level, a positive outcome must be
3
found. And in the search for a positive outcome, we consider that the working class has
demonstrated and will continue to demonstrate that it is capable of opening up the way to a positive
outcome through its struggle as a class. And as far as we are concerned, we draw that certainty from
the Transitional Programme, the programme of the Fourth International.

But in every phase of the class struggle, in 1914, in 1933, for the exploiting class to be able to
subject the working class to the harsh servitude of war and exploitation, they needed the working
class to have within its ranks the social democrats and the Stalinists. And today we can still see the
expression of those positions in our own camp.

Thus we hear Raul Ponte, leader of the Pabloites [members of the United Secretariat—The Editor]
in Brazil, declare: “The radical nature of the crisis demands radical answers. I insist that the
majority camp in the PT (Brazil) should pay attention to our experience of government in Rio
Grande do Sul, which was hardly exceptional. What bothers me is not Sokol’s doctrinaire argument,
but the majority’s argument.” (O Estado de Sao Paulo, 16th of September, 2001).

As you know, the experience of government in Rio Grande do Sul (Porto Alegre) is the experience
of a government that relies on the NGOs, which are financed by the World Bank. For this Pabloite,
therefore, it is “doctrinaire” to defend, as Sokol does, the independence of the labor movement, to
refuse any subordination to the NGOs, in other words the World Bank.

And this is how he concludes: “Our governments can furnish the experience of participatory
democracy, thereby putting a check to the inimitable and immutable character of the classical
representative system.” Imagine, to counterpose parliamentary democracy to “participatory
democracy”, which is nothing more than a cover for a system of corporatist integration aimed at
wiping out the independence of the labor movement!

We know that the classical representative system (parliamentary democracy) is past its best. But
until we find proof to the contrary, we are fighting for the working class to replace it with the
republic of councils; not by a Salazar-style corporatist system. “Participatory democracy” is nothing
more than a policy dictated by the World Bank, the IMF, the exploiters. And the USec claims to be
the Fourth International!

This is nothing new. Marxism has been used fraudulently by social democracy, just as Stalinism
usurped the Bolshevism of Lenin. That is our lot. We have to defend the heritage handed down to us
by Leon Trotsky. These are critical questions. All these questions entail all the tasks that we must
carry out. Those tasks demand the most open and democratic discussion among us.

II. Report on the question of the united front

This question is a practical question. But to make it a practical one, we must begin by defining how
the problem is posed. We’ll begin with an observation: the destruction of the economic conditions.
From that point, it is a question of defining an orientation for defending the gains and conquests, in
keeping with the defense and reconquest of democracy.

In the Russian Revolution, the perspective of the victory of the working class lay within the
framework of an analysis which considered bourgeois democracy to be an outmoded political form.
Which of course did not mean that, faced with reaction and fascism, Lenin (against the coup attempt
by Kornilov) and Trotsky (against fascism) did not fight for the defense of the conquests of
“democracy”. It appears that the delay in the revolution led to questions that had been hidden by

4
history to be raised again. A dialectical conception is therefore required, in this area as in all the
others.

I repeat, we are facing a process in progress, as yet incomplete. And in both directions: the march
towards barbarism or the march towards socialism. There is no magic formula. And this brings us to
the fight for the united front. How?

The trade unions are the most basic expression of the united front. Now, what is a trade union? To
take the example of France, the Charter of Amiens, the founding charter of the trade unions in
France, stipulates that a trade union organizes workers in the defense of their interests, whatever
their philosophical, political or religious beliefs. Of course, in this question as in all the others, there
are contradictions. It is clear that one cannot say: on one side there are pure trade unions, and on the
other side trade unions that no longer play their part, in which we think it is impossible to remain.
This question is extremely important.

Today, one must consider the French CGT in relation with the decaying Stalinist apparatus that
leads it. It would be a mistake to consider the CGT as a trade union that has been integrated into the
state, but another mistake would be to ignore the fact that, within the CGT, at the highest level of
the apparatus, there are forces leading the CGT down the road of integration. A complex situation.
In each case, things must be weighed up.

Let us go on. It must be understood that the united front has also been carried out within the British
Labor Party. The Labor Party was considered by Lenin as having the possibility of being a
substitute for the soviet in the seizure of power. However, even in Lenin’s time, the Labor Party
apparatus had “passed over to the side of the bourgeois order”. Nevertheless, we are for entering the
Labor Party. In the case of Britain, we are in favor of keeping the link between the trade unions and
the Labor Party, which is the historic organizing framework for the whole of the labor movement.

Taking an equally particular form, the question is posed with the Brazilian PT. And it is the same
question, in a certain form, being posed today in Germany, although the SPD is not exactly the
Labor Party. Of course, one must know how to be independent of the apparatus. The most
developed form of independence is the one that exists in Brazil, where O Trabalho is edited as the
organ of the Brazilian section of the Fourth International and as a legitimate component of the
Workers Party. Of course, it would be a mistake to elevate the particular Brazilian form into a
model that would be valid for every country.

A purely normative way of thinking (the trade union is the trade union, the apparatus is the
apparatus) leads nowhere, because it has nothing to do with reality. A purely normative, idealist,
way of thinking wants to build a world in its own image, and turns away from phenomena that it
does not like. Yes, it is a pity that the Russian Revolution degenerated. It is a shame that the Second
International committed treachery. All this is very sad. So what?

Trotsky, I repeat, gives pretty much the following programmatic definition of a trade union: an
organization that sets itself the objectives of:

 struggling against capital in order to improve the workers’ situation;

 participating in the revolutionary struggle to overthrow the bourgeoisie;
 participating in the organization of the economy on a socialist basis.

5
That is an ideal trade union. It is true, however, that trade unions were set up on that basis in every
country. They could not be set up in any other way. The first trade unions that existed in Britain and
elsewhere were class trade unions, set up as part of a struggle of a revolutionary nature against the
bourgeoisie. Imperialism arrived and rotted the apparatuses. Alas, alas… If we compare today that
normative reality to effective reality, we would have to say that there is not a single trade union in
the world that answers to those norms.

Let me continue. Formal, ultimatist positions counterpose norms to the facts, counterpose a general
expression of a development to a specific expression of that development. If we compare that
normative reality to effective reality, we are obliged to say that there is not a single trade union in
the world that answers to those norms. If, in order to be considered as such, the trade unions must
be led by revolutionary apparatuses, where are they? Where? Must we then abandon the Labor
Party? Lenin said: “No, we cannot accept that position.” And the battle in the Congress of the
Communist International was difficult. It could not be fought to the end, because the Communist
International became Stalinized. But this question was raised again within the Left Opposition,
within the Fourth International. For example, a hard battle was fought on these questions with the
Germans within the Left Opposition.

This is a decisive question. A formal, ultimatist and undialectical counterposition between the
programme and reality is completely lifeless and does not offer any path for intervention by the
revolutionary party. Today, to object that currently we should leave the Brazilian PT is to denounce
what we did in the 1930’s, when Trotsky advised us to enter the Socialist Party in France, the USA,
and elsewhere. We entered those parties, and we fought within those parties. The Brazilian PT was
set up as an independent workers’ party, and the PT is wavering. Independent expression still exists
in Brazil; we are an official current of the Fourth International within the PT. It is certainly within
the realm of possibility that this will be taken away from us, but we must remain firm on the
defense of the workers’ party.

As far as those who do not understand the united front are concerned, one can say: sectarians be
damned!

Let us continue with the anti-imperialist united front. In Mexico, a semicolonial country, the party
of Cardenas was not a workers’ party. Do you know who wrote the law introducing the
nationalization of the oil industry? It was not Cardenas, it was Leon Trotsky. Had he abandoned the
independent struggle of the working class? No, he was carrying out the anti-imperialist united front
for national independence in Mexico, a semi-oppressed country.

Why are we in favor of the anti-imperialist united front in the dominated countries? Because the
bourgeois revolution was not carried out through to the end. The conditions are now infinitely more
difficult, but that is not my point. In these conditions, we are still in favor of the anti-imperialist
united front, whilst keeping our independence. We were in favor of the united front with Cardenas.
We are in favor of the united front with Arafat against Zionism, whatever may be our assessment of
his politics.

Let us remember that in the Soviet Union, we were in favor of the united front with the
bureaucracy, even though we knew that the bureaucracy represented a parasitic caste that was
leading the USSR in contradiction with the demands of its development. Opposing the Pabloites
(and others who emerged from within our own movement), we refused to support Gorbachev, who
was leading the country to the restoration of capitalism, back to the decaying system of private
ownership of the means of production. With Trotsky, we said: No, the bureaucracy is not a class, it
is a cancerous growth which is leading to disaster.
6
And where are those apostles of “state capitalism” now? Where are those who used to tell us the
bureaucracy is a new class? Look at reality. We explained at the time: we are unconditionally for
the defense of the USSR, and we are in a united front with Stalin in defense of social ownership,
whilst retaining our independence. We refuse to ally ourselves with imperialism against the
bureaucracy, because what guides us is the problem of the development of the productive forces.
But we continue the perspective of the political revolution.

Trotsky said a very interesting thing: there are always two sides to a perspective. Victory or defeat.
Essentially he was saying: I think that if the second imperialist war does not transform itself into a
civil war, we will be in a situation where the march towards barbarism will oblige us to review a lot
of things. Well, the revolution didn’t take place. However, Trotsky’s fundamental argument was
right. Because the second imperialist war opened up a revolutionary crisis which led to social gains,
the most widespread social conquests, which today still represent positions which the working class
can use to fight and defend itself. Those social gains survive, to a greater or lesser degree, in every
country.

But in all circumstances, the help that we are able to bring to the exploited and the oppressed
demands that we guarantee our total political independence. Trotsky wrote, I repeat: “The selection
and education of a truly revolutionary leadership, capable of withstanding the pressure of the
bourgeoisie, is an extraordinarily difficult task(…) The question consequently stands as follows:
Will objective historical necessity in the long run cut a path for itself in the consciousness of the
vanguard of the working class; that is, in the process of this war and those profound shocks which it
must engender, will a genuine revolutionary leadership be formed capable of leading the working
class to the conquest of power?” (L. Trotsky, In Defense of Marxism, “The USSR in War”).

Of course, as I have already explained, the events did not take place as we would have wished. But
the analysis, on the basis of principles, remains fundamentally correct. We do not substitute
ourselves for the working class. The social relations of production determine that it is the working
class, as the exploited class, which must destroy the whole system of exploitation. We must help it.

The vanguard is simultaneously separate and not separate from the mass. A long time ago, we had a
big discussion in the French section. We decided that we could not say: “We want what the masses
want.” No. Because the masses can be led, especially under pressure from the leaderships, to
commit errors. But at the same time, we help the masses, because they are the ones who are making
the revolution. It was Lenin who explained: “We must move towards the soviets. We are in the
minority there, but the soviets are the class, and it is the class that must elect and revoke its own
‘mandators’.”

One need only look at what is happening in the world to appreciate the truth of the method
contained in the Transitional Programme, the programme of the Fourth International. And it is
within and through free discussion that we will make progress towards answering the fundamental
questions: What is to be done? How to do it?

III. Closing speech

There is always a tendency to think that when a congress, and more particularly an international
congress, comes to an end, a historic act has been achieved, one that will be noted in history. Of
course, I think that we have achieved a historic act in convoking this Fifth Congress, but for history
to take notice we would need to be capable of assuming the tasks and responsibilities that we have
agreed to.
7
I will remind you, comrades, of what Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky each explained. Lenin said:
measured on the scale of history, ten years, twenty years, even a half century are a drop in the
ocean. And if the tasks facing us, helping the working class to free itself in order to free humanity,
are to be measured, then a historical perspective is required.

I remind you that Marx approached the 1848 revolution convinced that it would be victorious. Marx
fought to the end, for two years, for victory. And there was no victory. Marx and Engels then
resumed the slow, difficult work of bestowing a method for the working class, on humanity. Then,
the workers revolution took the concrete form of the Paris Commune. The Paris Commune was
crushed. And Marx and Engels calmly resumed work to organize a party on the working class.
Because it is necessary. Because independent labor organizations are needed in order to advance the
struggle for the freeing of humanity from the chains of exploitation and oppression.

Let us reflect, comrades. We are the Fifth Congress of the Fourth International. The First Congress
set up the Fourth International in 1938. It brought together, in that small farmhouse belonging to
Alfred Rosmer, fifteen or so militant activists the majority of whom, truth be told, were to disappear
politically after the war. Rosmer was one of the founders of the Communist International. He came
from Bolshevism. Then he broke with Stalin. He also broke with Trotsky, but nevertheless Trotsky
always considered him to be one of ours, despite being in disagreement. Rosmer disagreed with the
Fourth International, but he dedicated his whole life to seeking out the paths of emancipation.

The Second Congress of the International took place in 1948. Ten years had passed, in the course of
which Trotsky had been assassinated (1940), in the course of which a new generation—amongst
whom the oldest were 30, 35, 40 years of age—sought to carry out the programme of the Fourth
International in the most difficult of conditions. Splits took place. Lessons had to be learned, with
many, many mistakes, during those years. At the end of the war, some extremely courageous
elements were disappointed, because the workers’ revolution was not victorious. We had to go back
to Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, to get back to basics. To continue on the road of the class struggle,
by ourselves, with the principles of Marxism. There were some very brave militant activists in the
French party. They had fought throughout the war, but the revolution did not come and they were
disappointed.

In 1948, we were entering a difficult political period. Doubt even started to creep into the highest
levels of the Fourth International. A big problem emerged. That is where we got those Pabloite
theories: “Placed in certain exceptional conditions, the Stalinist bureaucracy will build socialism in
its own way.” This was impossible to accept. We said no. But the biggest section of Fourth
International, the American Section (SWP), which Trotsky and worker activists of great personal
merit had helped to build, eventually supported this policy of capitulation.

Comrades, we then found ourselves to be a French “majority”, in the most difficult of conditions.
We did not want a split from the International, we simply wanted the right to express ourselves
within the disciplinary framework which we accepted. We signed texts maintaining that we
accepted the discipline of the International. We accepted the fact that our newspaper reflected the
policy of the majority in the International, when we were the majority in the French section. But we
wanted to be able to express our positions within the organization. We were refused this. We did
not accept this refusal, and I think we were right.

The consequences of that violation of the rules of worker democracy, combined with the Pabloite
revisionism, were that in 1953, at time of the uprising in East Berlin, the International supported the
Soviet bureaucracy—even if this was not done in a clear fashion. We fought to be readmitted, we

8
said that we did not agree, but accepted this position in order to be readmitted, still demanding the
right to free expression within our organizations.

But in 1956 this was no longer possible. In 1956, there was the uprising in Budapest. The Pabloites,
the “officials”, the International Secretariat (which went on to become the United Secretariat),
supported the second intervention by the bureaucracy’s tanks against the workers’ uprising in
Budapest, supposedly because it was necessary to “save socialism”. We said then: the Fourth
International is dead as an organization, but its programme lives on.

In 1948, I proposed a short resolution, which essentially said: if the revolutionary party will
necessarily be built on the basis of the programme of the Fourth International, no one can say that it
will be built around the PCI , that it will have the organizational form of the PCI as it stands today.
That motion received just one vote, my own.

But it was starting from this position that we were able, step by step, of course with the greatest of
difficulties, to develop the line of transition. We said: in order to help the class struggle, we
consider it essential to put the Marxist principles of the programme into practice. We said: it is
essential to take up once more the lessons of the past, the lessons of the First International, which
had brought together all the currents of the labor movement. We said: we must take up again the
lessons of the Second International, which, before its betrayal in 1914, had established the
foundations of independent labor organizations within the national framework.

The workers’ revolution did not arrive on the global level. Today, in the former USSR, we can see
capitalism in its most rotten form, the form that the whole world will come to know if we do not
build a revolutionary party to help the working class. Barbarism is on the march, in Africa,
everywhere. And this is the problem that we must help the masses to resolve.

We are heading for difficult times. We must keep a clear head. But already, links have been created
with militant activists in Russia and in Ukraine. The task of building a section of the Fourth
International in Russia is not a special task, it is the central task of the Fourth International: to
demonstrate, through Marxist analysis and through practice, that today, in the former Soviet Union
as in the whole world, whatever the difficulties, the workers revolution shall prevail. Because the
capitalist mode of exploitation is definitively rotten. The bourgeoisie cannot survive without
dragging humanity into barbarism.

The class struggle exists, the objective conditions of the workers revolution are today the most
favorable, even in the most difficult of conditions. The crisis of humanity is the crisis of the
revolutionary leadership of the working class. It is for the working class, for the oppressed and
exploited layers, to resolve the crisis of humanity, with our help. Yes, we’re up against strong
enemies, but we can overcome if we are able to do our work calmly, patiently, methodically,
respecting the principles and conditions of a genuine democratic discussion, within the framework
of Bolshevik principles.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160307181922/http://socialistorganizer.org/the-fourth-international-
and-the-united-front/