Issuing body: Founding Conference of the Fourth International
---
MINUTES OF THE FOUNDING CONFERENCE OF THE FOURTH INTERNATIONAL
(Reproduced in Documents of the Fourth International)
The conference was held in Lausanne on Saturday, 3 September 1938. It began sitting at 9.30 in the morning. Comrades Hic, Gould and Sumner were appointed as secretaries.
Comrade Naville, in a preliminary statement, announced the presence of representatives from eleven countries, namely: the United States, England, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Poland, Greece, Italy, Germany, Russia and Brazil; in addition, certain delegates held mandates from Spain, Czechoslovakia, Canada and Mexico.
Given that the congress was being held in a situation of illegality, the International Secretariat had decided to organise the work so that the assembly would only need to sit in plenary session for a single day. A series of working commissions had already met to deal with the various national questions, and were charged with reporting to the congress. Today's plenary session was to be held, which it was hoped to close around 10 o'clock in the evening. In addition, further commissions were provided for should they prove necessary. The agenda proposed by the International Secretariat for the plenary session was as follows:
Balance sheet of the IS since the Geneva conference of July 1936.
Discussion of the draft Transitional Programme: a. The trade union question; b. The Russian question; c. The questions of Spain, of the war, etc.
The resolution on the Sino-Japanese class war.
The resolution on the world role of American imperialism.
— The statutes of the Fourth International, including the question of the proclamation of the International.
The reports of the working commissions.
Boitel. — Considers that the arrangements made for the plenary session allow too little time for the discussion of important questions.
Naville. — Points out that, under present circumstances, it will practically be impossible to hold any further plenary sessions.
Lebrun. — Proposes that this session be extended until midnight.
After discussion, the IS's proposals are adopted, while leaving open the possibility of reconsidering the question later if necessary. Comrade Shachtman is elected chairman. Comrades Léon Sedov, Erwin Wolf and Rudolf Klement are elected honorary chairmen.
Report of the International Secretariat
Naville. — Owing to the tragic death of Klement, there will be no formal report; Klement was preparing a detailed written report that was to be circulated, but this report disappeared along with the rest of his papers. The report presented will be no more than a brief summary.
Despite enormous difficulties — illustrated by Klement's fate — the International, in the course of the two years since the Geneva conference, has made real progress, progress attested to by the series of documents issued repeatedly by the International and by the work of the commissions set up. The main reason for this progress is that the various national sections have had, during this period, a genuine political intervention. This activity has been reflected in the preparation of this world congress. The events of the last two years have enriched the national sections and the International as a whole with incalculable political experience. Events in the Soviet Union, above all the Moscow trials, have marked and influenced the work and discussions within our sections. In France and Spain especially, and to a lesser degree in other countries, the experience of the Popular Front and the new course of the Communist International have been of enormous educational value for our cadres. The invasion of Ethiopia by Italy and of China by Japan, the growing antagonism of the great imperialisms, and the ever more menacing danger of war, have given our sections in all countries real political training and education. The experience gained in all these areas is clearly reflected in the theses drawn up before the congress.
As regards the practical functioning of the International: at the Geneva conference, a General Council of ... members [left blank in the original] had been appointed and was to meet periodically. In fact this council never met, essentially for two reasons. First, several members of the council left the International: namely, Serge, Muste, Sneevliet, Chen Duxiu, Feroci, Zeller. Second, the geographical dispersion of the council's members made it practically impossible to hold regular meetings. Thus the General Council never had any real existence. The work of the International was in fact assumed exclusively by the International Secretariat (IS). But even the functioning of the latter was considerably hampered by frequent turnover and by the fact that the American section was unable to contribute to or participate in international work. The IS's activity was further hindered by the equivocal position of the Dutch section and by the lack of cooperation from Sneevliet, a member of the International Secretariat, who subsequently broke openly with the International. Feroci, another member of the IS, likewise did not take part in its work and later left us. So the real work of the IS was carried out almost exclusively by Naville, Clart, Wolf and Klement, the last two acting as administrative secretaries. The abduction of Wolf by the GPU in Spain struck the IS a heavy blow, and we have just suffered another irreparable loss with the murder of Klement. In these last months, Lebrun and Busson, co-opted as members of the IS, have done considerable work. The seat of the IS had originally been fixed in Brussels; but because of the specific character of the Belgian section's organisation, it proved impossible to ensure its functioning there, and it had to be transferred to Paris.
It was in the face of these difficulties that the IS had to carry out its task. Its work has been marked by a lack of centralisation, an absence of close contact between the centre and the national sections — except for France and Belgium — and, in general, by poor organisation. These are very serious criticisms; but despite its shortcomings and despite the extreme difficulties in which it worked, the IS has nonetheless accomplished at least its most fundamental tasks. From the very beginning of the civil war it sent a delegate to Spain and gave its full support to the organisation of a Spanish section; it officially condemned the deviations of the Dutch section on the Spanish question, and it collected money and organised relief for Spain to the extent of the means at its disposal. It issued a resolution on the Sino-Japanese war and conducted a debate on this question. It has, moreover, published a series of valuable international bulletins. It has intervened in various debates and disputes within the national sections and, in particular, contributed to the settlement of the English, Polish, Czech and Greek problems. Given the conditions under which it worked, these successes are not negligible.
There will be a detailed report on the work of the Youth Bureau at the youth conference that is to follow. For the moment all that can be said is that the Youth Bureau likewise did not function as it should have; too little work was accomplished, and it too was marked by poor organisation. It has nonetheless produced a series of Bulletins and has maintained its contacts with the French, Belgian, English, American and German youth.
Since the Geneva conference, the International Secretariat has had no official contact with the London Bureau. However, the Workers' Party of Marxist Unification (POUM) and the Workers and Peasants Socialist Party (PSOP) proposed sending an observer to this congress. Because of the congress's illegal situation, it was not possible to accept this proposal. It should be noted that, at its national conference, the PSOP did not affiliate to the London Bureau, despite the fact that Brockway came specially to press for this. If the Independent Labour Party (ILP) joins the Labour Party, the London Bureau will practically cease to exist. It is therefore incorrect, as the Czech section tends to do, to attach great importance to the London Bureau, which is visibly on its way to extinction.
The condensed report of the IS is finished, and a general discussion opens on the question of the international organisation, it being understood that the proposed new statutes will form a separate point on the agenda.
Stefan. — Poses two questions: 1. Have the memberships of the national sections increased since the Geneva conference? 2. Has the IS given the necessary directives on political questions?
Naville. — 1. Does not have reliable statistics for all the sections, but can affirm that certain sections, at least, have grown considerably, as in America and England; 2. Recalls the resolutions on Spain, on China, etc., and the constant assistance given by the IS to the French section.
Boitel. — Considers it a serious mistake not to have admitted an observer from the PSOP and the POUM.
Clart. — Is broadly in agreement with the report. The disappearance, following departures from the Fourth International or assassinations by the GPU, of more than half the council's members, combined with organisational and political errors on the part of the various national sections, brought about a period of stagnation in the International. Today we can discern signs of recovery, of which the fusions of groups in England and Spain are examples. Moreover, our adversaries are in difficulty: the London Bureau even finds itself obliged to send observers to our congress. The time has come to concentrate our energies on three main objectives: 1. An energetic policy of united action around the programme of the Fourth International, which would draw to us the best centrist elements, especially from the PSOP and other groups of the London Bureau; 2. The systematic strengthening of the national sections, particularly — because of its major political importance — the French section; to this end it is absolutely essential that the IS be actively supported by the American section, and in particular that Comrade Shachtman remain in Europe as a permanent American member of the IS; 3. A determined campaign of revolutionary propaganda addressed to the broad masses of the working class.
Clart agrees with Boitel that observers from the PSOP and the POUM should have been admitted.
Resolution: a commission shall be appointed to meet these observers, explain to them the circumstances of the congress, report to them, and hear their observations. Resolution adopted. Appointed: Cannon, Shachtman, Clart, Lebrun, Lesoil, James, Stefan and Busson.
Lebrun. — Criticises the absence, from the report, of a list of affiliated sections and national groups.
Speros. — Considers that time should have been allotted to a thorough discussion of the political and organisational questions relating to the national sections.
Shachtman. — Since, because of Klement's death and the disappearance of his papers, the necessary material is not available for such a discussion, suggests that a written report on the work of the national sections be attached to the minutes. A resolution to this effect is adopted.
Stefan. — Proposes that a list of the national sections and their approximate membership be read out.
Naville. — The sections can be divided into roughly three groups: affiliated parties, sympathising parties and groups, and very small groups and contacts [1].
United States: 2,500; Belgium: 800; France: 600; Poland: 350; England: 170; Germany: 200; Czechoslovakia: 150-200; Greece: 100; Indochina; Chile: 100; Cuba: 100; South Africa: 100; Canada: 75; Australia: 50; Brazil: 50; Holland: 50; Spain: 10-30; Mexico: 15; Switzerland, Norway, Denmark, Romania, Austria, Russia, Bolivia, Argentina, Puerto Rico, Uruguay, Venezuela, China, Italy.
Discussion of the Transitional Programme
Shachtman. — It has been suggested that, for convenience, discussion of the Transitional Programme be divided into three parts: the trade union question, the Russian question, the questions of war, of Spain, etc. Proposes that one hour be allotted to each question and ten minutes to each speech. Proposal adopted.
Naville. — The IS has officially received three sets of amendments: the Polish amendments on the trade union and war questions, which have been published in a bulletin; a minor amendment on the Russian question from the Political Bureau of the American section; and Craipeau's amendment on the Russian question, also published in a bulletin. These amendments, together with any others that might be proposed, would be taken into consideration in the part of the discussion to which they refer.
The trade union question
Stefan. — In presenting the Polish amendment on the trade union question, states that the characterisation of the sit-down strike in the Transitional Programme is mistaken, or at the very least inappropriate. While it is true that the sit-down strike sometimes represents a revolutionary movement on the part of the workers, this is far from always being the case. In Poland, for example, sit-down strikes have taken place at times when reaction was in full swing, and expressed not a revolutionary challenge but simply the workers' despair. Such strikes were frequently accompanied by hunger strikes, the workers refusing to accept food in the factories they were occupying. In this case, the role assigned to the factory committees and the slogan of the immediate creation of these committees is a mistake in the Transitional Programme. The creation of factory committees in a period of reaction, or in a so-called normal period, would be not merely difficult but disastrous. In such a period, the committees would pass under reformist control; the influence of revolutionaries within them would be minimal, and, far from leading the workers toward revolutionary or militant action, they would sow confusion and act as a brake. It is therefore incorrect to advance the slogan of factory committees except in a clearly revolutionary or pre-revolutionary situation.
Boitel. — Considers the Polish proposal a concession to leftism…
Speros. — Criticises the absence of specific slogans for the peasantry in the draft…
Julien. — Speaks against the Polish amendment, stressing the importance of factory committees. Whether their leadership is reformist or not, their very creation represents a great step forward. They are a necessary weapon in the struggle, and through their leadership and orientation they reflect the development of the workers' consciousness.
Craipeau. — Considers that factory committees are only possible in a period of revolutionary upsurge.
Speros. — Speaks briefly in favour of factory committees and against the Polish amendment [notes incomplete].
Naville. — Believes the Polish amendment results from a misunderstanding…
Clart. — Considers the question very well formulated in the Transitional Programme…
Gould. — States that the importance of factory committees lies precisely in the fact that, because of their democratic organisation and their class ties with the workers, they reflect the general political level of the workers — reformist at one moment, then, as the situation develops, becoming more revolutionary, only perhaps to become reformist again. Since they directly reflect the workers' state of mind, factory committees are very valuable instruments for us at decisive and critical moments.
Lebrun. — Speaks against the Polish amendment…
Stefan. — Reiterates his opposition to the draft and insists that sit-down strikes do not necessarily express a revolutionary or militant state of mind among the workers, but can be, as in Poland, a pure expression of despair, without in any way representing a threat to property.
Boitel. — Even if, subjectively, the sit-down strike may not be a revolutionary threat to property, objectively it is one. It is true that the workers do not always fully understand the implications of such a strike; even during the strikes of June 1936 in France, most workers were not conscious of their implications; but it was precisely these implications that mattered to us, and it is our role to explain them to the workers.
Julien. — Agrees with Boitel, adding that in a sit-down strike, even if it expresses the workers' despair, we cannot tell them to leave the factory, but must encourage them to continue by showing the revolutionary significance of their action.
Vote on the Polish amendment: for: 2 (Stefan and Karl); against: 17; abstention: 1 (Craipeau).
The Russian question
Shachtman. — Reads the amendment of the Political Bureau of the American section.
Craipeau. — Reads his amendment.
Étienne. — In introducing the discussion on the Russian question, supports the draft Transitional Programme as it stands. Contrary to Craipeau's thesis, it is not true that the bureaucracy has already become a class; it is a caste that is in the process of becoming a class. Only in this way is it possible to understand and explain the Moscow trials. As for the American amendment, Trotsky has not yet replied to it, but his reply will be, in his view, that since the bureaucracy is a Thermidorian caste, workers' councils can only arise in the struggle against the bureaucracy, and the bureaucracy will therefore necessarily be excluded from these structures of struggle raised against it.
Shachtman. — Wishes to clarify a point: the American amendment is not necessarily opposed to the text of the draft; it merely proposes to postpone the vote on this point pending the opening of an international discussion. The reply attributed to Trotsky is satisfactory to the extent that the struggle of the soviets would obviously be directed against the bureaucracy. But it is another thing to say that the entire bureaucracy would be excluded from the soviets, with the deprivation of voting rights, etc., that this would entail. It is very probable that the bureaucracy would not enter the soviets; but it is impossible to say in advance that it would necessarily be deprived of the right to vote. This may prove necessary, but it will depend on the concrete situation of the struggle. Lenin, for example, in his book against Kautsky, said that it might not even be necessary to deprive the bourgeoisie of its rights. Clearly the question demands thorough discussion, and that is precisely the sense of the American amendment.
Craipeau. — Is surprised that Shachtman considers it necessary to continue discussion on such a minor point. If the congress cannot settle this question, it can still less settle the far more fundamental question of the nature of the bureaucracy. But this is precisely an argument in favour of his amendment. Why is it proposed to deprive the bureaucracy of its civic rights? Precisely because of its economic power, in other words its class power. The congress has been organised in such a way that there is no time to conduct a thorough discussion of this vital question; but, in answer to Étienne, it is untrue to claim that the Moscow trials can only be explained on the hypothesis that the bureaucracy is merely a parasitic caste.
Fischer. — Shachtman's argument is incorrect; it is not a question of voting rights. The argument would be correct if the bureaucracy were a class, but since it is only a criminal caste, that is not the issue… (?)
Speros. — Agrees with the American comrades on the need for a debate on this question. This phrase contradicts other parts of the programme… (?)
Julien. — While supporting the American amendment, disagrees with Shachtman's argument. As for the quotation from Lenin, the bourgeoisie in any case had no place in the soviets, so the problem was not one of expelling it from them. But it is otherwise with the bureaucracy, against which an internal struggle can be waged within the soviets. It is incorrect to say that the bureaucracy would be expelled from the soviets.
Clart. — Insofar as the bureaucracy is the principal enemy that the resurgence of the soviets would oppose, it cannot be admitted into the soviets. The draft is therefore correct on this point.
Karl. — Craipeau's text must be rejected as un-Marxist. His analysis of the bureaucracy as a new class is unsound, because it fails to take account of the fact that the working class is not itself homogeneous. The Second International, for example, degenerated not because it became capitalist, but because its leadership fell into the hands of the most privileged layers of the working class. Just as there are reactionary layers of the working class, so there are reactionary layers of the bureaucracy. A class is not defined by its wealth or poverty, but by its position within the economic system. Even if elements of capitalism remain in the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union cannot be called a capitalist state. No one has ever thought it would be possible to introduce socialism at a single stroke. The slogan of redistribution of wealth is not a Marxist idea but a Bakuninist one. It is absolutely necessary to reject revolutionary defeatism in the Soviet Union. It is Marx's position at the beginning of the Franco-Prussian War that must be adopted here. The American amendment must also be rejected. The struggle against the bureaucracy is not an abstract struggle; it must be waged openly and by name, and the bureaucracy must be excluded from the soviets.
James. — Resolutely against the Craipeau amendment, but for the American amendment, since it is not correct to decree in advance that the bureaucracy will necessarily be deprived of its rights.
Lebrun. — Craipeau's thesis is wholly unfounded. There is nothing objectionable in the American proposal. It is the problem of the slogan to be advanced in the course of an intense struggle. The slogan "drive the bureaucracy out of the soviets" must lead to insurrection. After the fall of the bureaucracy, bureaucrats could be readmitted individually into the soviets.
Shachtman. — The great variety of views expressed on the bureaucracy and the soviets clearly shows that fresh discussion and fresh clarification are called for: that was precisely the point of the American amendment.
Stefan. — Speaks against the Craipeau amendment and also against the American amendment.
Gould. — States that he was not present at the Political Bureau meeting that discussed the amendment, that he rather disagrees with Shachtman's theses, but that the question seems to require further discussion, and he therefore supports the American amendment.
Cannon. — Associates himself with Gould's remarks.
Naville. — Considers that if the vote on this question is postponed, the vote could equally well be postponed on a whole series of minor points dealt with in the programme, which have not been thoroughly discussed and on which minor divergences can perfectly well be admitted. The American amendment must therefore be rejected.
Vote on the amendments: Craipeau amendment: for: 1 (Craipeau); against: all others. American amendment: for, 5; against, 15; abstentions, 2.
[Note in the original: "Despite this vote as recorded in my notes, I nonetheless had the impression that the American amendment had been adopted: were the 5 and the 15 transposed?"]
The question of war, etc.
Rousset. — Submits an amendment on behalf of the minority of the Central Committee of the French section (deletion of a sentence from paragraph 1, p. 15: Pacifism and patriotism)…
Clart. — Defends the Transitional Programme as it stands.
Boitel. — Supports the amendment. Keeping the draft as it is may give rise to dangerous slides toward Stalinism.
Naville. — Speaks against Boitel…
Julien. — Disagrees with Boitel. In addressing the workers, the principle of national defence must be admitted, while stressing that the defence of the nation first requires ridding it of the parasites, the bourgeoisie.
Busson. — Julien's viewpoint is very dangerous. A clear distinction must be drawn between our general propaganda addressed to the workers and our political theses, which must be clear and precise. Julien's proposal is admirable for general propaganda, but is liable to too many misunderstandings and deviations for our theses. The thesis must be simplified and clarified.
Craipeau. — The congress must amend the thesis along the lines of the proposed amendment, and also issue a manifesto on the question of war.
Naville. — The congress will be issuing this manifesto; this point is on the agenda.
Craipeau. — Takes note of this reply, but considers that other expressions, besides those criticised in the amendment, are defective, lend themselves to confusion, and must therefore be amended (sentence in paragraph 6, p. 14). Furthermore, the word "progressive," which appears several times in the text, must be eliminated.
Rousset. — Speaks again…
Speros. — Speaks in support of Rousset and Boitel.
Lesoil. — Speaks in support of the draft [this was an important and forceful speech, but I have no notes].
Gould. — The position of Rousset and Boitel, far from guaranteeing us against Stalinism as they hope, in fact brings us closer to it by obscuring the decisive distinction between bourgeois pacifism and proletarian pacifism and patriotism. For Trotskyists, the danger is not that of lapsing into patriotism, but rather that of failing to grasp and exploit this distinction. Speros said there was nothing progressive in proletarian pacifism; but the experience of the American section has shown that the agitation caused by the Ludlow Amendment, imperfect as that amendment may be, expresses a resolutely progressive sentiment, and offers us an excellent opportunity to steer this instinctive opposition to war onto the path of revolutionary opposition to the bourgeoisie and its war plans.
James. — Agrees with the draft on this point, but considers too much time has been devoted to this discussion. Other points deserve attention. The sentence on antisemitism in the English version does not correspond to the French translation. The English version is a gross exaggeration and must be corrected to conform to the French text. In the paragraph on Hitler's victory in Germany, the defeat of the German Communist Party is attributed to cowardice and other psychological traits; this text must be amended to state clearly that the Stalinists pursued a deliberate policy that led to Hitler's victory. On behalf of the Central Committee of the English section, submits an amendment to transform the demand for the right to work into a demand for employment or 100 percent maintenance.
Sumner. — On behalf of the Central Committee of the English section, submits an amendment for the deletion of the sentence concerning "Lord Mosley," on the grounds that the facts are inaccurate.
Johre. — Returning to the Rousset amendment, supports the draft on the question of patriotism and particularly endorses Lesoil's speech.
Stefan. — Speaks in favour of the draft on patriotism…
Shachtman. — Agrees with Craipeau on deleting the word "progressive"; agrees with some of the English detailed amendments and with James on the German question.
Resolution: a drafting commission, namely the new bureau to be elected, shall review the draft Transitional Programme in order to improve its style and incorporate the amendments, etc. The resolution is adopted.
Vote on the Rousset-Boitel amendment: for: 6; against: 16. Vote on the Transitional Programme as a whole: for: 21; against: 1 (Craipeau).
The Statutes of the Fourth International
Naville. — Owing to Klement's murder and the overload of work, a definitive text of the new statutes could not be finalised. There is, however, a draft outline of statutes that can be discussed point by point, with the drafting of the definitive text entrusted to the new bureau on the basis of the congress's decisions.
The first article contains the proclamation of the Fourth International, under the name of the World Party of the Socialist Revolution (Fourth International).
Karl. — On behalf of the whole Polish section, opposes the proclamation of the Fourth International at this time. The other Internationals had been created in periods of revolutionary upsurge. Marx, for example, did not attempt to create the First International in 1848, although he had already recognised its necessity, because of the reaction that immediately followed the revolutions of 1848. Likewise, after the defeat of the Commune, Marx had dissolved the International while proclaiming the need to found a second one, which was not in fact done until fifteen years later, during a period of revolutionary upsurge. There had also been an interval of several years between the Zimmerwald and Kienthal conferences and the formal constitution of the Third International after the Russian Revolution. Even then, Lenin only wished to proclaim the Third International if the Spartacus League joined it. Today we are living through a period of intense reaction and depression, a situation altogether unfavourable to the proclamation of the Fourth. Moreover, the forces that make up the Fourth are quite disproportionate to the scale of its tasks. The creation of the other Internationals had represented an undeniable and visible threat to the bourgeoisie and inspired terror. It would not be the same for the Fourth International, since our manifesto would find no echo among any significant section of the workers. We must therefore wait for a favourable moment and not rush things. Trotsky has said: "The Second and Third Internationals have disappeared; the Fourth must be organised!" It is a fact that the Second and Third have disappeared, but, for all that, they are still mass organisations. The Fourth is absolutely not a mass organisation, and it would be folly to proclaim it before it becomes one.
Naville. — The historical analogies put forward by Karl are all mistaken. There is no relation between the Fourth International and the others as regards the timeliness of their proclamation. The present political situation is unique and fully justifies the creation of the Fourth. The real problem is not whether it should be proclaimed, but whether the national sections that exist truly need a formal international organisation. The answer to this question is that the national sections do in fact absolutely need to have a well-defined international organisation, whatever its size. It is essential to put an end to this state of indecision and to have a clearly defined programme, an international leadership, and well-defined national sections.
Stefan. — Supports the Polish proposal and states that it is perfectly possible to have a determined programme — we have just adopted the Transitional Programme — a leadership and well-defined national sections without going so far as to formally proclaim the Fourth. This, moreover, has been our position since 1936, and there is no reason not to continue in it until we have gained in strength and until the situation is more favourable. The proclamation of an international is a gesture that, given the circumstances, would lose all its significance.
Shachtman. — The historical analogies put forward are false and have nothing to do with the present situation. The First and Second Internationals were created under conditions completely different from those we know in the contemporary world. As for the Third, Lenin raised the question well before the Russian Revolution; he did not propose it at Zimmerwald because he hoped to rally the centrists and other hesitant groups. It was these same considerations that prevented us from proclaiming the Fourth in 1936. We still hoped for the rallying of centrist organisations. But since 1936 all the centrist organisations have disintegrated or moved away from us. Today the path to follow is clearly that of the proclamation of the Fourth International, and its formal creation is now imperative.
Busson. — In the face of the total defeat threatening the European proletariat, it is doubly necessary to have a clearly defined revolutionary international, which represents the only chance of salvation…
Lebrun. — Karl's arguments are wholly mistaken and worthy of the Mensheviks…
Boitel. — Agrees on the political necessity of proclaiming the Fourth International; it was not proclaimed in 1936 because it was still possible to work within social democracy. This is no longer possible today. The organisational arguments carry more weight (our weakness, etc.), but even these handicaps can be overcome… (?)
James. — Agrees on the necessity of proclaiming the Fourth International, but disagrees with the reasons given by Shachtman for not having proclaimed it in 1936. The idea of winning over the centrists by not proclaiming the Fourth certainly does not figure among the considerations that weighed at the time.
Karl. — Beyond the general political considerations, the extreme numerical weakness of our sections should dissuade us from proclaiming the Fourth International. At the first congress of the Comintern, there already existed important parties in Poland, Austria, Bulgaria, etc. We have nothing of the kind. Conditions today are far more difficult and unfavourable than at the time the other three Internationals were proclaimed…
Vote on the proclamation of the Fourth International (Article 1 of the statutes): for: 19; against: 3 (Karl, Stefan and Craipeau, whose reservations were not stated).
Naville. — Proceeds to read the rest of the statutes. There is a debate on Article 10, according to which the members of the International Bureau were all to belong to the International Executive Committee. It is finally adopted that three of the bureau's members must belong to the IEC, but not necessarily the other two.
Vote on the statutes as a whole: for: 19; abstentions: 3 (Karl, Stefan and Craipeau).
Declaration of the Polish delegation
Although firmly and unanimously convinced that the proclamation of the Fourth International at the present juncture is a serious political error, the Polish section, defeated on this point at the world congress, nonetheless pledges to loyally respect the discipline of the Fourth International and to apply the decisions of the world congress to the best of its ability.
Election of the International Executive Committee of the Fourth [sic: printed as "Third"] International
Discussion on this question begins in the absence of the appointed secretary…
Étienne. — In the proposed distribution of seats on the IEC, no seat is provided for the Russian section. Yet this section should have a representative on the IEC.
Busson. — Only one seat is reserved for the Greek section. Given the fusion of the two Greek organisations and the hostility that so recently divided them, there should be two representatives on the IEC, one from each of the former Greek organisations, or else none at all.
Gould. — The International Youth must appoint an additional member to the IEC, who must have the right to vote.
Cannon. — For the same reasons given by Busson concerning the Greek section, the English section must have two members on the IEC.
Naville. — The IEC is beginning to grow rather large; proposes to give two seats to the English section and none to the Greek section; Busson himself, however, would be a member of the bureau without being on the IEC.
Shachtman. — If two of the three seats granted to the American section are to be filled by Cannon and himself, the third should be left to the choice of the Political Bureau of the American section.
James. — Objects to this proposal as an abdication of the powers of the world congress; the congress itself must mandate Cannon and Shachtman to designate the third American member.
James's proposal defeated by 7 votes to 5.
Clart. — In the unanimous opinion of the International Secretariat, it is absolutely essential that Shachtman remain in Europe to take an active part in the work of the IEC and of the Political Bureau. The French section regards Shachtman's presence as a sine qua non condition for keeping the seat of the International in Paris. Otherwise, the French section would ask for the International to be transferred to New York. The World Congress must take a clear position on this matter.
Nominations are made, and the following list was proposed for the International Executive Committee:
France: Clart, Naville, Boitel; United States: Cannon, Shachtman, the third to be named by the PB of the SWP [2]; Belgium: Lesoil, Dauge; England: James, Harber; Italy: Julien; Poland: Karl; Latin America: Lebrun; Indochina: Ta Thu Thau; Russia: Trotsky (as a secret member); International Youth: to be designated by the youth conference. Vote on the Executive Committee: unanimous. Vote for Shachtman remaining in Europe: unanimous.
Reports of the commissions
Polish Commission
Naville. — Reports that there is a divergence between the two Polish delegates, and that there are therefore two resolutions, one expressing Stefan's position, which is the commission's official resolution, the other being a personal resolution by Karl.
The resolutions are read out.
Julien. — Considers that both resolutions should be rejected, Karl's as entirely incorrect, the commission's as too cautious. The opportunity offered by the recent dissolution of the Polish Communist Party must be seized to create a new communist party immediately. This opportunity must not be missed…
Fischer, Lebrun, Busson. — Agree with Julien.
Stefan. — The Polish section has already published the call for the creation of a new communist party; but it is useless and dangerous to rush toward its actual creation without having the necessary forces.
Karl. — Rejects the accusations of faint-heartedness levelled against the Polish section, which is making steady progress in a very unfavourable situation. The majority of the Polish section will certainly not favour the creation of a new communist party for the time being. This is not a matter of cowardice. The Polish section is rooted in the trade unions; it has a concrete appreciation of what a political party is, and is therefore not in favour of creating a fiction…
Julien. — Repeats his proposal…
Shachtman. — Disagrees with Julien's proposal. The Polish section must immediately leave the Bund and henceforth devote three-quarters of its energy to the creation of a new communist party. But it must not for all that rush things by proclaiming the new party without the necessary preparation. Proposes that the Polish commission redraft the resolution along the same lines but with more boldness, laying greater stress on the necessity of creating a new party.
Vote on the Polish question. Karl resolution: for: 1; against: 21. Julien proposal: for: 6; against: 8; abstentions: 8. Commission resolution unamended: for: 2; against: 17; abstentions: 3. Shachtman proposal (adopted): for: 11; against: 6; abstentions: 2.
Greek Commission
Busson. — Reports that the commission has finally carried out the fusion of the two groups, although slight divergences remain, on which the commission has decided to open an international discussion. Asks that the International Executive Committee take an official position on these divergences. Report approved.
French Commission
Clart. — Gives a provisional report on the work of the French commission, which is not yet finished.
The congress endorses the general orientation of the commission's work.
English Commission
Report on the unity and peace pact endorsed by the congress.
Clart. — Proposes that one last attempt be made to win over the Lee group, while making it known that, should this fail, it would be treated as a political adversary. Proposal adopted.
The Mexican question
The resolution of the Pan-American commission is endorsed by the congress.
The colonial question
James. — Since neither the Geneva conference nor the present congress has explicitly dealt with the colonial question, the congress must officially charge the English section with drawing up a programme on the colonial question and submitting to the International Executive Committee a complete draft for an international colonial bureau, which the IEC would be empowered to set up.
Proposal adopted.
It is decided that the world congress shall send its greetings to Comrade Trotsky.
## Notes
1. These figures are open to question. Jean Rous, a leader of the POI, would write to James Cannon in December 1938: "You were told we numbered 600. That total must be divided by two, even on paper." 2. The third American member of the IEC appointed was Vincent Raymond Dunne.