Given the fact that until recently the IBRP has considered the group in Los Angeles, formerly know as Los Angeles Workers' Voice, as an organisation politically sympathetic and working towards closer relations and eventual integration with the Bureau as a whole, it is important to clarify that this is no longer the situation. The IBRP no longer endorses the Los Angeles group as being able to genuinely represent our political positions, aims or method of work.

In April 2000, at a meeting with North American sympathisers of the IBRP in Montreal, the LAWV delegates agreed that all US comrades would work together towards transforming Internationalist Notes [then published by a single comrade in Wisconsin) into a regular publication for distribution through the whole of the United States. In practice this decision was fought against by LAWV who revealed they had no intention of breaking with their previous localism, a localism which is accompanied by a resistance to having their own work move on to a politically coherent and clearly-defined organisational level. Thus, although LAWV formally agreed to work in tandem with the Bureau the differences between us were growing rather than diminishing. Rather than tackle these differences politically as they emerged, LAWV preferred to pretend they did not exist and instead produced a smokescreen of diversions and virulent attacks on the IBRP comrade elsewhere in the USA, including demanding his expulsion from the Bureau.

This we declined to do but still hoped to bring the comrades to a wider view of their work. In some ways this appeared to succeed in that they agreed to take on the work of publishing Internationalist Notes Volume 3. When it finally came out, however, this was labelled 'US Workers Voice magazine' and all reference to the existence of other IBRP supporters in the US was omitted, including acknowledgement of the articles contributed. All this was no accident. To the criticism that there should be a collective discussion of all US comrades on the contents of the publication, LA replied that from now on 'the majority' (i.e. themselves) would decide. This is their idea of resisting 'authoritarian' practice! Theoretically there was little to distinguish this effort as a publication of the communist left.

Now post hoc (since it was never part of the discussion) in the form of a leaflet advertising their new publication (the New Internationalist) LA now find that the Bureau is 'non-working class', not to mention favouring Bolshevik methods of 'top-down elitism and commandism'. We publish our last letter to them alongside this statement to show that our attitude to them was fraternal even if we recognised we had to part company. But this was before we read these latest lies. LA are now resorting to slanders, which pre-empt all further discussion. What they object to is not a Bolshevik model of organisation but any organisation which goes beyond their little group. As it is, United States Workers' Voice (as LA now calls itself) remains a loose grouping of individuals which does not consistently hold a clear set of positions but consistently show themselves unable to work with anyone outside their immediate circle.

Currently LA are now in a state of political confusion. They have now moved from holding a straight copy of the basic positions of the CWO, to a mishmash which says that the Russian revolution was proletarian in November 1917 but over by 1918 (before the world revolution it initiated had begun!).

The Bureau has given the internationalist response to such confusions throughout its history. A forthcoming text will add further to the positions developed in the Internationalist Communist 20 "1921 - Beginning of the Counter-Revolution?".

Internationalists Notes now reverts to a title for the Bureau and will be published in both the USA and Canada.

Correspondence with Los Angeles Workers Voice - Letter of February 2001

Dear LA Comrades

As you know Jock's been the one mainly commenting on your discussions so far but after N's report on the outcome of the meeting in LA it's appropriate that the Bureau as a whole clarifies where it stands. It's now self-evident that not just the Montreal decision over a single publication has been overturned but that the overall perspective we put forward for establishing a nucleus in the US hasn't been fully understood or accepted by most of the comrades in LA. It's also equally obvious N. that you are in a very difficult position, being pulled to and fro trying to do a balancing act of keeping LA together at the same time as trying to hold on to the perspective of working with A. as a single collectivity dedicated to establishing a regular publication throughout the US. But let's make no bones about it - what we're faced with in LA is an approach to political work and organisation which is fundamentally at odds with how we view the overall requirements of the situation facing the working class (not just in LA, not just in the US).

We're all agreed that if the working class is ever again going to seriously challenge capitalist rule and take up the struggle for communism there will have to be a revolutionary political organisation established inside the working class. In this sense the inclination of the LA comrades to search for more direct ties with workers in the workplaces is understandable and, like A., we are not arguing for the abandonment of what N. describes as agit-prop. What we are saying though is that in terms of the wider picture of what's needed LA are trying to run before they can walk. This might seem a strange thing to say: at first sight retreating into localist activism (because that's in essence what we're talking about) can appear the more 'manageable', 'attainable' option than the undoubtedly daunting task of 4 or 5 people setting out to create the basis for a US-wide political nucleus. But this is an illusion on several counts.

First, no amount of well-worded propaganda is going to allow us to influence 'the masses' until we have a fully-fledged political organisation with a presence inside the workplaces and working class living areas. At heart here is the theoretical question of what we mean by 'class consciousness' and how it can develop. As you know, the CWO started as a semi-councilist organisation and it took us a long time and painful experience for us to understand why our regular factory-gate bulletins (_Workers Voice)
and leafletting of as many workers' marches and demonstrations as possible brought us no new recruits. When new elements come to us they do so in ones and twos by different means. Often they are regular readers who are eventually moved to get in touch via letter or who come along to one of our public meetings. Sometimes we've met people at leftist meetings, they've agreed with what we said and eventually joined us. In Sheffield - the only place we've got anything approaching a local section of the organisation - we've recruited from a study group we set up that included anarchists and libertarians. In other words, our concrete experience bears out that communist consciousness does not develop directly out of the economic struggle. In the present period we can only expect to influence individuals who are reflecting on the situation of the class and who are already a 'little bit political'. (So we can see exactly what A.'s driving at when he reminds us that we have to engage in dialogue with the likes of Discussion Bulletin or comment on the positions of, e.g. The Bad Days Will End (!).)

Over the years we've also been forced to think very carefully about what building up a political organisation entails. Although the CWO is still only a skeleton of an organisation we are more than, for example, the loose grouping of local activists that was the original Liverpool-based Workers Voice which joined with Revolutionary Perspectives to form the CWO in 1975 only to split away a year later. Basically they were unable to accept that 'their' publication was now a propaganda vehicle for a country-wide organisation, that RP (the magazine) existed as the group's analytical and theoretical focus of attraction. They were unwilling to submit to the rigours of coherent theoretical development (with the real possibility that some would disagree and leave) and the discipline of a centralised organisation.

We don't want to turn this letter into a lecture, much less hold up the CWO as an exemplary path to follow but we'd hate to see LAWV get stuck in the same kind of cul-de-sac as the old WV did here, especially as the only opportunity there's been in years for a US-wide publication (and at least the possibility of an embryo US-wide organisation) is at stake. As far as we are concerned there is no reason to change the perspective we put forward in Montreal: i.e. the aim is for a single organisation in the US with a common publication. There seems to be a view that "we've tried it and it doesn't work" but this is far from the case. For a start, it's less than a year since the decision was accepted and it's not exactly been whole-heartedly taken up by LA. For example, we were astonished to find that the financing, distribution, never mind the editing and most of the writing of IN has been left to A. What kind of a common endeavour is that? (Moreover R.'s comment to the effect that LA will support A.'s publication if he's so keen to have it shows that he hasn't understood one iota the outcome of the Montreal meeting.) A common publication means just that. When it was agreed that IN be the name of that publication it was not intended that it remain the personal preserve of A. The idea was that it be expanded and developed politically with contributions by all comrades to provide a focal point for the US situation as a whole. (An editorial team to decide on contents, balance of articles etc. would also be appropriate.) Clearly the full commitment of the LA comrades is crucial and the half-way house option chosen by them at their last meeting (for a 2-monthly LA journal in between the existing IN) is just another way of saying they do not have that commitment; that for them a local, address-the-struggles-at-the-low-level-they-are-at kind of bulletin is the priority.

We disagree. By all means address workers in existing struggles but this is not the be all and end all of our political work. As we said, before we can hope to influence the mass of the working class we have to build the political organisation and enlarge our analysis on the basis of the communist programme. Primarily we are aiming to address elements who are already asking political questions. We won't do this if we limit ourselves to "agit-prop" work. We have to be able to take on board a whole range of tasks, including self-education and improving our own grasp of marxism, our ability to present a clear analysis of what's going on in the world, from the ongoing capitalist crisis, increased exploitation, globalisation, imperialism and what this means for the US, to an explanation of what communist society really means etc. [We realise that the rest of the Bureau, especially the CWO for language reasons, will need to be part of this process - incorporating the North American cdes. in its own educational discussions, for example - but it's a mistake to think that RP can be a substitute for a 'home-grown' US organ.] All this would be reflected in a stronger, more wide-ranging publication suitable for a varied readership - it doesn't have to be called IN and it would probably be more realistic to think in terms of a quarterly in the first instance - but we do think it should aim to be a focal point for organisation in the US. Now, it seems to us that some of the proposed articles for the 'new' LAWV would perfectly fit into such a schema - it's a question of whether the comrades in LA really are prepared to see things differently and take up the long-term task of establishing a regular publication and themselves as the nucleus of the Bureau in the US.

Finally, there is also the question of how the US comrades describe themselves. A section of the Bureau has also to be an organisation in its own right. This means that it has a regular publication, an internal organisational framework (statutes, financial contributions, officers etc). Until then all Bureau sympathisers describe themselves as "supporters of the IBRP" in whichever country). Only the CWO and BC so far have achieved this status but hopefully in the not-too-distant future others will do the same (the French comrades since their initial meeting last August are making rapid strides despite the fact none of them knew each other before then). This is the challenge facing the US (and Canadian) comrades.

Good luck with the meeting at the weekend.

Internationalist greetings.

Letter to Los Angeles Workers Voice - March 2001

Dear Comrades

We've now received the hard copy of the new IN so we can give our response to the magazine as a whole. Presumably the electronic version was sent as the issue went to press and it was too late for our comments on the articles to be taken into account. In fact, as N. has already indicated, we can see that the content has suffered in the haste and hurry to get out a publication at the beginning of April. In particular, there is a lack of comment and analysis on the current situation in the US which is only highlighted by the unfortunate choice of part one of a summary of a 1940's book as the lead article. That said, however, these are things which can be redressed in subsequent issues which will have had more time for planning.

Even so, we have to admit that the new-style IN has left us somewhat bemused politically, especially in light of the events immediately preceding its publication in LA and the assurances that this was not a manoeuvre to 'freeze out' cde. A. So we were surprised to find that A. wasn't party to the editorial decision-making and hadn't even seen the rest of the articles before the mag. went to press; nor is the article or the translation he did acknowledged (though the others are signed) and then, when we see the actual magazine, the Lafayette address is nowhere to be seen! (One address for the whole of the USA is not enough.) We believe that much of this is oversight on the part of LA but the message it gives is that IBRP sympathisers in the US are restricted to LA and that the cde. who previously produced IN has disappeared. This impression is reinforced by the inexplicable decision to present IN to the world as a "US Workers Voice Magazine". In other words, like it or no, LAWV HAVE unilaterally taken over IN and we don't see any point in pretending otherwise. The question is, where to go from here?

No-one can doubt that we are in the very early stages of establishing the famous political nucleus required in the US. There is also no doubt that differences in perspective about how this can come about have emerged between cde. A and the cdes of LA (and indeed between LAWV and the Bureau as a whole). Rather than pretend that there is full political agreement amongst IBRP sympathisers in the US it seems to us that the new-style IN could be turned into a publication which acknowledges the differences, discusses them along with other issues of contention and debate raised by other political groups, correspondents, etc. In other words, a platform for discussion and political elaboration centred around the positions of the Bureau and with the aim of clarifying the basis for the eventual formation of a political nucleus of the IBRP in the US. Hopefully too this will make for a more dynamic, less politically anonymous journal than the present issue which barely communicates to the reader what is distinctive about the politics of the IBRP.

Let us know what you think of this suggestion as a way, not only of keeping A. on board but also to allow the IBRP to welcome the appearance of the journal as a genuine solution to the current situation of stasis.

Internationalist Greetings to all the comrades.

Communique to Los Angeles Workers Voice - March 2001

Dear Comrades

Clearly you are facing your first significant test in the process of working together and we sense that both sides are dismayed at the way the discussion has suddenly deteriorated. While both sides pause for thought it might be helpful for the IBRP itself to draw a balance sheet of the situation as we see it from afar.

1. Everyone now accepts the need for the regular publication of a central US journal.
2. Everyone has agreed to contribute, as far as possible, in the writing of texts for the central organ within the framework of the IBRP's basic positions.
3. Everyone recognises that the journal should contain a variety of articles, ranging from theoretical, educational to polemical comment and analysis of current aspects of capitalism and the class struggle.
4. LA comrades have agreed to take on responsibility for the hard copy production of the journal: copy editing, printing.
5. All comrades agree that US editions of Aurora will be produced as appropriate for distributing at significant protests, demonstrations and so on.
6. Everyone recognises that individual leaflets (this is confusing, you say 'pamphlets') can be issued at short notice for specific local events.
7. Nobody is denying the need for both propaganda towards the working class in general and debate/discussion with politicised elements.

Given the above, we can also state positively that no-one is presently arguing for a reversion to two separate political entities. This is encouraging because it means everyone still acknowledges the importance of working together to form a solid basis for a future US section of the IBRP.

Now to the more contentious issues. Let's start with current practical ones because these lead over into the wider question of what we're actually trying to do.

It seems sensible that LA and not a single comrade. in isolation be responsible for the practical production of the central publication. We can't stress enough how much of a responsibility this is - ensuring that the journal appears regularly and is distributed as efficiently and as widespread as possible is crucial if we're going to present ourselves as a serious contender for a US-wide nucleus. Thus, aside from the lay-out and printing there will have to be built up a list of subscribers, bookshops, exchanges with other groups at home and abroad and within the IBRP, etc. all of whom have to be regularly sent their copies through the post (or other carrier if cheaper). If US postage is anything like the UK this does not run cheap and of course the cost increases the bigger the magazine. (The sending out costs for one edition of RP are half the cost of printing.) Unless you're millionaires, the print run is determined by how many copies are needed for the basic sending-out plus a further pool for selling at meetings etc. and to have in stock. The production and distribution of the journal involves a basic, ongoing and unavoidable financial outlay of the whole group and as such is paid for from members' subscriptions. (At least, should be! - the CWO has usually managed to finance RP but sometimes we've had to have a levy from members and sympathisers to finance production of a pamphlet.) In other words, it should be established straightaway that financial responsibility for the press is a collective concern of the whole organisation and dependence on special levies should be the exception rather than the rule.

Similarly, whoever plans the political content and balance of the journal is doing so on behalf of the whole collective. This doesn't mean that every individual is an editor but it's not difficult to imagine an editorial team which includes both LA and A. functioning via the e-mail.

All this amounts to a lot of work which has to be kept up and de facto makes the production and distribution of the journal the core focus of the organisation. But this is not an accident, it's a reflection of the role the publication plays in actually developing our incipient, proto-organisations into something approaching a viable and credible entity with a real presence inside the working class. Not only does it allow us to regularly present our political views to a wider world and, over time, help us gain contacts but the very process of editing and discussing the contents of the magazine is a political education while the work of keeping up a regular periodicity (often under-estimated by outsiders) is itself a kind of practical training. By holding meetings open to the public around a theme taken up in each issue, the membership gains practice at presenting and defending their politics as well offering an opportunity for any local contacts to turn up and discuss.

This brings us to the wider context and purpose, which is not, of course, simply to produce a journal but to build an organisation of cadres which is well-versed in marxism, coherent about what it stands for politically and able to put forward clear political guidelines for the working class. More than a loose collection of like-minded individuals, then, and miles away from a club or debating society which may have membership rules but which is not concerned with the political development, the education and training of its membership. For us this latter aspect of our work is an intrinsic part of organised political life. (The CWO's quarterly meetings include both theoretical and practical education sessions; apart from the summer school to which we are invited, Battaglia now have a series of basic educational brochures on core issues for use in section discussions and study groups of new members and sympathisers.)

We know that LA have been studying Battaglia's VIth Congress documents and each issue of IC and RP but the decision we took in Montreal for the comrades in North America to be included in the CWO's educational work has not yet been put into action. We can now rectify this since we (CWO) have finally taken up one of the issues suggested in Montreal - the question of class consciousness. We had a preliminary discussion, centred on an old RP article which we now disagree with, at our last quarterly meeting and have decided to produce a series of articles on the question. We'll forward the reading list supplied for the meeting to all the N.A. comrades so they too can follow and participate in the discussion.

In fact you would normally have received the CWO's Internal Bulletin but this has been in a state of flux recently, as we have changed the format and given another comrade responsibility for it. From now on, however, you'll be getting an e-mail "international" edition of our IB!

As for a more general, ongoing task that would combine political education/clarification with the provision of a useful introductory document for contact work - how about working on a US-version of Socialism or Barbarism? (Much of it could remain with more or less the same wording but peculiarly British sections, e.g. on the Labour Party would be replaced with passages on specific US obstacles to the working class.)

We've tried to present this summary of how we see the whole gamut of comrades' tasks in the present situation as practically as possible but it's not definitive, it's intended to emphasise what we mean when we say "First build the organisation!" Behind this phrase, naturally, is a whole theoretical perspective about the meaning of class consciousness and how it develops, including the role of the organisation and the necessity to revive and give flesh and body to the revolutionary political programme.

We sincerely hope this helps you all revive the effort to seriously work together.

Internationalist Greetings.

Letter to LAWV - May 2001

Dear Comrades

Apart from having to get on with the work of producing Aurora, RP, IC etc. the reason we have taken time to reply to your joint e-mail of 22nd April is that we have been simply at a loss to think of a means of restoring some sort of reasoned political dialogue.

Let's just clear up some of the things from your letter.

1. We are not at all misinformed about A., and had been sent copies of the original mails. But a comrade asking for a breathing space is really no explanation at all for excluding the Lafayette address etc. Also, whether or not the decision to slap on a different name on the cover of IN was a cock-up due to inexperience, our remarks about the political impression this gives to the outside world stand.
2. When the IBRP sent a communique to all the US comrades (4.3.01), we did not 'demand', as you put it, that the US IN contain "no agitational type materials". On the contrary, when we summed up what we thought all US comrades agreed in a set of points, one of them plainly states: "Everyone recognises that the journal should contain a variety of articles, ranging from theoretical, educational to polemical comment and analysis of current aspects of capitalism and the class struggle." (Point 3 from Communique 4.3.01)
3. Later on we did elaborate on how we saw what needed to be done in order to move the situation forward in the US.

On the journal, we argued that the practical work of publication and copyediting be done in LA,

It seems sensible that LA and not a single cde. in isolation be responsible for the practical production of the central publication...

But it is a case of your wishful thinking to interpret this as a signal of 'approval' that LA cdes. exclusively decide on the content of the mag. As we clearly said:

Similarly, whoever plans the political content and balance of the journal is doing so on behalf of the whole collective. This doesn't mean that every individual is an editor but it's not difficult to imagine an editorial team which includes both LA and A. functioning via the e-mail.

This is not an incidental thing. We were trying to explain how we saw the overall context of producing a journal, as central to the work and development of a political organisation:

Not only does it allow us to regularly present our political views to a wider world and, over time, help us gain contacts but the very process of editing and discussing the contents of the magazine is a political education while the work of keeping up a regular periodicity (often under-estimated by outsiders) is itself a kind of practical training.

(We went on to talk about the role of public meetings linked to the press, but that's another matter.) Of course, if LAWV want to act independently and have their 'own' publication it is up to them but why try and pretend that this has anything to do with implementing the Montreal decision to produce a joint IN? This is by no means a question of the Bureau dictatorially choosing your editorial board, it is simply a question of all the IBRP sympathisers working consistently together across the US as was agreed last year. Moreover, your idea that the Bureau wants to edit the US journal and turn you into "mere puppets or footmen" is absurd. If you see the possibility of us commenting on your articles as such a threat what on earth does that mean for our supposed political proximity? The Bureau is not a modern version of the Comintern - If you find us so tyrannical you are free to end relations. We have no financial hold over would-be supporters to keep them in line, we have no particular kudos in the wider world from which supporters can benefit; and for our part what possible reason could we have for pitting one set of supporters against another? In short, the charges of Bureau unfairness towards LA comrades don't make sense.

Up to a point we can understand your being disappointed that your efforts to produce and distribute IN have not had a more enthusiastic response from the Bureau. And it's true that the very fact of your committing yourselves to a regular publication and at least a rudimentary distribution outside of LA is a step forward that ought to be acknowledged. But comrades, you can't have your political cake and eat it. You can't expect us to praise this effort without also commenting on its political content - or rather absence of it; nor ignore the political implications of quite arbitrarily changing the name of who's responsible for IN and omitting the Lafayette address. If you don't see the same implications as we do then this further reveals how far the LA comrades really are from the Bureau's framework and method of work.

This in itself is no disgrace. (It would be surprising if we did not encounter differences.) However, the only way differences (methodological and political) can be resolved is for them to be openly acknowledged and DISCUSSED - both amongst LA comrades themselves as well as with the IBRP, not to mention with cde A. Again, to repeat what we said in the March communique, any organised nucleus is

More than a loose collection of like-minded individuals, then, and miles away from a club or debating society which may have membership rules but which is not concerned with the political development, the education and training of its membership. For us this latter aspect of our work is an intrinsic part of organised political life.

What we are still waiting for is the cdes. in LA to engage with the Bureau's political analysis, perspective and method of work. Instead we seem to be constantly at cross-purposes. - Whilst A. proposes an extensive programme of joint work and strengthening of the IBRP nucleus in the US, R. is proposing a separate LA publication. At the same time N.'s perennial preoccupation with influencing the masses with little or no regard as to how to do so without first having an organisational political presence has become such a shibboleth that any criticism is ignored or vituperatively denounced. This is why we suggested in our last letter [20.4.01: Our response to new IN) that

Rather than pretend that there is full political agreement amongst IBRP sympathisers in the US it seems to us that the new-style IN could be turned into a publication which acknowledges the differences, discusses them along with other issues of contention and debate raised by other political groups, correspondents, etc. In other words, a platform for discussion and political elaboration centred around the positions of the Bureau and with the aim of clarifying the basis for the eventual formation of a political nucleus of the IBRP in the US.

Obviously any journal which is aiming to elaborate and discuss IBRP politics will contain articles directly relating to what the Bureau says - either comments on Bureau texts which you republish or articles you yourselves have based on the IBRP platform. This should not be interpreted as unwarranted 'interference' on our part, but rather part of the process of clarification and engagement on your part with the Bureau. Otherwise, the situation of perpetual misunderstanding and talking past each other will only lead to an inevitable parting of the ways.

We have reiterated here something of how we see the situation. When we meet with Battaglia and our comrades in France at the end of the month at the Lutte Ouvriere fete we'll be able to discuss the situation in the US. We've already asked A. if he wants to send a written contribution and it's important that LA cdes too outline their perspectives for how their political work is to be developed.

Internationalist Greetings to all the comrades.

To the comrades of LAWV - December 2001

Dear Comrades

It is clear that the development of the North American situation has not been as we had anticipated a the end of the Montreal meeting in April 2000. It is clear not only from all the correspondence between the IBRP, AS and LAWV that LAWV have not really understood what the Bureau is all about.

The attempts of AS to get you to accept a regular publication seem to have irritated you. Ironically you are now producing the very publication we asked for, at least in formal terms even if the publication itself is not a true reflection of our politics.

After the visit of comrade S and his report to the AGM of the CWO last weekend we have decided to try to formalise our relations on a new basis. Whilst AS is absolutely clear about what the Bureau stands for (reflected in all his correspondence with you) you reject the Bureau as excessively centralised. This itself is absurd. As we wrote after Montreal:

The Bureau... exists to provide a focus for all those elements internationally that are coming together to fight capitalism. This is not a matter of creating clones of existing organisations nor simply of formal adherence to a political platform. We aim to foster the development of proletarian organisations rooted in the life of the class wherever they are found and to provide a political framework and platform under which they can begin the process of centralising internationally. To new forces which will inevitably emerge in the class struggle we offer the inheritance of the communist left in terms of programmatic understanding and revolutionary Marxist method. We do not artificially close the process of development of the international party and proclaim ourselves the one true party as do the Bordigists but remain open to the different situations which will arise in the future.

However self-proclaimed rival tendencies attack us as being afraid to confront political differences and not recognising the need for a centralised world party of the proletariat of the future. If we succumbed to your arguments they would be justified in their criticisms. You have rejected us as too centralised because we insist that the Bureau may not be the party but it has to have both organisational coherence and at least a basic political agreement. You now argue in Internationalist Notes #3 that there is no need for the growth of a real political organisation centralised on an international level. From our observation you are Los Angeles localists who want the comfortable umbrella of formally belonging to an international organisation which you can ignore. In fact we do not even think you are homogenous as a group in LA.

To organisational disagreement we now can add political divergence. The last edition of Internationalist Notes also revealed that you do differ politically from us. When you write that the Russian Revolution ended in 1918 you basically make common cause with the anarchists and councilists who also reject the need for proletarian organisation other than the councils. We take our stand on the fact that the Russian Revolution was only the first step in the world revolution. This was not only the position of the Bolshevik leadership but also Rosa Luxemburg. Although it could be argued that the process of revolution was going into reverse once the Civil War started this for us is not the significant factor. The significant issue was the international class struggle. To say that the Russian revolution was over before any proletarians in the other countries even responded is not the basis of the internationalism which the communist left has defended all these years. It is the basis though of the most thoughtless councilism and anarchism.

Perhaps then you are of "the Communist Left" in general but not of our tendency? Perhaps you may develop towards us in the course of time or perhaps you may develop towards another tendency. The important thing is that you develop. For our part we intend to remain in contact with you (as we would any emerging tendency) debating the main lessons of proletarian history and sending comments on your publications. We may even ask you to join us in common international declarations if there is enough agreement. We would though encourage you to investigate all the tendencies of the communist left with the aim of clarifying your own political basis.

In practical terms we would like you to allow us to reclaim the title Internationalist Notes (it is a traditional Bureau title going back to our first publication in Farsi in the 1980s and it would be confusing in the extreme if you produced Internationalist Notes distinct from our Canadian comrades publication). Having said that we are not name fetishists and would accept your final decision whatever it was but for the sake of clarity in front of the whole international working class your change to the sub-title you used for IN#3 would be welcome.

You may also like to amend the statement of basic positions to a formula which you find more comfortable. We ourselves have decided to expand ours as it leaves too many questions unanswered. We therefore send this letter in a fraternal spirit to mark a new phase in our relations. It is necessary that we should divide at this point perhaps in order to unite on a clearer basis in the future. We wish you every success with your work of political clarification and look forward to amicable relations in the future.

Internationalist greetings.