Some Thoughts on the Split in the Argentinean “Partido Obrero“

 

by Michael Pröbsting, International Secretary of the Revolutionary Communist International Tendency (RCIT), 10 July 2019, www.thecommunists.net

 

 

 

The “Partido Obrero“ (PO) in Argentina experienced a major split at the end of June. A “public faction” around its longtime leader Jorge Altamira broke with the majority of the organization after an extended, partly subterranean/partly open, internal struggle. The faction claims the support of nearly 800 militants. [1]

 

This split is a significant event for several reasons. The PO is a longstanding and large Trotskyist organization in Argentina founded in 1964. It is one of the major components of the Frente de Izquierda y de los Trabajadores (FIT), an alliance that received 1.2 million votes at the last elections in autumn 2017. It has a number of parliamentary deputies at the national and regional level. In addition to the PO, FIT also includes the Partido de los Trabajadores Socialistas, Izquierda Socialista, and, more recently, the Movimiento Socialista de los Trabajadores. It is certainly no exaggeration to state that Argentina is currently the country, globally, in which forces considering themselves Trotskyist have acquired the most numerous popular support.

 

Furthermore, the PO launched an initiative in 2004 that resulted in the creation of the “Coordinating Committee for the Refoundation of the Fourth International” (CRFI) – an international organization with sister organizations in a number of countries.

 

The documents that have been published, to date, reflect a bitter faction struggle. [2] Altamira attacks the majority for focusing too much on elections as well as adapting opportunistically to petty-bourgeois tendencies. The majority, in turn, accuses Altamira of hypocrisy since they are merely following a tradition that he established. The only difference, they allege, is that Altamira, 77 years old, is no longer their leading electoral candidate and exercises waning powers in the bureaucratic domination of the party.

 

No doubt, there is significant truth in the criticism of both sides. The PO leadership has always been known for unprincipled zig-zags and opportunism. Altamira also has a reputation as a caudillo, used to running the organization in a top-down way.

 

 

 

Ignoring the Main Issues

 

 

 

However, while both sides continue to trade barbs the whole debate remains one-sided and superficial. Despite the volume of published material – the four documents exceed 36,500 words – the whole debate is focused exclusively on national politics. It seems that for both sides the world does not exist beyond the Argentine border!

 

This is particularly the case given the perspective developed by the PO and their international co-thinkers. Stuck in a nonsensical theory they call “catastrophism”, the PO has been incapable of understanding fundamental developments of the world situation. Operating on the basis of an un-dialectical and objectivist fatalism, the PO leadership legitimates their opportunist adaptations to class-alien forces. “Since capitalism is about to collapse anyway”, the PO/CRFI has manufactured a justification for supporting reactionary forces “in order to give capitalism the final kick”.

 

It is not necessary to elaborate in detail our criticism of the programmatic and theoretical failures of PO/CRFI as we have dealt with these in a substantial recent pamphlet, as well as in our book, Anti-Imperialism in the Age of Great Power Rivalry. [3]

 

We will limit ourselves to addressing crucial issues that comrades of the PO should consider rethinking.

 

1) The leadership of PO and the CRFI has claimed for decades that capitalist restoration in Russia, China, and other ex-Stalinist countries has not been completed. According to their schema, capitalism has decayed to such an extent that it cannot restore the conditions for exploiting the working class and extracting surplus value in these regions! Hence, they still consider these countries “deformed workers states”. This is a fantasy that they can only entertain by closing their eyes to reality and burying their heads in the desert sands of ultra-sterile dogmatism! As we have demonstrated in our pamphlet, this is simple-minded nonsense. Capitalism was restored in these countries in the early 1990s! [4] It is therefore consistent that they also reject our analysis that China and Russia have subsequently entered the ranks of imperialist Great Powers. [5]

 

2) (Dis)armed with such a “theory”, the leadership of PO and the CRFI support Russia and China against the Western imperialist powers. The result? They’ve become the social-imperialist supporters of the Russian and Chinese ruling classes. [6]

 

3) Related to this is the alliance that Altamira and the leaderships of PO/CRFI have entered into with Russian Stalinists – in particular with the United Communist Party (OKP) of Darya Mitina. Mitina’s OKP is a staunch nationalist and supporter of Russia’s “patriotic rights”. She even served for some time as the head of the Moscow branch of the Foreign Ministry of the Donetsk People’s Republic. [7]Mitina is also a fervent supporter of the barbarous Assad regime in Syria. [8] Her husband, Said Gafurov, has repeatedly worked as an economic advisor for the Administrations of Primakov and Putin. He also served as a Deputy Chairman of the Russian Committee for Solidarity with Peoples of Libya and Syria since its founding – a committee which has unashamedly hailed Gaddafi and Assad from the very first hour. [9]

 

4) All of this opportunist adaption to reactionary forces is combined with an unashamed disregard for internationalism. The neglect of international issues in the faction documents is not accidental. It reflects the nation-centred outlook of all sides in this faction struggle – both Altamira and his present opponents. The leading cadres of the PO conceive of themselves Argentinean revolutionaries, first, and internationalists, second. Hence, the CRFI never functioned as an authentic international body but, rather, as a federation of national organizations that occasionally adopted joint statements.

 

In the past few years, the international activities of the CRFI have basically collapsed and the Italian component, the PCL, was expelled for its criticisms. Likewise, all former Latin American allies (with the exception of the Uruguayan PT) broke their relations with the PO.

 

Furthermore, the neglect of international issues in the faction documents also reflects that while the two factions disagree on some issues of national politics, they remain in full agreement about the international and theoretical fundament of their orientation.

 

 

 

Global Crisis of Centrism

 

 

 

The deep crisis of the PO and the paralysis of the CRFI cannot be understood as an isolated phenomenon. It is part of the international death agony of centrism. We have seen in recent years major splits. These include the crisis of the Cliffite SWP/IST current, Alan Woods’ IMT, the Lambertists, Peter Taaffe’s CWI, as well as the dissolution of the US-American ISO (to name only the most significant examples). [10]

 

These developments are not accidental. Marxists define centrism as opportunist vacillation between petty-bourgeois reformism and revolution. Trotsky defined this current as follows: “The mark of centrism is opportunism. Under the influence of external circumstances (tradition, mass pressure, political competition), centrism is at certain times compelled to make a parade of radicalism. For this purpose it must overcome itself, violate its political nature. By spurring itself on with all its strength, it not infrequently lands at the extreme limit of formal radicalism. But hardly does the hour of serious danger strike than the true nature of centrism breaks out to the surface.“ [11]

 

In an essay written shortly before his assassination, Trotsky remarked in a polemic against the French centrist organization Que Faire that, “like all groups lacking a scientific foundation, without a program and without any tradition this little periodical tried to hang on to the coat-tails of the POUM”. [12] Neither the Spanish centrist POUM nor Que Faire, of course, exist any longer but the various centrist forces continue to operate on the basis of the same opportunist methodology. They vacillate and adapt to reformist or left-populist parties or the trade union bureaucracy. In the present instance of the PO/CRFI, they adapt to the Stalinists.

 

While such opportunism might yield some immediate rewards in terms of positions or financial benefits, such successes are short-term and their demise is guaranteed. Such vulgar violations of Marxist principles remain like the mark of Cain on such organizations.

 

In convulsive periods the bankruptcy of opportunism is exposed. Centrism then experiences crises and splits. [13] Trotsky explained, “As a matter of fact, this is wholly in the nature of things. The contradictions between the petty bourgeois conservatism and the needs of the proletarian revolution have developed in the extreme. It is only natural that the defenders and interpreters of the policies of the POUM found themselves thrown far back both in political and theoretical fields.” [14]

 

The RCIT has always warned that centrism is a dead-end and that revolutionaries must break with such methods. The split in the PO is neither the first nor will it be the last example of the decline and collapse of the centrist swamp. It is urgent that revolutionaries in such organizations draw the necessary conclusions, break with an incorrect orientation, and unite in order to build an authentic Marxist world party. The RCIT looks forward to collaborating with such comrades! [15]