* * *¶
Core Argument¶
This open letter, addressed to the “Left” faction within the fused British Trotskyist organisation, constitutes a formal indictment of that faction’s conduct, charging it with a fundamental refusal to accept party discipline and a deeper political hostility to the party itself. The core argument is that the “Left” entered the fusion—which created a unified British section of the Fourth International from the Revolutionary Socialist League (RSL) and the Workers International League (WIL)—only under duress from the International Secretariat (IS), and have since acted not as loyal members seeking to win their positions through internal debate, but as an alien body contemptuous of the organisation.
The letter’s key claims are substantiated by specific evidence. First, the faction’s bad faith at the Fusion Conference is demonstrated by its refusal to participate in negotiations, its absence of visitors, and its rejection of a place on the Central Committee. Second, the charge of disloyalty is driven home with devastating effect: after the arrest of four comrades in April of the previous year, TM, the secretary of the Left Faction, wrote to a deserter, Leigh Davis, dismissing the imprisoned members as “bloody clowns” who lacked real antagonism toward the bourgeoisie. This letter, obtained by the Political Bureau, is presented as irrefutable proof that the faction felt no solidarity with the party under attack. Third, the faction is accused of ignoring the Internal Bulletin provided for by the Fusion Agreement to resolve differences, preferring oral discussions in branch meetings—a sign that it does not “seriously wish to attempt to win the party to your point of view.”
The historical context is the difficult and contested fusion of the RSL and WIL, mandated by the IS to overcome British Trotskyist fragmentation. The letter draws on the norms of democratic centralism: the right to hold minority views is conditional on the practical acceptance of discipline and the use of official party forums for debate. The polemical target is thus not merely the “Left’s” ultraleft or opportunist policies, but its entire orientation—a refusal to function as a loyal faction within a unified party, coupled with a sectarian dismissal of all other tendencies as “not genuinely Fourth Internationalist.” The letter’s tone is one of cold, documented accusation, asserting that the faction’s actions have rendered the fusion agreement a dead letter.