Looking to the past

If we look on the work of our international leadership (RIC) since the REVOLUTION Conference 2005 in Vienna and compare it with the work of WRICC (2004-05) we should admit that the actual level of our work isn’t long-term sufficient and doesn’t correspond with a move toward a more centralised and effective leadership.

The RIC didn’t work regularly (there were serious periods when RIC didn’t work at all), produced less statements and resolutions than before; didn’t give clear political perspectives for work to the REVOLUTION as a whole as well as to national sections, contrary to our past didn’t coordinate any international REVO campaign (e.g. information about Mario are if at all on the most web pages not up to date), wasn’t able to discuss the concrete situation and obstacles of each national section on the base of regular reports from the sections and also failed to resolve serious problems, which raised and persist in our work.

Such situation is caused by several different reasons – some are connected with functional weaknesses of RIC inherited already from Vienna Conference – some have base in our wrong methodology of work and some with subjective difficulties.

Firstly it must be said that a clear bad impact on the work of the RIC have problems which are connected with the Vienna Conference – namely too short time on preparation of Conference, poor (in sense of time limitation) pre-conference and conference discussion about important political questions, about the constitution and the development of leadership. There was also a lack of broader involvement of national sections into the discussion especially for non-League REVOLUTION members. Because of these failures the constitution and the RIC never were anchored inside the REVOLUTION groups. The failures of the conference in Vienna never were discussed to the end and with this also the post-conference discussion wasn’t effective. Unfortunately also the preparation of our this year’s conference seems to be worse than it was in our plan. The definite timetable still isn’t send, the deadline for documents at the 5. June wasn’t fulfilled and a pre-conference discussion still didn’t start at all inside the RIC only one month before the conference.

Our actual constitution doesn’t describe concrete tasks and duties of the leadership as well as the RIC by itself never created some division of work for making the work more effective. De facto the RIC didn’t work at all like a leadership body of an international organisation should do. For the catastrophic state of our international leadership exist several examples – only some can be mentioned here: two different statements resp. flyers for the WTO demonstration in Hong Kong and also the delay of publishing of our statement about France protests on our web site show us, that we have serious problems with inner communication. Also the way how the date for our this years conference was chosen is a good example for the big lack of communication inside the RIC. Firstly L. made a proposal for a date and nobody in RIC reacts on this for long time. But on the other side it doesn’t mean that all RIC-members agree in that time with this proposal and that tickets can be booked. This was a failure and not a democratic way of decision making, which lead to a conference in the middle of week, where people who have to work can’t participate and to a date where two sections can’t travel at all. Another example for the lack of communication and information inside the RIC is that up till now there never were an evaluation of the participation of REVOLUTION at the ESF and with this no discussions about the success or unsuccess of our strategies as well as “minutes of decisions and a summary of debates” (as it is written in the International REVOLUTION Constitution) never were “distributed to all members”.

The problem is also that the majority of sections have only one member in the RIC and if this comrade can‘t work for a moment (for example because illness etc.), then the section lose any contacts with others. Also the situation when a representative of a national section in the RIC is changed may create for a time some problems.

Another kind of problem is connected with the adoption of wrong ultra-centralistic politic by the RIC. That means for example giving orders (demands, “requests”) to national sections about their concrete actions. Such policy is in contradiction to the objective situation, to the state of development of our organization, to our generally open character, to our principle that for members isn’t obligatory to agree with our complete political program or participate on all actions and also to the general character of the anti-capitalist youth movement with youngsters from different backgrounds and levels of consciousness.

Such ultra-centralistic method was firstly used on the question of REVOcamp, where in the end Austrian comrades wasn’t partially able and partially willing to implement such decision, which collided with their national situation and activities. Secondly it was used in pressure on German comrades to accept R.s participation on their National conference. In both cases the result was distrust, increasing problems in relations between sections and development of the wrong dichotomy of “national” vs. “international”. This method on which our organization isn’t prepared (and objectively even can’t be) must be abolished and the RIC should go back to the politic of political guiding and advising to national sections.

Looking to the future

An effective leadership, which we tried to establish and now once again want to re-establish, can’t be really functional, if it wouldn’t stay on strong legs e.g. it must be solidly interconnected with broader base of REVOLUTION on national level. That means that it must be enlarged about non-voting alternate members (see alternate constitution) with the right to participate on all discussions. Alternates will increase the connection between RIC and national sections – allow a better implementation of decision of the RIC, better communication between international and national level as well as better participation of national sections and the majority of members on important aspects of REVOLUTION politic. We also propose to include all members of national section leaderships on e-group of RIC – to increase participation and knowledge of whole organization in international work. The RIC should demand regular reports from all national sections, but also itself must regularly report on WR e-group (including information about voting) and its members have duty to inform all members about the work of RIC.

The RIC has to become really strong collective leadership – the only one representant of our organization in contact with others, the hearth of our international interventions, campaigns and mobilizations (ESF, Revocamp, anti-G8 etc.) as well as the producer of our resolutions/statements about international political questions and significant programmatic articles, which give to REVOLUTION the profile of an international revolutionary organization. The RIC also should be the motor of our struggle for a Revolutionary youth international.

The RIC is definitely a collective organ – it must make all decisions collectively by voting. This isn’t in contradiction to the principle of personal responsibility. We should adopt the principle of individual responsibility – to decide concretely, which comrade(s) will prepare documents or have responsibility for this and this – and than collectively control the fulfilment of this task. Control is the most crucial problem and should be collective while also highly effective (quick). The bureau should strictly control the deadlines. If comrades wouldn’t be able to be ready in time than should ask for help.

The RIC must in the end discuss all political questions with appropriate time reserve, which allows us to really deeply occupy with documents and decisions. The RIC/Conference must be more used for political and even deeply theoretical education respectively for organizing theoretical schools or other international education events. The RIC also should write general reports to the national sections about its political work and the results of voting in order that the membership can control its work and have relevant information for evaluation (and election) of RIC members.

The work with contacts, already on responsibility respectively on good will of some comrades, must be as a whole in a hand of one responsible person (full member of RIC and member of Bureau), but individual contacts should be “distributed” to responsibility of individual members of RIC according to language, geographical, common background and other relevant reasons. Work with contacts should be regularly on agenda of RIC.

As the RIC is the collective political leadership of REVOLUTION, the Bureau can’t substitute it in this function. The Bureau has and has to have important, but only supportive function in administration. Concretely it means for example administration of RIC e-group, administration of international contact list/youth assembly e-group, sending of important documents, controlling of dead-lines for preparation of documents and administration of the international webpage.

S. from REVO/CZ, June 14, 2006