This bulletin is the first issue of the internal bulletin of the Fraction. It will be followed by a second one and we hope to publish as much as necesary.

Why a fraction ?
"The fraction is the expression that the organisation is in crisis with the outbreak of a degeneration process within itself, of capitulation in front of the weight of the bourgeois ideology. Contrary to a tendancy which corresponds to divergencies on orientations in front of questions of circonstances, the fraction corresponds to programatical divergencies which can't find outcomes but with the exclusion of the bourgeois position or with the departure of the communist fraction from the organisation. And it is because the fraction represents the separation of two positions that have became incompatible within the same organism that it tends to take an organised form with its own organs of propaganda.
It's because the organisation of the class is never guaranteed against a degeneration that the task of the revolutionaries is to struggle in every moment for the elimination of bourgeois positions that can develop within it. When they are in minority in their struggle, then their task is to organise in fraction whether to win the whole organisation to the communist positions and to exclude the bourgeois position or, when the struggle had became sterile because the giving up of the proletarian terrain by the organisation – in general at the time of a backward
["reflux" in french] of the class -, to constitute the bridge to the reconstitution of the class party which can only appear in a phase of struggles recovery" (Report on the structure and functionning of the revolutionaries organisation, translated by us, International Review 33).

This passage of the 1982 text describes with limpidity, the situation in which we estimate that the ICC is today. It's particularly clear for us that the situation requires, not the creation of a tendancy, but really a fraction. At that level, we fully agree with the Circular on how to debate when it says in its point 3 that "if we follow the argumentation of comrade Juan, it's not a tendancy which would be contained in the nature of the present divergencies, but really a fraction".
Yes, we are in front of two opposed and irreconcilable lines. No, this two lines are not the expression of two uncompleted positions on a new question (which could justify the creation of a tendancy), but one is a real liquidation of our acquisitions ["acquis" in french] and of all our filiation on the questions of organisation, while ours is defined as the defence and the continuity of these acquisitions. Even more, the betrayal of the organisational principles on the ideological and theoretical levels prepares and goes with a new practice in the "daily life" which, in particular since the congress, destroys at a breathtaking speed all we lasted 25 years to build up. The damages provoked by this orientation are already considerable : in Paris, there is no more organisation. One after the other, all the parisian organs of the organisation, the IS, the SE, the OC, and the north section have imploded ; that is that one after the other, they have stopped to exist as collective bodies ; they are reduced to be the formal sum of their members ; they are not mandated collectives which decides, but individuals, without nobody knowing to who they are accountable to. That is for the demolition of the unitarian framework. In regards with the militant energies, they are several comrades – some of them with more than 30 years of experience – who have been pushed towards resignation by the unworthy policy that makes them pariahs ["parias" in french] and that dealt with them as enemies. At last, it's the relentlessness to shut up at any cost with sanctions and suspensions adopted with any pretext against the comrades who have the courage to rise up and to say no to this entreprise of liquidation. That is the work of those who claim to be «the only ones to defend the organisation» : a field of ruins.

Yes the ICC is in great danger and it's because we carry on thinking that there is a struggle to lead to save the acquisitions, the history and the militant energies of the ICC – to which and within which we have led so many struggles – that we constitute the fraction.

Why a bulletin ?
Maybe some will wonder if the fraction wouldn't have to use the normal means to the debate which are the official internal bulletins, before publishing its own bulletin. If this is not posible, it's not our responsability. Actually, besides the suspension measures against militants which forbid them to adress to their comrades in the framework of the meetings, the last measure taken by the CE consists purely and simply in preventing our access to the internal bulletins of the ICC : "The EC of RI decides not to publish or let publish in the internal bulletins any contribution on the organisational questions from a participant to the «Collectif» until they make such a critic (of the Collective) in a written statement. Actually, the organisation can't tolerate that its internal bulletins are used against itself by militants who behave as enemies of the ICC or who, after having behaved as such, don't make a serious critic of their attitude". In stead of allowing that the whole organisation looks at the real and basic problems, extremely grave, it is confronted with, the present central organs wants to "purify the party" ["assainir" in french] insisting for individual "confessions" and "selfcritics" worthy of stalinist-maoist practices. In stead of considering that the organisation as a whole is interested in favoring the expression of the divergencies, what says and repeats our Statutes, the OC look today in the single expression of these divergencies, something which would be "against" the organisation ! This, unfortunately, says a lot on the point reached in the betrayal of the principles that have always been those of the ICC.

We have no choice : whether we submit, that is to say we shut up our conciousness as insists the ICC central organs, or we assume our responsabilities of communist militants with the publication of our own bulletin.

Moreover, as defends the 1982 text and the Statutes, there is a principle that the fraction can have its own means of propaganda. This implies not only possible means to make us hear towards the outside, but – first and above all – means of propaganda towards the inside of the organisation, towards its militants since the goal of the fraction is to struggle "for winning the whole organisation to the communist positions", that is to say to convince the militants of the organisation. Such is the ambition of the bulletin of the fraction.

Is this really the moment given the gravity of the international situation ?
As we say it in the Declaration, the situation of the ICC is even more dramatical that the brutal acceleration of the world situation puts as never the proletarian political milieu – the ICC included – in front of its responsabilities. It's the moment, maybe as never in our history, to "make the proof of the pudding", to show that 25 years of struggles and efforts to build up and strenghten the organisation has not been made in vain. In such conditions, is it responsible to engage a work of fraction precisely at the moment when the organisation needs more than ever its unity, its cohesion and the mobilisation of all ? To this question, we'll answer by an other one : where does come that the unity and the cohesion of the organisation are broken today ? Where does come that comrades amongt the most devoted – and since many years – to the working class struggle have been already led to resignation ? And, since the terrible events of September the 11th, what has been the orientation of our central organs ? Have they taken in consideration the sight of the ICC responsabilities towards the class in front of the new situation of unprecedent gravity that the events opened ? Have they worked for leaving aside the internal conflicts which tear up today our organisation and for making all to close ranks around the responsabilities we have towards our class and towards the proletarian political milieu ?
Apparently, the extraordinary IB plenum – which have been held two days before – had ended with the concern, at least for a great number of its members, to do all to favor the basic debate, in the larger framework, on the questions which divides the organisation, and to leave aside the invectives and the accusations against the comrade. Have the executive authorities ["les instances exécutives"] mandated by the IB plenum really respected this mandate ? Why haven't they thought – regarding the major gravity of the international situation – to put the discussion on this situation and the question of our intervention as THE great priority before all the others ? Why haven't they thought to replace the extraordinary meetings planned on the internal questions by the larger meetings dedicated to the events which poses to all the comrades of the ICC, to all the militants of the working class and the milieu, questions of extreme gravity ? NOT at all ! Not only they have maintained the principle of these extraordinary meetings of Paris and Mexico, devoting to the only internal problems as if these had and could be "dealt" in one day. But they have made these meetings, and in particular the one in Paris of September 22, the occasion for a new offensive on the disciplinary level against the minoritarian comrades. They took the responsability of the suspension of two of our comrades ; they have pushed other comrades – as Stanley – to resignation through unworthy pressures on the militants to force them to pronounce against their own conviction and doubts. And now these central organs are going to pretend that we are irresponsible not to be present ["répondre présent"] when the world situation requires it. But we are present comrades. We have the intention of doing all we can in relation with our forces so that the ICC is up to its responsabilities. Unfortunately today, we think that it is far from it. To the drift on the internal level, corresponds, unfortunately, a tendancy to forget our tasks towards our class and the milieu in the form as well as in the content. Actually it seems to us that the ICC didn't take into account the tremendous change in the world situation opened up by the September 11 events. And that it is giving up with the assuming its role, the one it always gave to itself as fundamental, towards the proletarian political milieu. On this level too, the fraction wants to intervene within the organisation.

The content of this issue
The comrades will find in this bulletin a first part which contains the constituent documents of our fraction. First with the already known Déclaration of constitution of an internal fraction and the Adress to all the militants of the ICC of the 24th of August for which the "Collectif of work" had declared. We fully claim this Adress as well as we claim the initiative, beginning of August 2001, of regrouping the comrades who were to constitute the "Collectif of work". Both have constituted a first response to the need already posed two months ago. They allowed the clarification which comes off today with the creation of the fraction ().
To this two texts, we add as constituent text the Activities report (Against the liquidation of the ICC) which has been proposed by Juan, Michel and Olivier to the extraordinary IB plenum, and that the Fraction fully claims and defends. It represents an alternative orientation which is coherent, allowing to undestand the genesis of the present crisis. The comrades will see that this report doesn't pretend to bring "new" thesis, but simply to base itself on the continuity of the work of the ICC of this last years and to defend this continuity. It claims the activities reports of the former congresses of the ICC and the mandates given to the organisation. They will see that we represent the continuity of the ICC, while the present majoritarian line represents a total break – without daring to say it clearly but by simply omiting to refer to it – with the mandates and the activities balance-sheet drawn by the last international congresses. Thus the present method of the OC which consists in asserting various thesis on the state of the organisation without refering to the balance-sheets and previous mandates on the activities, fully turns the back to the ICC method. This last one consists, at the moment of studying any problem (whether it's on the activities or on the situation) in basing and refering to the last texts adopted by the organisation on the question in order to evaluate what can have changed, if our previous orientations were verified or invalidated, etc…
Doing so, the present liquidationnist tendancy avoids cautiously to pose the following question : if we have to believe them, all the 93 struggle –that they pretend to claim – had been useless since, according to them, the "clan-pav" would have since then carry on raging secretly in the majority of the IS as it was the case in 93. The activities reports, the orientations that the ICC has defined, the work of the IB, the positive balance-sheets drawn from the work as well as the identification of the difficulties to overcome, all this would have been thus only manouvers and manipulations of the "clan-pavillon". Since 96 (if not since when ?), the members of the IB who all participated and supported the work of the IS had let themselves being manipulated in fact – and again – by a "clan-pavillon" still at work. Maybe it's time to realize the enormity of what they are trying to make us swallow ! And we invite all those ready to accept this enormity to pose the question : what confidence today can we give to such members of the IB, so easily manipulable by a "clan" already known ? What does guarantee us that they are today lucid ? What method have we to employ to know it ? The one which consists to refer with seriousness and profoundness to WHAT the ICC – as a collective body – has said in terms of balance-sheet of its own activity or the one which consists in looking at WHO speaks and in looking for a guarantee for the organisation in this WHO ?

Besides the texts published here, our fraction wants to make known that its foundation is not at all "precipitated". It claims actively a great number of texts already appeared in the internal bulletins of the ICC since now more than a year. At that level, we want to reject here the fable, presented by the Circular on how to debate according to which we only are at the beginning of the discussion. The liquidationnist tendancy would like, as well as for the activities, that the history begins from the moment when it really succeeded to take the political direction of the IB, that is from the moment when its thesis on the "return of the clan-pavillon" has been accepted by the majority of the IB. It desperately tries to make us forget that the "basic debate" didn't begin with the publication of the Orientation Text but with the IS circular of March 2000 ; that this debate dealt with very concrete and precise facts we were confronted with ; that it was no theoretical question posed "in itself", but an eminently political question regarding our own activity.
It's why we want here to invite the comrades to re-read cautiously a great number of texts appeared in the internal bulletins since the fall 2000 and up to the congress, which expresses the real fidelity to our functionning principles. And we don't only refer to texts signed by members of our fraction but also others documents such as for instance :
- those signed Palko or Michael in the IIB 282. Since then, Michael and Palko may have decided to repudiate their own contributions – too clearly incompatible with their present capitulation in front of the theory of the "clan-pavillon" -, this doesn't prevent us to claim the content of their texts ;
- the text signed Samuel and written in the name of the CE, appeared late in the BIRI 244. It demonstrates the inanity of the accusations of democratism made against the former IS and against what was yet then the position of the majority of the CE.

We affirm that exists between these texts previous to the congress and the texts signed Leonardo, Sven, Juan or Sarah published in the IIB 283, those of Olivier in the IIB 285 and 286, or also Aglaé and Stanley's contributions, all appeared since the congress, the same fundamental political line of fidelity and defence of our acquisitions on the organisational question. Because the history of the "debate" since one year is the history of a political struggle, first muffled, then actually more and more opened, between two antagonistic political lines : the one whose concern is the necesary recording, then the intransigent defence, of our acquisitions ; the other is a tendancy which didn't contented to forget them, but has begun to put them into question openly and which – to hide this – has begun to develop "new theories" (in particular on the "confidence", considered as an abstract category, a concept in itself or on the "individual responsability" considered in opposition to the "anonymous mass" of the collective) extraneous ["étrangères" in french] to our class and marxism. In the history of the workers movement, it's oftenly through this kind of "new theories" pseudo-marxist that the penetration of the bourgeois ideology has manifested within the proletarian organisations.

Today these new theories end not only ideologically but also practically in the liquidation of our principles on the organisation and in the radical revision of our statutes. Our Statement on the activities report adopted by the extraordinary IB plenum and the proposal to institutionalize a permanent IC, show how far such liquidation leads today.
To end up on this, let's call the comrades who give in and accept today the thesis of the "clan-pavillon" to get the measure that this thesis is the very mean to discredite the voices which, in continuity with the defence of our acquisitions posed in March 2000, are opposed to the extremely grave theoretical and practical present givings up. The comrades have to get the measure that capitulating on the means used, they capitulate at the same time at the level of the goal sought.

The comrades will find too in this bulletin various statements of the fraction on the recent events as well as a letter we have sent to the central organ of the ICC in order to propose a meeting with it to define the mode of functonning of the organisation as a whole with a fraction within it.

To finish, the constitution of the fraction is not the end of a struggle. It is its real beginning. In this struggle we start, we'll have to undestand how and why the ICC could live such a brutal drift in one year. We'll have to find the roots of the easiness with which the ICC moved away from the very method of marxism. To understand too why the ICC certainly has not retained anything of the 93 struggle, except lessons so much distorted that today it's the practices and the very visions held by Simon in 93 which became those into effect in the majority of the ICC. For that, to make this balance-sheet, we'll have to pursue and to go further on the theoretical and historical work in order to "relearn to learn" from the workers movement of the past and from the fundamental texts of marxism, especially on the method. It's why the bulletin of the fraction wants also to publish collective or individual contributions on these theoretical questions such as the one which appears in this first issue whose title is the nature of the proletariat or the negation of the negation. Others are in elaboration and will appear soon.

Good reading to every body.

The Fraction, the 17/10/01.

P.S. As the comrades can imagine, it's going to be difficult in the present situation of our forces, to translate into english, or other languages. We'll try as much as posible. Any help will be welcome.