No subject

Our relationship is guided by politics. So, of course, if we had taken
a position that the PRD was no longer a revolutionary group, this
would affect the way we relate to them.

We have said reality will judge the issues under dispute, that
includes the assertion of the new group that the PRD has abandoned its
revolutionary program and heritage.

The question is posed in a certain context. This is not a blank
canvas. We have had a long standing relationship with the PRD.

So the question is: Are we going to break that relationship and
declare our solidarity with a new group *instead* (that is,
counter-posed to)? The question is framed in this way by our history.

And the answer is no. We can't say never, but not now - for the
reasons in the last two posts. What happens in reality - which will be
the judge of the disputed questions - will help determine our
approach.

But such a judgement that the PRD is no longer revolutionary needs to
be taken very seriously and carefully. If we don't feel we are in a
position to say something like that, then we wont.

That doesn't imply its opposite - that if we don't damn the PRD as
non-revolutionary, then we are *really* damning the new group set up
by the minority in that way. We wont be pushed either way.

Of course, the arguments runs that the new group are the *real* PRD
because they are the *real* continuors of the revolutionary program of
the PRD. The actually existing PRD is not the *real* PRD because it
has betrayed its program and tradition.

You can see my previous posts for views on that question. Given that
we are not jumping to say this, it follows logically that we will
continue our relationship with the PRD.

As for the new group, we are not refusing relations, we are testing
things out. We are encouraging them to continue sending us their
material. We certainly aren't declaring them not revolutionary or
anything else James is attempting to imply or push us towards.

When we said we don't intend to interfere, we mean *we don't intend to
interfere*. James insists that we must, and if we don't interfere on
the side he wants then we must be interfering on the other side. We
reject this.

Of course we are *continuing* to try and study the situation. So maybe
we will have something more concrete to say in the future as we
attempt to study what is going on in light of finding out from the
comrades there on both sides what the arguments and facts (and
interpretations of facts, as always occurs) are and what it means on
the ground.

Stuart