Documents 3 to 17 and 19 to 24 originally published in Internal Bulletins of the SWP and the International Bulletins of the International Committee
Dear Friends:
I have received copy of Aug. 5 letter on discussion with Marcy as well as mimeoed LA-NY correspondence up to the end of July, but no acknowledgment as yet of my own first August letter.
Glad to note progress of thinking on the problems posed by the new documents. Also, appreciated very much the lead editorial and the article by Murry in the last issue of the paper which, I presume, was a warm-up for the Trotsky memorial issue. 'We can do no greater honour to his memory, thirteen years after his assassination, than to continue his work In Defence of Marxism, and to complete it under the heading "In Defence of Trotskyism'' against the new revisionists who are attempting to defile it and -- by the same token -- to blur the guilt and the reactionary role in history of his assassins.
Enclosed are a few suggested amendments I have drawn up and discussed with Burns. I take it that you have been working on some of your own, including one restoring the deleted conclusions in the quotation from the transitional programme, since this point has been mentioned by you.
Has everyone read Deutscher's new book? It should be made required reading for the present struggle. This man, as is well known, has passed through our international movement on his way to the fleshpots of Fleet Street. He is not someone moving towards us but someone who has moved away from us. And direction, as Trotsky taught us, is a very important element in judging the specific position taken by the political animal at any given time. He is acclaimed not only by Clarke and his friends, but by the British bourgeois press as well (which for reasons of its own, as I believe Jim once said of Churchill, engages in quite a bit of wishful thinking these days of insoluble predicaments).
Pablo, Burns tells me, remarked to him recently that Deutscher has done more than anyone to popularize 'our' ideas before a broad public. D. is certainly no mean popularizer, but not of our ideas, that is the Trotskyists -- although most everything of substance and truth in his presentation is borrowed from this source. His new book, which purports to analyze Stalinism and to present forecasts from a vaguely 'Marxist' point of view, has a few flaws in it in this respect: It leaves out of account entirely a sociological, historical evaluation of the Soviet bureaucracy; it describes Stalinism as a continuation of Leninism (it is its fusion with the barbaric Russian heritage, according to his description) it passes off the physical destruction of Lenin's party as something of moral rather than political significance; it justifies Stalinism as historically necessary and in its end result progressive. And -- on that basis -- projects the theory of the Malenkov 'self-reform' movement. That is, on the basis of a distortion of the Trotskyist analysis, it presents a complete negation of the Trotskyist line of struggle against Stalinism.
Our new revisionists have so far only half-borrowed from his conclusions and tried to smuggle them in piece-meal as our line. It should not be forgotten, however, that Pablo's views on the reality of the transition epoch -- in which of necessity deformed revolutions and workers states become the norm deviating from the ideal of the Marxist classics -- touches some points in the Deutscher analysis as well. Nothing has been heard of these views lately, and for good reason: they need some adjustment to the newer reality so to speak. But has the concept, the trend of thought, behind them been dropped? All evidence is to the contrary.
I have been thinking that perhaps an amendment specifically condemning all these views (that is, rejecting them and explaining why) as well as Deutscherism by name might be a good idea. Perhaps, a separate document in this respect might be more advisable. I cling to the thought of amendments because, for whatever reasons, the general conception of the document-draft on Stalinism and most of the historical presentation has been so put forward by the authors as appears to me quite acceptable. Clarifying amendments, if this is the case, can better bring out the real differences than a separate draft.
* * *The political dispute was brought out into the open here last night at a more or less informal editorial meeting on the review. Before that there had been, it is now clear to me, merely shadow boxing motivated, insofar as Burns was concerned, by his preoccupation with the complex problem of the future of the hitherto very fruitful practical work. That is understandable, but it has only resulted in creating embarrassment for him, and political problems. I think he realizes this now.
Here is how matters stood. Burns had requested B. [Burton -- Sam Gordon] for an article on Stalin for the review. This was written and Burns presented it to a board meeting, after indicating agreement with its general line. J. L. [John Lawrence] counter-posed the Clarke article, but later retreated to counter-posing the draft on post-Stalin developments which has since been incorporated in the larger document. Apparently Burns agreed, but proposed another meeting with B. present. At this second meeting, J. L. renewed his second proposition. This was attacked as an impossible proposition since what was involved was a draft up for discussion which avowedly makes a break with important traditional concepts and cannot be regarded as official position. Under pressure of argument which seemed to get general concurrence, J. L. withdrew, but not before he had reminded Burns that he had voted for the general line of the draft and had recorded no reservations. (This was a surprise to me, because I had assumed things to be otherwise, and embarrassing to Burns, who was now pushing the B. article with some modifications.) In the shuffle a proposition was made to write instead a review of Deutscher's book. J. L. quickly took advantage of this to nominate someone else, who has only been evolving to our common position lately, to do the review. Under the circumstances this had to be accepted.
There was the beginning of a political discussion, but only a beginning, and J. L. made very clear that he was on the Pablo line and working for him. With unusual determination and vigour he pushed for his proposition. My impression was that he was pressing for haste in making the Pablo position our public position -- which seems to coincide with Clarke's actions. This is something which must now be taken into account as possibly part of a strategy and a plan. It must be probed for significance and there must be preparations for necessary counter-actions.
In view of the possibility that the B. article, of which a number of copies were made and distributed,may now become an element in the struggle, a copy will be forwarded to you. It should be remembered that this article was a draft written, although with political bias, not with the idea that it would be contentious, at least locally. And, that the author made it clear that he does not stand on every formulation but is prepared to re-formulate on the basis of common agreement on general line.
* * *What I wrote regarding Burns sizing up a situation and taking a stand was not meant at all in a derogatory sense, I hope you will understand. I know the man, his capacities, and appreciate him and am aware that he has great responsibilities and problems. But we must understand what we are up against as a result, although we proceed with great patience. From this letter you may get an inkling of what I have meant.
Best regards,
Harry
Amendments to 'Rise and Fall of Stalinism'
In introduction, p. 2, under b. add:
'after the counter-suppression of all tendencies to mass uprisings in many of these countries in the wake of the Red Army advances, and after an attempt by the Kremlin to share the rulership with the native bourgeoisies.'
Under c. add:
'despite every effort of Moscow to thwart this development in favour of a coalition controlled by Chiang Kai-shek and, in a measure despite at least formal agreement with this line by the Mao Tse-tung leadership.
Under c. after 'Resistance Movements' add:
'In France and in Italy genuine possibilities of successful proletarian revolutions, for the establishment of workers' states existed, which were consciously dissipated under Kremlin direction by the nefarious coalition policy. In Greece a mass uprising heading for workers' power was knifed in the back directly by the Stalinist bureaucracy.
P.3, after the fourth paragraph ending with 'expression' add:
'While in general a transformation of those mass CPs in this sense seems indicated, splits cannot be excluded -- particularly with a sharpening of the crisis in the CPUSSR.'
In section X, at the end of 5 b. add:
'In the last analysis, the social, historical role of this caste is reactionary and its entire existence thus depends upon a compromise with imperialism. Consciously this is expressed by the bureaucracy in its "co-existence" theory.
Under 15, p.13, after the sentence 'The entire domestic evolution of die SU also speaks in the same sense' strike the rest of the paragraph and add:
'While the victory of the Soviet proletariat over the bureaucracy is historically assured by the continuing world upsurge as well as by the growth of its own internal power, this is not an automatic process. The prospect of losing power must induce in the Soviet bureaucracy, as in every obsolescent social force before it departs from the historic scene, a ferocious struggle for self-preservation. Within the context of the international class snuggle,this can mean only alliance in one form or another with the imperialist forces as the showdown approaches, up to and including reflexes of capitulation and passage into the bourgeois camp.
'The rising tide of proletarian struggle will undoubtedly break off a section of the bureaucracy, a "Reiss tendency," which will rally to the working class for the defence of the social bases of the USSR and the reestablishment of Soviet democracy. But this will only be a byproduct of the whole development and not a dominant characteristic.
'It follows that the unfolding of the political revolution against the bureaucracy in the USSR will thus be linked internationally with the social revolution to overthrow capitalism and imperialism. That is, the class character of the struggle against the Soviet bureaucracy will clearly come to light.'
On par. 17 and 18, section I, reservations on assumption of.conflict between 'economic' bureaucracy and Bonapartist summits -- insufficiently grounded and unclear as to political import.
Par. 20 obviously has to be re-written in view of Beria purge; the concluding reference to the 12th Plenum report will similarly have to be revised in view of the Korean truce and the development of the 'peace' manoeuvres. With crisis sharpening within both camps, tendency to seek a compromise is reinforced.
In par. 21, p. 17, at bottom of page, re-write sentence to read:
'The socialist regeneration of the Soviet Union can give an impulse toward the decisive world victory of socialism almost to the same extent as the socialist revolution in the USA itself.'
In par. 23, drop the last sentence, gives rise to misconceptions of automatic advance.
In par. 33, reservations on question of new parties. WHY no new parties there? (China, Yugoslavia)
Par. 37 obviously needs reformulation in light of East German events. CP appears finished as an instrument of upsurge.
Par. 44, p. 34, point (c) in second paragraph has to be expanded in light of E. German events. In this connection a paragraph dealing with the current pacifist moods among the masses in connection with possibilities of Stalinist betrayal is required.
Trotskyism Versus Revisionism Document Index | Toward a History of the Fourth International | Trotsky Encyclopedia Home Page
Last updated 13.2.2005