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 Jerry:
The enclosed caucus letter by Dobbs will give you the information on the NY convention elections. It WaS a very hard-fought and embittered struggle that lasted about four weeks, which resulted in effectively blowing up the truce. And, as both sides stated, the truce had to find its decisive test in this key local of the key city.
What is most Important from our standpoint is the consolidation of a strong political majority in the local, since all our votes were obtained on the basis of agreement with our plenum resolutions. The 12-8 vote enables us to take firm hold of the local, which has been paralyzed by the internal Strife for eight months, and set it moving again. To do this we can count only on our own leadership and forces.
This has been made plain by the convention itself held yesterday.
The day after our victory in the elections, we made the following proposals to the minority, for the purpose of assuring their collaboration and showing there was no intent of reprisals or discrimination. Despite the provocations and heat of the pre-plenum brawling, we wanted to abide by the plenum agreement, and see if it could be sustained. We were not sure whether their pre-convention antics were a filibuster, an effort to Pressure us into concessions, and to try and parlay a minority into a majority by devious means -- or whether they had actually abandoned the truce and the collaboration connected with it.
Our proposals were: We would choose the organizer; permit them to retain the Assistant Organizer; include two majority, two minority and one Marcyite on the Municipal candidate election slate which must be announced in a day or so; eight majority, four minority, one Marcyite on the City Committee; with three majority and two minority alternates; Bartell was offered the Mayoralty candidate with assurance that his financial needs would be taken care of during the campaign. They rejected this and would make no counter proposal. This was an ominous sign.
At the opening of the convention both the reporter for the PC and for the City Majority re-iterated the appeal for genuine collaboration, now that the question of the majority had been settled by the membership. If they were not satisfied with our terms, what did they propose, on their part for consideration? In their report, Bartell declared that we switched from war to peace to suit our factional advantage; that they had been tricked before by this, at the plenum; that they were not going to be caught in that trap again; and that they don't trust us; that we insisted upon a political determination in the NY voting because we thought we had them at a disadvantage because of the Seattle break-up of their caucus, and could disintegrate them here in NY; manoeuvre had failed; we had only succeeded in solidifying them, and making them see just what we were up to.
In the midst of such remarks he let loose their big bombshell --or rather stink-bomb. He read excerpts from two documents: 1. Jim's report to the Majority Caucus of May 18 on Internationalism to the SWP; 2. from Jim's letter to Tom of June 4th.
These documents had been sent out to the local leaders of the Majority caucus. One Set had been handed over to Bartell by Lou Becker, the Akron Organizer, who Bartell announced had broken with the Majority and gone over to the Minority. You have met this comrade, and know him; He had been in NY the week before but, although evading discussions with US, had not expressed any change of mind or discussed his differences with us. Therefore the event was a surprise.
There were the most scandalous and shameful documents ever written in the movement, said Bartell. They demonstrated that Cannon was organizing an international faction against Pablo, just as he had previously set about to organize an unprincipled combination to dump Cochran nationally and Bartell locally. This was an unprincipled combination because he was enlisting the aid of Tom, who was opposed to the Third World Congress against Pablo, with whom he presumably agreed on the Third World Congress line. Or else, Cannon had never really agreed with that line, and was now exposing his hidden opposition to it. This proved what the minority had contended all along, that the majority only formally accepted the line, but did not actually approve of it and apply it. Instead they waged factional war upon its genuine interpreters and defenders here and abroad. Cannon had a social democratic conception of internationalism, as a loose federation, and consisting essentially of consultation and collaboration, since he has said the SWP would take orders from no one. He said that the opposition between Cannon and Pablo was now plainly exposed to view, and they were going to fight on Pablo's side against this conspiracy of Cannon's. In this fight they awarded us the Bleibtreu group in advance. This was nothing less than a fight to save the whole international movement from being wrecked and destroyed.
The minority now possesses all the factional material we have sent out to date. This does not bother us too much in view of the developments. We are even not too much concerned to have Pablo and the others read this material. It will drive home the fact of the deadly seriousness of the situation. Fortunately, none of your letters to Jim have been sent out. All that they know, we presume, from these documents, is that Tom was given permission to show material to you, and to solicit your co-operation.
The minority expected that these Revelations would practically blow up the convention, shake a number of our people, and even several of our delegates, and place them on the offensive. But despite the surprise and momentary shock, so far as could be observed, the immediate impact did not have the desired results. In the course of this fight our comrades have become fairly well innured to this method of substituting sensations for politics, and scandals in place of discussion of opinions. As some of them remarked, 'this sort of thing had been pulled twice before,' and they were ready to wait for further and full information.
In our reply, we made the following points: 1. We condemned this school for scandal method which introduced matters which were not the business of the local convention. 2. If anything was irregular in this correspondence, Bartell as an NC member had the duty to bring it before the PC first. 3. Cannon had been corresponding on such matters for the past 25 years, and a large part of it has been published and provided education for our movement. Just as his previous correspondence in this and other fights had been published, so would this at the proper time. 4. If there are any differences in the world movement, these will be brought out and discussed in connection with the forthcoming pre-congress discussion, as is the tradition in our movement.
It was later explained to our own comrades that the correspondence was designed as a precaution to preserve the peace from any tampering with, by anyone. Jim's earlier speech on internationalism had already alerted the original members of the caucus to the possibility of such a development.
In his summary, Bartell indicated that the minority would not engage in joint collaboration, they would do work, of course, they said, but 'in spite of us.' He said we should make the proposals, and then they would decide what to do about them. This is really tantamount to a declaration of minimum activity and maximum friction. At first they proposed to have only token representation of one on the city committee, but later changed their mind, and designated their four candidates. But this is no more than a formal compliance.
Here is how, subject to further considerations and developments, we appraise the situation. The plenum truce is smashed. The NY local and party is in a state of de facto civil war. Whatever the time intervals, this is heading for a split on their part. Our problem is to smash the split. What can be their perspective? As the champions of Pablo and the Congress Line, in opposition to Cannon and the Old Trotskyism, they will further consolidate their faction, hop up their people, and try to pick up some more supporters. They will utilize the pre-congress discussion for that purpose, while contributing as little as possible to party building. We shall have the double burden of maintaining the organization and combatting them. After the next congress, we will either have to submit like the French or they will emerge separately as the official representatives of the world movement.
This perspective sheds light on several aspects of the minority's conduct and course which puzzled us up to now. Their confidence and belligerence, which was not justified by the situation here,has its source over there. Second, they did not want any voting on political lines here in NY until the unfolding of the congress discussion and Bartell attributed to us in his speech the motive of wanting to get people committed on the political issues before there had been any real political discussion.
Meanwhile there have been certain significant developments about political differences with the minority here. As you know, Clarke's article on Stalinism in the last issue of the magazine was not shown to us before publication and has aroused considerable protest. We called him to account on it, and especially for the next to the last paragraph, in the PC on its revision of our traditional position on the political revolution against the bureaucracy.
Now he has submitted two editorials for the next issue, one on the Beria purge and the other on the E. German events, which go much farther. The main conclusion of the E. German article is the restricted repression of the Soviet occupying forces, and the extensive concessions of the regime.
It tends to embellish and whitewash the Stalinist bureaucracy. It does not counterpose any clear programme of revolutionary demands and action, along Trotskyist lines. The article on Beria sees the political revolution already under way within the SU itself, with the intervention and pressure of the Soviet masses producing differentiations and rifts in the Kremlin command, a conflict between die-hard and liberalizing factions which will provide rallying points and leadership for the next stages of the struggle. The lines of both articles run counter to the line put forward in the paper and was deliberately designed as their polemic against us.
We propose to print the articles under his signature with a notice that they do not represent the views of the majority of the editorial board, and will be answered in the next issue. In the same issue will be included a letter signed by Morris criticizing Clarke's earlier article and setting forth the party position very briefly. This will serve notice of the opening of the political discussion.
We cannot believe that these are merely Clarke's personal views. For example, some of us, disturbed by certain omissions in the IS declaration on the E. German events, have asked the following question: Why no call for the withdrawal of all occupying forces, and no call for German unity under socialist auspices? Why the omission in the latest IS draft on Stalinism of the following two sentences from the transitional programme: 'Only the victorious revolutionary uprising of the oppressed masses can revive the Soviet regime and guarantee its further development toward socialism. There is but one parry capable of leading the Soviet masses toward insurrection, the party of the Fourth International'?
This brings us to the new congress documents, which you refer to in your latest letter of July 28. We intend to study them with extreme care; after our discussions on them here we shall pool our ideas and send them on to you for consideration. Or, if you wish, you can send us any suggestions you may have in the meantime. We do not have to decide now in exactly what form our criticism and amendments will take when they are submitted for the discussion. The first reaction of a number of comrades to the document on Stalinism is the feeling that it may well have a dual character. On the surface it presents itself as an extension of orthodox Trotskyism, while its real drift in certain key passages is away from it. In view of the experiences with the previous Congress document, we want no possibility of ambiguity or misunderstandings in any new ones. And that is precisely what we propose to take measures to eliminate. We will either have agreement on a clear and unambiguous line, or forthright disagreement on opposing lines. But we are determined to end the abominable indeterminateness which has plagued us for so long, and which has obscured the reasons for the unfolding faction fight.
We are thoroughly in favour of a continuation, deepening and strengthening of our joint collaboration. This has now become a life and death question. The former axis between Paris and us has been shattered. Whether or not it is beyond repair remains to be seen, but that is not now the decisive factor. A new axis has come into being -- yours and ours. You should know, from all our past relations, as well as the present ones, how highly we value that.
As for P., we are inclined to reserve final judgment until we see his reaction to the latest developments here. We do not propose to take any action first. But, speaking for myself, I have very little optimism about the outcome. I shall not speak of the personal confidence game played on me and others, whatever the motives. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. But the visits of Clarke and John do not leave much margin for doubt, along with the accusations of Cannon's machinations to destroy Pablo. This game of hide and seek which has been going on for so long is coming to end. Nor do I think you should nurse many illusions that the troubles we have had here will not crop up in your own bailiwick.
We have just received a letter from P. telling us about the two projected junkets. He proposes that Ernest see us instead of himself. From the standpoint of rational and realistic organizational methods these junkets come close to fantasy and recklessness. They are acting like compulsive grasshoppers leaping about without any steadiness of purpose. Even the best political line cannot be implemented in such a fashion.
In the light of our common experiences, I wish we had several days or weeks to talk all these matters over, but these few remarks will have to suffice for the moment. I wanted to bring you up to date on the most recent events. Jim will write separately to you.
M.
Trotskyism Versus Revisionism Document Index | Toward a History of the Fourth International | Trotsky Encyclopedia Home Page
Last updated 17.8.2003