The Struggle Inside the Socialist Workers Party Index | Main Document Index | ETOL Home Page
New York
March 9,1983
To the Political Committee and the National Committee
Dear Comrades:
An abnormal and unhealthy situation exists in the party, only a few weeks before the customary opening by the NC of the 90-day discussion period preceding the next national convention. Action should be taken now to insure a free and democratic preconvention discussion of the type most of us have taken for granted in the SWP in the past.
In the months since the December 1982 NC meeting, there have been a greater number of trials in the party than during any similar time span in the 45-year history of the SWP. Members well known for their dedication and loyalty to the party and the Fourth International have been expelled for alleged violations of discipline which never would have been allowed to go to trial at all in the past, or would have resulted at most in minor penalties. In most cases, the members tried and punished this way are known to be or suspected of being supporters of minority viewpoints. What kind of preconvention discussion can it be if members believe, on the basis of what they observe about these trials, that they may be punished or ostracized or denied certain kinds of party assignments if they express critical views?
These trials and expulsions are symptomatic of a more general problem. A heated factional atmosphere has developed which, in some ways, is more bitter now, before our preconvention discussion has started, than it was at the end of the ideological struggles with the Shachtmanites in 1940 and the Cochranites in 1953. There are rumors of splits and “secret factions,” and reports of “fifth columnists” working against the party. There is talk about the need to get rid of “dead wood,” i.e., older members, or those who cannot fit into some abstract norm of activity, and are said to be holding back the young activists. The idea is current that an unfavorable decision in the Gelfand suit may force the party underground, despite the obvious fact that a long appeals process would be available. Such reports and rumors are damaging and undermine the possibility of a constructive discussion and convention, a calm and well-considered debate and decision on the disputed questions. All this affects not only those members who identify with minority viewpoints but also those who support the majority. It contributes to the general level of confusion and demoralization, as is demonstrated by the continued high rate of dropouts from the party.
What should be done? We think that the PC and the NC should counteract these negative developments by issuing a statement to the party pledging that the central leadership will clarify and resolve the disputed issues by normal democratic processes—which means that it will try to maintain the unity of the party and to prevent splits and expulsions, that it will promote loyal collaboration by all tendencies in the daily work of the party during the preconvention discussion period, and that it will establish a numerically small commission on which the NC majority, the Trotskyist Tendency, and the Fourth Internationalist Caucus in the NC will be represented. Such a commission could discuss and recommend to the PC steps to handle all organizational complaints, grievances, threats, accusations, or violations of discipline which may arise out of the discussion.
Such a step could not solve all problems immediately but it should bring an immediate improvement and could lead to further progress in the months before the convention. It would also be in accord with previous practices of the SWP, the Fourth International, and the Comintern in Lenin’s time. To demonstrate one such precedent from SWP history, whose results were entirely positive and constructive, we attach four pages from 1939 minutes of the PC, after the start of the fight with the petty-bourgeois opposition led by Shachtman, Burnham, and Abern.* The “parity commission” set up at that time by the PC at majority initiative did not prevent a split after the 1940 convention, but it helped to postpone the split until an orderly discussion and a fruitful clarification of all the political differences had taken place.
The situation in 1983 is quite different from that of 1939 and we do not recommend any attempts to imitate mechanically what was done in 1939. But we think that the spirit of the 1939 “Joint Statement on Party Unity” was correct and progressive and we urge that the same approach be used now in coping with the problems cited above. We hope that a united statement and proposal can be adopted at the next NC meeting, if not earlier.
We would have preferred to discuss this proposal with the national secretary before submitting it in writing to the NC. We tried to have a discussion of it with Comrade Jack Barnes on February 9 and 10, but he notified us that he could not do so because of the press of work in connection with the coming trial in Los Angeles. In light of the fact that the date of the next NC meeting has not been set yet and that it may be called on less-than-usual advance notice, we believe it is important that the NC members start thinking about the questions raised in this letter as soon as possible.
*These were pages from minutes of the PC (“Club Executive“) in November and December 1939.
No. l. First page of PC minutes, Nov. 7, 1939, where joint statement on party unity was adopted, editors were chosen for internal bulletin, and a parity commission was elected.
No. 2. “Joint Statement on Party Unity,” attached to Nov. 7, 1939, minutes.
No. 3. First page of PC minutes, Nov. 14, 1939, where example is given of parity commission’s functions.
No. 4. Second page of PC minutes, Dec. 19, 1939, where another example of parity commission’s functions is given.
Joint Statement on Party Unity (Unanimously adopted by the Political Committee at its meeting held November 7, 1939):
In view of the fears expressed by some comrades that the present internal discussion can lead to a split, either as a result of expulsions by a majority or the withdrawal of a minority, the leading representatives of both sides declare:
1) It is necessary to regulate the discussion in such a way as to eliminate the atmosphere of split and reassure the party members that the unity of the party will be maintained. Toward this end both sides agree to eliminate from the discussion all threats of split or expulsions.
2) The issues in dispute must be clarified and resolved by normal democratic processes within the framework of the party and the Fourth International. After the necessary period of free discussion, if the two sides cannot come to agreement, the questions in dispute are to be decided by a party convention, without, on the one side, any expulsions because of opinions defended in the preconvention discussion, or any withdrawals on the other side.
3) Both sides obligate themselves to loyal collaboration in the daily work of the party during the period of the discussion.
4) The internal bulletin is to be jointly edited by two editors, one from each side.
5) A parity commission of four—two from each side—is to be constituted. The function of the parity commission is to investigate all organization complaints, grievances, threats, accusations, or violations of discipline which may arise out of the discussion and report same to the Political Committee with concrete recommendations.
The Struggle Inside the Socialist Workers Party Index | Main Document Index | ETOL Home Page | Marxists’ Internet Archive