Fourth International Documents

Conferences, congresses and resolutions, in English

History › Part 3, vol. 1

Struggle in the Fourth International: International Committee Documents 1951-1954, Volume 1 of 4 volumes

Towards a History of the Fourth International, Part 3, vol. 1 · March 1974 · edited by Fred Feldman

From Towards a History of the Fourth International, Part 3, vol. 1: Struggle in the Fourth International: International Committee Documents 1951-1954, Volume 1 of 4 volumes (Education for Socialists, Socialist Workers Party, New York, March 1974). Reproduced with the permission of Pathfinder Press. Scan: Encyclopedia of Trotskyism On-Line.

Contents

Section I: Before the Third World Congress

["A Contribution to the Discussion on International Perspectives" was written in June 1951 by a subcommittee of the Political Committee of the Socialist Workers Party for submission to the Third World Congress. Although the Socialist Workers Party was barred by reactionary legislation from membership in the Fourth International, the party leadership supported the general line of the resolutions passed by the Congress. A majority of the leaders, however, in light of some ambiguous formulations in the main resolution, thought it was politically important to restate the Trotskyist stand on the counterrevolutionary character of Stalinism. They felt it was especially important to reject the implications in Michel Pablo's "Where are We Going?' (reprinted in Part 4 of *Towards a History of the Fourth International,* Education for Socialists bulletin, which contains documents of the International Secretariat faction) that centuries of deformed workers states were a probable perspective. Pablo was the secretary of the Fourth International, and was living in Paris at the time. The reply by George Clarke (writing under the name G. Campbell) to this statement was an indication that some forces in the SWP were opposed to any restatement of Trotskyist fundamentals on Stalinism. Clarke, who attended the World Congress as a fraternal observer from the SWP, did not submit the "Contribution" as he had been asked to do. Instead, heburned it, because he was "ashamed" to present it, as he later explained. The exchange provides a preliminary hint of the differences that soon led to an open factional struggle in the SWP. The most thoroughgoing criticism of Pablo's position was made by Bleibtreu, a central leader of the Parti Communiste Internationaliste, French section of the Fourth International. It was his view that the line expressed by Pablo in "Where are We Going?' was being smuggled into the Fourth International through ambiguous and wrong formulations in the main resolutions. Bleibtreu's "Where is Comrade Pablo Going?' was submitted for the pre-congress discussion in June but was never distributed by the International Secretariat to the sections and sympathizing organizations. It was first published in a June 1951 supplement to *La Verite,* the publication of the French section. The introduction to this item is reprinted from the January 8, 1953 issue of *La Verite,* which printed an edited version of this document. The translation of both "Where is Comrade Pablo Going?' and the introduction were prepared for this collection by Michael Baumann. At the World Congress, numerous amendments added to the main resolution appeared to reaffirm orthodox Trotskyist positions on the prospects for Stalinism, its counterrevolutionary role, and the necessity for a political revolution to overturn the ruling bureaucratic castes in the Soviet Union and the deformed workers states. (This resolution is included in Part 4 of this series.) These amendments satisfied the SWP leaders that the leadership of the world Trotskyist movement had not changed its evaluation of Stalinism. The majority of the leaders of the French section, however, continued to insist that Pablo was on a revisionist course.]

  1. 1. Contribution to the Discussion on International PerspectivesPolitical Committee of the Socialist Workers Party (drafted by a subcommittee) · June 5, 1951 · pp. 4-6
  2. 2. Some Comments on the "Contribution to the Discussion"George Clarke (writing as G. Campbell) · July 9, 1951 · pp. 6-9
  3. 3. Where Is Comrade Pablo Going?Bleibtreu-Favre (Marcel Bleibtreu); introduction by La Verite · June 1951 · pp. 9-20

Section II: The Split in the French Section

[A majority of the Parti Communiste Internationaliste, the French section of the Fourth International, opposed the adaptations to Stalinism which they felt they had detected in the Third World Congress resolutions. This led to sharp conflict between the French leaders and Pablo. The International Secretariat, at Pablo's urging, ordered the French section to carry out a policy of "entryism sui generis," into the French Communist Party. (This was turned into a general policy for the European sections by the Tenth Plenum of the International Executive Committee. Pablo's report to this plenum is reprinted in Part 4 of this series.) The leadership of the section resisted, proposing a much more limited entry tactic. Pablo undertook the organizational measures aimed at compelling the section to follow instructions or face expulsion from the International. Despite the doubts that existed about the supercentralist implications of Pablo's actions, a majority of the world Trotskyist movement supported him against the French majority. Since they were not convinced that Pablo was adapting to Stalinism, they saw the French opposition to his apparently "tactical" proposals as somewhat sectarian. The following exchange between Daniel Renard, secretary of the PCI, and James P. Cannon, is reprinted from SWP *International Information Bulletin,* November 1952. "The Struggle of the French Trotskyists Against Pabloite Liquidationism" is reprinted from *SWP Discussion Bulletin* A-17, 1954. It appeared earlier in *International Committee Bulletin* No. 1, December 28, 1953.]

  1. 1. Letter from Daniel Renard to James P. CannonDaniel Renard · February 16, 1952 · pp. 20-23
  2. 2. Letter from James P. Cannon to Daniel RenardJames P. Cannon · May 29, 1952 · pp. 23-25
  3. 3. The Struggle of the French Trotskyists Against Pabloite LiquidationismOctober 1953 · pp. 25-29

Section III: The SWP Majority Position on Stalinism in the Cochran Fight

["What the New York Discussion Has Revealed," by Joseph Hansen appeared in *SWP Discussion Bulletin* Volume XV, number 4 (February 1953). It was the result of a sharp debate in the New York Local of the Socialist Workers Party over the attempt by Mike Bartell (Milton Zaslow), the local organizer, to reorient the work of the local towards the Stalinist milieu. This debate marked the full-scale outbreak of a fight with the Cochran-Clarke-Bartell faction, a fight that had been brewing ever since Clarke's return from the Third World Congress. Bartell, Clarke, and their supporters claimed to be the "real" supporters of Pablo in the SWP and the "real" interpreters of the line of the Third World Congress. Hansen's document is a critique of Stalinism and a presentation of what most SWP leaders took to be the clear meaning of the Third World Congress documents. The reply by Harry Frankel (Harry Braverman) presented the Cochranite stand on Stalinism. His contribution is included in Part 4 of this collection.]

  1. What the New York Discussion Has RevealedJoseph Hansen · February 23, 1953 · pp. 30-43

Section IV: Pablo's Role in the Cochran Fight

[As the insistence of the Cochran faction that they were correctly interpreting Pablo's views became more strident, the SWP began to receive reports from abroad confirming those claims. In May 1953 James P. Cannon wrote to Pablo seeking clarification on this. In reply, Pablo declined to say whether he shared the Cochranite positions, refused to elaborate on his relationship with them, and, in passing, indicated his support for Frankel's document on Stalinism as opposed to that of Hansen. This led the SWP Majority leaders to conclude that Pablo shared the views of the Cochran-Clarke-Bartell faction, and that he had been giving them secret encouragement. As a result, Cannon and other SWP leaders began to prepare for a fight against Pablo's views, should that prove necessary. This was the purpose of Cannon's correspondence with Sam Gordon, a Trotskyist living in London, who had expressed differences with Pablo and criticisms of the ambiguities of the Third World Congress documents. Among the first allies to rally to the defense of orthodox Trotskyism at that time was Gerry Healy, the leader of the British section. Although Healy had, until then, been an admirer of Pablo, the discovery that Pablo was aiding a revisionist tendency in the United States convinced him of the necessity to change his estimate. Another indication to the SWP majority that forces outside the SWP were secretly taking a hand in the internal struggle was the sudden breakdown of a truce agreement with the Cochran faction reached at the May plenum of the SWP National Committee. Shortly after the plenum, the Cochran faction began to sharpen its struggle against the majority and to act as if it were preparing for a split. For further material about this period, see *Speeches to the Party* by James P. Cannon (Pathfinder Press, New York, 1973).]

  1. 1. Letter from Farrell Dobbs, Morris Stein, and Joseph Hansen to George NovackFarrell Dobbs, Morris Stein, Joseph Hansen · January 30, 1953 · pp. 43-47
  2. 2. Letter from James P. Cannon to Farrell DobbsJames P. Cannon · March 9, 1953 · pp. 47-48
  3. 3. Letter from Morris Stein to Michel PabloMorris Stein · February 20, 1953 · pp. 48-49
  4. 4. Letter from Sam Gordon to James P. CannonSam Gordon (signing as Tom) · May 13, 1953 · pp. 49
  5. 5. Letter from James P. Cannon to Michel PabloJames P. Cannon · May 22, 1953 · pp. 49-50
  6. 6. Letter from Michel Pablo to George NovackMichel Pablo (Michel Raptis; signing as Gabe) · May 28, 1953 · pp. 50-51
  7. 7. Letter from Gerry Healy to James P. CannonGerry Healy · May 27, 1953 · pp. 51-52
  8. 8. Letter from James P. Cannon to Sam GordonJames P. Cannon · June 4, 1953 · pp. 52-55
  9. 9. Letter from Sam Gordon to James P. CannonSam Gordon (signing as Tom) · June 22, 1953 · pp. 55-58
  10. 10. Letter from James P. Cannon to Farrell DobbsJames P. Cannon · July 9, 1953 · pp. 58-59
  11. 11. Letter from Sam Gordon to James P. CannonSam Gordon (signing as Tom) · 17 July 1953 · pp. 59-60
  12. 12. Letter from Gerry Healy to James P. CannonGerry Healy · July 21, 1953 · pp. 60-63
  13. 13. Letter from Gerry Healy to James P. CannonGerry Healy · July 28, 1953 · pp. 63

← Part 2 · Part 3, vol. 2 →