May 13, 1953
Dear Bob:
I feel I cannot delay forwarding the following information to you at once.
Burns returned yesterday from an I.E.C. and called me up to have a talk.
The main topic of the discussion was a statement on the recent developments in Russia, a draft of which you have probably seen. There was general agreement on this, but Burns (after a previous consultation with me) raised two points: 1) On the question whether restoration-ist tendencies within the bureaucracy had been superseded by economic progress. (He put forward the view that before this is put forward as an official view, a great deal more discussion was necessary.) 2) On the practical tasks posed in point 2C of the draft (He put forward the view that this was unclear and could disorient the work in a number of places insofar as it puts an overemphasis, based on a situation which had far from matured, on attention to Stalinist movements. He proposed that this point be simply dropped.)
According to him, this brought about a sharp clash of views with Jerome and such of his supporters as Frank, Dumas, etc. They were "all hopped up" over the new perspectives, saw visions of rapid denouements, etc. He stood his ground, received a certain amount of concessions to his views from Ernest in a summary, and from one or two others, but was "lectured" by Jerome and his other friends. Finally, the draft was turned over to a commission for editing after being agreed to "in principle" and Burns thinks, or "hopes" that his objective will be met.
There was also, he went on, a restricted I.S. in which the S.W.P. question was raised. According to him, Frank and Dumas as well as Theo are already lined up with the minority. Jerome, he revealed to me for the first time, had been behind Campbell "from the beginning," and now said that on Russia "we must choose between Wright and Frankel," J. being for Frankel. In Burns' opinion, Ernest and Livio are not very firm on this line. Burns himself is "politically" with the S.W.P. majority, but feels that the sharpness and tension has obscured issues and desires very much a more objective discussion. He was cagey at the I.S. and exerted his efforts only to postpone taking a stand until an end of June meeting. This much he has achieved. According to him, his objective now is to get an I.S. majority with Ernest and Livio in order to prevent a pro-minority stand for which Jerome and Frank (the two others) are going to push.
Burns is very much worried about the whole situation and feels his own responsibility rather strongly. Organizationally he has always gotten along well with Jerome, likes him a good deal; now he feels that J. does not know what he is letting himself in for, that he is up in the clouds, suffering terribly from isolation. He wants to save Jerome, he says, from "cutting his own throat." He therefore intends to pursue a very cautious course.
He has indicated that he will write to you himself, at least in part, about these matters.
It goes without saying that I sympathized with him in the position he is in, although I expressed the opinion that I would be very firm and frank politically first of all and fit in the organizational problem within this framework. He replied that he has his own method of handling such a situation, and we left it at that.
I will leave further comment for some other time, as I think you should have this information without delay.
Yours,
Tom