New York, N.Y.
May 8, 1954
Los Angeles
Dear Jim:
We have forwarded to you under separate cover translations from the Pabloite internal bulletin dated April 1954 of an exchange of letters between Pablo and the LSSP concerning the Ceylonese rejection of the Pabloite IEC "appeal" of April 15 and an exchange of statements between Pablo and the Cochranites and Lawrenceites on the same subject. This material, together with the April 1954 LSSP internal bulletin which you already have, provides all the latest available information concerning the projected Pabloite rump congress. The following appears to be the most pertinent aspects of this material:
The "appeal" seems to have been adopted by an enlarged meeting of the Pabloite IS and submitted to a referendum of the Pabloite IEC. This referendum produced four votes in opposition to the "appeal": Tilak, deSilva, Lawrence and White.
The "appeal" holds that the Pabloites are for unity, independently of the political differences, within the organizational framework of a centralized world party. They will permit all participants at the Third Congress to attend their rump congress. The suspensions by the Pabloite IEC are held to be operative only up to the rump congress. They claim no one has been expelled. Addressing itself to the suspended sections the "appeal" says: Offer concrete proposals for your participation in the congress;
state your conditions for the future functioning and leadership of the International; submit your proposals to a commission (of Pabloites, Germainists and the Ceylonese); the commission's purpose is to achieve reunification, with the congress having sovereign decision; if you don't want to split you must contact the commission and arrange for proportional representation for each tendency, both in the congress and in the new leadership it will elect The "appeal" states there is no reason why the tendencies cannot co-exist within the International, if they submit to discipline of the majority, since only a much more prolonged experience can determine whether or not they are incompatible.
The LSSP rejected the "appeal" because it can be construed as a factional document and because its proposals are different from those of the Ceylonese. The proposals of the LSSP as contained in the April 7 CC Resolution are: removal of the suspensions upon an undertaking by the suspended organizations to participate in the congress; recognize two sections in Britain, etc.; admit the French majority with full rights; appoint a commission including representatives of the suspended organizations, to decide on representation at the congress. The LSSP has announced that it will again move for postponement of the congress before the IEC and at the congress itself.
In their letter to you of April 15, the Ceylonese have asked you to solicit the view of the International Committee as to whether it will agree to the proposals contained in the April 7 LSSP resolution. They state that they are not joining the International Committee and that they continue to stand on their resolution of December 20, 1953 which deplored the Open Letter and stated that all questions must be resolved according to the principles of democratic centralism.
[p. 238]
The Cochranites, who appear to be in close collaboration with Lawrence, state in the name of their National Committee: The "appeal" can lead to capitulation to the sectarians; what can become a source of disintegration has appeared at the top; the IS back-door maneuvers are demoralizing the ranks; Germain's unauthorized offers of a horse-trading compromise opened the way for unconditional surrender to Cannon and gave rise to the Cannon Tilak correspondence; this policy stems from a false position on the role of the International leadership; it is a basic error to attempt to rest on precepts of organizational authority; the IS muffles the political line out of false considerations of "world leadership"; it must drop all maneuvers with the Cannonites forthwith; the IS should act as a rallying center for an ideological regroupment and work to consolidate and harden the cadre; there can be no turning back to the sectarian past of the International.
This statement provides double-barrelled proof of the unprincipled character of Cochranism. They previously defended, against our criticism, the organizational concepts of Pablo which they now attack. Moreover, their statement shows that they actually want what they falsely accused us of wanting, namely, a letter-box International. Also manifest in their statement is the fact that the Cochranites don't want to return anywhere near the SWP, just as the Lawrenceites show they have no intention whatever of moving back toward the British Trotskyists. This Cochranite attack on Pablo's organizational concepts may be a prelude to a political differentiation, since it has long been clear that Cochran himself doesn't think much of Pablo's pro-Stalinist line, although he did not hesitate to make a bloc with Pablo in order to facilitate his own split attack on the SWP.
Pablo tends to confirm this when he says he fears the Cochranite ideas about the International are close to Cannon's, states that he is not opposing Cannon only to fall under the tutelage of another variety of organizational sectarianism, and intimates that the Cochranites would be more frank if they asked about the possibility of a statute providing for a sympathizer's status in the International.
It is interesting to observe Pablo's restatement of his organizational line in his reply to the Cochranites, namely: the International is a centralized world organization; it has a discipline much like that of the national organizations; it is neither a tendency nor a faction based on conjunctural political accord (my emphasis); it unites in a single organization all who accept its general program; since the program is general and new realities present new problems, tendencies having divergent views on one or another question can arise; these tendencies can co-exist within the International, if they accept majority discipline, leaving it to more prolonged experience to determine whether they are incompatible.
This statement appears to reflect both Pablo's uneasiness about his political alliance with Cochran and his desire to put on a good diplomatic front, for the benefit of the Ceylonese and Germainists, with respect to his intrigues to split the International. The by-play between Cochran and Pablo about selection of international leaders "on the basis of practical availability" also seems to reflect the unstable character of their alliance. Pablo's obvious slam at the Cochranite magazine—people who, since they gained control of their own affairs, have contributed nothing to the ideological struggle—is further evidence in the same direction.
In his reply to the Ceylonese concerning their rejection of the "appeal," Pablo says the "June assembly" itself will have to determine whether it should call itself a congress or a conference, clearly intending this for the benefit of the Ceylonese and, in part, the Germainists. In the same letter he asserts, this time for the benefit of the Cochran-ites-Lawrenceites, that he does not intend to "play Cannon's game" of seeking a postponement of the Congress for the purpose of strengthening the Cannonite faction. Pablo's assertion that a postponement would play into Cannon's hands is in reality an admission that a full, democratic discussion would rout the revisionists.
His reply to the Cochranites, on the other hand, uses the earlier fight in the SWP for the purpose of hitting at the Cochranites because of the difficulties they are causing him in the delicate problem of maneuvering with the Ceylonese and the Germainists. In doing so he provides devastating proof of his intrigues to build personal cliques behind the backs of the leaderships in the various parties.
Pablo quotes from his letter to Livingstone in which he wrote that "overthrow of the Cannon leadership is neither possible nor desirable at present." That letter was dated March 28, 1953, that is, two months before the time when he evaded answering your request that he comment on the Stone report which indicated his collusion with the Cochranites. Pablo claims in his reply to the Cochranites, that he insisted they should carry out the May plenum truce and that he telegraphed Livingstone not to make the Tom letter public in the party. Here are two more pieces of evidence, from Pablo himself, that he connived with the Cochranites behind the backs of the party leadership. Here also is found incontestable proof of the fact that it was the Cochranites who broke the truce.
Pablo's objections to the Cochranite tactics in the instances he cites were, of course, related only to tactical timing. He didn't object to their split perspective. He merely wanted them to slow down the tempo of their split drive and coordinate more closely with his intrigues on the international arena.
In addition to the foregoing information about the dog fight now going on within the Pabloite clique, we have received letters from some of our co-thinkers concerning these developments and the tactical course we should follow in the light of recent happenings.
Burns has written: "You will by now have received the bulletin from Pablo which advertises the deep division between them on the question of a joint conference. You will also have received the LSSP material. I think we can accept by and large the Ceylon proposals and go straight in and smash them. It is my view that the Lawrence Livingstone outfits work together and are now about to go away politically from any symbol of allegiance to Trotskyism. We must isolate these people now. The International Committee meets in London on May 9. Would you let me have your views: (a) what is your attitude toward the LSSP proposals for a joint conference? (b) what do you think of the Pablo-Cochran differences?"
[p. 239]
A letter from Joe (which he informs us was written without having had an opportunity to consult with Burns) makes these main points: he thinks we must put the Pabloite proposition to the test, attempt to isolate the Cochranites and their allies, and finish them off first; in consultation with the LSSP we should take Pablo up on his request for counter-propositions; concrete proposals should be made, perhaps through Tilak, for a commission of the IS, the IC and the LSSP, in equal proportions, to establish the real relation of forces. This, he writes, would be a concession on our part, in the sense that it it not quite in accordance with our preponderant weight, but a concession to facilitate a retreat; any counter-proposition by us, he adds, must of course include the previous conditions we have stated, cancellation of the suspensions, postponement of the congress, etc.
Bloch has sent a draft of a proposed appeal by the International Committee. The draft restates the conditions put forward in your letter to the Ceylonese, refers to the support your propositions have received, characterizes Pablo's rejection of the demand for postponement of the congress, reviews the general pattern of Pabloite intrigue, contrasts the methods of the Pabloites to those of the Trotskyists and characterizes Pablo's political method. The draft makes the point that the congress can be representative only if there has been a free flow of discussion until such time as all the questions in dispute have been fully clarified, adding that the IC will not convoke a congress until the discussion is completed. The draft concludes with the following slogans: "Stop the Pabloites from causing an irrevocable international split; demand the postponement of the congress convoked by Pablo; if he takes no notice of your protests, do not lend him your authority to help accomplish his sinister stroke; refuse to play the role of hostages for him; boycott the Pabloite rump congress."
The foregoing communications from our co-thinkers were mailed to us before they had received copies of your letter of April 28 addressed to me and of my two letters under date of April 29 addressed to the International Committee. These letters of yours and mine seem to be in consonance on the main line of our tactics at the present stage of the struggle, It does not seem to us that this projected tactical line requires any important modification because of the new developments within the Pabloite faction, in fact developments of this kind were expressly anticipated in your letter. We should have no truck with the. Pabloite commission, or their rump congress, or the taking of any kind of a vote on the issues in dispute on the basis of the Pabloite time. table.
We concur in your proposal to let the Pabloites stew in the crisis created for them by our demands that they cancel the suspensions and postpone the congress; let them decide whether they want to call it a congress, which in reality could decide nothing, or a conference, which would mark a retreat on their part; meanwhile we should continue to hammer the Pabloites politically and stand firm on the position that we have no grounds to discuss a congress with them until two minimum conditions have been met: unconditional reinstatement of the "suspended" sections and postponement of the congress until such time as there has been a full, democratic discussion of all the issues in dispute.
We suggest that the Trotskyist view on the present state of the struggle take the form of a letter addressed to the Ceylonese, which would be circulated internationally. You indicated that you are already working on such a letter. and we sent you a copy of our letter to the International Committee suggesting a general line for the reply to the April 15 Ceylonese letter to you. Our suggestions are now incomplete, in view of the recent developments in the Pabloite faction, and would have to be enlarged accordingly. If the comrades of the International Committee agree, we think the letter to the Ceylonese should be sent in your name since, as you pointed out, they have consistently followed the practice of corresponding directly with you, obviously for their own tactical reasons which we should not ignore.
We suggest that we inform the Ceylonese we are not opposed to the idea of a commission, along the lines they suggest, for the purpose of determining proper representation at the congress. However, the establishment of such a commission at this time would be premature, because the holding of a congress at the present would be utterly premature, especially in view of the LSSP resolution to which the Pabloites have yet to make their promised reply. First we must have a thoroughgoing discussion, carried out to the very end. Only then will the time have come to take up the question of forming a satisfactory commission in order to make a proper determination of representation at the congress.
We also suggest that it might now be in order for our Political Committee to prepare a statement recapitulating the aims and objectives of the Open Letter. This seems a good way to counteract the Pabloite misrepresentations and slanders concerning the Open Letter and, in general, to set the record straight on the main issues in the fight. We have begun work on an outline for such a statement.
We shall look forward to a further expression of opinion from you about the present stage of the fight in general and about the particular points we have raised in this letter.
Comradely, Farrell Dobbs