Fourth International Documents

Conferences, congresses and resolutions, in English

History › Second series, vol. 1

The Struggle to Reunify the Fourth International (1954-1963), Volume I: The First Parity Commission and Peng Shu-tse's “Pabloism Reviewed”

Towards a History of the Fourth International, Second series, vol. 1 · May 1977 · edited by Fred Feldman

From Towards a History of the Fourth International, Second series, vol. 1: The Struggle to Reunify the Fourth International (1954-1963), Volume I: The First Parity Commission and Peng Shu-tse's “Pabloism Reviewed” (Education for Socialists, Socialist Workers Party, New York, May 1977). Reproduced with the permission of Pathfinder Press. Scan: Encyclopedia of Trotskyism On-Line.

Introductory note

This is one of a series of twelve volumes devoted to documentary material related to the reunification of the Fourth International, spanning the period from 1954 right up to the successful conclusion of the reunification effort in 1963. These twelve volumes constitute Part 7 of Towards a History of the Fourth International, published by the National Education Department of the Socialist Workers Party.

Previous volumes in this series have included articles on the postwar history of the Trotskyist movement and a documentary history of the 1953 crisis and split in the Fourth International.

This new series deals with the aftermath of that split, the period of the independent existence of the two factions that took shape in the struggle (the International Committee and the International Secretariat), and the various efforts to mend the rift.

Included is material on the first parity commission of 1954; political documents produced by components of the International Committee; the response of both world factions to the Twentieth Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1956, to the Polish and Hungarian upheavals in that year, and other events; the effort to reunify the international in 1957 and the causes of the breakdown of that effort; and the successful drive towards reunification beginning in 1961.

The Struggle to Reunify the Fourth International includes correspondence, documents, circulars, and many other items—much of it previously unpublished. Material for this collection was made available by Karolyn and Tom Kerry, Tim Wohlforth, the Library of Social History in New York City, the archives of the Socialist Workers Party, and the late James P. Cannon.

Thanks are due to David Keil, among others, for translating several items published in this series. ;

The materials were selected and the introductory note preceding each section was written by Fred Feldman. Views expressed in the introductory notes are his own.

For the sake of historical accuracy the material has been subjected to minimal editing. Where comrades used pen-names in their international activity, the real name is inserted in brackets. For instance Gerry Healy used the names Burns and Preston, Dobbs used the name Smith, and Sherry Mangan used the name Patrick O’Daniel.

The term “section” appears frequently in these documents. This word was used in two different senses within the world Trotskyist movement. On the one hand, it refers to those groups which are affiliated to the Fourth International. Secondly, it is used in reference to organizations that are barred from membership in the Fourth International by reactionary legislation, such as the SWP, but are in full political solidarity with the world Trotskyist movement and represent the continuity of Trotskyism in their countries.

This collection includes relatively little material from the French section of the International Committee (now the Organisation Communiste Internationaliste) or from Latin America. This was due to the limited amount of such material now available in the United States. It is hoped that the publication of this documentary collection will encourage others who participated in these events to help fill in these and other gaps remaining in the historical record of the Fourth International for this period.

Gerry Healy has issued a multi-volumed documentary collection, Trotskyism Versus Revisionism (London: New Park, 1974) which purports to cover the period from 1951 to the 1970s. The bulk of the items in that collection dealing with the years 1954-63 will also be found in this series.

However, there is much in this series that is not to be found in Healy’s collection. It is hoped that this series will help in establishing the honest historical record of this period.

Gerry Healy’s Problems of the Fourth International, to be found in Volume Four of Trotskyism Versus Revisionism, as well as Cliff Slaughter’s introductory material to the various volumes, present a grossly distorted and tendentious account of this period. The need to uphold these distortions may help to explain why so much relevant material is left out of Healy’s collection.

The introductory notes to a number of sections in this series refer to some of Healy’s falsifications, pointing out how they are refuted by the actual documentary record of what took place, including letters written by Healy.

The factionally-motivated falsifications exposed in these pages were part of a process of degeneration that eventually led to Healy’s current campaign to frame up Joseph Hansen, George Novack, James P. Cannon, and other SWP leaders on charges of complicity with or covering up for the Stalinist secret police.

Above all, however, this series demonstrates how principled revolutionaries approached the extremely difficult but vitally necessary task of reuniting the world Trotskyist forces. It will also help to deepen our understanding of how important this reunification was for the future development of the Fourth International.

Contents

Section I: The First Parity Commission and Peng Shu-tse's “Pabloism Reviewed”

[The struggle between orthodox Trotskyists and followers of Michel Pablo (the name adopted by Michel Raptis in his political activity), the secretary of the Fourth International, became a public international faction fight with the publication in the November 16, 1953, issue of the Militant of the “Letter to Trotskyists Around the World.” Prior to this action, the bureau of the secretariat (Pablo, Frank, and Germain) virtually read the SWP out of the world movement, using the suspension for disloyalty of the Cochran-Clarke-Bartell (Zaslow) minority as a pretext. (Pablo believed that Stalinist and social-democratic parties were being forced to the left as an inevitable third world war approached, and that Trotskyist parties should enter these parties to influence left-centrist currents that were going to develop in them. He also projected that political revolution in the Stalinized workers’ states might take the form of a prolonged series of intrabureaucratic disputes between hard-line Stalinists and more “democratic” elements with the masses supporting the latter. When the IS failed to demand withdrawal of Soviet troops from East Germany during the June 1953 workers’ uprising, and Pablo’s allies in France abstained from sharp criticism of the French CP during the August 1953 general strike, critics of Pablo concluded that his positions were leading to adaptations to Stalinism. Pablo responded by trying to suppress these critics in the name of “democratic centralism.”) Following this break, the International Committee was formed as a public faction of the Fourth International by the British and Swiss sections and the PCI (majority) of France, with the full support of the SWP. The SWP was barred by reactionary legislation in the U.S. from actual membership in the International Committee. These extraordinary measures were sparked by Pablo’s use of his position in the international apparatus, and of his factional majority in the International’s leading bodies, to stifle discussion, expel dissenters, and impose his policies on Trotskyist groups that disagreed with him. The IC demanded Pablo’s removal as secretary for these abuses (it did not call for his removal from the leading bodies), the postponement of the Fourth World Congress to allow a democratic discussion, and an end to the public expression by the International Secretariat of positions that had not been approved by any world congress. Pablo sought to transform the public factional struggle into a definitive split. The December plenum of his International Executive Committee voted to suspend any member of the International who even expressed support of the “Open Letter” or the IC. It recognized pro-Pablo minorities in Britain and the US. as the official representatives of “Trotskyism” in those countries. The plenum declared the SWP to be “completely degenerated.” It went ahead with plans to hold a truncated “Fourth World Congress” that was expected to rubber-stamp Pablo’s political line and his organizational measures against the orthodox Trotskyists. However, the open denunciation of Pablo by the IC had more serious repercussions than Pablo had counted on. Despite threats of expulsion, the Canadian and Chinese sections supported the IC, as did the Partido Obrero Revolucionario (POR) of Argentina, led by Nahuel Moreno. The Lanka Sama Samaja Party (LSSP—Ceylon Equal Society Party), the largest section, expressed agreement with many of the political criticisms made by the IC, called for postponement of the “congress,” and demanded the unconditional reinstatement of the suspended Trotskyists. At the same time, some of Pablo’s cofactionalists began to insist on what they claimed was a logical extension of his orientation. They proposed dissolving the Fourth International, which they viewed as an obstacle to integrating themselves deeply into the massive trade unions and the Communist parties of the United States and Europe. When Pablo drew back from this, these militant “Pabloists” moved toward a break with Pablo and the IS. At the “Fourth World Congress” in June 1954, these conflicts came to a head. Over the objections of the LSSP, the gathering designated itself a “world congress” and affirmed the actions of the IS and the International Executive Committee against the IC. But the main political resolution, “The Rise and Decline of Stalinism,” was amended to meet some of the LSSP’s objections. A big section of Pablo’s factional allies (the Cochran-Clarke-Bartell tendency in the U.S. represented by George Clarke; the Canadian Pabloists led by Murray Dowson; the English Pabloists led by John Lawrence; and a part of the pro-Pablo wing of the PCI led by Michelle Mestre) walked out when the congress rejected their proposal! that the international be dissolved. There were differences of evaluation in the IC over the significance of these developments. The majority of the IC did not think it likely that the IS would continue to retreat from the extreme views that it had held or encouraged in 1953. Instead, they believed that the evolution of the IS, and the testing of its line in open combat with the IC, would lead to the breakaway of orthodox elements from the IS and their adherence to the IC. This was considered especially likely in the case of the LSSP. On the basis of this perspective, Gerry Healy (who used the pseudonym Burns in international correspondence), following discussions with Leslie Goonewardene, secretary of the LSSP, proposed the formation of a parity commission. To Goonewardene, this was a step toward reunification, but for Healy, the parity commission was intended to win over the Ceylonese and to place the onus of blame for the continuation of the split on Pablo. [p. 5] The SWP leaders later concluded that such a maneuver was an error since it did not advance political clarification and fed illusions about the prospects of reunification. The SWP leadership favored an intensive discussion within the IC to develop a rounded view of world events, and proceeded with the preparation of documents for this purpose. After an exchange of letters with Farrell Dobbs (who wrote under the name Smith), Healy reversed himself and supported the SWP position on the parity committee. He proposed in the IC a resolution withdrawing from the parity commission which passed with one negative vote, that of Peng Shu-tse. In later years, Healy was to claim that his minor tactical difference with the SWP in December 1954 (ending with full agreement in January) was bitter and deepgoing. In his 1966 pamphlet Problems of the Fourth International, Healy wrote: “At first Cannon gave half-hearted support to these parity commission proposals, then in the late Autumn of 1954 we suddenly received a letter calling upon us to abandon the discussion. From that moment it was clear that an even more serious conflict was brewing between the International Committee and the SWP. “Even at this early date in 1954, when the split with Pablo was just concluded, the split with the SWP was on the agenda.” (Italics in original.) Healy’s pamphlet is reprinted in the fourth volume of Trotskyism vs. Revisionism (London: New Park, 1974), a documentary collection published by the Workers Revolutionary Party (the name adopted by Healy’s group in 1974) which purports to cover the 1953-63 period. To avoid contradicting Healy’s account of the parity commission discussion, his editor thoughtfully omitted his letters on this subject as well as the resolution submitted to the International Committee. (Healy’s views on the parity commission were reiterated in a January 15, 1957, letter to Cannon, reprinted in Section VII). However, another document in Healy’s collection does contradict his account. In “A Reply to Comrade Peng,” written in 1961, the SLL National Committee stated: “So far as we were concerned, far from the parity committee being a device based upon our conception that Pablo was coming closer to us politically, it represented on the contrary a tactical weapon designed to assist the Ceylonese release themselves from the serious mistakes that they had made at his conference. . . . “However as the months went by the Ceylonese failed to participate in the parity committee. Gradually it was clear to everyone that the Pabloites intended to use this committee as a manoeuvring ground against the International Committee.. . . “The people who first protested were the SWP comrades in their letter of November, 1954. The French were opposed to the parity committee all along and when a decision was taken to abandon this committee it was done by an overwhelming majority of the International Committee. Only comrade Peng was opposed.” This detailed treatment of a minor point in the history of the reunification has been undertaken because of Healy’s claim that the differences of December 1954 were the point of origin of his fight with the SWP and his subsequent split from the Fourth International. The record demonstrates, as it often does with Healy’s assertions, that his statements are false, and that no fundamental difference between the SWP and the British Section developed in this instance. If Healy placed a split with the SWP “on the agenda” in 1954, he kept the fact under his hat. More than six years passed before he expressed a sharp difference of opinion on this or any other political issue with the SWP. - * * * Peng Shu-tse disagreed with the majority of the IC. In his opinion, the split with Clarke, Lawrence, and Mestre was a decisive defeat for Pablo. The end of the Stalinist “left” turn of 1948-53 was further undermining the perspectives Pablo had laid out, Peng argued. In addition, opportunities were opening up in the French CP which could only be effectively utilized by a united movement. Peng thought that the French supporters of the IC had adopted a sectarian approach toward those openings, while the IS supporters led by Pierre Frank were carrying out a more correct tactical line. Peng therefore favored participation in the parity committee, not as a maneuver, but with the ultimate goal of reunifying the forces of the Fourth International. In order to advance the prospects of reunification, Peng Shu-tse wrote an article for the discussion in the Internation Committee entitled, “Pabloism Reviewed: From Pablo to Cochran, Clarke, and Mestre.” Peng demonstrated that Pablo’s conceptions had fostered the thoroughgoing revisionism of his colleagues. At the same time, Peng noted that Pablo’s refusal to go along with the demand by Cochran, Clarke, and Mestre that the International be dissolved “proves that Pablo has greatly modified his attitude.” Peng held that this was not due to a change of heart on Pablo’s part, but to the pressure of supporters of the International Secretariat who held fundamentally Trotskyist views about Stalinism and other disputed issues. Peng argued that this outcome, which made a principled reunification possible, justified the struggle launched with the issuance of the “Open Letter.” —Fred Feldman]

  1. 1. “The problem is not one of unification”: letter from Farrell Dobbs to Gerry HealyFarrell Dobbs (signing as Smith) · December 8, 1954 · pp. 6-7
  2. 2. “We cannot go lordly on our way”: letter from Gerry Healy to Farrell DobbsGerry Healy (signing as Jerry) · December 16, 1954 · pp. 7
  3. 3. “We shall handle the parity commission question as you suggest”: letter from Gerry Healy to Farrell Dobbs (excerpt)Gerry Healy (signing as Jerry) · January 11, 1955 · pp. 8
  4. 4. “The IC, however, has been caught on the hook of a maneuver to establish ‘responsibility for the split’”: letter from Farrell Dobbs to Gerard Bloch, secretary of the ICFarrell Dobbs (signing as Smith) · February 12, 1955 · pp. 8-9
  5. 5. Letter from the International Secretariat “to all Members and All Organizations of the International Committee”FI documentInternational Secretariat of the Fourth International · July 1955 · pp. 9-10
  6. 6. “Therefore they demand immediate reunification”: letter from Peng Shu-tse to Farrell DobbsPeng Shu-tse (signing as S.T.P.) · September 8, 1955 · pp. 11-12
  7. 7. “Our task is to first consolidate the forces around the IC on clearly defined political positions”: letter from Farrell Dobbs to Peng Shu-tseFarrell Dobbs (signing as Smith) · September 29, 1955 · pp. 12
  8. 8. “A common discussion for reunification with all the Trotskyists remaining with the IS”: letter from Peng Shu-tse to Farrell DobbsPeng Shu-tse (signing as S.T. Peng) · October 15, 1955 · pp. 13-15
  9. 9. Resolutions adopted at the International Committee meeting in Paris on November 7-8, 1955International Committee of the Fourth International (signed Preston [Healy], Secretary International Committee) · November 7-8, 1955 · pp. 15-17
  10. 10. “Your Section formally proposed to withdraw from the Parity Commission”: letter from Peng Shu-tse to Gerry HealyPeng Shu-tse (signing as S.T. Peng) · December 15, 1955 · pp. 17-18
  11. 11. “It would be dangerous to maneuver with the question of unity”: letter from Farrell Dobbs to Peng Shu-tseFarrell Dobbs (signing as Smith) · January 30, 1956 · pp. 18-20
  12. 12. “Pabloism Reviewed: From Pablo to Cochran, Clarke, and Mestre”Peng Shu-tse · January 1, 1955 · pp. 21-30

← Part 6 · Second series, vol. 2 →