Fourth International Documents

Conferences, congresses and resolutions, in English

History › Second series, vol. 2

“De-Stalinization,” the Hungarian Revolution, and World Trotskyism (Documents, 1955-57)

Towards a History of the Fourth International, Second series, vol. 2 · February 1978 · edited by Fred Feldman

From Towards a History of the Fourth International, Second series, vol. 2: “De-Stalinization,” the Hungarian Revolution, and World Trotskyism (Documents, 1955-57) (Education for Socialists, Socialist Workers Party, New York, February 1978). 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the Fourth International includes correspondence, documents, circulars, and many other items—much of it previously unpublished.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 II: International Committee Documents

[During 1955, 1956, and the early part of 1957, the SWP and Peng Shu-tse submitted documents on a wide range of international issues as a means of opening a discussion in the International Committee. The documents prepared by the SWP were intended to provide an analysis of world events and an overall orientation to orthodox Trotskyists who politically supported the International Committee. Such a discussion would have laid the groundwork for a thorough political clarification among forces which, while in agreement on the principled questions that were under immediate dispute, had been compelled to form a public faction at the very beginning of the international discussion as a defense against Pablo’s organizational practices. “The World Today” analyzed the extension of the postwar boom, noting the contradictions involved in state intervention into capitalist economies and the revival of competition among the imperialist powers. The document took note of the intensification of the colonial revolution and the continuing crisis of leadership in the working class movement. “The Rise of the Colonial Bourgeoisie” took account of the development of bourgeois nationalist regimes in the neocolonial countries as a phase in the process of permanent revolution. It noted the procapitalist policies of figures like Sukarno and Nehru, and stressed the class-collaborationist approach of the Mao regime. “The Soviet Union Today” restated the fundamental Trotskyist analysis of the Soviet bureaucracy as a petty-bourgeois caste devoted to the preservation of its privileges and power, whether by means of reform or repression. This document summarized the basic analysis which the SWP later used in evaluating the Khrushchev revelations and the Hungarian revolution. “The Third Chinese Revolution and Its Aftermath” drew the conclusion that the transformation of property relations had led to the establishment of a deformed workers state in China, ruled by a bureaucratic caste that could be removed only through a political revolution. The resolution held that the Chinese CP, despite its role in the leadership of the Third Chinese Revolution, had remained a Stalinist party, a fact demonstrated by its origins, program, and practice. This resolution is reprinted in the Education for Socialists publication, The Chinese Revolution and Its Development. The extensive discussion which the SWP and Peng hoped that their contributions would initiate did not occur. Rather than consolidating around a program and strategy, the IC proved unable to act as a guiding center for orthodox Trotskyists after the first months of the struggle against Pablo. The secretaries of the IC, first Gerard Bloch of the PCI majority and then Gerry Healy of the British section, circulated the documents to leaders of the sections, but organized no discussions around them. The SWP leaders assumed, with good reason, that the failure of the IC to carry out a discussion leading to a decision on the issues posed by these documents was not owing to political difference. It appeared to result rather from the smallness of the Trotskyist groups, lack of resources, material and legal obstacles to travel and communication, difficulties of translation, and overall organizational weakness. It was suspected that political differences of an undefined character might exist between the PCI (Majority) of France led by Pierre Lambert, and the majority of the IC. However, the SWP leaders had no knowledge of any political differences—or even tactical differences—with Gerry Healy. Resolutions of the SWP and speeches of SWP leaders were regularly reprinted in the British Trotskyist press. Important articles were written by, or in collaboration with, American Trotskyists like George Novack and Sam Gordon. The SWP position on China was readily endorsed by the British Section. Nor did the literature and activity of the British Section reveal any serious differences of approach on political issues. Today, however, Healy has implied on several occasions that much of this agreement was an elaborate ruse on his part, aimed at delaying a political fight with the Socialist Workers Party until the time was ripe for a split. If this were true, it would rank among the more bizarre examples of unprincipled politics. When Peng Shu-tse complained in 1961 about the failure of the IC, under Healy’s stewardship, to organize a discussion of the documents reprinted below, the National Committee of the Socialist Labour League (the name adopted by the British Section in 1959) replied: “Comrade Peng speaks lightly about documents having been shelved. It is perfectly true that because of the political differences which constantly lurked in the background a thoroughgoing discussion did not take place in the International Committee.” The SWP, unaware of any serious differences, was looking forward to such a discussion. If this account is to be credited, Healy bears the responsibility for blocking it “because of the political differences which constantly lurked in the background.” Aside from such tantalizing hints, the Healyites have provided no indication of what, if any, differences they really had with the documents submitted by the SWP and Peng Shu-tse. In the same 1961 document, however, the Healyites attempted to pin the blame for the absence of discussion on organizational, rather than political, failings of the SWP. “In 1955 the SWP submitted three documents as part of the series on world problems, but unfortunately the series was never completed.” This is inaccurate. In a July 7, 1955 letter to the leaders of the International Committee (not reprinted here for reasons of space), Farrell Dobbs promised an extensive resolution on world perspectives in seven parts. Several parts were combined into one document, “The World Today.” The project was completed; before 1961, Healy never claimed that these extensive documents provided an insufficient basis for discussion. [p. 5] After the Twentieth Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in January 1956, at which Khrushchev denounced some of Stalin’s crimes, the SWP National Committee adopted “The New Stage in the Russian Revolution.” In January 1957, the same body approved “The Hungarian Revolution and the Crisis of Stalinism.” These were included in the package of seven resolutions that the Political Committee submitted for a vote by the delegates at the May 1957 convention of the SWP. “Trends in the World Revolution,” a speech to the convention by Farrell Dobbs, is also included below. In this report, he takes up the views of those in the SWP who criticized the majority views on world events, particularly Sam Marcy and Art Fox (who often used the pen-name Albert Philips). The last document in this section is “Suez and Its Aftermath.” This was the international resolution adopted by the British Section in June 1957. It was a rare attempt by Healy’s grouping to independently analyze world events. Despite differences of style and emphasis (due primarily to the greater length and scope of the SWP documents), the British Section’s international resolution provided no hint of serious differences. The weight given to the colonial revolution, the approach to the Black struggle and regroupment in the U.S., the approach to the Labour Party in Britain, and the analysis of events in the Soviet bloc were generally parallel to the views held by the SWP at that time. Of course, anyone advocating similar positions in the Workers Revolutionary Party today would quickly find him or herself at the bottom of the stairwell at Healy’s headquarters. Although this document was submitted by the British Section to the International Committee as a contribution to the discussion, it is not reprinted in the Healy-Slaughter documentary collection, Trotskyistm Versus Revisionism.- —Fred Feldman]

  1. 1. “The World Today: Draft Section of the International Resolution”Socialist Workers Party (US) · February 21, 1956 · pp. 6-14
  2. Political Committee MotionPolitical Committee of the Socialist Workers Party (US) · May 31, 1956 · pp. 14
  3. 2. “The Rise of the Colonial Bourgeoisie”Socialist Workers Party (US) · June 29, 1955 · pp. 15-19
  4. 3. “The Soviet Union Today”Socialist Workers Party (US) · August 12, 1955 · pp. 19-28
  5. 4. “The New Stage in the Russian Revolution”, resolution adopted by the SWP National CommitteeNational Committee of the Socialist Workers Party (US) · April 1956 · pp. 28-32
  6. 5. “The Hungarian Revolution and the Crisis of Stalinism”, resolution adopted by the SWP National CommitteeNational Committee of the Socialist Workers Party (US) · January 1957 · pp. 33-39
  7. 6. “Trends in the World Revolution”Farrell Dobbs · May 1957 · pp. 39-43
  8. 7. “Suez and Its Aftermath”: Draft International resolution submitted to the Thirteenth Congress of the British SectionBritish Section of the International Committee (Healy group: the Club, later SLL) · May 3, 1957 · pp. 43-51

Section III: A Convergence of Views on the Khrushchev Revelations and the Hungarian Revolt

[During the Twentieth Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in January 1956, Khrushchev made a secret speech denouncing many of the crimes committed by Stalin and promising that there would be no repetition of such atrocities. When its text later became known, this event and its repercussions provided a new test for both factions of the world Trotskyist movement. In some quarters, the revelations fed illusions that the Soviet regime under Khrushchev was gradually eliminating bureaucratic rule. John Lawrence and Michelle Mestre, former supporters of Pablo who had broken with the Fourth International in 1954, joined the Communist parties of their countries under this illusion. Both the IS and the IC rejected such conceptions. In contrast to its response to Stalin’s death (when Pablo and Clarke began to indulge in questions about the possible self-reform of Soviet society under the leadership of a section of the bureaucracy), the IS stressed both the scope and the limitations of the Twentieth Congress decisions. The IS explicitly rejected the concept of “self-reform” and polemicized with its advocates. Both factions saw the revelations as an opportunity for a political offensive by the Trotskyist movement, taking advantage of the growing disarray in the Stalinist parties throughout the world. In addition, the IS dropped the perspective put forward in the 1954 resolution, “The Rise and Decline of Stalinism,” that the Stalinist parties were bound to move leftward under the pressure of imperialist war plans. Instead, stress was placed on criticizing the Stalinist search for “peaceful coexistence” and “peaceful roads to socialism.” A certain degree of convergence could be noted in the first editorial on the Twentieth Congress of the CPSU (which still reflected some of Pablo’s views on the role of the bureaucracy) in the March 1956 issue of Quatrième Internationale, published by the IS. This impression of convergence was strengthened by Ernest Germain’s report to the Seventeenth Plenum of the International Executive Committee. A decisive test, however, was the reaction of both factions to the Hungarian revolution. After this, it was difficult for any objective observer to deny the basic similarity of the two lines on the key political questions of the time that separated Trotskyism from other currents. The International Secretariat declaration solidarizing with the revolutionary struggle and calling for a government of soviets was distributed to the fighters in Hungary. At the time of the East German uprising in June 1953, the IS refused to call for the withdrawal of Soviet troops and placed primary stress on the reforms granted by the bureaucrats. In Hungary, however, the Soviet intervention against the revolutionists was unequivocally opposed. Denunciation of the bureaucracy’s counterrevolutionary measures was in the forefront. The IS declaration on the Hungarian revolt and the editorial, “Revolution and Counterrevolution in Hungary,” provide examples of this stance. Differences of analysis persisted, particularly on the weight and role of divisions within the bureaucracy, and the prospects of a sizable sector going over to the working class in the political revolution. Nonetheless, it was evident that the political line adopted by both sides was essentially Trotskyist. This raised the question of the desirability of ending the de facto split.]

  1. 1. “The Twentieth Congress of the CP of the Soviet Union”Quatrième Internationale (unsigned editorial) · March 1956 · pp. 52-56
  2. 2. “The Twentieth Congress of the CP of the USSR: Beginning of the Final Stage of the Crisis of Stalinism”Ernest Germain · May 1956 · pp. 56-61
  3. 3. “Long Live the Independent and Democratic Republic of Hungarian Workers' Councils! An Appeal of the Fourth International to the workers, poor peasants, and intellectuals of Hungary”FI documentInternational Secretariat of the Fourth International · October 30, 1956 · pp. 61-63
  4. 4. “Revolution and Counterrevolution in Hungary”Quatrième Internationale (unsigned editorial) · March 1957 · pp. 63-64

← Second series, vol. 1 · Second series, vol. 3 →