118 W. 90th St
New York 25, N.Y.
Dear Comrades:
This is a private letter to you (not for publication) to express both my warm gratification in reading your publication as well as some thoughts on one article you have printed.
Let me state at the outset that I feel your publication is the finest Marxist publication in English and that it is a remarkable achievement. The current issue (March-April) is about the best all-around issue, though the best article you have printed was Fryer's on Lenin. The sharp editorial on Thompson seems to be perfectly in order and points to the necessity to polemicize with those who have broken with Stalinism only to travel to the right, while going as far as possible to reach those moving in our direction. The Redman historical material is also very fine. Your magazine so far has been very well received among young people who come in contact with it. Its total seriousness about Marxism is its greatest virtue and most appealing feature.
However, I feel compelled to take issue with one article—Michael Banda on the Algerian revolution. Aside from the political point of view expressed in it, with which I have some differences, I must object strongly to the formulations on the Pabloites. I have read their material as printed in the 4th International, and I am sure any serious Marxist would be forced to admit that these people are "Marxists" and "Trotskyists". Therefore Banda's remarks about their "spurious claims" to be Marxists and Trotskyists are completely out of touch with reality.
In this world we have many enemies, many hostile tendencies and forces. It is necessary to polemicize against these. But let us not confuse those who are in our camp, although we have important disagreements, with the opponent forces like Thompson, etc. Such an approach can only impede a genuine regroupment of revolutionary-socialist forces on a world scale. Such a regroupment is our main international task if we are to be in shape to exert a real influence in the future—and we must be in such shape for humanity's sake.
I would like also throw out a few thoughts on the MNA-FLN controversy itself for what it is worth. I am no expert in the field but I have read O'Daniel's [Mangan] open letter to the Militant, Magri's [Mage] answer, the Militant articles, Banda's articles, and various material printed in the Militant and Labor Action here.
There seem to be four main factors in the argument: 1. the assassination question; 2. the programs of the groups; 3. the composition and strength of the groupings; and 4. differing attitudes toward negotiations and a solution to the Algerian question.
1.) There has been too much of a tendency of the revolutionary socialists to attempt to rationalize the shootings by defending one or the other group that has been shooting. It is clear that both the MNA and FLN have engaged in this practice and that therefore both have resorted to petty-bourgeois, antisocialist terrorist actions. Our tack is to clearly attack such tactics regardless of who uses them. However, we are willing to defend a national revolution against imperialism led by a group or groups that use such tactics even against ourselves.
2.) Both groupings have formulated social programs of one sort or another to win over working-class support. The MNA may have an edge in this matter but it does not seem to have a qualitatively better program than the FLN. In any event it is clear that neither grouping can be correctly characterized programmatically as "socialist"—certainly no more than Nehru can be. In addition, while the FLN has difficulties explaining away the past of the majority of its present leadership which has been compromised with imperialism, the MNA is not itself "clean." First there is the Bellounis business. No matter how you look at it, the selling out of an army 3,000 strong to the French was a blow to the MNA and compromised it in the eyes of the Algerian masses. Secondly, the refusal of the MNA leadership to dissociate itself publicly from Bellounis also cannot be rationalized away. It was an opportunist act and must be labeled so. Finally, Hadj's letter to Eisenhower was as compromising, or even more so, than anything the FLN has done. Thus we see that programmatically there is no qualitative difference between the two groupings.
[p. 100]
3.) As far as strength goes no one will challenge the statement that the FLN is the force in Algeria that is actually conducting the struggle against the French. After the desertion of Bellounis the MNA has literally no troops of its own in the field. The mass of Algerians in Algeria who are actually fighting are in the FLN or in FLN-led armies. This means that the national revolution is in effect being conducted for all intents and purposes by the FLN. In France the MNA still has strength but even this is slipping and the FLN is gaining among the Algerian workers.
4.) Finally we come to the crucial questions: differing attitudes on negotiations with the French. Here I am afraid I must part from the "both are just as bad" formula for the MNA comes out worse. The FLN program would insist on recognition of independence before negotiations. Then it would have the FLN establish the new relations with France. This means that the cease-fire would wait until independence is recognized, and that then power would be turned over to the armed people which is the base of the FLN in Algeria. The MNA, on the other hand, has all sorts of what sound like nice "democratic" formulations but which really have a number of dangerous loopholes in them. To start with the MNA does not insist on prior recognition of independence, thus in effect leaving the fundamental question of independence up for bargaining at the conference table instead of simply the implementation of independence. Second, it calls for UN-supervised elections. As Marxists we know that the UN is a tool of American imperialism, and that such "supervision" would be a mechanism for replacing French imperialist power with American imperialist power. Just as we opposed all formulations of UN intervention in Hungary, so we should do so in Algeria. No matter how you look at it the FLN's is the more radical, the more consistently nationalist, anti-imperialist position. What about the democratic character of the MNA proposal? I think this is a little beside the point. The future of Algeria depends on winning over the minds of those who hold the guns—they will be the state and the power—until someone tries to talk them into disarming so that the nice little UN can supervise the elections. I will trust the FLN any day over the UN, not because I trust the leadership of the FLN, but because I trust the masses and the objective social forces impelling them onward.
Regardless of your views on my above remarks, you must admit two things: a. The question in dispute is not a simple one and a Marxist could come out with a position of support to either grouping, and b. Therefore let us not dirty the name of Trotskyism by carrying on our feuds in an irresponsible manner.
Fraternally,
Tim Wohlforth
Managing Editor
Young Socialist
P.S. I am sending this as a private letter because I believe the discussion over this question should take place in a private fashion so as not to weaken our public front to our opponents.