Dear Jim,
We have just received copies of your communication dated April 28-30. These are being immediately transmitted to members of the International Committee and a meeting will be arranged in June so that a full discussion can take place, after the sections have had an opportunity to discuss the matter thoroughly.
We do not see, and I am sure that you will agree, any reasons why our people should be stampeded into hasty conclusions. Because of our failure to appreciate the thoroughly revisionist character of the Third World Congress decision, we paid a heavy price, which resulted in the disruption of the French section, and a situation where in 1953 we found ourselves trapped inside Pablo's organizational set-up which in turn forced us to move swiftly and issue the "Open Letter." We now know that not everybody was ready for this sharp break and again we had to pay a price which would undoubtedly have been less, on an international scale, had we alerted ourselves in time to the revisionism personified by Pablo-Germain and Co. It would be very wrong now if we were to get caught up in the exchange of organizational proposals no matter how well they are drafted on our side, and overlook the very deep-going political differences that exist.
We all know how the Chinese Stalinists supported the rape of Hungary and endorsed the Soviet intervention. They attacked the Yugoslavs and their spokesmen provided ideological cover for the worst types of Stalinist bureaucrats all over the world.
In his latest resolution "Decline and Fall of Stalinism," February 1957, Pablo treats the Chinese experience in the following way:
"The XXth Congress of the CP of the USSR, the Khrushchev Report, and the political revolution in Poland and Hungary, have had a profound influence on the CPs of all the workers' states—including that of China, where there was shown a certain delay in 'destalinization', explicable above all by the backward state of the country and the enormous objective economic difficulties that the leadership of the Chinese C.P. must face. But the pressure of the current of 'destalinization' was sufficiently strong to impose important decisions on the Congress of the Chinese C.P., especially in favour of the right to tendencies, the right of minorities to defend their ideas within the Communist Party even after majority decisions, and even the need of tolerating several 'democratic' parties in a workers' state. These ideas will exercise a great influence on numerous communist parties, especially in Asia." (Our emphasis.)
This is the classical Pablo line—not a word about the treacherous role of Chinese Stalinism in Hungary whose document "More on the Historical Experiences of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat" was designed to counteract the growth of Trotskyist ideas amongst Stalinist dissidents. Reread that paragraph and you can only conclude that its aim is to whitewash this treachery and boost up Chinese Stalinism in the colonies. Pablo is well aware of the opportunism of our Ceylonese leadership and true to type he is pushing them along. It is impossible for us to remain silent on this matter. Furthermore we have to take into account that the LSSP leaders have moved further away from the orthodox Trotskyist position since 1954. At his Fourth Congress Pablo included a few of their amendments and they capitulated. They are now further away from us politically than at any time previously. For example, the Trotskyist-dominated Ceylon Federation of Labor sent the following May Day Greetings to the Russian Trade Unions:
[p. 33]
"Ceylon Federation of Labour sends you and Soviet people fraternal May Day Greetings and pledges support against all imperialist threats to your country."—N.M. Perera, President.
Not one word about Hungary and the revolutionary fighters in the USSR. Instead it lends aid and comfort to the Stalinist bureaucracy which in turn will use this to maintain its hold over the Soviet masses.
Turn to the next page of the same document ("Decline and Fall of Stalinism") and read the last paragraph:
"The immediate repercussions of the Hungarian revolution can stimulate a momentarily predominant faction in the Kremlin to 'harden' again its attitude toward the countries of the 'glacis'. But the pressure of the masses cannot fail to continue to grow in these countries. The fermentation of national independence and the autonomy of the CPs toward the Soviet CP cannot fail to 'break up' a large part of the youth and of the communist militants themselves. The process of transformation of relations among workers' states, of relations of national oppression and economic exploitation into relations of equality and fraternal collaboration, is irreversible. The sooner the Soviet bureaucrats bow before this process, the more harmoniously it will be carried out. The more they resist it, the more it will lead to violent conflicts and sanguinary collisions." (Our emphasis.)
Here you have the double talk of the Third Congress brought up to date. With all the bitter experience of the Hungarian Revolution at our disposal, once again a question mark is placed over the role of the bureaucracy in the political revolution. How can you build mass Trotskyist parties with such a policy? And in fact Pablo doesn't believe that you can. Study the document from the first page to the last and you will not find a single call for the construction of Trotskyist parties in the USSR, China, or Eastern Europe. Was that not one of the main reasons for the split in 1953?
It would be wrong to assume that Pablo's political line in terms of method has changed. The rank-and-file members of his groups are undoubtedly impressed by the revulsion of CP and ex-CP members against Stalinism. They instinctively tend to approach this situation with the basic ideas of orthodox Trotskyism. Pablo's double talk pays lip-service to this, but his basic revisionist method remains.
The change in Pablo's line therefore does not at all imply a change in his political methods. In the preamble to his document "The Decline and Fall of Stalinism," which is to be submitted to his so-called Fifth Congress, it states:
"The thesis, 'Rise and Decline of Stalinism', adopted by the Fourth World Congress of the Fourth International, applied to the analysis of the dynamics of Soviet Society the general conclusions that the Fourth International had drawn from the revaluation of the world situation carried out at its Third World Congress. . . .
"That is why the present theses do not take up again either the historical expositions or the structural analyses and definitions of the theses 'Rise and Decline of Stalinism', of which they are neither a substitute nor a corrective, but a natural continuation and thus an integral part."
When you consider that it was the document "Rise and Decline of Stalinism" which sparked off the split in 1953 and that Pablo reaffirms it at a time when he is calling for unity, it is perfectly logical if we understand that we are here dealing with a tendency which substitutes empiricist and eclectical methods for Marxist analysis. Pablo continually covers up his revisionism with declarations with which we have no disagreement. It all depends on the pressures around when he writes his document. We had 95% agreement, as it were, at the Third Congress, but it was that odd 5% which did so much damage to our movement.
Recently we have been reviewing the internal documents of our world movement since the end of the war, and it is quite clear that an objective study of that period is extremely important for the education of our cadres in the future. Pablo and Germain's double talk have had some terrible effects in the miseducation on our comrades on the continent, and this cannot be put right simply by declaring that the objective situation since the Twentieth Congress is very much in our favor. The Marxist education of our cadres has to take into account how Pablo and his tendency developed just as you were able to do in the books dealing with the struggle against Shachtman and Burnham. The objective situation is not sufficient by itself to do this. All sorts of tendencies ranging between opportunism and sectarianism are now raising their heads amongst those who are leaving the CP. Whilst a united Trotskyist movement could be an important rallying center, nevertheless if its basis rests upon lack of clarity and slurred over differences, a new crop of disastrous splits may well develop once again, even though we are working in a favorable objective situation.
It is extremely difficult for empiricists of the Germain-Pablo school to become Marxists. People like this, or globe trotters of the P. O'D. [Mangan] variety cannot build the revolutionary parties of the future; on the contrary, these parties can only be built up in constant theoretical struggle against such tendencies, and if anyone can be assisted this is the only way to do it. The revolutionary cadres of the future must be thoroughly educated against impressionistic double talk, otherwise our movement will flounder during critical periods. Experience teaches us that there is no greater ideological trap for inexperienced people than the type of two-faced politics at which Pablo and Germain are past masters.
We think therefore that the International Committee must theoretically prepare itself without any organizational hindrances. Even if Pablo and Co. accept every one of your points, members of the IC have the duty and responsibility to complete the preparation of their documents on world perspectives and to submit them for the discussion. A World Congress should not be rushed without adequate political preparation. Whilst this should be done in an objective fashion, everybody should have the right to speak out and get things clear. This does not mean giving way to bull-headed factionalism, but facts are facts, and you cannot get round political differences by tactical plausibilities. Progress internationally can develop only from a firm political foundation. The British Section will never agree to anything which may cut across essential clarification. We have had our basinful of that sort of thing over Lawrence when Pablo and Clarke were jointly managing the Paris office. Time and again we hushed things up about his pro-Stalinist behaviour as editor of the "Socialist Outlook," on a request from the Pablo center. "Don't be too harsh with the comrade," they said, "he is sensitive, well-meaning but a little confused." In the interests of unity we listened and by God we paid a bitter price. The "sensitive" Pablo lamb turned out to be a raging Stalinist lion when the class pressures forced him on, and he almost disrupted the entire patient work of seven years. Ironically enough, this same Lawrence who fully supported the Soviet intervention in Hungary is now preparing to get thrown out of the Labour Party and join the Communist Party, when every self-respecting militant is preparing to leave it.
[p. 34]
If we assume without qualification that the present favorable political situation can greatly help in checking the disintegrating splits which characterized our movement in its isolation, this could lead to a one-sided and erroneous conclusion, in just the same way as the "mass pressure" theories of Pablo and Germain during 1953. The strengthening of our cadres is decisive in this present period and this can only be done in a thoroughgoing education around the problems of revisionism. That is the most important conscious role which our movement has to play.
The talk of "two groups" in Britain in the manner engaged in by P. O'D. is nonsense. Our group is the British Section, from which the Pablo group headed by Lawrence split off in 1953. During last year Pablo recruited Grant, formerly Haston's "theoretician" in the RCP, and a man named Fairhead who deserted to the Stalinists in 1949; reappeared in 1953, and once again broke with the movement in 1954 on the grounds that it was led by tyrants and was finished. His declaration at the time stated that from then on he was going to listen to "good music" and read Kafka. He is now working full time with Grant, the wage of both being paid by Pablo from Paris. This small group is now seriously split on a number of questions concerning the Labour Party. It has not recruited a single member of the CP, to our knowledge. Its sole activity is trying to rally old die-hard sectarians who left when Haston took off. The main basis of recruitment is that Pablo will give them special protection in a fused group—in other words he will set them up as his faction. They openly say this in conversation.
We would like, therefore, to amend your statement: if your terms are accepted the British Section will be fully recognized and after that consideration can be given to the Grant group on a proportional representation basis, if they want it that way. We will not be placed in the same category as this phoney group; nobody should have any illusions—we will not permit anybody to disrupt our work here. We are always ready to unite with any group on a principled basis, but we are not repeating the Lawrence episode.
We realize in writing all this to you that, to use an English phrase, we are "carrying coals to Newcastle." The movement here has been largely educated on the rich experiences of the SWP in its long struggle for principles. We would like to believe today we are reaching a position where we can help our American comrades as a result of the favorable conditions under which we work. Since the Pablo split we have gone forward as never before in our history. The sharpening of our principles which was a direct gain from the split greatly helped us and politically tuned up our movement so that it was able to take full advantage of the Twentieth Congress. For the first time in our history we are assembling a first-class intellectual cadre, alongside trade union factions which are steadily increasing their influence. "Labour Review" is a foretaste of things to come from Britain. We shall, we believe, in time win over the most important dissident elements from the CP. Our annual congress in a few weeks time will record important gains for our movement over the past year.
For some time now the propaganda resources of Pablo and Germain have been assiduously spreading the story that they can only negotiate direct with Cannon. Our section and the International Committee are looked upon as some sort of hangers-on to the New Zealand section [SWP]. The visit of P. O'D. is designed to strengthen such gossip. This "big boss" conception of negotiation is typical of the "cultism" in general. Because of this the International Committee and the New Zealand section must march in step together, especially since there appears to be an obvious attempt in Pablo's terms to separate the Swiss, New Zealand and Canadian sections from ourselves and the French. Nothing can or must be decided without the fullest discussion. I am sure we will have your cooperation towards this end.
One final point. We are completely opposed to a return to the old Pablo conception of international organization: the draining of national sections' resources so that some globe trotter could stiffen up Pablo's faction in some small group thousands of miles away; the constant spate of meetings in Paris which meant sections raising funds to send representatives; innumerable appeals for help so that we could go on lifting ourselves up with our bootlaces, with all this taking place at a time when the national sections had little or no resources. Our international work must be organized on a realistic basis in line with the resources of sections and not along lines which tend to imitate the old Comintern.
With best wishes,
Burns [Healy]
Adopted unanimously by the Executive Committee British Section of the Fourth International 13th May, 1957.