Fourth International Documents

Conferences, congresses and resolutions, in English

History › Second series, vol. 4

"Deep Entryism" and Pablo's Anti-Unity Offensive (Documents, 1958-1960), Plus documents from India and Japan

Towards a History of the Fourth International, Second series, vol. 4 · November 1978 · edited by Fred Feldman

From Towards a History of the Fourth International, Second series, vol. 4: "Deep Entryism" and Pablo's Anti-Unity Offensive (Documents, 1958-1960), Plus documents from India and Japan (Education for Socialists, Socialist Workers Party, New York, November 1978). Reproduced with the permission of Pathfinder Press. Scan: Encyclopedia of Trotskyism On-Line.

Introductory note

[p. 5]

This is one of a series of volumes devoted to documentary material related to the reunification of the Fourth International, spanning the period from 1954 up to the successful conclusion of the reunification effort in 1963. These volumes constitute Part 7 of Towards a History of the Fourth International, prepared 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the Fourth International includes correspondence, documents, circulars, and many other items—much of it previously unpublished.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 XIV: The SWP Presses for a New Unity Effort

[The conference of the International Committee held in Leeds, England in June 1958 produced some tension among IC supporters. In a September 17, 1957, circular, Healy attempted to dub this gathering a "Fourth World Congress" but was dissuaded from this step. The documents approved by the gathering failed to provide any guidance for the sections on the key political questions of the day. They focused on the IC's well-established positions on now-outdated conflicts with the IS (self-reform of the Stalinist bureaucracy, inevitability of World War III). SWP leaders in the United States were disturbed by the vague concept of "reorganizing" the Fourth International that was put forward, instead of a clear endorsement of the previous IC position favoring reunification based on parity in the leadership. Tom Kerry made his objection known in an August 18, 1958, letter to Farrell Dobbs, who had attended the conference as an observer in the course of a six-month visit to Europe. Kerry feared that reunification was being shunted aside in favor of a new strategy without adequate consultation, and proposed that Farrell Dobbs return to the United States for discussions. After Dobbs returned, it quickly became evident that there were no important differences within the SWP leadership on the problems of the world movement. In reply to the objections stated in Kerry's letter, however, Gerry Healy denied that he had dropped the demand for reunification on the basis of parity in the reunified leadership. While stressing his support for reunification efforts, he claimed that Pablo had blocked this road, requiring the adoption of new tactics. He suggested a meeting in Toronto in November 1958 to discuss this further. This meeting with the SWP delegation appeared to resolve the differences. Both Healy and the SWP leaders agreed on a more aggressive and positive approach to reunification, including collaboration on common projects with the IS and its sections, and a further effort to press the parity proposals. The value of such an approach was indicated by the attitude of the Italian section of the IS, which sought direct contact with the SWP and the British. Its representatives noted the closeness of views on current issues, and the difficulties caused by the unjustified continuation of the split. Unlike Pablo and Germain, it rejected any effort to debate which faction had "corrected" its "errors," and unlike Pablo they rejected any tendency's claim to dominate a reunified international on the grounds of "relationship of forces." The Italian Trotskyists expressed willingness to reorganize the leadership of a united international. Their posture made it clear that unity sentiment was continuing to grow in the IS. After the Toronto meeting, Healy met in Paris with representatives of the PCI (Majority). To the surprise of the SWP leaders, they suddenly issued a "unity" proposal that contradicted the approach agreed to in Toronto. They proposed the calling of a conference by the IC which would then be built on a parity basis by the IC and any IS sections that were willing, in effect, to break their ties with the IS. When Dobbs and Cannon noted that this would undercut reunification, Healy hurriedly wrote to reassure them. While he was pessimistic about the prospects of winning unity through the SWP proposals, he wrote that "my own section fully supports the Toronto proposals. . . . we will go ahead with yourselves and the Canadians if you think that is necessary." Despite Healy's expressed willingness to run the risk of a conflict with Lambert in order to support the SWP unity proposal, the SWP leadership were convinced that there was too much confusion and opposition on the question to justify such a course. Replying to Healy, Dobbs stressed the need for further discussion to get political clarity and unity in the IC on the issue of reunification. It appeared at this time that the IC was divided between the SWP which favored reunification, the PCI (Majority) led by Lambert which opposed it, and the British who seemed to be wavering between the two poles. At this point, Pablo launched an attack on the British Section (now the Socialist Labour League) and the International Committee that was transparently aimed at torpedoing reunification once and for all. Following his break with the Fourth International in 1963, Healy embarked on a massive effort to rewrite the history of the Trotskyist movement. This was codified in the pamphlet, "Problems of the Fourth International" which appears in Volume Four of the Healyite collection, *Trotskyism Versus Revisionism*. In this article, Healy commented on the Toronto conference. He asserted that the purpose of the conference was to enable Healy to aid the SWP in resolving an internal crisis. The SWP was being riven by factionalism, according to Healy, and "the one thing that did emerge from all this squabbling was the undoubted right-wing revisionist orientation of all the factions." By 1958, therefore, Healy claims to have regarded the SWP as entirely "right-wing revisionist" in composition. This, Healy tells us, was "undoubted." If Healy is correctly describing his own views of 1958, his actual performance at the Toronto conference and afterwards appears truly astonishing. Healy continued his version of events: "It was agreed also that a comrade should travel to Canada late in November 1958 to see if it were possible to assist the leading members of the SWP to overcome this crisis. "Dobbs returned to the USA and things more or less stayed as they were until the visit of a member of the International Committee. "At this meeting Cannon proposed to the English comrade who was the delegate that they, the British, should join the Americans and break from the French comrades who led the fight, on the grounds that they were 'sectarian.' "We told them that this was not our conception of how an international movement should be educated and built. "Just as we refused to line up with Dobbs against Cannon, so we now refused to line up with Cannon against the French section. "We had made up our minds not to be the pawns in the SWP pragmatic game with the international movement as the board. "The time had almost certainly come for the Socialist Labour League to split openly from the SWP: Since the split with Pablo in 1953 we had utilized every available means to fight his revisionism. Now that it was clear that the SWP had capitulated to Pabloite revisionism, our task was clear—we had to organize the split from Cannon, Dobbs and Co. who had betrayed Trotsky and the Fourth International." The falsifications in this version begin with Healy's assertion that the Toronto meeting was convened to enable Healy to solve an internal "crisis" in the SWP. Healy's letter of September 10, 1958, leaves no room for doubt that the purpose of the Toronto meeting was to discuss tactics in the effort to reunify the international. Even Healy's falsified version of the events at the conference ("Cannon proposed. . . .") indicates that the subject matter was the world movement rather than the internal life of the SWP. At this meeting, the SWP proposed to Healy a more aggressive approach to unity. Healy clearly confirms in his letter of March 2, 1959, that he agreed to these proposals. No document or letter available to us indicates that anyone even *suggested* a "break from the French comrades." After the conference, however, Healy offered to proceed with the Toronto agreements without the French comrades in his March 2, 1959, letter. Farrell Dobbs, however, declined this offer on the grounds that further effort was needed to unite the IC forces before proceeding with unity discussions. In November 1958, Healy informs us, 'The time had almost certainly come to split openly from the SWP." Perhaps the use of the word "openly" is intended to imply that Healy had already split *secretly*. This would flow logically from Healy's statement that he regarded all currents in the SWP as "undoubted right-wing revisionist" in orientation even prior to the Toronto gathering. However it was not until *January 1961*—more than two years later—that Healy first informed the SWP of some of his views, indicating the existence of important differences. According to his own version of history, Healy had concealed grave differences with the SWP—differences sufficient to place a split "on the agenda" (italics in "Problems of the Fourth International") as early as 1954- for six years. Healy's "Problems of the Fourth International" is an expression of Healy's drive—reminiscent, with all proportions guarded, of Stalin's frame-up methods—to prove that his current political opponents have always been "revisionists" and "agents of the enemy." From that point of view, his current slander campaign against Hansen, Novack, and others as "agents" and "accomplices" of the GPU and FBI qualify as the most extreme expressions of a long-established pattern. —Fred Feldman]

  1. 1. "Political Statement Adopted by the International Conference" of the International Committee held in Leeds, England in June 1958International Committee conference (Leeds) · 5th June, 1958 · pp. 8-10
  2. 2. "Functions of the International Committee," resolution adopted by the IC Conference held in Leeds, England in June 1958International Committee conference (Leeds) · June 1958 · pp. 10
  3. 3. "Reorganization of the Fourth International," statement adopted by the International Committee conference held in Leeds, England in June 1958International Committee conference (Leeds) · June 1958 · pp. 10-11
  4. 4. "The continuation of the split cannot be justified programmatically": letter from Tom Kerry to Farrell Dobbs (excerpt)Tom Kerry (signing T.) · August 18, 1958 · pp. 11-12
  5. 5. "To begin with a discussion of 1953 now would be to commit a sectarian mistake": letter from Gerry Healy to Tom KerryGerry Healy (signing as Preston [Healy], IC Secretary) · September 10, 1958 · pp. 12-13
  6. 6. "Let us forget about actual or apparent force relationships between our organizations": letter from T. Venturi, for the Political Bureau of the Gruppi Comunisti Rivoluzionari, Italian Section of the Fourth International, to the National Committee of the Socialist Workers PartyT. Venturi, for the Political Bureau of the Gruppi Comunisti Rivoluzionari (Italian section of the IS) · October 22, 1958 · pp. 13-14
  7. 7. Report on the National Committee Plenum: letter from Farrell Dobbs to Gerry HealyFarrell Dobbs · December 2, 1958 · pp. 14-15
  8. 8. "Report on the Paris meeting": letter from Gerry Healy to Farrell DobbsGerry Healy · February 6, 1959 · pp. 15
  9. 9. "There is too much opposition in both camps," letter from James P. Cannon to Farrell Dobbs (copy to Healy)James P. Cannon · February 15, 1959 · pp. 16
  10. 10. "The policy seems to assume a split in the Pabloite organization can be triggered": letter from Farrell Dobbs to James P. CannonFarrell Dobbs · February 27, 1959 · pp. 16
  11. 11. "My own section fully supports the Toronto decisions. If the comrades think that we should proceed without the others then I am prepared to . . . recommend such procedure": letter from Gerry Healy to James P. CannonGerry Healy (signing as Jerry) · March 2, 1958 · pp. 16-17
  12. 12. "Of course there are no differences between us": letter from Gerry Healy to Farrell Dobbs (excerpt)Gerry Healy (signing as Jerry) · March 11, 1959 · pp. 17
  13. 13. "We have no choice but to continue the discussion within the IC, striving patiently to achieve a common policy": letter from Farrell Dobbs to Gerry HealyFarrell Dobbs · March 11, 1959 · pp. 17-18
  14. 14. "There has been a great change in his standpoint": letter from Farrell Dobbs to James P. CannonFarrell Dobbs · March 13, 1959 · pp. 18

Section XV: Pablo's Anti-Unity Offensive

[In 1959 Pablo launched new attacks on the International Committee and its supporters. The tone and content of these attacks indicated that he was seeking a political justification for continuing and deepening the split. A major aim of this effort was to put a stop to the efforts toward unity undertaken by the Italian and Ceylonese Trotskyists, on the one hand, and to prevent any consolidation of unity sentiment in the ICon the other. A full scale assault was initiated in March 1959 with the "open letter" issued by the International Secretariat over the opposition of Germain and Maitan. The SWP was denounced for its "regroupment" policy towards sectors of the American left disillusioned with Stalinism and Social Democracy. In essence, Pablo and his supporters in the IS solidarized with attacks on this policy by a tendency led by Sam Marcy, which had recently split from the SWP. Like Marcy, the IS claimed that the SWP was adapting "to right-wing and centre elements in the American CP." This was Marcy's estimate of those in the CP who opposed the suppression of the Hungarian revolution. Marcy held that these elements were to the right of those CP members who were in the camp of William Z. Foster. Foster followed the CP tradition of slavish obedience to the dictates of the Soviet bureaucracy. In particular, Marcy was attracted by the "tough" stance of those in the Foster faction who flatly rejected de-Stalinization. In Marcy's schematic view of world politics, the Fosterites remained true to the "working-class camp" headed by the Kremlin tops. From this standpoint, the Fosterites' echoing of Moscow's charge that the Hungarian revolution was a fascist putsch was proof of the Fosterites' superior revolutionary mettle. The Marcyites characterized the Hungarian revolution as restorationist and supported the Soviet invasion. The majority of the SWP members rejected Marcy's views. They oriented toward those in the CP and its periphery who repudiated Stalin's crimes, supported the Hungarian revolution, and favored more internal democracy in the CP. These people, who were beginning to question aspects of Stalinism, were more likely to collaborate with Trotskyists, discuss Trotskyist ideas, and be won to Trotskyist politics. It was evidence of blind factionalism on Pablo's part that he could align himself, even partially, with the Marcyite view of regroupment. The SWP's approach was clearly in line with that adopted by the overwhelming majority of the world Trotskyist movement. How far did Pablo's liaison with the Marcyites go? The tone adopted toward the Marcyite splitters in the IS press objectively constituted an overture. There is some evidence that the relationship went further. The June 23, 1975, issue of the Internationalist Tendency Newsletter, a circular published for a time by some U.S. supporters of the former International Majority Tendency of the Fourth International, stated, "In 1959, the WWP (Workers World Party, the organization Marcy formed after his split] refused to rejoin the International Secretariat." This account implies that an offer was made by the IS or some representative thereof and rejected by Marcy. Hopefully, more documentation on this point will be forthcoming. The most serious aspect of the IS "open letter" was its attack on the British Trotskyists. The growth of the British Section had enabled them to publish the Newsletter and to form the Socialist Labour Lsague, while maintaining an entryist tactic toward the Labour Party as the primary orientation. The creation of the SLL, it was felt, would strengthen the ability of Trotskyists to gain supporters for their views in the Labour Party. The SLL demanded its right to be a constituent part of the Labour Party, like other organized tendencies. In response the Labour Party bureaucrats launched a virulent witch-hunt, against which the Trotskyists organized a broad defense. Pablo's "open letter" falsely charged that the Trotskyists were giving up work in the Labour Party. It charged the SLL with 'inordinate attacks against the leaders of the LP and the trade unions" and with "disregarding the most elementary discipline necessary toward the party in which supposedly the essential work was to be done"- accusations which ran parallel in many respects to those made by the Labour Party bureaucrats. The IS statement condescendingly offered to accept reunification as long as the International Committee and its supporters did not "flatly" degenerate into centrist groups. The offer of "organizational guarantees" was omitted in favor of Pablo's preferred formula of "concessions." Whereas the IS had previously denounced Healy for ultimatism in dealing with the Grant group the IS now issued an ultimatum of its own. It insisted that the majority in the British section would have no right to determine the mass work of IS supporters in a united section. Minorities sympathetic to the IS, it was strongly hinted, would occupy a privileged status as the "International Tendency." As was to be expected, Healy responded to this factional assault in kind. In "In Defence of Trotskyism," the SLL focused on the disputes of 1953. This document gave a back seat to the fight in the Labour Party, the fallacies in Pablo's concept of entryism, and the duty of solidarity in the face of an attack on workers' democracy in the Labour Party. In the course of the editorial, Healy again revived the call for "reorganizing" the Fourth International. The IS responded to this with "A Recall to Order." Along with some exaggerations about Healy's policies at that time (the assertion that the SLL "is now opposed to entrism in Social-Democratic and Stalinist parties"), this document made a sweeping extension of the concept of "deep" entryism, making it applicable at all times and all places where the masses are under reformist leadership, even if greater party-building success could be attained for a time by applying other tactics. This strategy, as the document presented it, excluded any public Trotskyist work in Britain, until such time as the workers broke from the Labour leadership en masse. While claiming to desire unity, "A Recall to Order" strongly asserted the right of the IS to compel national sections to accept the decisions of the IS on tactical issues. In context, this represented a clear threat to Healy that the price of unity would be the surrender of the SLL's approach to entry work in the Labour Party in favor of Pablo's. This raised an additional roadblock to reunification. In the course of this dispute, Healy made one of his rare efforts to criticize the SWP. In a private letter to Farrell Dobbs, he complained about the failure of the SWP to join in an aggressive polemical campaign against the IS along the lines of "In Defence of Trotskyism," and predicted that this would be costly to the SWP, which was then losing members under the impact of labor quiescence and capitalist boom. Healy also asserted that two articles in the SWP press contained some "examples of loose thinking reminiscent of Pabloite generalities." He did not specify the objectionable passages, however, or further explain his disagreement with them. Reasserting his support for the Toronto proposals, he also called for immediate measures to "reorganize" the Fourth International under the aegis of the International Committee. Unlike Healy, the SWP feared that a frenetic polemic against the IS would blow the remaining differences out of all proportion, focusing attention on largely outlived disputes instead of on defense of the SLL. Such efforts, carried to an extreme, would have a sectarian logic that would repel IS forces who were not wedded to Pablo's policies and who deeply desired a principled unification. The differences Healy indicated-carefully restricted to vague references in a private letter—were still extremely modest and did not yet go to any fundamental political or programmatic issue. This is especially striking since this letter was written nine months after Healy claims to have concluded that "it was clear that the SWP had capitulated to Pabloite revisionism" and "the time had almost certainly come for the Socialist Labour League to split openly with the SWP." It is possible the letter provides a pale reflection of the arguments Healy was using to line up his British followers for a split with the SWP, while avoiding discussions that might obstruct such a course. No effort whatsoever was made by Healy to open a real discussion by making concrete and specific criticisms of the SWP's political views and practice. It is likely that the SWP leaders viewed the letter as an expression of the tension and outrage produced by Pablo's factional frenzy in Britain, rather than as an indication of fundamental differences. —Fred Feldman]

  1. 1. The International Secretariat on the Marcy Split: letter from Farrell Dobbs to James P. CannonFarrell Dobbs · March 20, 1959 · pp. 20
  2. 2. "Split and Continued Crisis in the Socialist Workers Party"Spring 1959 · pp. 20-21
  3. 3. Letter from the International Secretariat to the National Committee of the Socialist Workers PartyFI documentInternational Secretariat of the Fourth International (signed "The IS") · May 5, 1959 · pp. 21
  4. 4. "To the Organizations of the International Committee": Open Letter from the International SecretariatFI documentInternational Secretariat of the Fourth International · April 1959 · pp. 21-25
  5. 5. "A savage and unscrupulous war against the British Trotskyist organization": letter from James P. Cannon to Farrell DobbsJames P. Cannon · May 11, 1959 · pp. 25-26
  6. 6. Excerpt from the minutes of the May 18, 1959 meeting of the SWP Political CommitteeSWP Political Committee (report by Farrell Dobbs) · May 18, 1959 · pp. 26
  7. 7. "All the talk about 'unity' is a manoeuvre and a smokescreen": letter from Gerry Healy to the Italian section of the International SecretariatGerry Healy (for the British Section) · May 4, 1959 · pp. 26-27
  8. 8. "I am ready to call a halt": letter from James P. Cannon to Farrell DobbsJames P. Cannon · May 26, 1959 · pp. 27
  9. 9. "Some examples of loose thinking reminiscent of Pabloite generalities": letter from Gerry Healy to Farrell DobbsGerry Healy · August 21, 1959 · pp. 27-28
  10. 10. "In Defence of Trotskyism," editorial from the July-August 1959 issue of Labour ReviewLabour Review (SLL), editorial · July-August 1959 · pp. 29-35
  11. 11. "A Recall to Order: an Open Letter from the International Secretariat of the Fourth International to the Membership and Leadership of the Socialist Labour League"FI documentInternational Secretariat of the Fourth International · September 1959 · pp. 36-48

Section XVI: Defending the Socialist Labour League

[While continuing to advocate reunification, the SWP made the defense of the newly-formed Socialist Labour League an urgent order of business. The *Militant* carried frequent reports on the struggle of the British Trotskyists for the right to advocate revolutionary-socialist ideas in the Labour Party. "What the Fight in the British Labour Party is About," by Joseph Hansen is an example of that coverage. The SWP leaders felt that the formation of an open Trotskyist group in Britain was, if anything, overdue rather than premature. However, some feared that Healy's initial tactics in accomplishing this necessary turn might create an impression that an independent party was being formed rather than a revolutionary-Marxist formation in the Labour Party. Cannon offered advice to Healy, with the aim of minimizing the losses that might be caused by tactical errors and preventing the development of any tendency to break with the Labour Party. When the British followers of the International Secretariat refused to firmly solidarize with the SLL against the witch-hunt, Murry Weiss publicly criticized them in an article that appeared in the January 4, 1960, issue of the Militant: "Before closing it is necessary to mention another grouping that has joined the campaign against the Socialist Labour League. The May 30, 1959, Newsletter reported that a group of supporters of a Liverpool publication called Socialist Fight united with the right wing of the Labour Party to pass an amendment to a resolution protesting the ban on Newsletter and the SLL. The amendment stated: "The League (SLL) could only hamper the development of the movement in its struggle for socialism.' "What is shocking in an incident of this kind is the fact that Socialist Fight considers itself Trotskyist and is associated with Trotskyists internationally who belong to a faction headed by Michel Pablo in the Fourth International. "It is regrettable that Pablo has not thought it advisable to restrain his followers from such rabid factionalism. We do not deny the right of Pablo to express whatever differences he wishes with the British Trotskyists; but to join in attacking them instead of closing ranks in their defense in circumstances like these is certainly not in the tradition represented by Trotsky." This comment drew a sharp response from Pablo. In reply, Joseph Hansen pointed out the contradiction between Pablo's asserted support of reunification and his campaign against the SLL. Healy hailed this exchange. Today, Healy's squad of trained falsifiers are attempting to deny the support given to the SLL at this time by the SWP. An example of this is James P. Cannon: A Critical Assessment, by Michael Banda, a pamphlet published after Cannon died in 1974. Banda wrote: "The formation of the Socialist Labour League (forerunner of the Workers Revolutionary Party) and the split with Social Democracy in 1959 intensified the conflict with Cannon, who reacted with extreme subjectivism to this step forward of the International Committee." By referring to the formation of the SLL as a "split with Social Democracy," Banda falsely attempts to identify the formation of the SLL with Healy's fullblown sectarian split from the Labour Party after 1963. Cannon's real views on the formation of the SLL will be found in the letters reprinted below. The attack on the SLL's work in the Labour Party provided a test of the policy of "deep" entryism advocated by Pablo. Adherence to this strategy had led the IS to confidently predict that Healy was "destroying all the positions won inside the LP and the trade unions." In fact, however, the opposite occurred. The Labour Party bureaucrats proved unable to drive Trotskyists out of the party because of wide support for their rights in the ranks. Over the next period, the SLL won a powerful following in the Labour Party youth and recruited several hundred people. This outcome was in glaring contrast to the IS predictions of certain doom for anyone who carried out open Trotskyist propaganda in the British labor movement. Shortly after this test, the issue of "entryism" began to be debated within the IS itself. Healy began to come under fire at this time for the organizational methods he used in settling internal disputes. These criticisms generally came from individuals or groups that appeared to be moving rapidly toward a break with Marxism, like Peter Fryer, or advocated a sectarian policy toward the Labour Party, like Peter Cadogan and Brian Behan. Their charges were avidly spread by anti- Trotskyists and the bourgeois press to justify the Labour Party witch-hunt. These factors led the SWP to largely discount the charges as the product of fundamental disagreements with revolutionary Marxism or personal demoralization as a result of the witch-hunt pressure on the SLL. It is now certain that the dictatorial regime that made Healyism an international scandal in the workers' movement was being established in these initial disputes. Antidemocratic methods of handling opposition flowed from a monolithic conception of the party, and this, in turn, fed Healy's conviction that he could not live in the same international with other Trotskyist trends such as the IS. At this time, however, the only area of disagreement between the SLL and the SWP that could be traced in the literature and activity of the two groups was over reunification. The scope and political significance of this difference was obscured by Healy's reiterated claims to support the SWP proposals on reunification.]

  1. 1. "This is revolutionary 'entrism' as Trotsky taught it": letter from James P. Cannon to Joseph HansenJames P. Cannon · May 19, 1959 · pp. 50
  2. 2. "Do not yield to the impatience of some comrades who may want to give up the Labour Party": letter from James P. Cannon to Gerry HealyJames P. Cannon · June 12, 1959 · pp. 50-51
  3. 3. "What the Fight in the British Labor Party is About," by Joseph HansenJoseph Hansen · June 29, 1959 · pp. 51-53
  4. 4. "We must make sure that we do not facilitate this Pabloite game by abandoning our own policy of unification": letter from James P. Cannon to Farrell DobbsJames P. Cannon · July 24, 1959 · pp. 53-54
  5. 5. Letter from Michel Pablo to the editors of the MilitantMichel Pablo · February 1, 1960 · pp. 54-55
  6. 6. Reply to Michel Pablo by Joseph HansenJoseph Hansen · February 1, 1960 · pp. 55-56
  7. 7. "You have succeeded in hooking him so completely on the witch-hunt question": letter from Gerry Healy to Tom KerryGerry Healy (signing as Jerry) · March 31, 1960 · pp. 56
  8. 8. "I don't want to polemicize": letter from Michel Pablo to Joseph HansenMichel Pablo · February 29, 1960 · pp. 57
  9. 9. "At issue is your failure to support the British Trotskyists against the witch-hunt": letter from Joseph Hansen to Michel PabloJoseph Hansen · March 25, 1960 · pp. 57
  10. 10. "The Witch-Hunt in Britain": editorial in the April 4, 1960, issue of the MilitantThe Militant, editorial · April 4, 1960 · pp. 58
  11. 11. "The Left Wing should not play [Gaitskell's] game by walking out": letter from James P. Cannon to Gerry HealyJames P. Cannon · July 13, 1960 · pp. 58-59

Section XVII: An Indian Trotskyist Assesses the Differences

[In 1960 the movement for the reunification of the two public factions of the Fourth International, the International Committee (IC) and the International Secretariat (IS), began to pick up steam. Demands and practical actions directed toward unity occurred in many quarters. In India, the Trotskyist Revolutionary Workers Party had fused with the Revolutionary Communist Party. Inspired by this success, leading Indian Trotskyists began to press for unity of Trotskyists on a world scale, challenging the stance taken by the International Secretariat under Pablo's direction. In the beginning of 1960, the Indian Trotskyists began to challenge Pablo's conceptions on several important issues. Their own disastrous experience with entryism in the Indian Socialist Party led them to oppose him on this. A leading Indian Trotskyist, R.N. Arya, outlined the views that were developing in this sector of the IS in three articles that were submitted to the International Secretariat. One evaluated the differences over Stalinism that had emerged in 1953 and found, in general, that the criticisms of the IC had been well taken. A second challenged Pablo's conception of entryism, expressing support for the entryist tactic as applied by the SLL. A third article challenged the practice under Pablo of issuing commands to sections on tactical issues like entry. It argued that Pablo's practice of organizing secret factions, resulting in splits, in sections that did not follow his commands had proven to be highly destructive. In a letter to Ernest Germain, Arya said flatly, "I do not condemn the splitters of 1953. Organizational factors left no choice." Thus, some of Pablo's political and organizational concepts began to be openly challenged inside the IS. This certainly reduced the likelihood of a successful repetition of the highhanded measures that Pablo had taken in 1951-3 to exclude oppositionists. Healy had begun in 1958 to advocate "reorganization" of the Fourth International. While Healy was vague—it now appears that he was deliberately vague—about what this meant, it often seemed to be somewhat contradictory to the SWP's support for principled reunification, a perspective that had been endorsed by the IC as a whole. According to Healy's schema—periodically raised and then withdrawn whenever the SWP interposed its objections-groups in the IS that favored unity would be required to break with the IS and join a considerably broadened version of the International Committee. Healy defended this on the tactical grounds that Pablo would block any other form of reunification. The unrealistic character of this proposal was indicated by the reaction of R.N. Arya. While agreeing with the International Committee on many points, he opposed this proposal as leading to the creation of two competing internationals. As he stated in his letter to Germain, "the differences by themselves were not so deep in 1953 nor are they today that co existence within a single organization is impossible."]

  1. 1. "Organizational factors left no choice": letter from R.N. Arya to Ernest Germain (excerpt)R.N. Arya (Raj Narain Arya) · January 2, 1960 · pp. 61
  2. 2. "A Political Estimate of the Split in the FI," by R.N. AryaR.N. Arya · January 25, 1960 · pp. 61-64
  3. 3. "Democratic Centralism on the International Scale," by R.N. AryaR.N. Arya · February 1, 1960 · pp. 64-68
  4. 4. "The Struggle for the Leadership of the Proletariat," by R. N. AryaR.N. Arya · March 3, 1960 · pp. 68-73

Section XVIII: Reunification in Japan

[The reunification of the Japanese Committee of the Fourth International, affiliated to the International Secretariat, with the Japanese Revolutionary Communist League, an affiliate of the International Committee, was a further spur to international unity efforts. The unified group aligned itself with the International Committee while pressing for immediate reunification. An added factor was that the strongest supporter of Pablo in the Japanese Committee of the Fourth International, Ota, bitterly opposed the unification, perhaps reflecting Pablo's views on this. Thus, the successful unification and the isolation of Ota were further blows to Pablo's position. A unification had also taken place in Chile between the IC group and a major sector of IS supporters. The latter had become disillusioned with Pablo's entryist formula. A report on the process by which unification took place here appears in Section XXV of this volume. Thus, reunification was no longer mere sentiment. On the rank-and-file level, it was becoming a fact, as sections went ahead with fusions imperiously dictated by the broad range of political agreement between the factions. The remaining theoretical differences over Stalinism had narrowed to the point where both factions adopted political positions on events in the Soviet Union and other workers states that were essentially identical. Although the IS central leadership still defended the strategy of long-term entryism and favored a high degree of organizational centralism in the international, these were becoming issues in dispute within the IS. Thus, the political lines of separation between the IS and the IC continued to dissolve.]

  1. 1. "Bring into the IS Congress the theory and policies of the IC": letter from Kyoji Nishi to Tom KerryKyoji Nishi, National Chairman of the JRCL · received December 19, 1960 · pp. 75
  2. 2. "Statement on the Unification of the JRCL and JCFI"Japanese Revolutionary Communist League and Japanese Committee of the Fourth International · received in New York December 19, 1960 · pp. 75-76
  3. 3. "We suggest they consult comrades Burns and Peng": letter from Farrell Dobbs to Kyoji NishiFarrell Dobbs · December 27, 1960 · pp. 77

Section XIX: The Movement for Unity Builds Up

[The objective developments favoring unity produced new exchanges of views between supporters of the two factions. The SWP hailed every step toward unity, while stressing the importance of solidarity with the SLL in its fight against the Labour bureaucrats' witch-hunt. A sign of the growing sentiment for unity was the statement by S. B. Kolpe, a leading Indian Trotskyist, in a letter to Joseph Hansen, that the Indian section sympathized with the SLL in its conflict with the IS over entryism. In the aftermath of the arrest and imprisonment of Michel Pablo and Sal Santen in 1960 for providing material support to the Algerian revolution, changes occurred in the composition and attitudes of the IS leadership. Ernest Germain, Pierre Frank, and Livio Maitan now became more open in their support for unity. While adhering to a concept of democratic centralism that excluded a parity leadership, Germain began to indicate readiness to support firm guarantees for democracy in a unified international leadership. The ready support given by the SWP to the defense of Pablo and Santen strengthened reunification sentiments. After some hesitation, the SLL also began to demand the release of the two IS leaders. The degeneration of the Lanka Sama Samaja Party, the Ceylonese section of the Fourth International, was a complicating factor. This party offered critical support to a bourgeois government headed by Sirimavo Bandaranaike. The LSSP had been critical of Pablo's political views and organizational methods. It had always advocated reunification. Its degeneration in a bourgeois nationalist direction was facilitated by the split which prevented the two factions from pooling their resources to combat the LSSP's political drift. Leaders and supporters of both factions publicly criticized the LSSP's actions. Healy tended to attribute all the problems of the world movement, including those of the LSSP, to the pervasive influence of "Pabloism." In response, Dobbs proposed a more materialist explanation, pointing to "contradictions arising from the class-struggle lag in the imperialist countries and the steady advance of the colonial revolution." At the end of 1960, Healy opposed any organizational approaches or steps towards a discussion of unity. He said that such efforts were solely "designed to split the SWP from the Socialist Labour League." It is now evident that Healy had already decided on a break with the SWP, but he chose to pin the blame in advance on the growing demand for untiy. Healy's letters showed little appreciation or concern for the actual developments in the international: the political evolution of the Indian section and its views on the struggle in Britain; the reunification in Japan and the Japanese Trotskyists' demand for unity on an international scale; and the unification that had taken place in Chile. The SWP's reaction to this complicated situation was to seek consultation with all the sectors of the IC, with a view to achieving a common approach to the new situation. Before such a meeting could be held, however, Healy launched his factional war against the SWP.]

  1. 1. "Merger of Socialists in India," editorial in the MilitantThe Militant, editorial · February 29, 1960 · pp. 79
  2. 2. "Our sympathies are still with the SLL": letter from S.B. Kolpe to Joseph Hansen (excerpt)S.B. Kolpe · April 21, 1960 · pp. 79-80
  3. 3. "A blot on the record of the Trotskyist movement": letter from Joseph Hansen to S.B. Kolpe (excerpt)Joseph Hansen · June 2, 1960 · pp. 81-83
  4. 4. "About the unity of the family": letter from Ernest Germain to Trent Hutter, an SWP member (excerpt)Ernest Germain (Ernest Mandel), as an individual · October 24, 1960 · pp. 83-84
  5. 5. "LSSP Policy in Ceylon," editorial in the MilitantThe Militant, editorial · October 5, 1960 · pp. 84-85
  6. 6. "On Ceylon," declaration of the "Sixth World Congress" of the International SecretariatFI documentSixth World Congress of the Fourth International · Winter 1960-61 · pp. 85
  7. 7. "Trial of Trotskyists in Holland," editorial in the MilitantThe Militant, editorial · October 26, 1960 · pp. 85-86
  8. 8. "Sincere, comradely thanks": letter from Pierre Frank for the International Secretariat to the SWPFI documentInternational Secretariat of the Fourth International (signed P.F. [Pierre Frank]) · December 6, 1960 · pp. 86
  9. 9. "The IS warmly salutes the electoral campaign of the SWP": letter from Pierre Frank for the International Secretariat to the SWPFI documentInternational Secretariat of the Fourth International (for the S.I., Pierre Frank) · December 12, 1960 · pp. 86
  10. 10. "Contradictions arising from the class-struggle lag": letter from Farrell Dobbs to Gerry Healy (excerpt)Farrell Dobbs · December 12, 1960 · pp. 86-87
  11. 11. "This is all part of the new unity offensive": letter from Gerry Healy to Farrell DobbsGerry Healy · December 22, 1960 · pp. 87
  12. 12. "An informal consultation among IC supporters": letter from Farrell Dobbs to James P. CannonFarrell Dobbs · December 29, 1960 · pp. 88

← Second series, vol. 3