From Revisionism to Opportunism—A Reply to the International Secretariat Statement of 18/11/63: Resolution of the SLL 1964 Conference

[p045] FROM REVISIONISM TO OPPORTUNISM A Reply to the International Secretariat Statement of 18/11/63 The statement of the United Secretariat of the (Pabloite-revisionist) Fourth International which rejects the proposals of the International Committee (Fourth international) Conference for a principled unification of the world Trotskyist movement, has once again demonstrated the perfidious and fraudulent nature of Pabloite revisionism. We must conclude that after a year of desultory talks, evasions and diplomatic manoeuvres the Pabloite 1S had no interest in clarifying political principles and the contentious programmatic issues which split the Trotskyist movement for a whole decade. instead, it tried to paper over serious differences and consummate a marriage of convenience with the new revisionists inside the IC. This brings to an end a long period of negotiation with the IS. The history of these negotiations can only be summarised at this stage. It must be stated that throughout this period the IC has never been distracted from its primary aim: the unification of the Fourth International on the basis of principled pro- grammatic agreement. in 1954, immediately after the split in which a majority of Pablo’s supporters liquidated their sections in the Stalinist movement-—-the IC took the initiative in opening a discussion with the IS so that the confusion surrounding the split would be dispelled and also the possibilities of a principled unification could be explored. However, the SWP (which although not affiliated for legal reasons to the Fourth International has given political support to its decisions) obstructed this attempt. Then, in 1957, James Cannon—leader of the SWP— without prior discussion with the IC, began discussions with the IS on the grounds that political differences were fast disappearing and that there was little point in exhuming past differences. Every attempt by the IC to criticise the theoretical and political arguments of the IS was frowned upon by the SWP. In this situation it was impossible to achieve clarity on prin- ciples—and ‘unity’ became a series of organisational manoeuvres. This action was consonant with the theoretical degeneration of the SWP leaders who had begun to abandon many, if not all, of the programmatic posi- tions they held at the time of the split in 1953. The ‘unity’ talks finally collapsed because the IS rejected even the watered-down proposals of Cannon. They wanted total and unconditional capitulation to their programme and organisational methods. After this salutary experience, Cannon was forced to declare that the Pabloites ‘. . . conceive of the “International” as the literary and technical apparatus of the International Secretariat, which in practice operates outside all control. This whole conception and practice is incompatible with a living world movement made up of functioning, self-governing, working-class parties and, in reality, operates to prevent the development of such parties.’ . In February 1962 once again as a result of tentative ‘unity’ moves by the SWP and the IS, the Socialist Labour League placed before the IC the motion: ‘The IC to approach the IS with a view to the setting up of a sub-committee consisting of three members from the International Committee and three from the International Secretariat. The purpose of this com- mittee would be to arrange an exchange of internal material on international problems among all the sections affiliated to both the sections. ‘, . . Eventually, the sub-committee would prepare a summary report of the area of agreement and differ- ences between the two bodies.’ This resolution was adopted unanimously. The IS attitude to unity, however, was different from and opposed to that of the IC. In its statement of June 23 the IS states: ‘.. . The IVth International considered the split of 1953, and especially the Open Letter calling for dis- regard towards the normally elected leadership of the International, as a big mistake, which has done great harm to the world movement... . ‘The political basis of the 1953-4 split, as we saw it, was a lack of full understanding of the correctness of the International’s turn in the estimate of the world situation, made in 1950-51.’ The IC, since it has never retracted the ‘Open Letter’ issued by the SWP—and has never accepted the estimate of the international situation in 1950 by the IS which laid the basis for the split, could not but construe this declaration as an ultimatum for un- conditional surrender of the political positions success- fully defended by the IC and the SWP in 1953. Any attempt to discuss on the basis of pre- determined agreement must seriously endanger inter- national collaboration and the ultimate unification of the movement. That has been—and still is—the opinion of the IC. -Despite these obstacles, the IC tried in a principled way to conduct the discussion within the Parity Com- mittee set up by the two bodies, the IC and the IS. But even before the discussion could commence the IC was faced by a split in its ranks which was encouraged—if not inspired—by the IS and the SWP. Rather than wait for the IC Conference in September 1963 which was to draw up a balance sheet of the discussion and the prospects for unification, the Chinese, New Zealand and Austrian sections conspired to split the IC, hold a hastily convened rump congress of their own in March 1963, and unite with the IS at the 7th World Congress of the Pabloites. The IS rashly asserts that the splitters represented the majority of the IS. This lie typifies their method:

[p046] it is calculated to disarm and confuse those who are not informed of the history and character of the dispute. The details of this sordid manoeuvre are not as simple as that. First, neither the New Zealand nor Chinese sections had debated or decided on any of the important documents submitted by both sides in the dispute. The Austrians never made a single written contri- bution. As for the Chinese, it is seriously doubted whether this section existed—or functioned. The New Zealand representative acted as a ventrilo- quists’s dummy for the SWP and played no independent role whatsoever. Secondly, the SWP leaders violated all the norms of democratic discussion when they approved the unifi- cation without submitting three out of the four major policy documents for discussion in the ranks. Lastly, and this is the most reprehensible part of the intrigue—the splitters disregarded the opinions of all the Latin American sections of the IC. These sections —the Argentine, Peruvian and Chilean—had insisted that the IC Conference be held in September 1963 in order that they would be able to send a representative delegation and moreover would have time to study the relevant documents. The statement of the Chilean POR in particular was clear and unequivocal. It rejected ‘any separate attempt by any section of the IC to unify with the Pabloite IS. The Chilean POR will not allow itself to be dragged along by any particular section wishing to unite on its own account with the IS, understanding that it is an elementary duty in revolutionary discipline to first discuss as a body in the IC, which in its entirety and by majority must decide the basis for unity with the IS at its World Congress’. We do not conceal the fact that the Latin American sections were in favour of an early unification—but neither do we wish to conceal their principled attitude to unity. Thus the splitters ignored the majority of the IC to secure ‘unity’. The IS now accuses us of being against an ‘early fusion of forces’, As we have made plain in the preceding lines, we are opposed—resolutely opposed— to unity which is not preceded by a thorough and ample discussion. This was also Lenin’s attitude when he prepared the 2nd Congress of the RSDLP. ‘The Iskra at the very outset, in its advance announcement in 1900, declared that before we could unite, lines of demarcation must be drawn ... We were, in fact, guided by the maxim: ‘Measure your cloth seven times before you cut it.”’ (One Step Forward, Two Steps Back, pp. 15/16, Lawrence & Wishart edition, 1941.) The IS challenges us to define our attitude to the documents of their 7th Congress. Very well. It is not possible in the space of this statement to comment adequately on the documents of the 7th Congress, but the Revisionists can rest assured that the IC has never remained—and will never remain— FOURTH INTERNATIONAL, ISSUE 1, 1965 silent on the question of revisionism. Here we shall touch only briefly on some of the major issues raised at the Congress. (See FouRTH INTERNATIONAL, Vol. 1, No. 1 for a full analysis of the main resolution at this Congress.) On the main resolution, ‘The Dynamics (?) of World Revolution Today’, under Section IV (The Proletarian Revolution in the Imperialist Countries) we read: ‘The most probable variant in the next few years is ... the following: the colonial revolution will continue involving new countries and deepening its social character as more workers states appear: It will not lead directly to the overthrow of capitalism in the imperialist centres but it will play a powerful role in building a new world revolutionary leadership as is already clear from the emergence of Castroist currents. If this quotation means anything at all, it means that the construction of a Marxist leadership in the metro- politan countries is predicated on the emergence of non-Marxist petty-bourgeois leaderships 4 la Castro in the colonial and semi-colonial world. These leader- ships not only abhor Trotskyism, but repress it at every opportunity! The IC explicitly rejects such revisionist fantasies whose acceptance would condemn the FI to decades of stagnation—and perdition. This quixotic thesis of the IS finds its corollary further on when the authors, referring to Cuba and the prospects for Trotskyism, hopefully suggest: ‘As. L.F.. Stone the acute American radical ‘sic) journalist observed after a trip to Cuba, the revolu- tionists there are “unconscious” Trotskyists.. With the coming of full consciousness among these and related currents Trotskyism will become a powerful current,’ Without labouring the point, we should like to know the precise meaning of the phrase, ‘With the coming of full consciousness’. Are we to assume that ‘full consciousness’, like Castro’s beard, is a natural endowment of every petty-bourgeois radical and peasant revolutionist? Here we see how a scientific theory of revolution is thrown down and trampled underfoot while coarse elemental ‘spontaneity’ and bourgeois radicalism is exalted to the point of virtue. To talk of ‘unconscious Marxists’ is patent nonsense and a contradiction in terms. Like the cold-blooded mammal it belies reality—and defies all systems of classification. ; Marxism, i.e., scientific socialism, is a method of social analysis, a world outlook and the only scientific and valid theory of knowledge. It is human conscious- ness at a very advanced level of development. It represents the conscious expression of an unconscious historical process. It can never be unconscious. The ‘unconscious Marxist’ is not a Marxist at all, but an empirical simpleton who identifies social being and social consciousness in a mechanical and absurd way. Let us not forget Lenin’s advice: ‘The highest task of humanity is to comprehend the objective logic of the economic evolution (the evolution of social

[p047] DOCUMENT No. 5 existence), to comprehend the most general and funda- mental features with the purpose of adapting its social consciousness and the consciousness of the advanced classes of all capitalist countries to it in clear exact and critical fashion.’ (Materialism and Empirio- Criticism, p. 280, Lawrence & Wishart edition.) On this point the IS quarrels not with us—but with Lenin and Trotsky: ‘One of the most outstanding features of Bol- shevism has been its severe, exacting, even quarrel- some attitude towards the question of doctrine. The twenty-seven volumes of Lenin’s works will remain forever an example of the highest theoretical con- scientiousness; without this fundamental quality Bolshevism would never have fulfilled its historic role.’ (Stalinism and Bolshevism.) Lenin has remarked elsewhere that socialist con- sciousness cannot develop without the party and that the party’ represents the highest form of human con- sciousness. This has been considered an axiomatic truth for the revolutionary movement. The revisionist wiseacres in the Unified Secretariat, however, have replaced dialectical materialism and the party with the inane nostrums of Ben Bella and the rhetoric of Castro—who, incidentally, has not read a single work of Trotsky and has never written a single theoretical work in his life. And what are the prospects, if any, for the FI? Let us listen to the revisionists: ‘In the advanced countries, the International can perform crucial services on behalf of revolutions in colonial countries . . . true internationalists ... Among the advanced workers, intellectuals and youth of the workers states the International can play a special role in helping them to dig through the debris of forty years of falsification .. .’ (our emphasis). Here in a nutshell is presented the perspective for the International. Nowhere in this exposition do the tasks of the movement rise above the level of routine and mundane propaganda. Nowhere is there any mention of the party leading struggles against un- employment and the integration of the unions in the state apparatus—or of winning working class youth to the party and the construction of a mass youth move- ment around the party. For example, the question of publishing a regular weekly paper is nowhere dealt with—apart from a cursory reference to maintaining ‘a Trotskyist publication’. Instead we have such phrases as ‘can perform’, ‘can help’ and ‘can play’. What das the IS done to build powerful parties in Europe? Precisely nothing! The IS conception is the direct antithesis of Lenin’s conception of the party as a highly centralised and disciplined combat organisation of dedicated revolu- tionists armed with a scientific theory of revolution. Such a party seeks to win the vanguard of the working class—and through it the majority of the working class—for the socialist revolution. This can be done only through propaganda, agitation and organisation. Only the collective, organised action of the party can 41 bring about the leadership of the class. Marxism is the philosophy of action, the science of revolutionising practice—not the contemplation of texts or the ‘digging of debris’ as the IS believes. The IS rejects in practice and in theory the funda- mental idea of the Transitional Programme when it states: ‘An acute problem in relation to the con- struction of revolutionary-socialist parties in many countries is lack of time to organise and to gain adequate experience before the revolution breaks out. In previous decades this would signify certain defeat for the revolution. Because of a series of new factors, however, this is no longer necessarily the case. The example of the Soviet Union . .. and the relative weakening of world capitalism, have made it possible for revolutions in some instances to achieve partial successes ... and even go as far as the establishment of a workers state. Revolutionary Marxists in such countries face extremely difficult questions (1)... No choice is open to them in such situations but to participate completely and whole-heartedly in the revolution and to build the party in the very process of the revolution itself.’ Two conclusions emerge from this: (a) There is no crisis of proletarian leadership today; (b) Revolutions are not organised and prepared for: they only occur. Therefore, the task of party building is a platonic one—necessary but not indispensable. If it is possible to have revolutions and even workers’ states without the leadership of the party, why should anyone want to build a party in the ‘process of the revolution’? Why indeed? Unlike the IS we do not build parties for the sake of glory