Letter to the National Committee of the SWP from the National Committee of the SLL January 2 1961

[p012] To The National Committee of the Socialist Workers’ Party. Dear Comrades, As we write, events in Belgium, following hard upon the developments in Japan and in Britain, are giving the lie to the Pabloites’ defeatist assertion that the ‘epicentre’ of the world revolution has shifted from the advanced capitalist countries. The main importance of the colonial revolution is revealing itself to consist, as we have always claimed, in its impact on the metro- politan centres of imperialism, in the stimulus it would give to the revived struggle of the workers in these countries, The resolution for the forthcoming Pabloite congress in which the struggle in the advanced countries is written off in favour of the colonial revolution was drafted by Germain, leader of the Pabloite movement in Belgium. The Pabloites were evidently taken by surprise by the general strike in Belgium, although the strike in the Borinage should have forewarned them. The remoteness of the Pabloites from the actual course of history is ludicrously (but tragically) revealed by the present position in Belgium. We are entering a period comparable in significance to 1914-1917 and it is as vital now as it was then to break sharply and clearly with all sorts of centrist tendencies within our own ranks. If we are to fulfil our revolutionary duty in the coming years as the Bolsheviks did, we have to follow the example of Lenin, not that of Luxemburg, in not merely criticising but also uncompromisingly separating ourselves from all sorts of contemporary Kautskys; first and foremost, from the Pablo gang. It is now over 7 years since you addressed a letter to Trotskyists throughout the world concerning Pabloite revisionism and its disastrous effects upon the Fourth International. In that letter you outlined ‘the fundamental principles on which the Trotskyist move- ment is built’ as follows: ‘Q) The death agony of the capitalist system threatens the destruction of civilization through worsening depressions, world wars and barbaric manifestations like fascism. The development of atomic weapons today underlines the danger in the gravest possible way. (2) The descent into the abyss can be avoided only by replacing capitalism with the planned economy of socialism on a world scale and thus resuming the spiral of progress opened up by capitalism in its early days. ‘B) This can be accomplished only under the leadership of the working class in society. But the working class itself faces a crisis in leadership although the world relationship of social forces was never so favourable as today for the workers to take the road to power. (4) To organise itself for carrying out this world- historic aim, the working class in each country must contruct a revolutionary socialist party in the pattern FourTH INTERNATIONAL, SUMMER 1965 January 2, 1961. developed by Lenin; that is, a combat party capable of dialectically combining democracy and centralism —democracy in arriving at decisions, centralism in carrying them out; a leadership controlled by the ranks, ranks able to carry forward under fire in disciplined fashion. “5) The main obstacle to this is Stalinism, which attracts workers through exploiting the prestige of the October 1917 Revolution in Russia, only later, as it betrays their confidence, to hurl them either into the arms of the Social Democracy, into apathy, or back into illusions in capitalism. The penalty for these betrayals is paid by the working people in the form of consolidation of fascism or monarchist forces, and new outbreaks of war fostered and prepared by capitalism. From its inception, the Fourth International set as one of its major tasks the revolutionary overthrow of Stalinism inside and outside the USSR. 6) The need for flexible tactics facing many sections of the Fourth International, and parties or groups sympathetic to its programme, makes it all the more imperative that they know how to fight imperialism and all its petty bourgeois agencies (such as nationalist formations or trade union bureau- cracies} without capitulation to Stalinism and, con- versely, know how to fight Stalinism (which in the final analysis is a petty-bourgeois agency of im- perialism) without capitulating to imperialism. ‘These fundamental principles established by Leon Trotsky retain full validity in the increasingly com- plex and fluid politics of the world today. In fact the revolutionary situations opening up on every hand, as Trotsky foresaw, have only now brought full concreteness to what at one time may have appeared to be somewhat remote abstractions not intimately bound up with the living reality of the time. The truth is that these principles now hold with increasing force both in political analysis and in the determination of the course of practical action.’ You went on to state: ‘These principles have been abandoned by Pablo. In place of emphasising the danger of a new barbarism, he sees the drive towards socialism as “irreversible”; yet he does not see socialism coming within our generation or some generations to come. Instead he has advanced the concept of an ‘engulfing’ wave of revolutions that give birth to nothing but ‘deformed’, that is, Stalin-type workers’ states which are to last for “centuries”. ‘This reveals the utmost pessimism about the capacity of the working class, which is wholly in keeping with the ridicule he has lately voiced of the struggle to build independent revolutionary socialist parties. In place of holding to the main course of

[p013] DocumeNnr No. 1! building independent revolutionary socialist parties by all tactical means, he looks to the Stalinist bureaucracy, or a decisive section of it, to so change itself under mass pressure as to accept the ‘ideas’ and ‘programme’ of Trotskyism. Under guise of the diplomacy required in tactical manoeuvres needed to approach workers in the camp of Stalinism in such countries as France, he now covers up the betrayals of Stalinism.’ Our section fully supported these principles and the political evaluation of Pablo which flowed from them. The greatest danger confronting the revolutionary movement is liquidationism, flowing from a capitula- tion either to the strength of imperialism or of the bureaucratic apparatuses in the Labour movement, or both. Pabloism represents, even more clearly now than in 1953, this liquidationist tendency in the inter- national Marxist movement. In Pabloism the advanced working class is no longer the vanguard of history, the centre of all Marxist theory and strategy in the epoch of imperialism, but the plaything of ‘world- historical factors’, surveyed and assessed in abstract fashion. The resolutions of the Pabloites for their forthcoming international conference are very explicit on this point. The present stage of the world revolu- tion, according to them, is particularly characterised by the growing strength of the workers’ states and the great power generated by the colonial revolution; the struggle in the advanced countries, because of changes in the character of modern capitalism, is relegated to a definitely subordinate position. Here all historical responsibility of the revolutionary movement is denied, all is subordinated to panoramic forces; the questions of the role of the Soviet bureaucracy and of the class forces in the colonial revolution are left unresolved. That is natural, because the key to these problems is the role of the working class in the advanced countries and the crisis of leadership in their Labour movements. A correct revolutionary orientation towards these questions is now a vital and urgent necessity, because in Japan and Britain there have begun great struggles which raise directly before the organised working class the issue of class leadership. In each case these issues are forced by the special manifestations of imperial- ism’s latest crisis in thése particular countries; the struggles around them ‘will inevitably intensify and will spread to the other imperialist countries, including the USA. Any retreat from the strategy of political independence of the working class and the construction of revolutionary parties will take on the significance of a world-historical blunder on the part of the Trotskyist movement. In Britain we have seen the results of Pabloite revisionism in Pabloite actions since the formation of the Socialist Labour League and the current policy crisis in the Labour Party, and we are more than ever convinced of the need to build a Leninist party absolutely freed from the revisionism which Pabloism represents. It is because of the magnitude of the opportunities opening up before Trotskyism, and therefore the necessity for political and theoretical clarity, that we urgently require a drawing of the lines against revisionism in all its forms. Jt is time to draw to a close the period in which Pabloite revisionism was regarded as a trend within Trotskyism. Unless this is done we cannot prepare for the revolutionary struggles now beginning. We want the SWP to go forward with us in this spirit. In November 1953 the British Pabloites, organised by Pablo, split from our movement and did every- thing possible to disrupt it. This led to a prolonged faction struggle which lasted almost six months for the control of our paper the Socialist Outlook. The sharpness of this struggle and the irresponsibility of the Pabloites greatly assisted the witch-hunt which followed in July 1954 when that paper was banned by the Nationa! Executive Committee of the Labour Party. At that time we were dealt a hard and bitter blow by the Pabloite revisionists. A few months later, as you know, the leaders of Pablo’s movement in Britain wound up their organisation, and eventually they joined the British Stalinist Party. Pablo has never at any time made a political examination of this development. He contented himself by simply noting in his journal Fourth International that his ex-followers were joining the ‘most sectarian party’ in the world. In 1956 the publication of the Khrushchev speech opened up possibilities for the enlargement and development of our movement on a scale that we had not experienced since the period of the Second World War. As you know we recruited some important cadres from the Communist Party and YCL. It was, of course, understandable that some of those who joined us at that time should find difficulty in assimi- lating themselves in our ranks. These difficulties began to show themselves when Peter Fryer left our Movement in August 1959. Some weeks later we had another defection on the part of Peter Cadogan, who thought he could attack the Socialist Labour League publicly through the channels of the Fleet Street press and still remain a member. Finally, there was Brian Behan who proposed the ultra-left theory that the Labour Party was a capitalist party and that we should have nothing to do with it. During the course of these difficulties Pablo made numerous visits to England, where he endeavoured to encourage the greatest amount of factional dis- ruption inside the Socialist Labour League. His pub- lications presented the viewpoint of Cadogan and Fryer. He invited them to his Sixth Congress. He circulated a vicious and libellous document written by Fryer. He vehemently denounced the formation of the Socialist Labour League, and when we were under attack from the witch-hunters his followers either remained silent or, in some cases, joined the witch-hunters against us. You will recall how the Pabloites wrote up gloatingly the Marcyite walk-out from the SWP. These people everywhere play the role of hyenas and jackals in the movement. During the last few months the political position of the renegades whose break with us was welcomed and encouraged by Pablo has become extremely clear.

[p014] 10 Peter Cadogan advocates the theory that there is state capitalism in the Soviet Union and opposes on all possible occasions the building of the democratic-centralist revolutionary party in Britain. His latest demand is for freedom of speech for Mosley. Brian Behan is +till only in the early stages of his development, but he has already travelled far and and fast. He has repudiated Trotsky and Trotskyism —‘because of Kronstadt’!—and is now working in collusion with the anarchists under the slogan: ‘Keep politics out of the trade unions.’ Of course, Pablo was not concerned with the political evolution of such people when he urged them to attack the Socialist Labour League. He was merely concerned with weakening the only organisation in Britain which consistently fights for a Marxist policy and upholds the principles elaborated by Trotsky and the Fourth International which he founded. Pabloism plays a directly counter-revolutionary role in British working-class politics. We consider that the position of Pablo in relation to Britain arises from the same revisionist course which lay behind the split in the Fourth International in 1953. We disagree entirely with those comrades who claim, as comrade Hansen did in his letter to Kolpe of June 2, 1960, that ‘the political positions have tended to converge still further’. On the contrary, we con- sider that experience has thoroughly confirmed your view that the ‘lines of cleavage ... are so deep that no compromise is possible either politically or organisationally’; and we have had more than ample experience of the Pabloites’ policy of seeking to ‘muzzle or handcuff’ orthodox Trotskyists (your letter of November 1953). In preparation for his Fifth Congress in 1958 Pablo again affirmed the central thesis of the Third World Congress which preceded the split of 1953. He said: *.. . the liquidation of Stalinism is on the agenda. . «. The antagonism between capitalism and socialism cannot but lead to a war-revolution, i.e., an armed class struggle on the world scale. An economic or political crisis of large dimensions may be the immediate cause of the conflict. (We consider that war has been technically possible for imperialism since 1954.) ~ : ‘In the course of the process leading to the war- revolution, and during the latter, the proletariat in the countries where its recognised leadership is : Stalinist will tend to regroup itself around the C.P. This leadership may put forward a revolutionary --policy under the pressure of the masses. Parallel with this, trends of opposition to Stalinism will _appear in the Communist Parties, doubtless on a more or less “centrist” basis to start with.’ Nothing had changed then, so far as Pablo’s thinking was concerned. At that time, during the discussion around the parity committee, we had occasion to write that in our opinion the political diflerences were even greater than at the time of the split in 1953. Significantly, in contrast to our experience in Britain, where we advocated an orthodox Trotskyist policy, FouRTH INTERNATIONAL, SUMMER 1965 Pablo made no gains of any importance from the Communist Party here as a result of the 1956 crisis. It was our very firmness on the question of Stalinism and its prospects that helped to clarify those ex- Stalinists whom we won in 1956-57 and who have become loyal and valuable members of our organisa- tion. They also appreciated that we, unlike the Pabloites, were working consistently towards the establishment of a revolutionary Marxist party, the need for which they understood. An editorial in the latest issue of Pablo’s journal Fourth International, Autumn 1960, outlines the tasks in Britain as follows: ‘The central task of British revolutionary Marxists consist in regrouping, inside the Labour Party, all these scattered forces of the Labour left—without being sectarian or ultimatistic, without artificially imposing on them a “leadership” parachuted from outside—around a programme of transitional demands, in order to take by assault first the “dominant positions” of the movement itself and then a series of “dominant positions” of capitalist society as a whole.’ The prospect of building a revolutionary Marxist party has completely disappeared so far as the Pabloites are concerned. The reference to para- chutists in this passage is generally understood here to refer to the SLL and its orthodox Trotskyist outlook and method. The situation in Britain has changed tremendously since 1953. From the trade unions has come a power- ful movement to the Left which has succeeded in radicalising the Labour Party to an extent not experienced before in its history. We are poised on the brink of a split between the forces of the Left and the Right. The witch-hunt against the Socialist Labour League in 1959 was part of the preparation for this showdown. The formation of the Socialist Labour League strengthened enormously the ideological and organisational basis of our movement. Whilst in the initial stage of the witch-hunt we suffered some casualties through expulsions from the Labour Party, nevertheless, we have been able during the past year not only to make good these losses but in addition, to organise an important campaign around the defence of Clause Four and the promotion of a policy for implementing this clause. This has brought our comrades into closer relationship with some of the Left centrists in the ‘Victory for Socialism’ organisation, whom we can influence and from whom we can recruit. It is, however, the work amongst the youth which has been most decisive. ... There is every indication that this struggle against the socialist youth will merge with the general struggle against the Left in the Labour Party. It has already roused many Labour Party members to realisation of what a wrecking task the Gaitskellites are engaged upon. The youth movement is therefore today a potentially great force in the radicalisation of the adult movement. We have, in fact, made considerable strides forward

[p015] DOCUMENT No. 1 in our Labour Party work since the formation of the Socialist Labour League. Pablo’s ‘deep entry’ theory flows from his whole revisionist course. It is not a question of a mere tactical misunderstanding; it springs directly from the basic reasons for the 1953 split. The type of policy that Pablo advocates for Britain today would dissolve our movement in the marsh of centrism. That is why his few remaining disciples stumble from one crisis to another. The political yardstick of Pabloism is not his letter of congratula- tion to you on the presidential campaign but his policy for such an important political situation as exists in Britain today. Even now, while the SLL campaigns for the release of Pablo, the Pabloites still continue to help the witch- hunters against the youth paper. When our comrades go into action in Young Socialists branches with resolu- tions opposing the ban, the Pabloites propose counter- resolutions asking the Labour policemen at Transport House ‘for information’! Of course, they are being defeated wherever they show their faces, but the political lines which they pursue remain as clear to us now as they were in 1953. During the past seven years we have outlined in the Open Letter of comrade Sinclair to Germain and in the Labour Review editorial of August 1959 our political estimation of the evolution of Pabloism. We believe that these statements are correct and we stand today by the main political arguments set out in these articles. In his letter to the Indian comrade Kolpe (a man who was prominent in the organisation of a demon- stration outside the Chinese embassy in Bombay as a protest against the Chinese ‘attack’ on Tibet) comrade Hansen writes in a most apologetic way about the behaviour of the British comrades; in doing this he dissociates himself from our editorial in the Labour Review of August 1959. ‘Personally,’ he writes, ‘I would agree with you that this article was not well conceived.’ Comrade Hansen thought it necessary to mildly repudiate us in his letter to Kolpe, without having sent a copy of this correspondence to us in advance. Naturally, Kolpe will have sent such a document to the Pabloite Germain. It is equally to be understood that Pierre Frank’s greeting to the SWP on the occasion of the Presidential election is a sign that we may be once more on the eve of new ‘unity’ manoeuvres. The political purpose of these, so far as the Pabloites are concerned, will be another attempt, as in 1957, to split the SWP from the Socialist Labour League. It is our opinion that a considerable amount of time has already been wasted in this type of abortive unity discussion. What is needed in the international movement today is a political statement by the orthodox Trotskyists of where we stand on the great problems of the day. Without this international political declaration, it will be impossible to rebuild the international movement. This can be clearly seen from the crisis which exists in Ceylon and in our own 11 movement in the Argentine. The development of a most promising movement in Japan can only be con- tinued on the basis of such an international reaffirma- tion of principles. If there are any in the Pabloite ranks who are disturbed by their experiences of Pabloism, then they too can be assisted forward poli- tically in this way only. This international document must be followed up by a series of articles analysing the revisionist course of Pabloism. It is a vital pre-condition for the development of the Fourth International that we break finally from all traces of such revisionism, If we do not make this break now, then our movement will, in the opinion of the SLL, suffer its most severe crisis in a period of its greatest opportunity. It is well known internationally that the Socialist Labour League is deeply indebted to the great and constant political assistance given to it in the past by the Socialist Workers’ Party. Unfortunately, because of the laws of your country you have in recent years been prevented from actively participating in the international work of the Trotskyist movement, but you have made it possible for our movement in Britain to avoid many of the difficulties experienced during the early, formative years of the SWP in the USA. We believe that the political collaboration of our two sections constitutes a major factor in the inter- national movement, but we must now speak frankly. We cannot agreé to the type of political argument engaged in by comrade Hansen in his letters to Kolpe. We cannot under any circumstances agree that the political differences between ourselves and the Pab- loites are growing less. We were disturbed by the article by Murry Weiss in the latest International Socialist Review, by the recent editorial in The Militant on the Russian Revolution which skated over the question of the bureaucracy; and by your pre- sentation of developments in Cuba, which recalls Frank’s characterisation of that country as a workers’ State. In a few weeks we shall be sending you a draft resolution on international questions. We urge you to discuss this resolution and let us have your opinions. We especially need to know your opinions on Pabloism at the present time. Arising from such joint work we propose the preparation of an international congress of all orthodox Trotskyists as soon as it can possibly be arranged. We want your political assistance in preparing this conference, although we appreciate that you cannot participate in it because of the laws of your country. An international bulletin should be established forth- with to open an international discussion amongst the orthodox Trotskyists of all countries. We feel that if this is done our movement will quickly recover the political initiative which was provided by your open letter in 1953. We look forward to your reply. Yours fraternally, NATIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE SOCIALIST LABOUR LEAGUE

[p016] 12 DOCUMENT No. 2 FOURTH INTERNATIONAL, ISSUE 1, 1905