Vincent Raymond Dunne 1890-1970: Pioneer American Trotskyist

[p060] Further comments on The need for joint discussion between the International Committee 34 CONSIDER- ABLE interest has been aroused by the reports which have appeared concerning the two meetings be- tween myself and members of the Unified Secretariat. The Secretariat itself issued a statement in July which said, amongst other things : ‘The Fourth International is, of course, in favour of unifying revolutionary forces wherever possible on a prin- cipled basis. We are there- fore prepared to re-examine the question of the SLL {Socialist Labour League] and OT [Organization Trot- skyiste]: unifying with the Fourth International if ob- jective evidence should show that this is feasible. ‘The SLL and OT might well begin this process by beginning to discuss their political and _ theoretical differences with us in a frank and comradely way, without the use of slander or falsifying the positions we hold, and by beginning to engage in common ac- tions on such elementary things as defence of victims of the class struggle.’ The International Marxist Group, its English affiliate, commenting on this, issued a statement on August 23, 1970, which said: . . it shows quite clearly that the United Secretariat rejected Healy’s fake unity proposals. These have not been accepted, and there are no internal discussions taking place.’ At no time did I or any- one else from the _ Inter- national Committee make proposals as such for unity to the United Secretariat. In the Workers Press of July 7 we summarized the reasons for our approach as follows: ‘As part of this prepara- tion the Committee re- quested G. Healy, the national secretary of the Socialist Labour League, to contact representatives of the Unified Secretariat for informal talks around the possibility of joint discus- sion centred on outstanding political differences and directed towards the hold- ing of a joint international conference.” We are more firmly con- vincéd than ever that there is a basis for such an ap- proach, and we accept as a positive step forward the recommendation of the Uni- fied Secretariat that ‘The SLL and OT might well begin this process’ by beginning to discuss their political and _ theoretical differences with us in a frank and comradely way’. We are prepared to ac- cept this, otherwise it would have been useless to have made any approach in thé first place. and the Unified Secretariat Factional manoeuvring over ‘unity’ as such would convince no one, and we have no intention of en- gaging in this. The comrades of the Unified Secretariat are quite corréct to stress that the stage before us is not one of ‘unity’ as such. We see it as an effort on both sides to re-examine the fayour- able objective situation to see whether or not some advancés could be made along this road. Our position today is consistent with the pro- posals we made in 1963 when the Unified Secre- tariat was formed. To re- fresh our readers’ memories these were as follows: ‘l. That a world congress of the forces of the IC and IS should be con- vened during the autumn of 1964; ‘2. That a joint committee of representatives of the two organizations should regularly meet to prepare this conference and to work out practical ways and means for co-opera- tion in the different coun- tries ; ‘3. This committee should set out to prepare a joint resolution on world per- spectives for the confer- ence. This_ resolution would outline the points of agreement as well as disagreement. During the preparation of the resolu- tion, all the sections would be constantly in- formed of the work of the committee. In this way a genuine and posi- tive discussion involving the differences would be organized ; ‘4. Congress insisted that this discussion must take place in all sections, not only in the leaderships, but in the ranks. Unless this decision was carried out, it would be impos- sible for the international movement to develop new cadres which would be able to provide adequate political leadership in the next period. A_ proper circulation of all docu- ments must take place; ‘5. Joint discussion between the members of the sec- tions, particularly in W Europe, should be organ- ized. Whilst these discus- sions would deal with the differences, Congress be- lieved that they should be extended to include a discussion on the practical work of the various sec- tions in a way that would bring the members of these sections closer to- gether. Such a discussion would also have an all- round effect on the edu- cation of the cadres. ‘These proposals are to be immediately transmitted to the International Sec- retariat, with the hope that the joint work can begin immediately.’ (Re- produced from ‘World Fourth International. Winter 1970/71

[p061] Outlook’ edited by Joseph Hansen, November 22, 1963.) Unfortunately, the Uni- fied Secretariat did not ac- cept these proposals at the time, but the objective con- ditions are today entirely different and much more favourable. The working class. of Britain and W_ Europe is moving towards open class — conflict and into revolution- ary politics on a scale never before experienced by our movement since it was founded by Comrade Trot- sky. Both the organizations of the International Committee and the Unified Secretariat are thrust more and more into the bitterest struggles against the counter-revolu- tionary forces of Stalinism and social democracy. The building of mass re- volutionary parties based on the working class is The need for joint discussion within our reach in a num- ber of important countries. We are convinced that Comrade Trotsky would want us to have such dis- cussions if he were alive today. Indeed, it is entirely in accordance with the traditions of our movement in the years following his asSasSination. In 1948, the 2nd World Congress of the Fourth International brought us to- gether with the Shachtman- ites for a joint congress to see if, despite the great political differences, unity was possible. Subsequently, it was shown that the differences were too great, but that in no way cut across the valu- able political experience of the conference. We mention this experi- ence, since comrades of the Unified Secretariat. quite understandably, raise the sharpness of the _ political differences between us as a possible barrier to the pro- posed talks. They are by no means as sharp as they were with Shachtman in 1948. These, in fact, were aggra- vated greatly by the two distinctly different political positions pursued by them and us in relation to the defence of the USSR during the Second World War. There was nothing cynical about the work of our 2nd Congress in relation to Shachtman. Neither is there anything cynical about our proposals today. They arise within a much more favourable poli- tical situation. All of us agree that there should be no evasion of the fullest and frankest discus- cussion on all the disputed questions. We entirely agree with the Unified Secretariat that no important political differ- ence sheuld be evaded. This is essential if the yeuth especially are to be educated in a_ principled wav. To assist a. comradely approach for such discus- sion as suggested by the Unified Secretariat. we are prepared to enter into mutual agreement that this be no longer conducted in our public press, but in- térnally within our respec- tive organizations. We are ready now to meet and fix a date when such an internal discussion would commence. It is our opinion’ that there are now serious forces on both sides that want to have the discussion. We await a reply from the Unified Secretariat. BY G. HEALY SLL national secretary 35

[p062] LEON TROTSKY, in his struggle to continue the work of Lenir and the Bolsheviks, was un- doubtedly the theoretician and practical leader of the Marxist movement in the epoch of world proletarian revolution and _ transi- tion from capitalism to socialism, the epoch opened up by the October 1917 Revolution in Russia. Trotsky was assassinated in Mexico in August 1940 by a hired agent of the Stalinist secret police. But the theoretical and politi- cal work to develop Marxism, which he had carried out in the period since October 1917 (as well as earlier), was so pro- found that it remains—in the form of the struggle to build the Fourth International — the basis of the struggle for wor- kers’ power today. . It is essential to see Trotsky’s life’s work as a whole, and to understand why he himself re- garded his last few years, build- ing up the Fourth International, as the culmination of that life’s work. Ww Literary ‘admirers’ and com- mentators on Trotsky like to dismiss this later work, after his exile from the Soviet Union, as a tragic and even pathetic episode — contrasted with the ‘heroic’ years when Trotsky was leader of the Red Army and Commissar of War in the young Soviet Republic. it was because of Trotsky’s development as a Marxist that he could understand the need to concentrate everything in the 1930s—deepest years of fascist reaction and Stalinist degenera- tion, both succoured by work- ing-class defeats—on the selec- tion and training of a conscious Leninist vanguard, an_iInter- national of parties and leagues in every country. During these years, Trotsky was. condemned and hounded by the Stalinists as an enemy of the Soviet Union. The Stalinist bureaucracy, in the Soviet Union, taking advan- tage of the attachment of mil- lions of workers all over the world to the gains of the Octo- ber Revolution, used the Com- munist Parties of every country to provide support for its physi- cal liquidation of Trotsky’s sup- porters and for its collaboration with imperialism. The Moscow Trials _ finally condemned virtually the whole of the October leadership of Bolshevism as ‘enemies of the the people’ and proceeded to kill them off. Opposition to Stalinism was equated with counter-revolu- tionary opposition to Soviet ‘socialism’. TROTSKY ON LITERATURE annREVOLUTION _ By Cliff Slaughter TROTSKY’S ‘Literature and Revolution’, written ~ 1923-1924, brings his overall historical and philosophical outlook in- to extremely sharp focus. 36 It is a trenchant analysis of the various literary schools existing in the early years of revolutionary Soviet Russia. Too often dismissed as a by-product or diversion from his more directly _ political Trotsky’s role was actually to defend the conquests of the October Revolution against the parasitic and counter-revolution- ary Stalinist bureaucracy. Ww He started from the viewpoint: of the worid proletarian revolu- tion, of which October was the first breakthrough. True defence of the Soviet Union was the ex- tension of the revolution. Inso- far as this was not achieved, then the transition to socialism in the USSR must remain in grave danger. The productive forces on which socialism will be based are built up under capitalism, and the October Revolution had wrested from capitalism only a fraction of the world; within which, moreover, the productive forces were extremely backward. in the light of this situation, Trotsky recalled the words of the young Marx (1846): ‘A development of the pro- ductive forces is the absolute necessary practical premise [of communism], because without it want is generalized, and with want the struggle for necessities begins again, and that means that all the old crap must re- vive.” In fact, as Trotsky pointed out, after the October Revolution the writings, it is in fact a direct attack on the idea -- en- couraged at that time by Stalin, Bukharin, Lunacharsky and others of ‘proletarian culture’ and ‘proletarian literature’. By analysing these problems struggle for individual existence —given the special problems of isolation, wars of _ intervention, encirclement and exhaustion— ‘did not abate in the succeeding years, but, on the contrary, assumed at times an unheard-of ferocity.” (‘The Revolution Be- trayed’, Chap. 3.) Against these fundamental Marxist positions, Stalin posed the programme of ‘socialism in one country’ as early as 1924. The whole counter-revolution- ary history of Stalinism is the acting out of this revisionist theory. It was the charter of the Stalinist bureacracy. The Russian Revolution, the conscious Marxist preparation for it, the active leadership of it, the analysis of it, the defence of its gains, its relation to the world revolution; these were the essential problems around which all Trotsky’s work centred. And because the Russian Revolution opened up success- fully the whole era of world socialist revolution, and consti- tutes the most essential experi- ence of the international wor- kers’ movement, so the Marxist leadership of the working class needs to be trained in all of Trotsky’s work, as the starting- point for penetrating every devel- opment in the proletariat and its revolution, and thus developing Marxism further. to their depths, which lie in the class struggle and the con- flict between productive forces and relations of production, Trotsky was able to expound and enrich the Marxist theory of historical materialism, and also to provide a_ necessary Fourth International. Winter 1970/71

[p063] LEON TROTSKY, in his struggle to continue the work of Lenir and the Bolsheviks, was un- doubtedly the theoretician and practical leader of the Marxist movement in the epoch of world proletarian revolution and transi- tion from capitalism to socialism, the epoch opened up by the October 1917 Revolution in Russia. Trotsky was assassinated in Mexico in August 1940 by a hired agent of the Stalinist secret police. But the theoretical and _ politi- cal work to develop Marxism, which he had carried out in the period since October 1917 (as well as earlier), was so pro- found that it remains—in the form of the struggle to build the Fourth International — the basis of the struggle for wor- kers’ power today. . It is essential to see Trotsky's life's work as a whole, and to understand why he himself re- garded his last few years, build- ing up the Fourth International, as the culmination of that life's work. w Literary ‘admirers’ and com- mentators on Trotsky like to dismiss this later work, after his exile from the Soviet Union, as a tragic and even pathetic episode — contrasted with the ‘heroic’ years when Trotsky was leader of the Red Army and Commissar of War in the young Soviet Republic. It was because of Trotsky's development as a Marxist that he could understand the need to concentrate everything in the 1930s—deepest years of fascist reaction and Stalinist degenera- tion, both succoured by work- ing-class defeats—on the selec- tion and training of a conscious Leninist vanguard, an_Inter- national of parties and leagues in every country. During these years, Trotsky was condemned and hounded by the Stalinists as an enemy of the Soviet Union. The Stalinist bureaucracy, in the Soviet Union, taking advan- tage of the attachment of mil- lions of workers all over the world to the gains of the Octo- ber Revolution, used the Com- munist Parties of every country to provide support for its physi- cal liquidation of Trotsky’s sup- porters and for its collaboration with imperialism. The Moscow Trials finally condemned virtually the whole of the October leadership of Bolshevism as ‘enemies of the the people’ and proceeded to kill them off. Opposition to Stalinism was equated with counter-revolu- tionary opposition to Soviet ‘socialism’. TROTSKY ON LITERATURE annDREVOLUTION _ By Cliff Slaughter TROTSKY’S ‘Literature and Revolution’, written 1923-1924, brings his overall historical and philosophical outlook in- to extremely sharp focus. 36 It is a trenchant analysis of the various literary schools existing in the early years of revolutionary Soviet Russia. Too often dismissed as a by-product or diversion from his more directly _ political Trotsky’s role was actually to defend the conquests of the October Revolution against the parasitic and counter-revolution- ary Stalinist bureaucracy. wv He started from the viewpoint of the world proletarian revolu- tion, of which October was the first breakthrough. True defence of the Soviet Union was the ex- tension of the revolution. Inso- far as this was not achieved, then the transition to socialism in the USSR must remain in grave danger. The productive forces on which socialism will be based are built up under capitalism, and the October Revolution had wrested from capitalism only a fraction of the world; within which, moreover, the productive forces were extremely backward. In the light of this situation, Trotsky recalled the words of the young Marx (1846): ‘A development of the pro- ductive forces is the absolute necessary practical premise [of communism], because without it want is generalized, and with want the struggle for necessities begins again, and that means that all the old crap must re- vive.’ In fact, as Trotsky pointed out, after the October Revolution the writings, it is in fact a direct attack on the idea ~- en- couraged at that time by Stalin, Bukharin, Lunacharsky and others of ‘proletarian culture’ ‘proletarian literature’. By analysing these problems and struggle for individual existence —given the special problems of isolation, wars of intervention, encirclement and exhaustion— ‘did not abate in the succeeding years, but, on the contrary, assumed at times an unheard-of ferocity." (‘The Revolution Be- trayed’, Chap. 3.) Against these fundamental Marxist positions, Stalin posed the programme of ‘socialism in one country’ as early as 1924. The whole counter-revolution- ary history of Stalinism is the acting out of this’ revisionist theory. It was the charter of the Stalinist bureacracy. The Russian Revolution, the conscious Marxist preparation for it, the active leadership of it, the analysis of it, the defence of its gains, its relation to the world revolution; these were the essential problems around which all Trotsky’s work centred. And because the Russian Revolution opened up success- fully the whole era of world socialist revolution, and consti- tutes the most essential experi- ence of the international wor- kers’ movement, so the Marxist leadership of the working class needs to be trained in all of Trotsky’s work, as the starting- point for penetrating every devel- opment in the proletariat and its revolution, and thus developing Marxism further. to their depths, which lie in the class struggle and the con- flict between productive forces and relations of production, Trotsky was able to expound and enrich the Marxist theory of historical materialism, and also to provide a_ necessary Fourth International. Winter 1970/71

[p064] foundation for the political struggle against the programme of Stalin and Bukharin. Trotsky’s introduction states his main point very clearly: ‘It is fundamentally in- correct to contrast bourgeois culture and bourgeois art with proletarian culture and _ pro- letarian art. ‘The latter will never exist, because the proletarian regime is temporary and _ transient. The historic significance and the moral grandeur of the proletarian revolution consist in the fact that it is laying the foundations of a culture which is above classes and which will be the first culture which is truly human’ (p. 14). As for ‘proletarian culture’ under capitalism, before the conquest of power, Trotsky re- states the Marxist position that the proletariat is first and fore- most an_ exploited class, separated from the gains made by humanity in its struggle with nature. Concentrated The’ proletariat develops class-consciousness, concen- trated into political strategy, tactics and organization and the methodological develop- ments which underlie and en- rich them. Only by abolishing itself as a class (by abolishing the property foundation of class society) will the _ pro- letariat put itself into a posi- tion to acquire and develop culture. Whereas the _ bourgeoisie, before it rules society, growing up in the pores of feudal society, builds up its ‘own’ - type of private ownership; builds its own churches and academies; trains its own corps of administra- tors, philosophers, architects, dramatists and poets, the pro- letariat grows up under capi- talism in a state of depriva- tion from culture. It becomes conscious of its historical aims only by _ be- coming conscious of its lack of culture. In our own day, reformists like the ‘new left’ Raymond Williams (‘Culture and Society’) and Richard Hoggart (‘The Uses of Literacy’) have put forward the idea of a ‘working-class culture’: mean- ing some special ‘values’ or ‘way of life’ which the pro- letariat, quite apart from its trade union and _ political