An open letter to Joseph Hansen. Part one

JOSEPH HANSEN IN AN 'open letter' published in Workers Press, April 18 and 21, 1970, we addressed the following questions to Joseph Hansen of the Socialist Workers Party (US).

What is Castroism? Who will build the revolutionary leadership to defeat imperialism and Stalinism? What is the future of Trotskyism?

Hansen — a leading apologist for Castroism since 1960refused to answer these questions, or any of the points raised in our 'open letter'. This drew attention to his record on Cuba, and also to the recent attacks made on Castro by Hugo Blanco, the peasant leader imprisoned by the Peruvian military junta.

Castro has on several occasions praised this military regime, despite its repressions of students, workers and peasants.

This second open letter deals with Hansen's evasions and answers his recently repeated slanders that the Socialist Labour League has been the main opponent of a principled unification on a world scale of genuinely Trotskyist forces.

Since 1963 the SWP has supported the revisionist Unified Secretariat of the Fourth International. Before that it had maintained fraternal relations with the SLL and the International Committee of the Fourth International. (The repressive Voorhis Act prevents any party in the US having international affiliations.)

record of the SWP and you ın particular, on the Cuban Devolution wen eter ject of you.

That letter showed how the emergence of the Castro leadership and the discussion on the class nature of the Cuban state I would like information about THE SOCIALIST LABOUR LEAGUE Fill in the form below and SECRETARY, SOCIALIST 186A CLAPHAM HIGH ST, Name ....

Address served as a cover for an unprincipled re-unification between the SWP majority and the European supporters of Pablo. The SWP had been one of the parties which broke with Pablo in 1953.

Considerable documentary material relating to your position over the last decade was marshalled to prove that you had renounced vital questions Marxist theory and principle in your anxiety to break from the International Committee and link up with Pabloite International Secretariat.

But in your journal 'Intercontinental Press', May 11, 1970, you once more evade the issues raised by both the crisis in your ranks, and the further drift to the right of the Castro leadership (which, as you know, faithfully endorses the Kremlin policy of supporting the reactionary military junta in Peru).

In this article A note on Healy's Current Slanders' you refer to our publication of material relating to the congress of the 'Unified Secretariat' last summer. These are to be found in 'Fourth International' (Vol. 6 No. 2, Winter 1969-1970).

Our publication of these documents obviously causes you some political discomfort, for you make the cynical remark:

'Shocking as it may seem to a good many members of the SLL that such a free discussion could be held, others may begin to send to NATIONAL LABOUR LEAGUE, LONDON, SW4. wonder about the monolithism in their own organization.' By attempting to turn the discussion away from politics, perspectives and history to innuendo about the internal 'regime' of the SLL you emulate the spokesman of the petty bourgeols opposition to Trotsky and Cannon in your own party in 1939-1940.

Following in the tradition established by Trotsky and his supporters in the fight against You continue, In the years since the Reunification Congress Healy has covered up his differences on these points with an immense amount of verbiage about the importance of theory.' Here indeed is the heart of the question. The SLL did not simply talk about the importance of theory, but demonstrated in minute detail that yours and the SWP line consisted of the abandonment of Marxist theory, a capitulation to the so-called "facts' • a substitution of empiricism for Marxist theory.

Burnham and Shachtman, we refuse to be diverted by such petty-bourgeois tactics.

Your political case rests with the reproduction of the SWP resolution of March 1, 1963: 'For the Early Keunication of the But before checking over our position on Cuba, we will deal with the issues raised by your reproduction SWP

But even this resolution is introduced in a sick style, a style that betrays a whole political method: ments be "exposed., docu- In his list of further should like to suggest that Healy gives top priority to the one reprinted below (i.e. For Early Reunitication). It should be of special interest to members of the SLL since it can be safely asserted that 99.9 per cent have never heard of it and the remaining 0.1 per cent probably had to turn their numbered copies back in to Healy personally.

•What did Healy object to in this document? He has never stated his objections but they are hardly any secret. In my considered opinion, Healy was motivated primarily by dead-end factionalism.' What does this explain? Are political tendencies and splits to be explained on the basis of guessing at psychological motives? What has this to do with Marxism?

As you once proudly announced: I start with the em. pirical fact of the Cuban Revolution'. And, on another occasion, 'Dialectical materialism is empiricism consistently carried out.' In order to cover up your thoroughly opportunist record on Cuba over the last ten years, you have to resort to a total distortion of our position. For example, you write:

6 •.. Healy still holds that Cuba's economy is state capitalist and that Castro is another "Batista"! •We hope, your readers will 'carefully note the use you make 'of quotation marks in this sentence. Putting the name of tae fion maCis su dists we said that Castro and Batista were identical. You know this is a downright lie. Yet you develop this lie further, saying:

•.. it is sad that a person who shouts so much about the importance of theory should have found so little time to attempt to make at least a small contribution to the economic theory of state capitalism and the political theory of Castroism as synonym for "Batistaism".! (Again, the unexplained quotation marks.)

In our first 'open letter' to you, we were scrupulously careful in quoting from your writings on Cuba.

The bulk of our case rested on what you have said in the past about the 'unconscious Trotskyists, (e.g. Castro) who endorse the most reactionary aspects of Stalinism and defend the military junta in Peru which held Hugo Blanco and his comrades captive. then, if it is possible, within the Pabloites along the lines we have already suggested. (Emphasis added.)

majority resolution on reunificaYou say, It was accepted by an overwhelming majority on each side and this became the statement of principles on which the two sides carried out a fusion at the subsequent Reunification Congress in 1963.

•While substantial differences still remain, especially over the + causes of the 1953 split, the area of disagreement appears of secondary importance in view. af the common basic programme and common analysis of, major current events in world development (i.e. Cuba] which unites the two sides.' The SLL and our French comrades on the International Committee saw the differences as growing greater as between ourselves and the revisionists. But this line of yours was not new. As early as February 6, 1961, your Political Committee wrote to us arguing for a rapid reunification with Pablo:

•.. we have no reason to deny our differences on political and organizational questions with leading members of the IS (the, Pabloite, "International Secretariat") and we have not concealed them. But we cannot agree with your opinion that our polie increased tos the point 15 irreconcilability' (If the differences were not "irreconcilable" in 1953, why your "open letter" and the ensuing split?)

'On the contrary, we have noted nothing since the question was last discussed with you that would indicate we should revise the view that the political differences on some key questions have diminished to the point where unification is possible and justifiable and that we must make it our responsibility follow policies that will facilitate this objective.' We did not oppose a principled unification then, and we do not do so now. But the type of fusion you were advocating was one where the theoretical and historical questions would be obscured—hence the emphasis that the SWP leadership placed on the organizational nature of Pabloism, and the neglect of its idealist, middle-class roots.

Revises

We took up this point in our reply to you: We believe that the reasons for the split in 1953 In erect Pabloism levises the In effect Pabloism whole concept of the Marxist tugo anco

PAGE TWO We concluded our reply by calling for the careful preparation of an international discussion, 'first within the ranks of the International Committee and Monday January 18, 1971 Committee-with the same lack of response.

"They will find it most difficult to resist such an approach. Even if they do, the most important question is first to clarify our own ranks.' By refusing to begin such a discussion, you protected the Pabloites from this pressure. You put a spurious unity with the liquidationist forces of the IS before a clarification within the ranks of the International Committee, which since the split of 1953 had been the rallying point for all genuine Trotskyists.

Then a full year passed without our being able to encourage the SWP leadership to begin such a discussion. The record speaks for itself.

On January 2, 1961, we wrote a letter to the National Committee of the SWP raising the question of Pabloism and our political evaluation of it. You replied on February 6-the open letter from which we have quoted.

We then wrote back, requesting that the discussion proceed as promptly as possible. To this letter, we received no reply.

We wrote again on February 24, reiterating the points we made previously. Again, no reply.

On May 4 and 8 we sent two more letters to the SWP National Committee for its plenum in the middle of June, 1962, almost 18 months after we had opened up the discussion.

The questions raised by us for discussion were finally tabled for examination by the SWP National

In a letter dated March 12, 1962, we commented: "We have waited almost eighteen months and the record of correspondence between us speaks for itself. What does international collaboration mean if it does not imply discussion between sections? What is the purpose of drafting an international resolution as you have done and talking about the need for discussion upon it if you have not presented tribution to that discussion, conBut despite your flagrant violations of these comradely norms, we still held out hopes that the discussion could begin in a way that would bring together our two movements for a common fight for Trotskyist principles within the international movement:

'In conclusion we would like to emphasize something we have stressed on a number of occasions. We feel proud of the work which our comrades of the SWP have carried out under the most difficult circumstances.

'As internationalists, we feel that the close association between our two sections can continue under conditions where the present discussion may well draw us even closer together. We look forward to your political con-. tribution to the discussion.

Continued tomorrow