PROBLEMS OF THE

THE Socialist Workers' Party of the United States cannot for legal reasons be affiliated to the Fourth International. In the past, however, because the founders of this Party, Cannon, Schactman and Abern worked in the closest During the period of the late twenties and thirties its leadership in collaboration with Trotsky harnessed their experience of work in the mass movement to a greater extent than any other section at that time.

The early successes of the SWP were based on a combination of Trotsky's brilliant political analysis of the international scene as well as the problems of the Trotskyist movement and the maturity of its leadership in relation to their approach to the problems of the working class in the United States. In this respect, James P. Cannon was undoubtedly the most outstanding international Trotskyist leader during Trotsky's lifetime.

How then and under what conditions did the degeneration take place which today has transformed the SWP from being the staunchest defender of Marxism and Trotskyism into the leader of a rump of Pabloite revisionist supporters who have betrayed every principle of Marxism over the past 15 years?

Dialectical

naterialism and the revolutionary party The answer to this question does not lie in the difficult conditions of the cold war and the boom under which the SWP has been operating In the United States, especially since 1949, although these have played a role, but in the origin of the early Trotskyist move. ment.

From its inception, this movement was based on a profound contradiction.

Its founder, Trotsky, went through all the early political experiences of the pre-revolutionary Soviet Union, the revolution itself, when he led and organised the Red Army, the post-Lenin degeneration and the growth of the Soviet bureaucracy under Stalin.

His supporters in the USA and in other countries came mainly from those who entered the communist movement after the foundation of the Third International in 1919. Their development was conditioned by the post-World War I defeats of the working class outside the Soviet Union and the growth of Stalinism.

These experiences should not be considered in an unrelated superficial way.

Building the revolutionary party is conditioned by them: but in a more fundamental way it is determined by a consistent struggle for the Marxist philosophy dialectical materialism against all forms of idealism which is the predominant philosophy of the ruling class.

Only Trotsky had participated in such an experience, especially during the pre-revolutionary period.

Lenin's leadership was constantly strengthened and developed around consistent struggle for Marxist philosophy against all brands of idealist revisionism. Such a struggle wow greatly facilitated by taculltated the growth the revolutionary forces which were the forerunner of the revolution itself.

Without this experience the revolutionary leadership cannot be trained. The education of a Marxist cadre requires a concluded that Trotsky had the correct political position.

Cannon was strengthened in his conclusion by the immediate conflict of factions within the American Communist Party. William Z. Foster and others joined with Stalin, Cannon took political sides with Trotsky. It was a pragmatic decision dictated by the factional situation within the CP of the USA which produced important results, especially during Trotsky's lifetime.

But this was not enough so far as the training of the leadership of the SWP went.

Cannon and his supporters accepted Trotsky's leadership without understanding the implications of the theoretical experience which lay behind it.

Their political development was therefore of a one-sided character-in effect they remained pragmatists.

At this point we can see the reason why Trotsky had to wage a struggle on dialectical materialism in 1939-1940 against Burnham and Schactman.

Although the American Trotskyist movement was 11 years old, he had to begin his struggle against the revisionists by outlining and explaining dialectical materialism, the ABC of Marxism (see In Defence of Marxism').

Trotsky's tragic assassination by the Stalinists in August 1940 left Cannon on his own. Trotsky Now the real test began, and Cannon faced it in the following way.

The legend was fostered up that the SWP and its members were Trotsky's 'heirs', , which to inexperienced people might seem plausible enough. It was implemented by the publication of Trotsky's writings, implying that he had said the last word on all the important questions.

Trotsky's insistence that the SWP should wage a continuous struggle within its ranks for dialectical materialism was ignored. Cannon replaced it with the conception that so long as he reprinted Trotsky's books it was sufficient.

In this way Trotsky was transformed from a revolutionsecond World War, Pablo was taken to the USA so that he could be 'looked over' • He passed 'the test', if you can call it that, and then became the SWP-appointed "Trotsky' for Western Europe.

So far, so good, but then the real crisis began because Pablo himself needed political assistance and guidance. Cannon desired Pablo to be another Trotsky, but the whole The role of the Socialist Workers' Party thing was based on a pragmatic illusion. Pablo wasn't Trotsky and yet Cannon wanted Trotsky tailor-made.

Having 'got away' to speak with his pragmatic relation to Trotsky in the thirties, Cannon was on the look-out for replacements.

This is where the Marxist method came in. Cannon from his insular nationalist United States outlook wanted someone to take charge of 'Fourth International' affairs, so he chose Pablo, under circumstances where Pablo was being pushed from pillar to post by his impressionism. Coming from a middle-class intellectual milieu in Western Europe Pablo was incapable of replacing Trotsky.

So Cannon had what appeared to be a breathing space until 1951. Then Pablo utilised a minority of the French Section to expel a majority.

At first Cannon applauded Pablo on this issue, then, when the latter began to organise a minority inside the SWP, Cannon . was spurred into action against Pablo. It was OK presumably when it was going on in France, but quite diferent story when it began to happen inside the USA.

The third of a series of articles National Secretary of the Socialist Labour League His pragmatic use of Trotsky was now transferred to a pragmatic use of the Fourth International, which in practice meant that he based himself on a completely American nationalist approach to the international movement.

From a pragmatic attitude towards Trotsky and his teaching was but a small step towards American nationalism which is the most reactionary version of idealist philosophy in the world.

It was this methodology which was responsible for the complete disintegration of the SWP as a Trotskyist organisation.

The struggle by Cannon against Pablo in 1953 marked the beginning of the end for the SWP. Pablo's supporters Cochran and Clarke forced Cannon's hand. He fought them back by organisational means-that is he expelled them.

Now, 13 years later, he and Farrell Dobbs, the present Secretary of the SWP, completely support every point which Cochran and Company fought for in 1953.

In other words, Cannon and Dobbs after expelling Cochran and Clarke then proceeded to adopt their revisionist programme.

The history of Cannon and Dobbs since 1953 is one of expelling those who disagreed with them in order to adopt the policy which those who were expelled advocated. This was the end of the line for the pragmatists of the SWP. From 1953 onwards they were politically speaking turned upside down.

Almost immediately they DOBBS turned towards the English Trotskyists in order to find an excuse for what they proposed to do. They built up the legend that because the English Trotskyists were the victims of Pablo's attack (they had broken from Pablo by means of the 'Open Letter' [1953]) they needed to save the English Trotskyists, which included 'Healy', from Pablo, by way of the 'Open Letter' This was a lie. The English Trotskyists in 1953, like the French Trotskyists in 1951 were well able to look after themselves.

Cannon turns back Pablo When the split with Pablo was over in November 1953, we began immediately to discuss ways and means to bring the differences with Pablo into the open.

In the spring of 1954 we proposed a renewal of the discussion with Pablo and a committee was set up with an equal number from both sides to organise it.

The purpose of this discussion was not to heal the split but to bring out more clearly the fundamental reasons for it.

It was conceived by us as another stage of the struggle against Pablo. The unavoidably abrupt nature of the international split in November 1953 had left a number of comrades in different sections still confused—we wanted to expose Pablo and clarity them.

At first Cannon gave half-hearted support to these proposals, then in the late Autumn of 1954 we suddenly received a letter calling upon us to abandon the discussion. From that moment it was clear than an even more serious conflict was brewing between the International Committee and the SWP.

Even at this early date in 1954, when the split with Pablo was just concluded, the split with the SWP was on the agenda.

We believed that the political fight against Pablo was not an issue of abstract Marxist theory but one which was directly related to the struggle to build the party.

We felt that it was necessary to carry the fight against revisionism into the day-to-day work of the sections of the International Committee and ruthlessly expose Pabloism in the process.

The SWP wanted to forget about the fight as soon as it was over. In his usual pragmatic way Cannon couldn't care less about the problems of the international movement just so long as he had defeated Pablo's supporters inside the SWP.

So far as he was concerned it was the SWP first, last and always, no matter what happened the international movement. Thus did pragmatism merge with nationalism.

The discussion on Pablo's • role in the 1953 split was abruptly terminated by the SWP by June 1954. There matters stood for three years until Cannon, without consultathe International Committee, wrote to Leslie Goonewardene, the secretary of the Lanka Sama Samaja Party in Ceylon in April 1957 suggesting that a fresh effort should be made to achieve reunification between the International Committee and the Pabloites. This was the same Leslie Goonewardene who led the movement into the coalition government of Mrs. Bandaranaike in June 1964.

Cannon was at the end of his pragmatic road, now he had to do a political 'about face' before the entire international movement. Having split from Pablo and his own factions, Cochran and Clarke, in 1953, he now had to find ways and means to accept the policies of those from whom he had split and he had little time to do it since his own 'majority' was breaking up fast.

This is how his ideas developing.

Dobbs, Novack and Almost immediately after the split with Pablo in 1953 George Novack (Wm. F. Warde) announced to Cannon one day that he was in reality a supporter of Pablo's and was on his way over to join Cochran and Clarke.

This caused consternation in the Cannon camp because he lad been boosted as their mait theoretician.

Immediately they went into action. According to Cannon, Evelyn Reed, Novack's wife, announced she was staying with the SWP and he, Cannon, arranged that they (the Novack's) were to join him in Los Angeles, California as soon as possible. the George did, Novack, that silenced at least for the time being. He didn't break from Cannon but he temporarily- kept his views on Pablo to himself.

George Breitman who went to Detroit in 1953 to replace the Cochran faction did the same thing in 1954.

Both Novack and Breitman were Pabloites from the start, but they were also friendly with Cannon. So, for the time being, they went along with him instinctively, knowing very well that sooner or later he would join them.

The reader may well ask: join the Pabloites? did Cannon eventually In answering this question we do not have to refer to Novack (Warde) and Breitman.

The answer lies in Khrushchev's speech at the 20th Congress of the USSR early. in 1956. But that. readers may ask, is surely very difficult to understand-nothing of the sort.

Immediately, that is from the split of 1953, Cannon rejected the ideas which led to Khrush. chev's speech. He didn't accept that the struggle against Pabloism was tied up with build. ing revolutionary parties throughout the world and especially in the United States.

Once he believed that the SWP was free from the immediate menace of Pabloism, which him meant Cochran and Clarke, he just turned his bae international mozement.

But Khrushchev's everything Trotskyists fought for was right, changed all that.

In effect he posed an all-out struggle to expose and destroy Stalinism. It was at this point that Pabloite revisionsm reallv strangled the international Trotskvist movement For five years it had turned the sections towards the possibility that the Stalinist ureaucrac after Stalin's eath. would reform itself. Nor the cat was out of the bag.

It became a question as to whether or not the Fourth International of would take advantage Khrushchev's speech and fight as never beto expose and defeat Stalinism, or whether or not it would adapt itself to Khrushchev's variety of Stalinism. ity with Pablo. That is the real significance Cannon approaching the Ceylonese renegade Goonewardene in April 1957. He had decided to sell out to the Stalinist bureaucracy and the imperialists. Cy Socialist Labour League saw things in an entirel ferent light. We saw Khrushchev's 20th Congress speech as an opportunity to expose Stalinism and Pabloite adaptation to Stalinism.

When Cannon was looking for unity with the Pabloites in 1957, we were fighting to clarify the 1953 split, and extend the struggle against Pabloism, utilising Khrushchev's speech in order to do this.

Immediately upon hearing about Cannon's • letter to Goonewardene we wrote to the Sir made sei ed outies. SWP and dissociated ourselves he wrote back a letter the lord of the manor writes lo serf. was a letter from an arrogant American nationalist telling the English comrades where to get off.

importahce ues toror bost cussion before unification took place. Cannon said that there was no need for any discussion. He had to Pact com. etely at the point when Khrushchev's speech opened up a real oppor tunity for the Trotskyist move ment to fight Stalinism, Cannon ran into the arms of Pablo.

ist Labour League lost no the The leadership of the Socialportunity xposin Stalinists over Khrushchev' speech. to abooism, to like the filest order to fight ê Stalinists—we gained mot from this approach than all the Pabloite sections, , including the SWP, did together Now let us look a little more closely Cannon's cadre. Following atthe split of 1953 and Novack's threat to join Cochran (the American Pabloite) things went from bad to worse inside the leadership of the SWP. the split with elected general secretary of the SWP found he was unable to carry out his assignments he cause Cannon, he said, con tinuously interfered with his work as secretary from Los Angeles. Dobbs came to England early 177 1958 order, Саппол. gain our support to fight George Novack and rela tions with Cannon. We insisted that the solution to these problems MUST be and accordingly we told him to par ticipate to the full at the first congress of the International Committee which was held Tune 1958, although the SWP we noo as Anter because of did nothing of the sort. He was, he said. under instructions comment on the political questions.

Just imagine Here we were at the nrsi congress those sections who had fought the revisionism Pablo, and the section which had led the fight in 1953 had nothing to salt was equally clear from the informal discussions Dobbs that the SWP was being torn asunder by an internal crisis Which the surface appeared to centre around organisation issues reason store Pane sit one mons inside me bert of factions inside party were blindly hehting against each other, without the political issues being clear.

The one thing that did emerge from all this squabbling vas the undoubted right-wing revisionist orientation or o the factions.

Cannon did nothing to clear up thic political mess; he simply intensified it. took a Posite righ-ve he acid at Murry Weiss against the Dobb: faction small wonder that luring visit to Europe 1958 Dobbs spent most of hir time looking for allies in the Towards the end of Septem ber 1958 just before he was due to return to the United States of call called for a special meeting English French comrades at which he could with problem of Cannon At this meeting he announced (There is a stenographic re. port of all probability he would of this meeting available. be removed from general secretary norite tot when he returned from Europe.

Both ourselves and the French comrades were amazec by such a revelation. We told Dobbs bluntly that under no circumstances could take any cides hetwear him and Cannon omrade i read also at e anad late in November see if it were possible assist the leading members SIVP to overcome this crisis.

Dobbs returned to the USA and things more or less staye as they were until the visit of