May 22, 1961
To the Political Committee
New York, NY
Dear Comrades,
I have carefully studied the PC minutes of May 3. The remarks of Morris
Stein, Murry [Weiss] and Bob Chester on the world movement are very much along
the line of my own thinking. I also agree with the remarks of Dobbs to the
effect that our international resolution now being drafted, giving a positive
statement of our own views at the present time, is the best way to begin our
contribution to the international discussion.
I think it should be frankly presented as such—as our contribution to the
international discussion—and, consequently, as Farrell indicates in his
remarks, that it will be subject to possible modification later on in the light
of that discussion.That is simply another way of saying that we are willing to
learn as well as to teach; that we do not begin a discussion with ultimatums.
I am not entirely sure right now, but I incline more and more to the idea
that this international resolution, as it eventually may be adopted by the
Convention, should be published in our magazine. We want to reach the widest
possible audience in all sectors of the international movement. This will not be
possible if we simply pass it back and forth among a few people in mimeographed
form.
The “fragmentation” of the international movement, which Murry spoke
about in his remarks, is in my opinion, not entirely, nor even mainly, a
negative manifestation. It appears to me that the whole international movement,
in all its branches and affiliations and independent sectors, is in a process of
fermentation and re-examination of the problems of party building. That puts a
serious discussion on the agenda. And that, in turn, can lead to a broader
eventual unification of the international Trotskyist forces, and others who do
not yet recognize themselves as Trotskyists.
Unification is definitely not on the agenda now, and it would be unrealistic
to talk about it in concrete terms. But the perspective of a broader unification
than we have ever known before has to be kept in mind all the time as the goal
toward which the discussion is aimed. The unification we foresee and aim at must
not be simply the unification of those organizations or groups formally
affiliated to the International Committee and the Intemational Secretariat, and
those other Trotskyist groups which at present remain independent.
New revolutionary forces are emerging, notably at present in Cuba, and
probably throughout Latin America, which have never had previous international
affiliation or even formal organization on national grounds. We also know of
several split-offs from the Stalinist party in Mexico. There are deep divisions
in other Stalinist parties in Latin America. The Indian independent Trotskyists
have recently made a fusion with a group of former Stalinists. There is a group
of former members of the CP in Japan. Etc.
If our movement should fail to foresee and consciously aim at collaboration
and eventual unification with new people who are actually engaged in carrying
through a socialist revolution, or striving toward it, it would brand itself as
a futile sect and not a living, expanding revolutionary movement, as Trotsky
envisaged it.
The aim of the discussion is not to produce new splits and splinters until
there is nothing left but a sterile little church of self-satisfied scholastics.
To be sure, the discussion of obvious differences will, in its first stage, draw
clear lines of differentiation. But the aim of this method of procedure is not
simply to freeze old splits and to manufacture new ones. The object, rather, is
to get all points of view on the table for consideration and discussion, with
the expectation that some, if not all, of the participants in the discussion
will change and learn from the arguments and the unfolding events and come
closer together in a broader unification.
In working out our tactical approach to this complex problem, we should draw
on all the experiences of the past, not simply the experiences of yesterday or
the day before. The history of our own movement since 1928 is very rich in these
experiences. But the principal guiding lines go back much further than that. The
struggles of Bolshevism, from its beginning in 1903 up to the October
Revolution, and through the first years of the Comintern until the death of
Lenin, are an important part of our heritage.
The idea of a monolithic international and monolithic national parties cannot
draw any support from these experiences. The history of Bolshevism, from its
beginning up until the October Revolution, was a history not only of splits but
also of unifications and attempted unifications with the Mensheviks. It was not
until 1912 that the Bolsheviks formally constituted themselves as an independent
party and no longer as a faction of the Russian Social-Democracy. And after
that, it shouldn’t be forgotten—because the fate of the revolution depended
on it—the Bolsheviks made a unification with Trotsky and his group after the
March Revolution, and also kept the door open for any signs of a revolutionary
turn on the part of the left Mensheviks.
The Communist International was not built into a mass movement in its early
days by simply proclaiming the need for new parties in each country. There was a
rather prolonged process of unifications and splits in the different countries
before the national sections of the Comintern were firmly established.
The Communist Party of Germany originated with the Spartacus group of
Liebknecht and Luxembourg. But this was followed two years later by a
unification with the left wing of the Independent Socialist Party which gave the
Communist Party of Germany for the first time a mass base. In England, the
Communist Party was established through a fusion of a number of sectarian
groups, none of which had been Bolsheviks originally. In France and Italy the
syndicalists were invited. In the United States, the Comintern invited the
Socialist Labour Party, the IWW and the left wing of the Socialist Party to
participate in the Second Congress of the Comintern.
The same process of splits and unifications took place in practically every
other country in the early days of the consolidation of the parties of the
Comintern. In the early congresses of the Comintern deep and serious differences
on the most important questions were freely discussed. Lenin and Trotsky
didn’t try to eliminate them by expulsions and splits. “Monolithism” began
with Stalin, not with Lenin.
The Left Opposition of the Russian Communist Party was first organized in
1923. But in 1926, when Zinoviev and Kamenev broke with Stalin and Bukharin, the
Trotskyist Left Opposition made a bloc with them and gained a much broader base
as a result.
Trotsky’s method in creating the first cadres of the international Left
Opposition, after his deportation to Turkey in 1929, was to draw clear lines of
demarcation for the new movement; and then to build it, not only by splits, but
also by unifications with other oppositional groups. And then, after the
original cadres of international Trotskyism had been consolidated, Trotsky
initiated a new series of discussions and negotiations with left-centrist
elements in independent parties and others still remaining within the parties of
the Second International.
Trotsky never envisaged the Fourth International as a monolithic, purely
Trotskyist organization, but as a broad revolutionary movement in which we,
orthodox Trotskyists, might possibly, under certain conditions and for certain
periods, be a minority. He stated this explicitly in one of his letters prior to
the Founding Congress in 1938.40 He proposed that Chen Tu-hsiu, who at that time
was in sharp conflict with our Chinese section over some important questions,
should be invited to be a member of the Intemational Executive Committee.
The internal regime of our international movement during the lifetime of
Trotsky never tried to enforce monolithism. That began with Pablo. The
Discussion Bulletins of our international movement throughout this period show
that differences of opinion on the most important questions arose again and
again and were freely discussed. A large part of our education in fact was
derived from these discussions.
The recognition of the Soviet Union as a workers state, and of the obligation
to defend it against imperialist attack, was a central principle of our
international movement at the time. This characterization and this attitude was
challenged time and again, year after year, and freely discussed without
expulsions or threats of expulsion.
In the classic battle of 1939-40 with the Burnham-Shachtman faction, they
were about as wrong as it was possible for a faction to be in America under
conditions of that time. Shachtman thought we were engaged in a “polemic”
and conducted himself like a high school debater scoring points. He didn’t
really know that he was dealing with a question of a revolution and that it was
dangerous to play with such a question. He didn’t know it because he didn’t
feel it.
It was a red hot question for us at that time, just as the Cuban Revolution
is at present, because public opinion was being mobilized every day by all the
imperialist agencies against the Soviet Union. It was particularly reprehensible
for Shachtman to choose that period to wash his hands of it. But despite this
deep and terrible difference on such a burning question as one’s attitude
toward a revolution in existence, Trotsky did not advocate a split, not even if
we should turn out to be a minority in the Convention struggle. The split
followed only after the minority refused to accept the Convention decision.
That is still not the end of the story. Seven years later we conducted
serious negotiations for unity with the Shachtmanites, despite the fact that
they had not changed their position on the Soviet Union in the meantime. Those
who may be playing with the idea of a “monolithic” party and a monolithic
international will have a hard time finding any support for it in the teachings
and practice of the Old Man.
I suppose all the participants in the present discussion know that the
American Trotskyists made a fusion with the Musteites in 1934, and then joined
the Socialist Party in 1936. But it should not be forgotten that these tactical
turns, which contributed so greatly to the expansion of our movement in members
and influence during the Thirties, were not smoothly accomplished. We first had
to settle accounts with the Oehlerites. They gave us very stern lectures about
the principle of the independent revolutionary party and accused us of
liquidation, betrayal and other assorted crimes. The Oehlerites diagnosed our
position incorrectly, as further developments amply demonstrated. But when a
real threat of liquidationism confronted us in 1953, we showed that we knew how
to recognize it and how to deal with it.
All this is part of the experience of the past which should be borne in mind,
and even studied, in the present period. The real problem, now as then, is not
to recognize the necessity of new parties and a new intemational—we have known
that for a long time—but rather how to build them and broaden them into a
strong revolutionary force.
Fortunately, the problem now under discussion is not academic. It centres, at
the moment, on Cuba and the Cuban Revolution and the leaders of this revolution.
In exceptional circumstances, these people have changed Cuba and changed
themselves. They have carried through a genuine socialist revolution, and armed
the working population, and defended the revolution successfully against an
imperialist-backed invasion. And now they openly proclaim themselves socialist,
and say the 1940 constitution is out of date and that a new constitution is
needed.
In my opinion, that’s pretty good for a start—and I am talking here about
the leaders as well as the masses who support them. If such people are not
considered as rightful participants in a discussion, and possible collaborators
in a new party and a new international—where will we find better candidates?
Trotsky, in the middle Thirties, initiated extensive discussion and
collaboration with left-centrists who only talked about the revolution, and even
that not very convincingly. The Cuban revolutionists have done more than talk,
and they are not the only ones on trial from now on. We are also on trial. What
would our talk about revolution be worth if we couldn’t recognize a revolution
when we see it?
Fraternally,
Jim
