June 27, 1967
To the Political Committee
New York, New York
Dear Comrades:
I am opposed to the motion adopted by the Political Committee recommending
the immediate suspension of Comrade Swabeck.
As you have been previously informed, I favor a different approach to the
problem raised by Swabeck’s letter to [Gerry] Healy. I explained my views to
Art Sharon during his brief visit here, and I presume that he communicated it to
you. Also, Joel [Britton] showed me a copy of his letter to the National Office
in which he reported the discussion which took place at a meeting of the NC
members here.
I consider it rather unfortunate that these divergent views were not
incorporated in the PC minutes of the meeting which decided to recommend the
suspension of Swabeck—so that the other members of the National Committee
would have a chance to consider and discuss them before casting their vote on
the ballot sent to them together with the PC minutes.
My approach to the problem can be briefly summarized as follows:
1. Since Swabeck’s letter to Healy deals with two questions of great world
importance—Chinese developments and our policy and tactics in the struggle
against the Vietnam War—which are now properly up for discussion in the
international movement as well as in our party, any action of a disciplinary
nature which we may propose should be closely coordinated with international
comrades, particularly the comrades in England, and carried out in agreement
with them.
2. Since we are just now opening up our preconvention discussion, where the
questions raised by Swabeck will properly have their place on the agenda, it
would be rather awkward to begin the discussion by suspending the one articulate
critic of the party’s positions and actions. A more effective procedure, in my
opinion, should be simply to publish Swabeck’s, letters (to Healy and Dobbs)
with comprehensive and detailed answers.
If past experience is any guide, the education of the new generations of the
party and the consolidation of party opinion would be better served by this
procedure. Examples in favor of this subordination of disciplinary measures to
the bigger aims of political education have been richly documented in the
published records of the fight against the petty-bourgeois opposition in
1939-40, and in the internal discussion bulletins dealing with the
Goldman-Morrow affair in 1944-5-6.35
3. In the course of discussion, during a number of years of opposition to
party policy, Swabeck has managed to isolate himself to the point where the
immediate effect of the party’s reaction to this new provocation will not be
very great one way or the other. But the long range effect on the political
education of the party, and its preparation to cope with old problems in new
forms, can be very great indeed.
It is most important that our party members, and the international movement,
see the leadership once again in continuation of its great tradition—acting
with cool deliberation to serve our larger political aims without personal
favoritism or hostility.
Fraternally,
James P. Cannon
