Wing to January 1933 and the coming to power of Furthermore, if such a decisive historic transformation had taken place, with the transfer of one party to the class camp of the couner.revo union is uture evoluton was ciedr - Us! as the betrayals of the Social Democrats after 1914 and the Stalinists after 1933 grew progressively worse, then so clearly the degeneration of these new betrayers would intensify. Under these circumstances the course to be followed was precisely that of Lenin in 1914 and Trotsky in 1933 - absolute and commete break: contemptuous rejection of unity with agents of another class; any 'reunification' totally out of the question: and the only attitude towards the traitors being that of merciless exposure of the deepening betrayals of those who falsely claimed the name of Trotskyists.
LAMBERT This view is the position which has been openly held by the supporters of Lambert. Thus the British supporters of the Organising Committee for the Reconstruction of the Fourth International write: *Pablom destroved the Fourth International as a world party through an adaptation to. Stalinism in 1953, saco radio and co supported me kreman against the insurrection of the Fast German workers. (1)
Apart from the fact that this is an outrageous no-one in 1953 supported the Kremlin against she Last German workers - this position at least has the virtue of consistency. If revisionist theories had sot been merely advanced but had indeed culminated in support of counter-revolution in such a decisme cient as me ust attempted pontcar revoluton against the Stalinist bureaucracy, then a split on a principled Leninist basis into two parties could be justified. And the 'Pabloites' could then be expected to consummate this split through even deeper betrayals - as Lambert claims they have.
Healy, of course, in his central positions advanced the same conclusion - that the support for Stalmism in 1953 in Fast Germanv and in France in the General Strike of the same year, was the qualitaure turn when was then tollowed by the deepenmg betrayals in 1956 in Hungary, 1960 on Cuba, 1964 in Ceylon, in relation to Vietnam etc. "revealed" in the series Security and the Fourth International', the revisionists degenerated to the level of accomplices and agents of imperialism, the GPU, the police etc - or more precisely, that stratum which had been GPU accomplices all along rose to unenanentea commance On the other side in 1953, there were of course those who considered that at some point the US socialist workers Party nao succumoco to american imperialism and was an organisation dominated by reformism, pacifism, the pressure of the white petty DOUrECOISIC. CEC STATEMENTS All Inese postmons ar least nave une virtue or beine consistent but in contrase to this vew ane des pite undoubted wild statements made at the time there is no point in disguising the fact that Cannon did say in 1953 that the split with Pablo was more definitive than that with Burnham and Shachtman(2) or that Pablo wrote that the faction of Cannon is a group condemned by history (3)
- me cher torces on Dou sides rabiaiv concludca mar sucn a wore historic betrayal and break from Trotskyism had not occurred.
Furthermore, despite all his lying and bluffing to the contrary, Healy is quite aware of this fact. Indeed, the definitive proof is to be found in the documents of his own organisation. Thus in January 1961 the National Committee of the Socialist Labour League (forerunner of the Workers Revolutionary Party), sent a letter to the National Committee of the SWP which declared: It is time to draw to a close me penod in when rabione revisionisn was considered a trend within Trotskyism'(4). This poson makes no sense umess at mat ume sabione revisionism', the line of the International Secretariat of the Fourth International, was considered a trend within Trotskyism.
Furthermore, as actions speak louder than words, consider what would have been the necessary cour se if world historic betrayals sufficient to justify not march a laction out anew party nau taken orace Under these circumstances there could be no talk involved in the 1953 split within the world Trotskyist movement.
Fourth International in 1963. Healy (below) perpetuated the myth of 'Pabloite revisionism'. whatever or reunicanon i would never ever have occurren to senin and rotsky to even Hk of let alone propose, 'reunification' with the Social Democrats after 1914 or the Stalinists after 1933.
However this was not at all the policy pursued bi Healy. When reunification between the International secretarat and me memanonar commucc was proposed in 1957, Healy did not oppose it on the correct grounas or principle nat would nave Tonow ed from his analysis of "Pabloite revisionism'. On the contrary, he agreed to parity commissions and a whole series of things which should have been out of the question on any principled application of his DOSIBOn Above: James Cannon of the Socialist Workers Party fought for the principled reunification of the Even worse, in 1960 Healy invited Ernest Mandel to address the SLL summer school - the same Mandel who on Healy's analysis was a counter-revolutionar traitor. Just imagine Lenin inviting Kautsky in 191o to a bolsnevik senoot, or trotsky asking staun to address the Fourth International!
couptcay wour undersanone me mo catons o what it was doing, the SLL/WRP has given further proof of this more recently. In July 1970, Healy approached the Fourth International for informal talks around the possibility of joint discussion centred on outstanding political differences and directed The problem for Healy, of course, is that if this latter position is the correct one then the appropriate organisational conclusions have to be drawn. there have been no qualitative betrayals justifying new parties and a new International, then it is clearly the task of revolutionaries to unify these forces. If not, then what is occurring is that people are attempting to build organisations on the basis of tactical differences, analyses of particular events, theories whose class content has not been fully demonstrated in the class struggle • a ol which are formulas tol building a sect, but absolutely not for building a revolutionary party. Such practices have nothing to do with the positions of Lenin or Trotsky.
Consider, for example, Trotsky's position in the period from 1923-1933 i.e, until the Communist International had definitively shown that it had passed to the camp of counter-revolution. The Communist International was an organisation which actually did betray the Chinese Revolution of 1927. For much of this period Trotsky and his supporters were forced to function as a public faction of the International - not through choice but through their expulsion.
Trotsky, however, didn't accept this existence as a public faction but on the contrary demanded his faction's re-admission to the Party. Even in December 1932 he stated categorically: The entire respon sibility for the splitting of communism lies on the Stalinist bureaucracy. The Bolshevik-Leninists are prepared, at a moment, to return to the ranks of the Comintern and to observe strict discipline in action, (6)
artnermore as a racuor anu not a party. tne demand which Trotsky advanced for ceasing to be a pubuc taction was not a ponticar one - such as the abandonment of the line on China or of the Third Period - but the organisational one of the right to put forward his faction's views within the Party Furthermore, on this question Trotsky was quite prepared to make compromises provided the principle was established:
....But mutual criticism, in itself unavoidable and fruitful, may have a different character, depending on the extent to which it is consciously prepared by both sides and in what organisational framework it take place. In unis neid, the importance of which does not require proof, the Left Opposition is prepared at any moment to come to an agreement in hich it will ask for itself only the restoration o ts right to fight in the common ranks "
DISTINCTION Trotsky, right until the end, was absolutely rig orous in his distinction between party and faction and the conclusions which flowed from the two DOSTORS - as a raction mere must oe a continuou. struggle for reintegration into the party, but once he defined the conditions as justifying a new party then this meant a total and complete split rejecting for all time any traitorous talk of reunification' with we counter revolunonanes What you can't do, however, is to have your cake and eati you can t simurancous man tain that there are 'Pabloite revisionists' who have nistorically betrayed the working class and tra there is a World Trotskyist movement' of which they are a part. No amount of Healy pseudo-dialectic will make those two ideas match Unfortunately, in their theoretical supplement *Trotskyism Today', the WL precisely do both to the traitorous "Pabloite revisionists' and to the fact that the USFI leadership and sections cannot be regarded in advance as having placed them sulves outside the world Trotskyist movement (8).
The comrades of the SL thus show that they still have not thought through the difference between the organisational principles of Lenin and Trotsk and those of Healy. A study of these is one of the most urgent quescions comronung tem (1) Marxist Bulletin, Winter 1976, p 26; (2) Cannon - 'Factional Struggle and Party Leadership'; (3) Pablo • They Desert, ve go rorward, 14) sLL Nationa Committee, 2 January 1961; (5) Workers Press, 7 July 1970; (6) Trotsky - "The International Left Oppositionists' Tasks and Methods'; (7) Trotsky -We Need an Honest Inner Party Agreement'; (8) socialist Press, 10 December 19/5 NEXT ISSUE:- Organisational Principles and Inter nal Regime.
----- pull-quotes -----
Continuing our series on the questions posed with the emergence of the Workers Socialist League (WL), JAMES FRANCIS looks at the organisational principles