opca e myu mat raorone revisionism nad des troyed the International in 1953 (although this did not stop him from making what should therefore have been unprincipled approaches to the Fourtn International for unity talks later on, or sometimes deeming this organisation - which had supposedly historically betrayed the working class - part of 'the In this concluding article we show how Hogly's compiete lack or understanding or the dierence between a faction and a party as embodied in his attitude to the 1953 split inevitably contributed to the internal dege neration of Healy's organisation along with the disintegration of his rump International Committee. We do this because we believe that the comrades of the Workers Socialist League, wno were inemselves tne victims or Healy 's bureaucratic regime, have failed as yet to work through the meaning of their own expulsion.
They have rejected the methods of lying, falsification, slander and expulsions of the Workers Revoquonary raw. our occausc or mer own conlusion about the difference between a faction and a party, incy do not unders and me wrescereneraton 3. a result of Healy's split from the International, and so flounder between a position of saying that 'Pabloite revisionism' destroyed the International and calling for serious discussions with the United Secretariat of the Fourth International.
Socialist League (WL)
that the membership may encounter reality and see that these statements are lies. So the membership must be censored. Hence such terrible practices as taking away leaflets handed out to WRP members, of printing tne documents or only one side in disputes and so on - practices culled from the Stalinists in their cany development The members must be kept from anything and anyone who challenges Healy's 'truth'. United front are increasingly rejected not simply because of the WRP's wrong political positions, but they lead to 'contamination'. Sectarianism deepens. Finally even physical violence is used to keep any 'alien' influence away, as in the beating given to Trotskyist leader ErnIe Latc But clinical isolation cannot be achieved; even an innocent queston mignt lead to une demand Ior wider answers and reality creeping in. Complete cessation of internal democracy is the only way to prevent this. A sectarian organisation always, inevitJAMES FRANCIS concludes our series on issues confronting the Workers ably and necessarily tends to the suppression of internal democracy.
Finauy, wnen ine danger or me wratn sunking looks ever more likely, the members of the WRP must be inoculated against Healy's political opponents by vile personal attacks. To maintain their position it wasn't enough for the Stalinists to attempt to prove frotsky pouncany wrong, uney nad to make him a conscious agent of the counter-revolution and the fascists. So also must Healy make Joe Hansen, George Novack and all who defend them such as the WS et al not merely political opponents but actual accomplices of the GPU, police agents, and soon.
The men whien recenwy spewed irom worker. Press was the logical culmination of the policy embarked on by Healy when he declared that world historic betrayals had taken place when none had, and when he turned his back on the Fourth International.
INCONSISTENT However, just to complete the picture, there is anoter une wmen nealy sometimes projects. ne talks of discussions leading to a principled unificaron or me words rotskyist movement hourt' International, Summer 1965), ie, he sometimes acts as if his organisation is merely a public faction of a temporarily fragmented Fourth International. Yet this is completely inconsistent with talk of the "Pabloite revisionists' as 'traitors to the working class' (Newsletter, 7 November 1964) and 'actively assisting imperialism' (Fourth International, August 1965).
But as Healy doesn't understand the difference between a party and a faction we can hardly expect him to see the contradiction. For if the SLL/WRP did see itself as a faction, how could it justify not being part of the organised Fourth International? To justify a separate organisation on less than principled bases is the hallmark of a sect.
Ironically enough, elements of Healy's internal organisation are akin to those of a faction. The totally correct acceptance of diverse political views within a party is unacceptable within a faction - it would make it an unprincipled combination. The consequences of the confusion of party with faction are clear once again.
If the organisation is not conceived as a partytype organisation but as a faction, then non-toleration of opposed views is not undemocratic but on the contrary a principled position. Whichever way it twists and turns, the WRP's positiongn 1953 made its internal degeneration inevitable.
For the comrades of the SL, and indeed all Trotskyists outside the Fourth International, the task is clear. Certainlv discuss the issues of the 1953 split. Take your positions on the theoretical and political questions involved. We for our part will certainly do this. But also address yourself to one fundamental question and draw all the practical con• clusions from it: secretariat ot the Fourth International carried out betrayals of a character equivalent to 1914 and 1933? If so, your task is clear. Maintain a separate organisation, but cease all talk of a 'world Trotskyist move ment'. Your task is solely to expose the betrayals of those who falsely claim to be Trotskyists.
Alternatively adopt the course taken by all the main sections of world Trotskyism after 1953, which led to its reunification. Conclude, perhaps, that great errors were committed. Conclude, even, that these are maintained today. But if that is the case your duty is to wage a faction fight inside the Internanional to correct tnese errors, SpIt only if your faction fight fails and the USFI's errors do actually culminate in a world historic betrayal of the working class. We obviously do not share such views, but if you conclude that no historic divide justifying a division into two parties has been passed through then this path is your revolutionary duty.
In 19o5, wnen ine international secretarial and the International Committee within the Fourth International overcame the situation of two public factions within the Fourth International, they noted that the only forces who held out against this were we rosadas group in Laun America, te Lamberusts in France, and the SLL in Britain. They expressed the hope that these groups would rejoin at a later date on a principled basis. It was always Healy who shut The door on mis not me our niematons!
Thirteen years later, surely the balance sheet of where Healy's rejection of principled organisational positions has led should be clear. It was by no means the only element causing the SLL/WRP's degeneration our it was unc one whica made mar acreneraton 1nsurpassable. For the comrades of the WS to confront that terrible balance sheet and the abandonment of principles which led to it is one of the chief tasks confronting them. It is the road from Healy back to Lenin and Trotsky. It is also the road to the Fourth InterINTERNATIONAL Volume 3 Number Spring 1976 Jouble Issue 50p. $1.5 Ernest Mandel on Imperialism in Latin America UNITED SECRETARIAT The British crisis and the way out for the working class WOLFORTH AFTERMATH ON TROTSKY'S OF NOVEMBER WRITINGS DEBATE ON NATIONALISM Latest (double) issue now out, available for 50p plus 15p p&p from RED BOOKS, 97 Caledonian Road London N.1. Bulk orders for IMG branches, 10% discount Dost Tree