Documents 3 to 17 and 19 to 24 originally published in Internal Bulletins of the SWP and the International Bulletins of the International Committee
Dear Jerry:
We have your letters of October 25, 26 and 28.
From the Ceylon report would appear that they are fighting along our general line and that we can expect support from that quarter in defence of orthodox Trotskyism.
There is a new situation here. As you will see from the enclosed letter, the Pablo-Cochran faction organized a complete boycott of the 25th Anniversary Celebration in New York. In our opinion this definitively consummates the split this disloyal faction has long been preparing. At the Plenum we intend to suspend from membership all of the Pablo-Cochran faction leaders and members who participated in the organized boycott of the New York meeting, or who refuse repudiate in good faith this strikebreaking action. An immediate reorganization of all party branches will be carried out accordingly. The Marcy tendency has manifested a party-loyal attitude in opposition to the splitters.
The Pablo-Cochran faction claim they have a majority internationally, your party included, and are demanding to know if we will abide by majority rule as laid down by the 13th Plenum. It is clear that the Pablo clique would rather end up claiming their minority is the International than to be a minority within the International.
We think it would be a tactical mistake to attend their rigged IEC meeting which is obviously intended to further their tactic of splits and expulsions. We think the correct tactic to follow is to by-pass the IEC meeting and set up an International Committee of the Fourth International (Trotskyist) as against the IS Pablo clique.
The struggle should no longer be waged within a Pablo-rigged common centre, but as a battle between two centres for the allegiance of the sections. We will come out in support of the orthodox Trotskyist centre in our press and hammer away at the Pabloites. There should be no more common publications or internal bulletins with them. On the contrary, we should have our own internal bulletins, nationally and internationally, for discussion among genuine Trotskyists. What we have to say to the Pabloites should not be placed in an internal bulletin but published in our press in the form of public attacks.
We urge that the contact committee you have already established constitute itself as the International Committee and proceed to function as the centre of the Fourth International (Trotskyist). This committee should not wait for the sanction of any broader meeting before establishing itself as the formal leadership of the orthodox Trotskyist centre. The International Committee is itself the result of an emergency gathering which has already changed the leadership. It should announce as one of its plans the organization of an honest discussion among genuine Trotskyists to prepare for an honest and democratic congress.
This tactical course would exclude any idea of presenting a counter-resolution at the Pablo-rigged IEC meeting. Instead our document attacking the IS resolutions could serve as a counter-political declaration against the Pabloites by the orthodox Trotskyists who will rally around the centre established by the International Committee.
We will strengthen the attack on Paragraph 15 of the IS resolution, as you suggest. In our view, it is not in order at this juncture to speculate about different wings in the Soviet bureaucracy in our polemic with the Pabloites. The restorationist tendency is determined sociologically. That is, the bureaucracy in its rise and in defence of its privileges has overthrown all conquests of October, except that of changed production and property relations. Accumulation of wealth in the hands of individual members of the bureaucratic caste imposes upon the bureaucracy a tendency to safeguard that wealth. They have thus introduced an inheritance law into the Soviet constitution, permitting wealth to be passed on. Ultimately the only safeguard for them would be the overthrow of property relations. But they have stopped short of that because of the resistance of the working class within the Soviet Union, the pressure of world revolutionary developments, and the decay of world capitalism.
This, in brief, is our point of view with regard to the question of the restorationist tendency. We are, of course, open to discussion on subject among orthodox Trotskyists as to how different sections of bureaucracy will line up in a crisis. But the polemic against the Pabloites we think goes much deeper. At the heart of their line lies their falsification of the world objective situation, attributing to it an automatism which allegedly transforms the bureaucracy and even creates within it an ever-growing section with revolutionary potentialities. Their paragraph 15 is in our opinion a derivative of this general proposition rather than the theoretical keystone of their position.
It is our intention to send someone to consult with you as quickly as possible after our Plenum. However, we note by the latest Labour Action that Shachtman has been refused a passport after months of delay. This tightening up of the regulations may make it difficult or even impossible for us to send someone as quickly as we would like. In any case, bear in mind that Joe is fully authorized to represent us in all respects. His own inability to travel may necessitate holding important meetings at a place where he can be present. Or if you find it impossible to meet at a place where Joe can attend, he can designate a proxy to act with full authority. This procedure should reassure the comrades involved that they can count on our support.
We are taking steps to provide you all possible financial aid. If you are at present hardpressed, we suggest you arrange to borrow temporarily what funds you may need for emergency purposes.
Best regards
Farrell
Trotskyism Versus Revisionism Document Index | Toward a History of the Fourth International | Trotsky Encyclopedia Home Page
Last updated 17.8.2003