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 Jim,
I have received the Stone information and felt it necessary to write you at once on this matter. What I have to say is for you and your closest associates. It should not be divulged in written form for obvious reasons.
There is an element of truth in what Stone says abou t your minority and Pablo. This what we have to face up to at once. The situation has been for some time extremely complicated here, because I personally have gathered this in the course of private and personal conversations with Pablo. Several weeks ago when he was present at our Congress I had cause to warn him in the presence of Cde. Lawrence about the dangers of correspondence with a man like Clarke. He hotly defended himself at first but cooled off when I sharply reminded him that even if every letter he wrote was correct, nevertheless it could be interpreted in certain circumstances to mean some kind of support, by an unprincipled tendency, thereby permitting them to feed from it for a time. I told him that as secretary of the international he should be extremely careful.
The problem of Pablo has for some time been a source of great anxiety for me. For the past few years I have been extremely close to him and have grown to like him considerably. On the present issue I thought and still think that it would be possible to prevent him from making serious errors, by endeavouring to hold him back until the issues in the SWP become sufficiently clear. At this stage, however, we need to get together and exchange ideas.
Pablo suffers badly from isolation in Paris. That French movement is a 'killer.' It really is impossible to hold an international centre together when you have no national section to help it. Real international leaders can arise no other way except through a basic experience and vaining in building and leading a national section. Pablo has not yet got this and as a result has grown impatient. This has reflected itself most sharply on organizational questions. On several occasions we have clashed very sharply on how to allocate the financial budget. He vies to cover ground which is absolutely impossible from our slender material base.
Building a party, as you know, is a very real thing, and so also is building an international. There is a limited amount of human beings and resources at our disposal and you can only utilize these in a certain way. Some things you can do; others, no matter how important, you cannot. The essence of leadership is to know what you can and what you cannot. A correct political line forms the backbone of all of our work, but it is not enough and sometimes unless one understands its practical application in the circumstances surrounding the movement at one's disposal, then it can be a simple matter to abandon it and slip into the camp of opportunism and adventurism.
Take this talk about Stalinism. Impatient comrades thinking in terms of China, Eastern Europe and now even the USSR, see the impact of the post-war revolutionary forces upon these countries, but fail to recognize one vital thing that, as far as we know, we have not one single organized cadre group in these areas. In matters of theory they are carried away into the field of generalizations to the extent that they generalize themselves out of existence in the countries in which they are operating. They become overseas 'revolutionaries' and then begins the real drift into opportunism on the home front. They fight mythical battles all over the globe and then look for a 'short cut' in the country where they should be really fighting. It is the politics of illusions and impressionism.
There is no way around the hard day to day grind in building a party. Whilst it is true that the revdution has thrown Stalinism into a crisis, it still remains a powerful reactionary force. It has huge resources and tremendous apparatus scope. In the historic sense its 'sun has set' but right now it can deal the most savage blows against the revolution. Our sections are the vanguard of the revolution because they represent the only conscious force on the world scale which is organized for the revolution. They are our most precious capital. No matter to what extent the crisis upsets Stalinism, unless our people are on the spot there will never be a proper change in the situation. The revolution can make big changes — it did in Yugoslavia, but it cannot by itself transform Stalinists and centrists into cadres of the FI. That is the historic mission of our movement and the sooner we tear aside illusionary, deceptive and opportunist revisionism the better.
The politics of your 'realist' minority is in practice the most unreal thing imaginable. It consists in scouring the globe for revolutions hypnotizing itself with the way in which the impirical puppets of Stalinism are tossed from pillar to post in these enormous events; then drunk with 'new thinking' they turn scathingly towards our small movements and squeal about 'sectarianism,' whilst at the same time they throw aside our conscious role and parachute around in space, only to land up eventually in the age-old camp of the enemy Stalinism or imperialism.
The trouble with Pablo, Jim, is that he is a little disappointed with our terrible struggle to build an international. It must be said, however, that he has been in the forefront of the fight. Great progress has been made over the post-war period in organizing a proper functioning international organization. He has done a remarkable job and right now he needs our help. The disease of impatience and isolationism has gripped him to the point where he unwittingly (at this stage) provides a little cover for Cochran and Clarke.
The situation remains serious and that is why we must now have an overall strategy to deal with it. I have tried 'going alone' a bit with him and pursuing a policy of gradually breaking him away from these people, but it is not enough.
This man wants to do the right thing — of that I am sure, but right now only a strong political line can make him see reason. There is nobody in France who can provide this, as I see it. At the last IEC we came into conflict on a number of matters (I will write separately about these.) There was a new IS elected and it will meet once a month (next meeting June 20). I am a member of this body. The fight will open about then on the international. We should have your plenum material to discuss at that time. Also you should give me your views to help my work.
I think we must do everything possible to prevent a head-on collision between Pablo and you. We should begin the clarification here and it looks as if we shall have the support of the section. One or two may wobble, although of course it's a little early to say. Anyhow we are pushing for clarity here now.
The disease which has gripped the movement is serious — a big fight lies ahead. I think we can transform it into a victory, but great care is needed with people such as Pablo. You can rest assured that we shall enter the arena of struggle behind you. At the moment I cannot speak officially for the section, but we have blasted conciliation to Stalinism here for some time now, and there shouldn't be much trouble. However, in these days you never know.
With best wishes,
J.
Trotskyism Versus Revisionism Document Index | Toward a History of the Fourth International | Trotsky Encyclopedia Home Page
Last updated 17.8.2003