Documents 3 to 17 and 19 to 24 originally published in Internal Bulletins of the SWP and the International Bulletins of the International Committee
All political discussions such as we are engaged in at the present time have their critical moments.
In my opinion -- judging from all that I have heard and seen -- we have come to the cross roads with two comrades in the party namely, Sylvia and Roger. That is a critical point and should be taken notice of in the party. The comrades are disagreeing with us on the most fundamental question of all: namely, which party do we build.
These comrades have indicated in branch discussions, minority caucus discussions and in private conversations that they believe that the party to build is the Communist Party; that it is the revolutionary party. They say: Abandon the building of the Socialist Workers Party and build the Communist Party instead. In a discussion in the branch executive committee Sylvia stated that she believed that the two positions that are going to crystallize out of the national discussion are Stalinophobia on the one hand and conciliationism to Stalinism on the other.
I take that to mean that Sylvia believes that only a Stalinophobic programme can now sustain the independent existence of the Socialist Workers Party.
Is Sylvia's and Roger's viewpoint compatible with membership in the Socialist Workers Party! We of the majority say 'No!' How can it be? The key question of revolutionary politics turns around the question of the party. All principles, all theories, all slogans become realized through the party. When Sylvia and Roger assert: Build the CP and not the SWP -- they are disagreeing with us on the most fundamental question of revolutionary politics today.
Let us make no mistake. Sylvia is not proposing an entry into the CP, which would be another way of building the Socialist Workers Party, assuming that such a tactic were indicated by the relationship of forces between the SWP and the CP, which it definitely is not. What Sylvia proposes is the outright liquidation of the SWP in favour of the Communist Party.
But we say that a river of blood separates us from Stalinism. There is the murder of Trotsky and innumerable other murders. That is not a small matter. What is more, in all of its politics Stalinism has demonstrated itself to be a completely counter-revolutionary tendency in the labour movement just as much as the Social Democracy. That is why it shed our blood. Our movement drew the conclusion in 1933 that it was necessary to build the Fourth International and to build the independent parties of Trotskyism in every country. Where we have entered a Communist Party -- as in France today -- the purpose of that entry is to destroy Stalinism and to build a mass party for Trotskyism, for the Fourth International.
In the USA we say: Build the Socialist Workers Party as an independent party. War to the death against Stalinism, against the American Communist Party -- as well as against the Shachtmanites and other Social Democratic formations. Thus the proposal: Build the Communist Party, which is the essence of the point of view put forward by Sylvia and Roger, is not compatible with the programme of building the Socialist Workers Party, and we must face the fact squarely that these two comrades will soon act on their conclusions to the benefit of the CP, unless we can prevail upon them in time to stop and turn around.
Furthermore, the experience of the discussion nationally demonstrates to us that theirs may not remain isolated cases. There may be other comrades who will be moving towards the same conclusions. And any such trend -- even if it involves only a handful of individuals -- must be combatted and defeated. We have to put this problem on the top of the agenda of the national discussion. Our party can't survive with an indifferent attitude toward a fundamental question of this nature.
How about it, then, comrades of the Cochranite and Marcyite tendencies? Will you make common cause with the majority and can we maintain our discussion within the framework of a common line of building the Socialist Workers Party? Will you join with us in a fight against a pro-Stalinist position? Or are you afraid, perhaps, that by making common cause with the majority you will be aiding the Shachtmanites, who are also our enemies? If so I wish to say a few words of reassurance to you on that score.
The Socialist Workers Party has, as you know, a consistent record of intransigent battle against the Shachtmanites. We have never permitted any haziness to develop in the party in the outlook of its members or its leaders towards the Shachtmanites, just as we have never permitted haziness in the parry's outlook towards the Stalinists. Nor do we propose any changes in this respect now.
I look back a few years ago to the debate I conducted against Albert Gates of the Shachmanites. Everything that I said then in opposition to Gates has been confirmed by the events. I told Gates that he and his cohorts had lost confidence in the revolutionary potential of the working class, and that was why the Shachtmanites magnified the power of Stalinism to the nth degree and choose American Imperialism as a lesser evil. I told him that the SWP believed that the working class would destroy Stalinism and American Imperialism and that we based our programme squarely upon that perspective. I said we want no truck with the Shachtmanite programme of reconciliation with American Imperialism.
The events have confirmed us. Aren't the masses moving to destroy American Imperialism throughout the world, and aren't they breaking from and rising against Stalinism at the same time' Is not the very anti-imperialist action of the colonial masses, which we support wholeheartedly, irrespective of who is the leadership of the moment, beginning to put the squeeze of death upon Stalinism? Will not this death squeeze culminate in the revolutionary overthrow of Stalinism? The prospects for the building of the authentic revolutionary party the Trotskyist parties -- look very bright indeed. We have no cause to move toward reconciliation with the Shachtmanites when the events have proved us right and them wrong. We are maintaining our course of building the Trotskyist party, and it is on that ground that we wish to come to an agreement with the Cochranites and the Marcyites against a pro-Stalinist position.
What does the majority propose to do concretely about comrades Sylvia and Roger? We want to discuss with them. Our aim is to win them back to the party if that is possible. We want to win them back to the idea that they held before the faction fight began -- namely, that it is correct to build the Socialist Workers Party and to wage irreconcilable war against the CP. Sylvia and Roger have developed their partial Positions of a few months ago to logical conclusions. Thus all the subordinate issues which divided us heretofore can be removed from the discussion and we can proceed to fundamentals: SWP or CP. Of course, should these comrades commit an openly disloyal act then our attitude of 'let's discuss' will automatically cease.
We call on Sylvia and Roger to submit their ideas in writing, and I am glad to hear that they plan to do so. We propose that they submit them for the entire party, so that the party nationally, the national leaders of the party and the national leaders of the faction, can reply if they so wish.
If someone with Sylvia's and Roger's ideas were to apply for membership in the SWP, we of the majority would oppose admission. But that is not the issue with them. These comrades joined us in good faith on the basis of agreement with our programme and have participated in the building of the SWP. Furthermore; their present ideas flow out of the national discussion and are an integral part of it. We can't brush them aside -- either to cast them out summarily or to ignore them on the plea that there are only two of them, that their ideas are 'extreme' and that hence they don't count. On the contrary, we think that discussion with them should be given a high place on the agenda.
In discussing the problem posed by Sylvia and Roger's evolution, a few of the comrades in the majority caucus asked: 'Why don't we propose to them that, if these are their ideas, they simply leave us and join the Communist Party.' We all concluded, however, that before we advise anybody to join the Communist Party we would first advise him to drop dead. That is how strongly we feel about the matter.
As far as we are concerned, anybody who leaves for the Communist Party from our party does not leave in friendship or in peace, but departs with the brand of renegade upon him. That is why we propose to exhaust the possibility by means of discussion to win Roger and Sylvia back to the movement.
To sum up: We propose to the Marcyites and the Cochranites that we engage in a discussion with Sylvia and Roger and that we close ranks on the question that the party to build as the revolutionary party in the US is the SWP. We call upon Sylvia and Roger to enter into a discussion with us on that fundamental question. How about it, comrades of the Cochranites and the Marcyites? How about it, comrades Sylvia and Roger?
Trotskyism Versus Revisionism Document Index | Toward a History of the Fourth International | Trotsky Encyclopedia Home Page
Last updated 13.2.2005