Documents 3 to 17 and 19 to 24 originally published in Internal Bulletins of the SWP and the International Bulletins of the International Committee
I. Internationalism and Our International Relations
1. The Fourth International was set up in 1938 under Trotsky's guidance as 'a single world-wide organization, under a centralized international leadership, and a single discipline.' (Statures of Founding Conference.) It has continued to function to this day with these organizational conceptions.
2. Naturally, due to the weakness of the sections and the poverty of material resources, the International could not and cannot exercise the authority of a world organization representing mass parties. Its activities remain limited by the reality of its influence and possibilities. But the functioning of the organization and representative character of its leadership improved steadily in the period after the war, and represents today the highest point of effectiveness yet achieved by the International since its foundation. Especially was its role as ideological leader discharged magnificently with the Third world Congress reorientation and rearmament of the world movement.
3. The actual functioning of the leading bodies and personalities of the International was, until recent weeks, approved by the public opinion of our whole movement, and similarly esteemed by the leadership of the SWP. In the two cases of recent years where disciplinary actions were invoked (in relation to the Hasten group in England, the Bleibtreu group in France), the measures pursued were approved by representative Internati~nal bodies, and supported by our own observers as well.
4. Cannon's speech of May 18, 'Internationalism and the SWP' -- the policy of the Majority caucus -- represents a fundamental break with this whole tradition of internationalism which has always animated the Trotskyist movement. The proposal to convert the International into a federationist, letter-box form of organization, a centre solely for the exchange of opinions and information, represents a regression towards national and sectarian exclusiveness. The attack on the International has as its purpose nothing less than an attempt to blow up the International organization, give by indirection, intrigue and subterfuge de facto leadership to the Cannon caucus and convert the other parties into satellites. It is probably as infamous and irresponsible an intrigue as has ever been launched in the history of world Trotskyism.
5. The discussion up to the May plenum demonstrated that the Cannon faction leaders were, at best, politically confused and disoriented, and did not grasp the new world reality. In recent months a veritable gulf has developed between ourselves and the mainstream of world Trotskyism on the one hand, and the Cannon faction on the other.
Cannon's Social Democratic conception of internationalism and his threats to split the International do not derive from this or that grievance over its functioning that he may have been nurturing for the past several years. Such criticisms can always be discussed on their merits and settled on their merits. Cannon's break with internationalism stems from the growing hostility of his caucus toward the policies and political direction of the International movement. His caucus has broken with the main lines of the Third World Congress on the nature of the epoch, how the revolutionary mass parties are to be built, etc., etc. His caucus has reversed its former attitude and effected a reapproachment with the Stalinophobe-sectarian Bleibueu group in France. The SWP press has been subverted into a Cannon caucus sheet, and polemical centre against the policies of world Trotskyism. This political break with our movement is now climaxed by Cannon's drive to split the International.
II. The May 1953 Plenum 'Peace Agreement' and How It Was Broken
At the final sessions of the May 1953 plenum, the Cannon caucus leaders reversed their previous course of 'no compromise' and 'war to the death' on the Minority, and proposed a peace agreement to us. We accepted the proposals and entered into the agreement in good faith. The agreement recognized the reality of the existence of faction formations, proposed to organize collaboration in the leadership, and to continue the discussion in a more moderate and restrained form.
The ink was scarcely dry on our respective signatures than the Majority leaders proceeded to tear the agreement to shreds and make a mockery of the proposed collaboration:
1. A few weeks after the plenum, the Cannon leaders declared war on us in New York out of a clear sky. They started a drive to purge Bartell and his administration from leadership of the New York local. They brusquely rejected every one of our conciliatory proposals. They introduced a new concept of authoritarian organization that the Majority caucus has to have the 'power' in a local administration, in effect barring members of a minority from holding positions of responsibility in the localities while loyally carrying out party decisions. This crude campaign to dump Bartell and the other New York local leaders was a political reprisal, pure and simple, as the record of the comrades involved was an admittedly excellent one.
2. At the same time we learned that immediately with the conclusion of the plenum, Cannon, the new 'Foreign Secretary' of the Majority caucus stepped up a character-assassination campaign against Pablo. In his speech to the Majority caucus in New York on May 18, Cannon admitted:'We have no tangible evidence to prove that there is any conspiracy against us, or any actions against us, on the international field.' Yet immediately after the plenum, he accused Pablo in a private poison-pen letter to 'Dear Tom,' dated June 4, of instigating a 'power fight' in the SWP, an accusation based not on evidence, but his private 'deductions.' He proposed to'Dear Tom' to help organize an international faction on the 'principled' basis of who is for or against Cannon; in other words, as a clique, which intends to formulate its political platform as it goes along.
3. The collaboration called for in the May plenum agreement has been from the first -- as practiced by the Majority faction leaders an empty gesture, with no positive content. The Majority leaders make their decisions in their private caucus meetings, and then come into the Secretariat or PC and read off their decisions to us. There is absolutely no give-and-take. The'collaboration' is strictly limited to permitting us to make counter-motions or amendments, and then voting our propositions down. The degenerate Hasten clique ran its two-bit dictatorship in the British RCP by excluding the minority from the Political Committee. The same monolithic purpose is achieved by the Cannon caucus -- except with a little more finesse.
4. The Cannonites arrogate to themselves the right to proclaim by fiat the 'party line' on any and all questions without submitting their private caucus decisions for adoption by any legal party body. As the PC minority Statement of October 5 shows, this was the way they set party policy on recent developments in the USSR, as on most other questions, and at the same time suppressed articles of the Minority on the same subject matter. They opened the magazine by private caucus decision to attacks on the Minority -- under the same compulsion that pushed the Shachtmanites in 1940 to justify themselves before Stalinophobe public opinion -- but would not print the Minority polemics against the Majority. They adopted no clear-cut official positions, but preferred to operate under the hazy banner of a 'general party line' which, in practice, they interpreted as license to write and do anything they pleased.
This exercise of 'leadership' via an uncontrolled clique was climaxed by convoking the present plenum in the manner of a faction conspiracy through cutting out the Minority representatives from all participation, and even information as to the nature, the purpose, or the agenda of the plenum. The aim of this high-handed usurpation is to drive the opposition out of the party, so that the Cannon clique can conduct its war and carry through its split against the International without hindrance.
III. Conclusions on Nature of Cannon Faction
The foregoing experiences since the May plenum added to that of the previous year's struggle permit the drawing of firm conclusions as to the nature of the Cannon group and where it is heading.
i. The present Cannon faction was gangrenous at its very birth. It consolidated itself from the start, not on the basis of a secure political platform, which it lacked, but on prestige, tradition, seniority, personal loyalties and sentimental attachments.
2. The Cannon caucus leaders openly voiced the concept at the May plenum that the faction debate constituted only a naked 'power struggle' on both sides, and they triumphantly announced that they had emerged as the victors in the 'power struggle.' They thereby flaunted their disorientation and degeneration in the party's face and attempted to legitimitize their concept of personal leadership and clique politics.
3. Devising their political line from day to day because of this or that pressure, impression, or momentary need, the Cannon caucus leaders maintained themselves as a majority on the basis of vague, general doctrinaire pronouncements, which, in practice, enable them to exercise leadership as an arbitrary and uncontrolled clique. Thus, democratic centralism has been scrapped in favour of clique politics, and personal leadership has been substituted for a political line.
4. The Cannon caucus leaders never honoured the agreement to which they adhered at the Plenum. It proved beyond them. They demonstrated in life that they are too ingrown and politically disoriented, too thoroughly indoctrinated with mysticism about their 'ordained leadership,' and hypnotized with crackpot notions of'power' to actually understand what it means to practice collaboration with another Party tendency or faction. They make speeches on holiday occasions about 'Leninist organization principles,' but they do not understand them and they reject them when put to the test.
5. But no clique can long survive in our organization without filling its political vacuity with some programme. As the pre-plenum discussion progressed, it was becoming clear that the Cannon caucus was hardening its scholastic traits, providing 'theoretical' grounding for its ultimatistic approach, deepening its sectarian habits of thought, political outlook and positions. Since the May plenum, the sectarian ossification of the Cannonites is proceeding apace. Unless the process is halted -- and reversed -- the Cannonites are due to emerge as the new De Leonism of the American radical movement. On the international field, what began as a personal intrigue against Pablo, is already i developed as a full-blown campaign to dynamite the International, and furnish a rallying centre for all the conservative, retrogressive, sectarian tendencies, based upon the past.
The 'new sectarianism' reflects no trend of circles in the American labour movement, or even of American radicalism, but arises out of the petrificatic n of the 'old Trotskyists,' who have succumbed to the environment bred of a quarter century of isolation, and who have taker, refuge in a make-believe world of their own creation, getting a vicarious thrill of playing at 'revolution.' If the 'Old Guard' -- as it denominates itself -- goes through with its project to cut itself off from the last remaining sources of critical public opinion represented by the opposition and our co-thinkers abroad, it will signify that ossification has conquered.
In this event, the present Cannon faction -- the museum pieces of the 'Old Guard' combined with the Weiss contingent of YPSL's would have no future in the American labour movement. Its old role as popularizer of Trotsky's programme and struggle is played out. It will be engulfed by the events of our epoch as were the 'old Wobblies' three decades ago, who did not understand in their time the new world of the Russian Revolution and the post First World War period, and could not comprehend the new problems and tasks imposed on revolutionists. The future in this country as elsewhere is with the mainstream of World Trotskyism which understands the new epoch, and the tasks of the revolutionists in fusing themselves with other left-wing forces to form the mass revolutionary parties of tomorrow and thus validate the Trotskyist struggle and programme.
IV. Tasks of This Plenum
In view of the fact that the 5-month interval between the May plenum and the present one has made clear that the gulf between the opposition and the Cannon faction has widened immeasurably, pointed up by the growing deep-going differences on a host of key questions;
In view of the fact that the SWP press has been converted into a caucus sheet pushing policies in direct contradiction to and violation of the basic lines of the Third World Congress, endorsed by the 1952 SWP convention;
In view of the fact that the Cannon caucus leaders have come into sharp collision with our International leaders and the mainstream of world Trotskyist thought, and now threaten to split the International movement;
The plenum declares:
1. That the present period of discussion preparatory for the Fourth World Congress shall be utilized for the full exposition of the authoritative positions of the Majority and Minority as well as other tendencies within the SWP.
2. That the Majority faction leaders stand instructed to practice collaboration in the leadership and organization of party activities, to cease circumventing, ignoring and excluding the representatives of the Minority, so that the discussion can proceed in a calm and objective atmosphere, and achieve the maximum in clarity and the political education of the membership.
3. That the party press must reflect the basic positions of the Third World Congress which has been adopted by the latest SWP convention and constitute party law, and that the Cannon faction leaders stand instructed to confine their attacks on these positions to the internal discussion.
4. That, since the magazine has been permitted to carry attacks on the Minority, it be opened for a limited discussion permitting the publication of the authoritative positions of the Minority on the USSR and East Germany.
5. That both the Majority and Minority stand instructed to participate loyally in the discussions and preparations for the Fourth World Congress, and to abide by majority rule in line with democratic centralist practices upon the conclusion of the discussion and the adoption of the Congress decisions; an organization principle that applies, and is to be applied, not only nationally, but internationally.
6. The plenum further declares that all threats, intrigues and campaigns to break with the International movement are a crime against World Trotskyism, and calls upon the Majority faction leaders to remember their responsibilities before history, and to discharge their obligations as responsible and disciplined revolutionists.
Trotskyism Versus Revisionism Document Index | Toward a History of the Fourth International | Trotsky Encyclopedia Home Page
Last updated 17.8.2003