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:
Your letter and enclosures dated July 15th have been received. By now you should have another letter from me, which was dispatched from here on July 21.
The enclosure from Pab. is typical and bears out a point I have discussed here many times with Tom. This man does not understand the procedure of our movement. I never for one moment believed that he got together in a faction with Clarke to prepare the fight in the SWP in a conscious way. The trouble is that he dabbled in business at fust and then was gradually dragged into the thing. Such methods, contrary to what he claims, could only prepare the way for the danger of split. On the other hand, the SWP majority avoided split precisely because it proceeded firmly politically and organizationally.
For quite a time here, whilst I was at one with you politically, I did my best to prevent P. from making serious errors by avoiding an open clash with him, but I was not too successful. It was only when I put the cards on the table that everybody steadied up, because they knew a fight was coming. The bad thing then and now, is the way P. took my intervention, and when I saw him last week was decidedly cool. He does not try to learn collectively with us. He proceeds in a haughty, impatient way. I have many memories of this sort of thing in the old fights, and all of them are unpleasant. The intellectual who jumps around (no matter how brilliant he may be) usually gets into serious trouble.
Beneath the impatience is of course, the politics. P. supported the minority on two counts: a) the Frankel document, b) a more flexible attitude towards the USCP. He was against turning away from the main orientation, but he continually referred to Trotsky's conversation (published by the Minority) and used it to suggest that the SWP majority were conservative on this question. After the news of the Plenum agreement came through, he wrote me saying:
'The Plenum has just finished with an understanding and a reciprocal promise of prolonged peace. This solution has intervened afterthree days of debates which made one fear the worst. The result is due, in my opinion, to the combined effect of wisdom of Jim and the other cadres of the majority, of the importance and ideological cohesion of the minority, and to the intervention, certainly till now discreet, but no less clear and firm (for those who understand) which were made from here to both sides.
I have always been extremely suspicious of people who approach the serious internal conflicts which have engaged our movement with suggestions which tend to minimize the seriousness of these developments. During the height of the fight with Hasten we had many of these fellows here and their 'neutrality' always turned out to be support of the wrong camps. P. and Lawrence tend to blame the majority for the bad atmosphere and support Frankel's document. This 'impartial' air is a reflection of political instability and it lies at the root of P.'s failure to understand the basis of your plenum agreement. It would be useless to blind ourselves to the dangers that can arise as a result of this.
Here, I feel sure that we can prevent Lawrence from becoming involved, without any factional heat. Of course, it is possible to be mistaken. At the moment he is in France at P.'s request and maybe they will 'try something,' but we shall hold it. We will not have our movement pushed around by experiments.
As I see the situation, we must introduce some sort of balance into the present international leadership. The trouble with P. is his impatience and haughtiness. In spite of great theoretical abilities, these are bad traits and have to be watched. The problem is to help the man retain and develop his leadership capabilities whilst at the same time establishing more collectivity in taking decisions and responsibilities in relation to the internal affairs of our sections.
Concretely, I believe our section must work in the closest collaboration, politically and organizationally with the SWP. We should discuss the new documents for the Congress between ourselves before making any decisions on any amendments that might be necessary. Tom and I collaborate most closely here. We shall let you have all the news in regular letters.
When it is understood in the international that we stand together as one solid unit, then it should tend to steady people all around. I await your remarks.
Warmest regards,
J.
Warmest regards,
Gerry
Trotskyism Versus Revisionism Document Index | Toward a History of the Fourth International | Trotsky Encyclopedia Home Page
Last updated 17.8.2003