Written: February 20, 1953
First Published: 1974
Source: Struggle in the Fourth International, International Committee Documents 1951-1954,, Volume 1 of 4 from the colleciton “Toward A Hstory of the Fourth International”, Part 3, Volume 1 of 4, page 3. Education for Socialists bulletin; issued by the National Education Department of the Socialist Workers Party (US)
Transcribed/HTML Markup: David Walters, September, 2005
Edited and proofread:Andy Pollack
Public Domain: Encyclopedia of Trotskyism On-Line, 2005. You can freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit the Marxists Internet Archive as your source, include the internet address to this work, and note the transcribers & proofreaders above.
New York, N.Y. February 20, 1953
Paris
Dear Gabe:
Received today your three letters. One of February 13 signed by the three of you, the February 14 about Stuart and February 17 about help for Greece.
We’ll do the best we can to send some bundles to Greece. Our past effort has been only partially successful. Many of the bundles were returned to the senders who then had to pay the cost of the postage for sending it back. It appears that the Greek authorities do not deliver more than one bundle to a person within one year.
Your letter on Gordon shocked me very much. The whole thing sounds unbelievable. I have known him for his unquestionable loyalty over many many years. I cannot imagine him undertaking a sudden struggle against the line of the Third Congress without first submitting his views to the leadership. I had several letters from him of a personal character. In none did he indicate a difference with the Third Congress. In his last letter some two months ago he indicated that according to his view the 19th Congress of the CPSU indicated a shift to the right This is of course a debatable question which need not call into question the line on Stalinism arrived at the Third Congress. I too have a criticism of your report to the 12th Plenum on this score. I think it was wrong to make the entire axis of your report the questions of whether the 19th Congress represented a right or left turn. This is especially true in the light of the editorial in the latest Quatrieme where the question of Might” or “Left” turn in relation to Stalinism is correctly qualified as of limited significance and where you say that their present line is left only in relation to their line of 19411947. On this qualified basis no one would question that the “left” line remains in force. Then why the long argument to prove this small point?
We’ll see Manuel in a few days and get a complete report from him. If your information is correct. I can assure you we’ll intervene. We are not at all diplomatising when we say we are in complete agreement with the line of the Third Congress. In the unfolding struggle we’ll defend this line. Our problem is that some people are trying to read into this line something that isn’t there conciliation to Stalinism. This is what we propose to combat and I am confident we’ll do it in agreement with you.
Our problem here is the opposite of what you faced in France. There you faced an exaggerated anti Stalinism which was a convenient cover for a do nothing policy in relation to the living movement in France. Its opposite here, Stalinist conciliationism, represents a cover for a do nothing policy toward the living movement in the U.S. Superficial people might see in our struggle here a source of encouragement for Bleibtreu and Co. Anyone who thinks so will be quickly set straight on that score.
You’ll hear from us as soon as we have had a chance to discuss with Manuel.
Warmest greetings,
M.
Last updated on 19.8.2005