The Struggle Inside the Socialist Workers Party Index | Main Document Index | ETOL Home Page
December 23, 1981
To the SWP National Committee
Re: The Fourth Internationalist Caucus, a political tendency in the National Committee of the SWP
Dear Comrades:
Our November plenum revealed divergent political tendencies in the National Committee which reflect disagreements developing in the party as a whole. One tendency, represented by the majority, finds expression in the motions and reports that were adopted at the plenum. Another is expressed in the proposals submitted by the authors of this letter, which were voted down. A third tendency also exists, represented at our national convention last August by comrades Weinstein and Henderson.
We are convinced that this plenum marked the further departure, by the majority tendency, from our traditional programmatic position on the working class struggle for power. What is therefore needed at this time is a reaffirmation of our party’s basic political perspectives, applying in each instance the method of Marxist analysis as embodied in the Transitional Program, the American Theses, and other programmatic documents of the SWP. We must apply in our contemporary world the lessons that Lenin and Trotsky taught about the revolutionary struggle against world imperialism and the treachery of Social Democracy; and that Trotsky, after Lenin’s death, taught about the Soviet bureaucracy. Only the basic program of the Fourth International can bring victory to the working class in the bastions of imperialist power.
In order to reverse an increasingly dangerous drift away from these basic positions by the majority tendency, we have decided to constitute ourselves as an organized caucus in the National Committee. What follows is the basic platform of our tendency, the Fourth Internationalist Caucus. This statement, of course, is not binding on anyone except its authors, whose signatures appear below, though we naturally hope that other comrades will find essential agreement with us, and we invite other members of the NC who become convinced of our perspectives to subscribe to our platform and collaborate with us to reorient the party on a correct course.
The declaration of martial law in Poland dictates that the party must qualitatively increase our propaganda efforts on this question, as we proposed to the November plenum. A sustained campaign in solidarity with the revolutionary struggles of the Polish workers is a necessary part of the present education and growth of the SWP.
Our wholehearted support to the political revolution against the counterrevolutionary Stalinist bureaucracy, and to the struggle for workers’ democracy and national self-determination, must be at the center of this activity—along with our exposure of the role of imperialism as the implacable enemy of the Polish workers. Defense of the political revolution requires 100 percent opposition to the Stalinist caste in Poland which is trying to crush it. We must completely discredit the claim of the Stalinists and their apologists that there is anything anticapitalist or anti-imperialist in the attempt to smash Solidarity, a revolutionary movement of workers, farmers, and students.
One of our first tasks is to challenge in open debate, wherever possible, the false contention that the workers’ movement in Poland is fighting for “Western-style democracy” against “Communist totalitarianism.” This perversion is propagated by the Reagan administration and other agencies of U.S. imperialism, including the trade union bureaucracy. We must also counterpose our concept of the struggle for socialism to the counterrevolutionary goals and class-collaborationist practices of the “state capitalists” and other “third-campers,” and we must expose the “two-camp global class conflict” theory, invented by Sam Marcy, which defends counterrevolution by Stalinist governments in power in the workers’ states on the ground that these regimes are supposedly a part of the working class camp.
It is necessary for us to organize Militant Labor Forums under the auspices of the SWP to inform and educate our own members and sympathizers. But such educational meetings are not a substitute for active participation in union meetings, propaganda actions, public debates and teach-ins, broad public forums, etc., wherever the issue of bureaucratic suppression of workers’ rights is raised, or can be raised.
We must attempt to work with forces broader than ourselves, as part of this campaign. There are many workers, students, and others beyond our own ranks who are receptive to our analysis of the Polish situation and would be open to proposals for solidarity activities around our perspectives. By projecting a united front type approach to this work we will make it easier for such individuals to participate, even if we are unable to involve any other organized political currents.
We should also join actions called by other forces, as long as they involve rebellious sectors of the working class, rank-and-file unionists, or the radical movement, in support of the workers’ struggle in Poland. All of this will put us in the best position to participate in the continuing discussions in the workers’ movement on the causes of and solution to the Polish crisis.
This is not an easy task. There are many real difficulties. But it is a task we must undertake. One thing is certain: If the genuine voice of the socialist revolution in the U.S. fails even to attempt to mobilize and organize the massive sentiment in this country for the Polish workers, that sentiment will certainly be channeled into a reactionary course, by the Social Democratic misleaders as well as by other more open agents of imperialist reaction and counterrevolution.
We call for a reversal of the incorrect analysis of events in Iran in the two articles by David Frankel: “Why Defenders of Democracy Go Wrong” (IP, Oct. 5,1981) and “Imperialism and the Khomeini Government” (IP, Nov. 16, 1981). This subject did not come up for consideration at the plenum, but informal discussions with comrades, and subsequent developments, have convinced us that a serious error is being made here. In the articles cited above, Comrade Frankel bases his entire analysis of Iran today on U.S. imperialism’s opposition to the Khomeini regime. By so doing, he assigns the class struggle inside Iran to a completely subordinate place.
This is the opposite of a correct relationship between these two factors. For revolutionary Marxists, the problem of the Iranian socialist revolution is primary, and this alone can provide a real solution to the stranglehold of imperialism on that country. Our support to the military defense of the neocolonial bourgeois regime under imperialist attack — a completely necessary task — is subordinate to our perspectives as proletarian revolutionists.
This error on Iran is extremely serious. It threatens to put us in the same camp as the Iranian counterrevolution. We urge comrades to read the analysis made by Trotsky of the problems of the Chinese revolution and the Spanish civil war. These are essential theoretical guides for an accurate understanding of current events in Iran.
At the expanded PC meeting following our August 1981 convention, a brief discussion took place on the subject of Lenin’s contribution to Marxism. This took the form of talks by Jack Barnes, Steve Clark, and Doug Jenness, followed by an opportunity for other comrades to participate. At the time, this was projected as the initiation of a broader discussion on this subject, though the only motion passed was for Clark and Jenness to compile reading lists based on their research.
However, there has been no further discussion. Instead, an article by Comrade Jenness appeared in the November ISR which began to rewrite our traditional concept of the theoretical role played by Lenin and Trotsky in the Russian revolutionary movement between 1905 and 1917. As a result of this article we proposed at the plenum that a literary discussion be opened on this subject so that the entire party could participate in a democratic way. Our motion for this was voted down. Nevertheless, we continue to believe that such a discussion is an urgent necessity.
Comments by comrades at the plenum confirm that serious changes in our traditional outlook and understanding of Leninism are being introduced by the majority tendency without prior discussion and membership approval. These changes currently center upon the relationship between Lenin’s conception of the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry, and Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution. But the “new look at Leninism” goes far beyond the Lenin/Trotsky differences over the assessment and lessons of the 1905 revolution.
During our brief and inadequate discussion at the November plenum, several comrades of the majority asserted that Lenin’s understanding of the dynamics of the Russian revolution was “more flexible,” and Trotsky’s “more rigid.” This is quite different from our traditional view (based on all past studies) that Lenin’s formula was algebraic, and Trotsky’s more precise.
It betrays ignorance at best, and dishonesty at worst, to quote Trotsky against himself on the relationship between his theory and Lenin’s. Trotsky’s writings on this question when he was fighting inside the Russian CP against Stalin’s slander campaign reflect the polemical necessities of that struggle—the need to emphasize the identity of method that characterized both his theoretical work and that of Lenin.
Trotsky’s final assessment of his differences with Lenin on the historic role of the working class and the social weight of the Russian peasantry in the revolution (resolved by the revolution itself) is contained in his essay, published posthumously, “Three Conceptions of the Russian Revolution” (Writings of Leon Trotsky, 1939-40, pp. 55-73). This is required reading for anyone who wants to understand Lenin’s formula.
A discussion of Leninism will take place in the party, stimulated by Doug Jenness’s article, by the projected class series, and by new historical conceptions such as those that were revealed at the plenum. We proposed that this discussion take place in an organized way. This remains the only responsible way to proceed. The procedure being followed now, of introducing the new approach without a thorough and democratic discussion in the whole party, is unacceptable. Jack Barnes’s proposal in his summary on this point — that comrades should feel free to discuss Leninism with anyone they want to—is simply a proposal for a disorganized, undemocratic discussion, which can only be disruptive to the party.
Our differences with the majority tendency over Cuba and Castroism, which arose during and before our 1981 convention, continue to be central to this discussion. Comrades of the majority continue to idealize the political consciousness of the Castro leadership, and the realities of Cuban life — particularly on the question of workers’ democracy. This idealization has created growing pressures for changes in some of our traditional views in order to bring them more into line with Castroist thinking. The mistaken positions of the majority which we have discussed so far in this letter are a direct result of these pressures.
Our view is that Castroism constitutes a revolutionary current, but one which lacks a complete theoretical base and therefore suffers from important programmatic deficiencies. Rather than trying to minimize or cover up our real differences with the Castroists, or change our program to adapt to theirs, we believe we must attempt to engage them in an open and comradely discussion on the points of disagreement between us. At the same time we must fight shoulder-to-shoulder with them on the substantial questions where we can find common ground. We believe that this is the approach to the Castro regime and Castroism expressed in the general line of the IEC resolution entitled “The Cuban Revolution, the Castroist Current, and the Fourth International” (IP, Oct. 19,1981), which we support.
It is a serious mistake to focus our attention narrowly on the revolutionary upsurge in the Caribbean and in Central America while minimizing the importance of major developments in other parts of the world. It is a serious mistake for the revolutionary party in the United States to adopt the Cuban CP as its model.
We fully solidarize with the revolutionary movements in El Salvador, Guatemala, and the rest of Latin America, as do all sections of the Fourth International. We completely agree that it is the elementary duty of revolutionists in the U.S. to defend the Cuban workers’ state and the workers’ and farmers’ governments in Nicaragua and Grenada from imperialist attack in every way possible, as the SWP has always done; and to explain the big advance these regimes represent over Stalinism and class collaborationism. We agree that we must try to unite with these forces in any and every way possible to advance the world revolution. The most essential prerequisite for this is for us to continue building our party in this country, in accordance with the present stage of working class radicalization and the tempo of the class struggle here.
We believe it is necessary now to review what and where we are, and to project the kind of party we are striving to become. It is true, as the majority tendency claims, that we are still a propaganda group. But we ought to revive Cannon’s conception of “a propaganda group that acts like a political party.” This is a necessary antidote against the current drift toward sterile and abstentionist propagandism.
At the November plenum this question of the present stage of working class radicalization and our “propaganda approach” to most domestic issues came up mainly around the problems of our working in NOW and the fight for the ERA. But it also arises in connection with our work in the union movement and in other arenas.
The Militant’s coverage of strikes reflects self-imposed isolation from real struggles and a mood of pessimism. The handling of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers (PATCO) strike is an example. After about the first month of the strike, when the labor movement failed to close down the airlines and force a showdown with the Reagan administration, The Militant began to write about the strike as having been defeated. This was wrong. We should not be the first to run up the white flag in such a crucial battle.
The Philadelphia teachers’ strike is a still more flagrant example of how a preconceived pessimistic schema caused a distorted view of reality. In this case, 23,500 teachers walked out in defense of 3,500 who were fired. As a result of the strike, these jobs were won back. Instead of seeing this as a victory, though only a partial one since wage demands were not won, the Militant ran an article by a staff reporter which began by stating that the “labor movement lost another round.”
The majority position on the fight for the ERA is another example of the pessimism and abstentionism that pervades all our work in the mass movements in this country. Our proposal at the plenum to launch a campaign in support of ERA— to advocate a program of action which could link in practice the fight for the ERA to other issues like abortion rights and the struggle against the overall ruling class offensive — was rejected. Instead, the majority voted to uphold the approach called “discussing strategy” as exemplified by our intervention at the NOW convention.
Every radical sectarian group is capable of “discussing strategy” by explaining how present problems will be solved when the working class is mobilized to take political power. That is no answer to what must be done now. We must, of course, explain the overall goals of the socialist movement. But this cannot be the sole extent, or even the main focus, of our activity in the mass movement.
The discussion at the November plenum tended to center around the question of whether we are “in favor of or “opposed to” action. But the real question is whether we are in favor of advocating action, initiating proposals for action. We believe that we should do this, as part of our propaganda intervention, and where possible in an agitational way, in all of our mass work. We believe that through explaining concrete proposals for action — specific activities, slogans, and outreach appropriate to the particular situation — we can best advance our strategic perspectives. This is the best way to expose what is wrong with the strategy of the class collaborationists, and it is the best way — in fact it is the only way — to win over the future leadership of the working class to a fighting, revolutionary program.
Our fundamental disagreement with the majority tendency is over what the revolutionary party should do in this period. We believe that it is correct for us to act like the leadership we want to become, even though we have no illusions, nor do we foster any, in what we can accomplish at this time. We must explain our approach to every problem faced by working people, both big and small. This means, of course, discussing our overall strategy. But it also means translating our strategy into specific proposals, whenever possible, around specific questions and issues which are foremost in the consciousness of radicalizing workers, feminists, Blacks, students, etc.
Our task is to explain to those who are ready to do battle with the ruling class how to begin that fight; how to organize themselves; how to mobilize support; who their real enemy is; who their allies are; and how to focus their attack on target. This means having proposals to deal with specific, practical, tactical problems, as well as an overall strategic perspective. This is our understanding of the kind of propaganda we should be spreading, instead of an abstract litany about the employing class offensive, the retreat of the unions, and the need for a labor party.
Breathing real life into our labor party slogan is, in fact, one of the central challenges we face. Union workers can begin from where we are in thinking about independent political action. Relief from the present unemployment crisis will come from a shorter workweek in all industry, the elimination of overtime work, and a massive public works program to create socially productive jobs. We believe that local unions in every congressional district should run working men and women for Congress to fight for these basic economic and political demands. That is the way a labor party will be created.
Our task at the moment is to build our party by working with and helping all those who are ready to fight against the ruling class attacks. We must make the SWP a factor in the political life of every city and area where we have a branch and in every union and other mass organization our members belong to. Building the revolutionary party in the United States is our primary responsibility.
Although this letter is addressed to the NC, we believe that it concerns the entire membership of the party. We therefore request that in addition to being sent to National Committee members it be printed in a Party Organizer or other bulletin, or that copies be sent to all branches for the information of the members.
cc: United Secretariat
The Struggle Inside the Socialist Workers Party Index | Main Document Index | ETOL Home Page | Marxists’ Internet Archive