[page 1]
PABLO ~TENDENCY
INNG PAN oH LET MARXIST GROUP
[page 2]
INTRODUCTION
It is now fifty years since the appearance of the Platform of the Left Opposition - years of momentous struggles in which the Trotskyist movement has fought to advance the class organisation and goals of the proletariat. Years, too, of frequent internal struggle, sonetines reaching the point of splits. And there is nothing surprising in that. The Marxist moveient arose and survived only because of its ability to consistently resist the two 'natural' paths open to it within capitalist socicty: that of isolation as an exclusive, messianic sect, and that of progressive opportunist adaptation to the political donination of the bourgeoisie. No revolutionary group that is rooted in the life of the working class can avoid the necessity of struggle against hoth those courses.
However, since the foundation of the Fourth International, a number of currents have emerged which attemnt to renlace this living struggle by an inpoverished schema which has nore in conmon with the thinking of religious sects than the method of Marxism. They see opportunism no longer in terms of the powerful and constant material pressure of bourse geois society on all class-conscious workers, but as a phenomenon by definition outside themselves and wholly identified with the Fourth International from which they have broken. And to this fantastic creature of theirs it so happens that they have given the name: Pabloisn. The real history of the International is here of little significance - every step it takes, every principled struggle it engages in, every mistake and every correction to that mistake, even the break with the tendency led by a man called Michel Pablo: all these are just the earthly forns taken by that shadowy force: Pabloisn. No matter that the forces of ‘anti-Pabloism' have themselves proved capable of the most extreme opportunistic bending, when they have entered the realm of real political struggle, for they are at botton protected from opportunism by its existence elsewhere as 'Pabloism'. The last act of the drama is now unfolding in the twilight world of Newsline. In an attempt to give flesh and blood to the ghostly presence, the witch-finders of the Workers Revoluticnary Party have 'discovered' that 'Pabloite' leaders such as Joseph Hansen and George Novack regularly consorted with the Stalinist secret police, whose accomplices they duly became!
The world Trotkyist movement has no need of stupefying myths of this kind, which, particularly in Britain, have bhecone one of the chief obstacles to the principled refroupment of revolutionary forces. It does, however, necd accurate knowledge of its own past. During recent years, the record of the major tendency struggles within the Fourth International has become available to militants in various publications, with the exception of the one that opposed the majority of the International to the Pablo tendency. It is as a first step towards filling that gap that we are here reproducing one of the most inportant documents of that struggle - "A Right-Wing Tendency" written by Ernest Mandcl* in October 1964. The docunent provides a stark contrast, both in tone and content, to the frozen rigidity of the ‘anti-Pabloite' school. It is throughout concerned with tracing and firmly combating the real tendency of developnent of this concrete oppositional current, as expressed in its public and internal writings and organisational practices, rather than with dissolving it by a stroke of the pen into timeless forms of revisionism and liquidationisn. At the heart
[page 3]
of the debate remain the central questions which were then facing the Left -- the course of the colonial revolution, 'de-Stalinisation', peaceful coexistence, 'roads to secialisn', the Sino-Soviet dispute -and the relevance of the Trotskyist progranne and the denocratic centralist Fourth International in this changing international situation,
It is hardly necessary to recall here the enornous changes that have taken place in world politics since this docunent was written; indeed, just two weeks later the fall of Khrushchev drew a line under the whole period of bureaucratic flux that followed the death of Stalin. But it remains of permanent importance for the Trotskyist movenent, both as a model of political debate, and as a nethod of analysis of new political problens confronting revolutionarics,.
*Otherwise known in docunent as EB. Germain.
Patrick Caniller, April 1977.
Published by Intcrnational Marxist Group,’ 97 Caledonian Rd., London N1.
[page 4]
A RIGHT WING THNDENCY by Ernest Mandel, October 1954 Since the plenum of the International Executive Committee in May 1964, Comrade Pablo has continued his course of ignoring the decisions of the leading bodies of the Fourth International in sovereign style. Openly violating the resolutions of the plenum of the IEC, he has continued to maintain a parallel centre, to publish internal bulletins under the auspices of his tendency, to bring out Sous le Drapeau du Socialisme in accordance with his own line and not that of the International, to fraudulently present the public faction organ as the ‘Monthly Review of the African Commission of the Fourth International", hiding from its readers the fact that the ideas he presents are those of a small minority not those of the majority and hence the leadership of the Fourth International.
This course of increasing divergence from the Fourth International, its organisation, tradition, programme and line, cannot be explained fundamentally except by the deepening political differences which Comrade Paolo, with his characteristic lack of self-discipline, feels complelled to impart to the entire world. Consequently it is the nature of these differences that must be analysed in order to understand their cynamics and to alert the movement to the causes that have brought Comrade Pablo to call in question the political and organisational acquisitions of the Fourth International.
Suestions of Method.
In the issue of the faction's Internal Bulletin devoted to the May 1964 plenum of the IsC, Comrade Pablo waxes ironic over Gernain, a “specialist in dialectics". He would have done better to hold his tongue =-- you do not speak of the rope in the house of the hanged. In fact, the very numerous political errors wrich he has committed in recent years are all due to his siving up the dialectic method nore and more systematically in favour of common, ordinary evolutionist method. He sees “irreversible" tendencies everywhere, pays less and less attention to the contradictory natpre of reality, made up of opposing tendcncies co-existing with each other, marked by abrupt leaps and chanfes in the direction of processes.
Thus Comrade Pablo thought that the victory of Gaullism gave birth to a bonapartist regime "svolving towards fascisn". He attached insufficient importance to the manifest contrary tendencies, linked to objective conditions, which were unpropitious for fascism, as well as the capacity of the French working class, even after a severe defeat, to react to an attempt to destroy their trade unions.
Comrade Pablo was mistaken on tie relation of military forces between the USSR and the USA, since he thought that the temporary advance registered by the USSR toward the end of the '50s in the field of long-ranse rocketry had becone irreversible. He forgot the logic of uneven development, operative in the military field as wehl as in economics, above all in the case of a power of such economic potentiality as American imperialisn.
Comrade Pablo was mistaken on the possibility of the Soviet econony catching up with American production on a per capita basis by 1970-72, because he mechanically projected into the future the enormous monetary gap between the Soviet and Amorican rates of-growth towards the end of the fifties.-He did not understand -- despite our efforts to convince him otherwise -- that it was inconcievable that the American bourreoisie
[page 5]
we
would not seek to increase the American rate of growth (this has already been largely confirmed). He did not understand likewise that the rate of growth of the Soviet economy could drop again, beginning with the time when the first series of Khrushchevist reforms had exhausted their stimulating effect.
Comrade Pablo was mistaken on the dynamics of the colonial revolutionunfortunately inspiring errors here a thousand times worse than his own; those of Posadas. Believing in an irreversibly victorious dynamic, he gravely underestimated the decisive role of the subjective factor (the leadership of the revolution) and underestimated the possibility of imperialism blocking the revolution for a time at a neocolonialist level, a possibility already witnessed in Latin America and Africa after being seen carlier in Asia.
Comrade Pablo was mistaken in believing in the long postponement of revolutionary possibilities in Western Europe after the victory of de Gaulle. He mechanically put the "reformist atmosphere created by the high economic conjuncture" in opposition to the “revolutionary atmosphere" without understanding that in accordance with the internal logic of the contradictions arising in neo-capitalism itself, abrupt leaps are possible, and prerevolutionary situations like the one in Belgium in 1960-61 can appear in a whole series of countries where the working class has retained its potential for struggle, without mentioning the revolutionary dynamics in the Spanish and Portuguese situations.
All these errors, in the final analysis, can be traced to a single error in method, to thinking that is increasingly mechanical, less and less dialectical. In the same issue of the Internal Bulletin put cut by the faction, Comrade Pablo seeks to reply to a criticism made by me. concerning his conception of de-Stalinisation;
"For them there are concessions and resistance on the part of the bureaucracy, for us there are only concessions. I replied to him that for a specialist in ‘dialectics’, what counts is the average result in time of the two terms (concessions, resistance) and not their undifferentiated justaposition on the same plane. "We do not neglect the aspect of the bureaucracy's resistance (since we repeat that it cedes to the pressure of the masses ... and finds itself obliged to cede) but we place the accent on the fact, that the average result in time, gives an ascending line of concessions. Otherwise there is no conclusion, there is no perspective, but simply indetermination between two alternatives, equally possible, and of the same dynamics. This, among other things, has not been the case with the evolution in the USSR for the past ten years." (P.23, emphasis in original) Without noticing it, Comrade Pablo provided us with a typical example of common, ordinary evolutionary thought in opposition to the dialectic,1 thinking of Marxism.
“What is properly dialectical movement, is precisely the juxtaposed co-existence ( Nebeneinanderbestehen) of the two opposed sides, their conflict and their disappearance in a_new category" (our emphasis), Marx writes in the Poverty of Philosophy (p.94, German edition of Dietz. Stuttgart). The characteristic proper to the category of "de- . Stalinisation" is precisely that the two tendencies, concessions of
[page 6]
atin
of the bureaucracy to the masses, and self-defence of its privileges and power, exist side by side, that there is a conflict, a growing contradiction, between these two tendencies, and pee this conflict can be political revolution. “It is then that the et spear oete becomes irreversible. Naturally, this dialectical view of things becomes difficult when you put an equal sign between "de-Stalinisation" and “political revolution",
Let's turn to experience. Comrade Pablo states that the “undifferentiated juxtaposition" on the same plane of the tendency to grant concessions and the tendency of resistance “has not been the case with the evolution in the USSR for the past ten years", Really? There have been some important concessions to the masses (without overlooking those of primary interest to the bulk of the bureaucracy itself) on the juridical plane and on the plane of sonsumption. There have been concessions to the intellectuals on the plane of freedom of research and expression. There have been important woncessions to’ the peasants concerning the administration of agriculture and exchange relations with the state and the city. But parallel to this list of concessions let us now draw up a list where “resistance has manifestly prevailed; that is, where there have been practically no concessions. c There is no genuine-participation of the workers in the management of industry; no-form, even embryonic, of workers self-management in the factories; no form, even embryonic, of participation by the workers in elaborating the-big_economic and political.decisions of the state; no form, even embryonic,-of a return to the regime of genuine soviets; no form, even embryonic, of freedom_of-tendencies or-of parties that.respect. the Soviet constitution;.no. form, even embryonic, of freedom of tendencies within the CPSU; no form, even embryonic of freedom of political. discussion within the- CPSU prior’ ta-decisions by the Central. Committec.
Does- Comrade Pablo dare affirm that in the past eleven years, the fierce and still victorious resistance displayed by the Soviet bureaucracy in these fields -- that is, still victorious defence of its power and privileges -- is. definitively ‘less- important", "secondary",'minor", in relation to the-scope of the concessions made in the other fields? ‘ To -do so-would in-reality mean affirming that the structural.problems are less..important.than the conjunctural, that the content is less important than the form. In fact, this is the difference- underlying most of the debates~between common-ordinary evolutionists and Marxist revolutionaries.
Does-Comrade Pablo -dare affirm that at a certain moment, conjunctural, formal_concessions imperceptibly slip into structural changes, that _ workers-.-contraol_over the economy and over the state will he re-established step by step, that. freedom of tendencies and political parties will be reborn little by little-through successive concessions made.by the.-bureaucracy? If so, he-would offer us once again a typical instance of the difference between_a common-ordinary evolutionist concept ani lahet Marxist concept.
Or-will Comrade Pablo affirm.that these structural. changes. in- fact require a leap, a violent_rupture, a transformation of quantity into quality? In this case we will-reply that he has contradicted himself .and that..this leap. this violent. rupture shows’ precisely the necessity for the birth of a new category (the political revolution), different from the old one ' (de-Stalinisation), so that the "juxtaposition" of the tendency~of the bureaucracy to make "concessions" and to display "resistance" can be broken..-c..« ce
[page 7]
site
Does this signify that in our conception this juxtaposition is "undifferentiated"? Not at all. We stand for making it clear that for the past cleven years and up to the very day the masses enter into revolutionary action, resistance will reamin predominant in structural problems (defence of the political power and economic privileges of the bureaucracy). Does this signify that there is no perspective but simply ‘indetermination between two alternatives"? Not at all. The perspective on which we stand, the variant that appears to us to be the most likely, is that in the struggle between the “concessions and the "resistance", at a certain point in the process, the "resistance will give way under the action of the masses. What we stress is that the situation in which this occurs will be qualitatively different from the present Situation; it will mark the passage of "“de-Stalinisation" into political revolution. ; % «% 4 But doesn't ‘de-Stalinisation" prepare the political revolution? Without any doubt. Evolution always prepares revolution; without the former, the latter could not occur, because it cannot fall from the sky. Despite this, for revolutionary Marxists, evolution does not at all equate to revolution; and they even understand that the slight nuance separating the one from the othor fundamentally distinguishes revolutionary Marxists from reformists.
This is the heart of the matter. An analogy will permit us to see it more vividly. What is the essential argument that common ordinary evolutionists (from the biberal bourgeoisie to the right and even left Social Democrats) offer against the revolutionary Marxists in the impe-_ rialist countries of Uurope and North America? ‘Compare the situation of the working class in 1960 with what it was in 1860. Hasn't a tremendous revolution occurred? Hasn't wretched poverty been succeeded by well-"” being,.the 72-hour week by the 40-hour week? Total insecurity by social security, illiteracy and the degradation of alcoholism by paid vacations and the right to culture? All this, together with growing political rights, hasn't this been concuered step by step, by pressure (which implies many ‘actions, strikes and slow downs' to use Comrade Pablo's words)? Hasn't the 'resistance' of the bourgeoisie been reduced, historically, in the long run, in the facé of this pressure of the i masses? What use is it them to chatter or to dream about revolution in facé of this ‘‘irreversible' evolution that has been already going on for a centmury? Let's join, instead, in increasing the pressure; let's 4 struggle for-more and more radical reforms, and little by little the : social revolution will be ahieved under our noses ..."
Ih the USSR, the question is not of social revolution but of political revolution. -It is a matter not of the bourgeoisie but of the Soviet bureaucracy. But in the passage cited above, replace “social revolution' by “political revolution" and "bourgeoisie" by “bureaucracy", and you will: find Pablo following the classic reasoning which the evolutionists refornists or liberals, have offered us for decades in the West!
How do we reply to this reasoning? We prefer not to follow Thorez and other extinguished luminaries who deny the striking progress which the mass of workers have actually realised in their standard of living “along the road of reform" in the past century. We add, however, that these reforms, involving the standrad of living or even political rights do not transform the capitalist nature of the economy or the bourgeois nature of the state; that these reforms have even been accepted historically by the ruling class in order to defend and preserve (in a situation of “weakness" before the masses, to again cite Comrade Pablo)
[page 8]
ete
their power as a class; that these reforms can prepare the revolution, on condition that the subjective factor reaches the necessary level, but that this revobution will not come about either automatically, irreversibly, or without a “qualitative leap". Insofar as the Soviet bureaucracy is a caste; that is, a more or less structured social formation that defends its power and its privileges, this line of reasoning applies to the political revolution in the way it applies to the social revolution, :
What is De-Stalinisation?
To this question, which he himself places at the wentre of the international discussion, and to which he accords central importance in understanding the Sino=Soviet conflict and the entire evolution in recent years of the international situation (‘ide-Stalinisation has again become, as in 1953, the touchstone ... demarcating two currents in the traditional Tretskyist movement" -- issue of the Internal Bulletin of Comrade Pablo's tendency devoted to the IEC plenum of May 1964, p.14), Comrade Pablo now gives the full reply: de-Stalinisation is the political revolution! It was the Australian comrades of the minority tendency who were the first to frankly express this formula (see their article, "De-Stalinisation is the Nascent Political Revolution", reproduced in the faétion's Internal Bulletin Now4, .
April 1964), but Comrade Pablo later expressed agreement with it.
To this we replied by defending the classical definition of “de-Stalinisation" which the Fourth International has not ceased to maintain Since 1953; namely, “de-Stalinisation" is the “liberal course of re i I ee are gy ee ——— et ~— Se a
That this was most certainly the @ine of the Fourth 4nd Fifth World Congresses and particularly the line of the theses of the “Rise and Decline" and "Decline and Fall of Stalinism" there is not the slightest doubt. The minority tendency claims , it is true, that in these theses it is affirmed that “de-Stalinisation" is the ‘rising political revolution" (p.12 of the minority tendency's Internak Bulletin No.4). But it is sufficient to cite the following passage from the theses “Decline and Fall of Stalinism'' adopted by the Fifth World Congress of the International to determine the facts:
"We thus considered the 'new course' of the Kremlin not as a movement of self-reform by the bureaucracy, but as a movement of self-defencé by it. While promoting and even hastening the awakening of the movement of the masses by its objective consequences, especially by the difisions that it created from the top to the bottom of the bureaucratic ladder, the 'new course’ was not, we considered, a substitute for, but rather a preparatory phase of, the political revolution of the masses against the bureaucracy." (Fourth International, Winter 1958, p.56).
In other words, the theses "Decline and Fall of Stalinism" said: de-Stalinisation is not the self-reform of the bureaucracy but its self-defence in the face of the pressure of the masses. De-Stalinisation is not the political revolution but only a preparatory phase. Today the minority affirms the opposite: de-Stalinisation is not a movement of defence (self-defence) of the bureaucracy, nor the ' |
[page 9]
pe preparation of a future political revolution; it is the beginning of this revolution, hence the beginning of the re-establishment of Soviet democracy, hence (whether one wishes it or not) the beginning of the self-reform of the bureaucracy (under pressure from the masses). Comrade Pablo has the check to declare: that he said the same thing in 1954 and in 1957, whereas the documents adopted at the time said just the opposite!
The 1957 theses are still clearer, dotting the i's even more carefully. They state that "continuance of the ‘new course' is inexorably preparing the big show-down between the proletariat and the more privileged layers of the bureaucracy, a show-down which will have as its main stake the administration of the plants and which will inevitably raise all the questions of the structure and control of the economy and of the workers' state." (p.58) They specify (p.59) that "Both (the neo-Stalinpeeboccernpecipaath--o gles pied cies pees ~ <rhaiel se ais deiplaieiedaiesi teliplihachaletestaelcidapmatige- tna ist tendency and the liberal" tendency of the bureaucracy favourable to de-Stalinisation), however, are trying only to preserve and defend the privileges of the bureaucracy as a whole." They stress that a > “growing tension between the masses and the bureaucracy ... are drawing near a violent explosion" (p.60); that an "open collision" is being prepared "between the forces that want to keep the basic institutions , of the dictatorship’ (and the text specifies that this applies to both the neo-Stalinists and the Khrushchevists) and "the masses who want to undertake a democratic administration of the state and the economy .-.."! (p60). And they conclude: "The transformation of the pressure of the masses into direct action of the masses will in this way signalise the beginning of the political revolution in the USSR." (p.60) Beating a retreat and seeking to cover up the traces of his change in political position: on this question, Comrade Pablo.now states that "“de-Stalinisation is synonymous with a continuous revolutionary ypsurge in the USSR". (p.14 of the faction's' Internak Bulletin devoted to the plenum of the May 1964 I8C.) This is alroady different from saying that de-Stalinisation is synonymous with political revolution; to confound a revolutionary upsurgé with revolution is a grave error for /a revolutionist who wants to lead the process. We have spoken of a revolutionary upsurge in Brazil in recent yoars, which unfortunately bm Meee? has not culminated up to now in the beginning of the revolution but rather in a temporary victory of the counter-revolution. A revolutionary upsurge among the masses prepares & revolution; it is not identical with it. : whan es This remark having been made, is it correct to identify "de-Stalinisation" with a "revolutionary upsurge”, if not a "political revolution?" © eee tte a eS ee 'De-Stalinisation" is a calculated policy of the ruling caste in the Md - USSR, the Soviet bureaucracy, or at least its ruling faction (and its a) owe overwhelming majority). The revolutionary upsurge is the deep wave among the toiling masses opposed to this bureaucracy. That the bureaucracy was obliged to undertake the turn of “‘de-Stalinisation" under the pressure of the masses; that the consequences of this turn in the long run favour the outbreak of revolution -- this provides no justification whatsoever for disregarding the social distinction between the rulers and the ruled, between those who arc manoeuvring in order to maintain their dictatorship and those who are pressing to overthrow it. In mixing up all these factors; in wiping out these distinctions; in speaking of a “conbined effect of the progress of the productive and cultural forces, and the multiple and multiform pressure that likewise” never ceases to increase in an international revolutionary context"; in stating that “de-Stalinisation is the result of an interaction between the concessions of the bureaucracy and the. mounting pressure
[page 10]
eile of the masses, the bureaucracy differentiating itself constantiy~ in the process'', Comrade Pablo is beginning jin fact to suppress ——_— tt —— -_-—— | a ce of the bureaucracy which was one of the pillars of the theses "Decline and Fall of Stalinism", This is clearly seen when he writes:
"Far from being a handicap, the fact that the Soviet bureaucracy is at present at the head of an economically and culturally advanced state, constitutes in reality the essential condition for the political decline and fall of the bureaucracy, engaged in a process of both more and more important concessions to the masses, and its own differentiation.
"This enables us to foresee the possibility of a diminished, weakened resistance by the coro of the bureaucracy that_might_ possibly resist the total and actual liberalisation of the regime." tots of the faction's Internal Bulletin on the May 1964 plenum of the IEC. Our emphasis.)
It is sufficient to compare this passage with the extracts cited above from the "Decline and Fall of Stalinism" to see how far the position of Comrade Pablo has departed from the line which the International has not ceased to follow in this regard for ten years! If he states that today he has always been of the same opinion, he should at least undertake a severe self-criticism for having voted at the Fifth World Congress for the opposite of what he says now. He voted
"de-Stalinisers") of the bureaucracy; that these leaders neither can nor want to "totally and actually liberalise'' the regime, because "de-Stalinisation" for them is a means of defending their power and their privileges, not to “progressively" re-establish Soviet democracy.
Comrade Pablo's schema signifies at bottom that in the USSR and the "People's Democracies! there is only one political battle: the one between the "enlightencdi™, "Liberal", "de-Stalinizing", in short, Khrushchevist wihg of the bureaucracy, fusing more and more with the masses, and the neo-Stalinist "core!'' of the bureaucracy, supported by the Chinese. This schema has no relation whatsoever with reality.
This reality, which we know, not only through studying the facts a posteriori but fortunately also through increasing contact with revolutionary Marxist elements fighting for a return to Lenin in the
——_— — i Tt which the masses hate and despise more than ever, as was the case June 16-17, 1953, in East Berlin, as was the case in Poznan, as was the case in the initial phase of the Hungarian revolution.
Of course, with a very sure instinct. the masses know how to take advantage of the divisions in the bureaucracy; they "prefer" Khrushchev to Stalin or to Molotov, and Kadar to Rakosi. But more than Kadar-Rakosi and Co., they prefer the workers' councils, not forgetting for one moment that Kadar bears just as much responsibility for their being crushed as Rakosi. This was clearest in Poland when the brief period of illusions in Gomulka as a genuine Leninist _ initiator of Soviet dcmocracy completely vanished among the workers, ~~ ~-—— students and intellectuals, the masses grasping that the difference between Gomulka and the Natolinists was infinitely less than the difference between Gohulka and the regime of socialist democracy to
[page 11]
Bie
which the revolutionary vanguard aspired. The mass support which the "de-Staliniser" Gomulka enjoys today is above all that of the private peasants who owe to him the restoration of private property, and even this social layer supports him more and more the way a rope supports the hanged.
Moreover, it is this phonomenon of the progressive isolation of the summits of the bureaucracy, who played the cards of terror and "liberalisation" successively without gaining genuine support among the masses, which the theses on the "Decline and Fall of Stalinism" correctly forecast, even if they were mistaken as to the rate of the provcss.
Just as Comrade Pablo does not understand the real nature of the conflict between the masses and the bureaucrats in the workers’ | states today, so he completely distorts the nature of the struggle within the bureaucracy and m among the intellectuals, the only layers up to now that have been able to express themselves under the regime of “de-Stalinisation", According to this schema, the struggle there is essentially between the de-Stalinising "Khrushchevists" and the more or less pro-Chinese neo-Stalinists. In reality the struggle involves at least four "tendencies'': the eno-Stalinists (who are becoming increasingly isolated and insignificant); the direct represen- —_—— ——— —— ee the rights of the directors and who are not at all opposed to "de-Stalinisation"; the bonapartist summits of the bureaucracy, who play a role of balancing the forces; and the “left" wing of the bureaucracy (above all the ranks linked to the workers) and the intellectuals, who demand a much more radical de-Stalinisation than that introduced by Khrushchev. The illegal, sometimes even semi-legal, spokesmen of this “bureaucratic left" use a language infinitely more critical, more aggressive and more direct with regard to Khrushchev and Khrushchevism than does Comrade Pablo. (Sce in connection witk this especially the notable article that appeared in Les Lettres Nouvelles, March-April 1964, directly from the USSR.) To embarrass us, Comrade Pablo raises the question: but the comrades
——_—— rt seek to mobilise the masses “who are taking into account the process of de-Stalinisation which has begun and who think of pushing it as far as possible"? In reality, it is with his own schema of the situation in the USSR that the reply fitting this question fails to correspond. We were the first to declare that today, above all after the experience of the Hungarian revolution and in the climate of increasing improvement in the standard of living of the masses, that the atmosphere is rather "reformist" in the USSR and in several of the "People's Democracies", In such an atmosphere, it is clearly necessary to work out a programme of immediate demands to start the mass movement going. Is it necessary to remind Comrade Pablo that we have never called for the “immediate overthrow (not to speak of the violent overthrow) of de Gaulle in France or President Johnson in the United States, because the relation of forces is clearly not propitious for an immediate revolution? But how can Comrade Pablo square his analysis of a situation marked by a colossal “continued revolutionary upsurge", by the beginning of a genuine revolution ... with the elaboration of a modest programme of action around immediate demands? Strange "revolution", to tell the truth, and strange "revolutionists", who, confronted with
[page 12]
«9=
this “revolution", do not speak of cither the conquest of power, or the over throw of the government, or even of dual power, do not think of advancing revolutionary slogans or even transitional slogans, but content themselves with modest immediate demands!
Conrade Pablo and the Sino-Sovict Conflict
It is in the Sino-Soviet conflict that the almost organically right-wing oricntation which Comrace Pablo has now adopted is displayed in the most striking and dangerous way.
At first it could have been believed that’ the differences in this field were not serious, that Comrade Pablo was even rendering a service to the International in certain respects, facilitating an adjustment of any excessive, uncritical support of the Chinese which some comrades might have been tempted to accord. It is clear that the Sino-Sovict conflict subjected the entire international revolutionary movenent to enormous pressure, which our own movenent could not escane. It was more or less inevitable that within the Fourt» Internaticnal pro-Khrusichevist and pro-Haoist tendencies would develop. The essential at prescnt is to make surc that they do not gain undue amplitude, that they do not undermine the autonony and objectivity with which we work out ovr policies, and that they do not prevent us fron taking advantace of the opportunitics to construct revolutionary parties in the ever morc favourable conditions opening up on a big part of the globe.
It is necessary to take a look at the evidence, above all since the appearance of Sous le Drapeau _du Socialisie. While the majority, without modigying its fundamental course, which has been confirned by thé passage of events, has criticised and attacked the Chinese each time they adopt a position contrary to the interests of the world revolution, (2) Comrace Pablo has practically abstained from all public criticism of Khrushchév and Khrushchevisn, maskigg this position of adaptation to a wing of the bureaucracy with an aberrant theory of which he is the only advocate in the entire world, since it is not shared by the bourgeoisie, by the proletariat, by the Social Democracy or by cadres of the international Comnunist movenent thenselves (including or event especially those who support Khrushchev with enthusiasn); namely that the Khrushchevist course in questions of international politics is a “left course, and that Khrushchev is ineréasinply becoming a "defender of the world revolution"! To Udenonstrate" this concept, which is in contradictioh to the reality, Comrade Pablo finds hinsclf obliged to distort and cven systematically falsify the facts, cutting out of Chou En-lai's speeches the passagzes where he speaks about Algcria moving toward socialism; in Khrushchev's messages the parts where he states that an ‘“inmediate" move toward socialism is impossible in Africa; in an article devoted to the temporary victory of the Brazilian counterrevolution, maintaining shameful silence on the overwhelning responsibility falling on the one hundred per cent Khrushchevist Brazilian Communist Party for what happened (Sous le Drapeau du Socialisne, No.6); polemicizing (in No.7-3) against the Chinese on their theory of the rele of the national bourgeoisic while passing by in complete silcnee Mhrushchev's morre rightist theory on this (contained in the programme of the CPSU adopted at the e2nd Congress); going so far as to publish (in the save Noe7-8) an article on Chile which begins with this highly prophetic sentence:
[page 13]
-10-
"Latin America has not ended her surprises for us. After having established fer first socialist regime in Cuba by the most unexpected and heterodox of roads -- guertilla warfare -~- she now seems ready to establish the second in Chile by another road which, although unusual, is not less surprising: elections." The same article contains in addition this gen of the purest Khrushchevist water: :
"But if Allende gains a majority, will he be permitted to assume the office of president? The FRAP has already exposed the existence
—— eee — at ft me oo | | oe —_—_—— —— given the legalistic tradition (unique in Latin America) of the —— — ne — ete Chilean officer corps and the leftist tendency of a part of the — ne eee young officers." (Emphasis added.) To disseminate such illusions after the Brazilian defeat -- which was caused in great part by similar illusions sown by the Khrushchevist CP -some years after the Second Declaration of Havan proclaimed that in all the countries of Latin America the greater part of the army is and will continue to be the scaffolding of the counter-revolution, is genuine-= ly criminal. Trotskyicsm is thereby discredited in the eyes of the numereu our revolutionary militants in Latin America of the Fidelista tendency, with whom we have to build the revolutionary party, who have nothing but contempt and indignation for these Khrushchevist illusions. A new and revolting example of this systematic adaptation to Khrushchevism, of this abandonment of a minimum of objectivity in analysing the Sino-Soviet conflict, is offered in the article which Sous le Drapeau du_Socialisme (no.9) devoted to the Chinese document "The Phony Communism of Khrushchev and Its Lessons for the World." The Chinese document contains two fundamentally contradictory aspects: it points to the phenomenon of social inequality as at the bottom of the degeneration of the USSR; and it affirms that the degenration takes the form of the re-establishment of capitalism. For a Trotskyist, the first statement constitutes an important step forward -~ because it is true that the privileges of the bureaucracy lic at the basis of its power, and the struggle against social inequality was considered by Trotsky to be the most_important_stnuggle conducted by the Left Opposition, the one that would unleash the political revolution in the USSR; the second constitutes a dangerous error to be fought, the origin of which evidently lies in the difficulty of grasping the real nature of the bureaucracy, a difficulty which was witnessed among the Yugoslavs (who talked for years about state capitalism in the USSR) and which has appeared in the history of our movement on various occasions.
But when Comrade Pablo deals with this Chinese article in Sous le Drapeau du Socialisme, he does not devote a Single word to the whole part that criticises social inequality ( a criticism that applies even to Stalin, since it is not the smallest contradiction in the article that it recognises that high salaries existed in the time of Stalin while it denies that the ‘degenrated elements" were in power in the USSR at the time); Comrade Pablo speaks only of the erroncous theses concerning the re-establishment of capitalism in the USSR. This whole partial, subjective, truncated manner of conceiving the Sino-Soviet conflict, denying the evidence; namely, that in all the countries where the "Chinese" and "Khrushchevists" oppose each other, the former occupy positions to the left of the latter, ends up in an
[page 14]
4s
untenable thesis which Comrade Pablo has the habit of repeating without the least proof. He claims that the Chinese do not defend Stalih personally, but Stalinism, that is, Stalin's domestic and -foreign policy ("the six-sevenths of Stalinism", it is claimed in the latest internal bulletin of the Pablo tendency). .The struggle against the theory ‘of socialism in one country (even when this theory is absurdly attributed to Trotsky), is this a "defence of Stalinist domestic policy"?
Defence of the theory of "uninterrupted revolution", not only within the frame of the colonial re¥olution, but even after the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, is this a "defence of Stalinist domestic policy"?
The struggle against excessive ihequality if’ Wages and for greater equality, is this a. "defence of Stalinist domestic policy"?
Opposition to the theory of peaceful (and parliamentary) roads to socialism, first defended by Stalin in his famous letter’to the British Communist Party, is this “defence of Stalinist foreign policy"?
The Chinese thesis, according to which the colonial and semi-colonial peoples cannot free thomselves from the imperialist yoke except through armed struggle under the leadership of the proletariat, is this"defence of Stalinism"?
We could continue the list; but to what purpose? We have never denied that the Chinese retain Stalinist positions in a number of areas.
But, despite all the progress of "de-Stalinisation", the Soviet burcaucracy headed by Khrushchev also retains Stalinist positions in_some fundamental areas: Maintenance and justification of bureaucratic privileges in the*USSR; a "world strategy of Communisn" centred on economic construction in the USSR ("communism in one country"); subordination of the intcrests of international proletariat and of the international revolution to the interests of the Soviet bureaucracy. To speak of "de-Stalinisation" while deliberately ignoring the rightist, opportunist course adopted by most of the faithful followers of Khrushchev or presenting it as "secondary", means in fact abandoning the interests of the world revolution as the fundamental criterion in judging the Sino-Soviet conflict.
The position adopted by Comrade Pablo with regard to this conflict necessarily goes counter to his claims about having fused with the vanguard forces of the colonial revolution. Because there is not the shadow of a doubt that from South Vietnam to Guatemala, from India to ' Colombia, From Zanzibar to Venezuela, the forces already bettling, or who are ready to struggle in the front ranks of the colonial revolution, feel infinitely more sympathy for the Chinese positions than for Khrushchevist one’s. Contrary to Comrade Pablo's repeated declarations, in Algeria itself, outside of the narrow circles of the apparatus, his positions, dogmatically, unjustly and systematically anti-Chinese, together with his systematic apologies for Khrushchevism bar the road to many revolutionary militants, Algerians as well as those from other African countries. The fact that we foresaw this special consequence of the Sino-Soviet conflict among the forces engaged in the colonial revolution, was one of the main reasons why we adopted the position we did in reference to the Sino-Sovict conflict: without making the least concession in principles, without hiding a single one of our criticisns with respect to the Chinese or the pro-Chinesc, we
[page 15]
. 12>
sought above all to link ourselves with the left Communist forces, who in the great majority throughout the world sympathise with the Chinese theses, rather than try, to play the role of carrying water for the Khrushchevist burcaucracy ainong-the Communist Parties.
Comrade Pablo's Positions on Problems of the Revobution in the Imperialist Countries.
The deeply rightist tendency of Comrade Pablo's position is likewise shown in an increasingly clear way in the probloms posed by the revolutionary workers movement in the impérialist countries.
The first manifestation of his turn to the tight on these questions wes provided by a sudden and astonishing position taken by Sous le Drapeau du Socialisne on the Spanish and Protuguese revolutions. Without consulting the International, without taking into consideration the fact thet an “African Commission of the Fourth International" is not at all cntitled to determine stratcgy in two imperialist “European countries, Cotirade Pablo catie out publicly against the correct, Trotskyist politteal criticisms made of the popular-front type programne of the Protuguese "Patriotic Front of National Liberation (FPLN) and publicly expressed solidarity. with the ridiculous “Movenent for the Third Spanish Republic", which represents nothing in Spain, am action that could only discredit Trotskyisnm, making it appear to be a movement that is ignorant of thw facts in the Spanish revolutionary movement. The Portuguese "Front", centred around the Portuguese CP, is an enterprise that seeks to substitute bourgeois democracy for the Salazar dictatorship; that is, in a scnse ardently desired by a part of the Portuguese bourgeoisie -- to liquidate Salazarisn without losing economic power. What. must be said*of a former secretary of the Fourth International who publishes news and conmuniques of this "Frontti, without a single werd of criticism of its ultra-opportunist programme?
Exposed by the criticism which we mace of the opportunist position which he had adopted. on the Iberian revolution, Comrade Pablo defended hinself at the’ last.IEC plenum by declaring.that there were clearly not a few things to criticise in the programme of the FPLN, but it would be "sectarian" to begin with this. criticism; first.comes the : support, then the criticism. This position, which coukd be justified in the attitude of a section of our movenent in an imperialist country in relation to an insurrectional novenent in a colonial country oppressed by "its" imperialism, is absolutely unjustifiable on the part of the Fourth International in relation to an oppositionist movement against a fascist dictatorship in an imperialist country.
The history of the Huropean revolution is too charged with defeats and victins- caused by "national fronts! and "popular fronts" in the countries where the bourgeoisie holds real ecconornic} social and ‘political power, and has solid traditions and a certain political shrewdness, for Marxist revolutionaries to let the least illusion about ‘the possibility of such fronts achieving a socialist revolution go by without speaking up.
To refuse to participate in an armed struggle (which however has not yet broken out!) against Portugucse fascism would be sectarian. But to participate in the struggle by mixing our banner with the popular-front banner of the CP, by providing loft cover for an operntion that seeks
[page 16]
of Fm
to repeat in Portual what happened in France and Italy in 1944, with the results we know about, is opportuniem. It was not so long G0 suc Cde Pablo would have been the first to point this out and to Fise up against such a policy. That it is he who advocates it today clearly ints what a distance he has travelled in recent months and in whrt dircetion he is headed.
In 1962 and 1963, Comrade Pablo criticised most of the Burcpean sections from the Left, so to speak. We will not return to the debate. But today with ropard to Western PUPOP Oy Comrade Fablo likewise is beginning to signal a turn to the right of a kind to take your breath away. In the issue of his faction's Taterbes Bulletin devoted to the last ‘plenum of the IEC, he writes: "For how much longer, for how nany years Aonger will it be possible tc get out of the new situation created in “urope for some yerrs already with phrases as empty as : he econonic cuphoria is tending to subside’ and tc avoid getting to tie botton of this euphoria, explaining it, taking — it into_ account 2 ond working out aA_policy £ for out. movement that | corresponds to this s sitnation? "Sy letting it be imagined for sone fabs now that each time we have been coning to the end of this ‘cuvhoria' and that a 'crisis' is closc, by magnifying the movements for cconomic dchahae each tine they break out here or there, or the victorics of the social-democracy or other phenonena which despite everything occur in the frame of the relatively prolonged stabilisation of capitalism in this prirt of the world, our forces are disoricnted ard prepared for ever nore serious disillusionnent. "In addition, by proving incapable of working out a line fer the Buropean workers! movement and for our own forces that corresponds. ts the new situation, aining at maintaining the class nobilisation and education of the prolet arint on the basis of the new etonomic possibilities and the new contradictions of capitalism, and the vow social and political aspirations of the masses, the difficultics of the objective situation are aggravated and we are isolated fron the nasses.e"(p.9,ny enph.) This text calls for comnent, especially Comrade Pablo's auda (city if reproaching us with iincapdodeytt wo work out 4 line for the FBuropean workers$ movenent, whereas the fact is that whatever is worthwhile in the workers mayonohe of Western Surope has been inspired precisely by the line which we have pronulgated for years. What is nost striking is Comrade Pablo's oxtraorcinatry capneity to forget in sovercign style oe te ling that does not conforn to this latest turn. Hoe “ied Cha that r years we have fought the idca that there would be other "grave economic crisis" in Western Europe; we have sinply tayanne t the ingvitability of radieitbnet He forgets that to give up the perspective of recessions would signify admitting that capitalism has overcome for a whole historic epoch its main economic contradiction -- with all the revisionist consequences that flow fron that. And he forgets above all what he hinself wrote only a little more than_a_year ago: "At the present time, the rate of economic expansion is everywhere Slowed down in the advanced capitalist countries, although in an uneven way; recessions follow one another at an accelorcted (sic) rate; the nenace itself of a real econonic crisis is nore cloarly revonled (sic again), beginning with the nore industrial ised ecuntrie S, the United States and dngland. The econonies of these two countries when they do not decline openly during the recessions naintain themselves on a level of
[page 17]
Bey)
quasi stagnation." (Fourth Intcrnational, No.17, on the Reunification Congress, pe65) (In the United States, the in’ex of industrial output rose 23 per cent from January 1961 to Aurust 1964, which is truly "quasi stagnation") Such a method of carrying out a 180-degree turn without a word of explanation of self-criticism is typical of Comrade Pablo's methods. With such methods, you cannot educate a revelutionary novement, you cannot form orgrnisations or cven tendencies.
But what kind of "new policy" should be worked out for our movement in Europe? Comrade Pablo gives us his revelation in Sous le Drapeau du Socialisne (no.7-8) in connection with a dithyrambic criticisn of Andre Gorz's book Neocapitalisme ct Strategie Ouvriere. This book is not without yositive aspects. It sécks to find a “new road" for the European tradc-union novenent imprisoned in the traditional refornist ways of organisation led by the Socialist and Connunist parties. In this sense it is alrgely inspired by the Belgian and Italian experiences, which have been partially inspired by the revolutionary Harxist forees in these countries. Mverything that = is worthwhile in this book, particularly on the necessity of fornulating bold dennnds in the fields of leisure, culture, health, education, taking into account the new habits acquired by the proletariat during the period of full enploynent and the possibilitics resulting from the expansion of the productive forces, has been said and re-said for yoars, not only in the Trotskyist press but in the official documents of our sections and the International.
But, contrary to Gorz, the revolutionary Marxists -- and even the centrists of the Belgian SP and the Italian CP -- know that the line of demarcation between "structural reforns", desired and sought_b neocapitalisn itself, and genuine transitional demands ("anticapita- List structural reforns" as they are called by the left of the mass noevenent in Italy, Belgium, Great Britain) is marked by workers! control and dual power on the factory and state levil. To abstain from raising the question of dual power; to present things as ae economic power cculd be torn piece by picce fron big capital within the frame of the bourgeois state, is not working out a "new workers strategy"; it is simply working out a new-reformist line which is to neo=capitalism what classical rcfornisn is to traditional capitalisn. It is lanentable that Comrade Pablo, renaining below the level of consciousness alrendy atteined by these left currents in the mass movenent, which includes thousands and thousands of workers, is satisfied with conpleting Gorz by the “perspective of forming a workers government beginning tadical structural refornus", without raising the question of workers control, natiohalisations, the character cf the state, even dual power, thus bringing his modest stone to the neo-refornist building which the Khrushchevists are trying to creét in the European workers' movericent, therein to lock up the proletariat once again! Thus, we see that the rightist position of Comrade Pablo is not linited to the problems of the workers' states and the Sino-Soviet conflict; it now extends to developments in the capitalist states. And, as we have pointed out, it stands in the way of working with the left currents in the colonial countries, since these currents are generally pro-Chinese.
[page 18]
-15-
The Question of the International.
This rightist political line has its organisational extension, in fact signifying the liquidation of the Fourth International, as we shall see,
Thus, from the premise that Khrushchev is essentially following a line of supporting the world revolution, which only a few stupid leaders of poorly "de-Stalinised" PCs resist, he proposes that Khrushchev should put pressure on them. Here is what Comrade Pablo actually wrote to the Australian conrades:
"But we can and should likewise demand (!) that the USSR persuade (and not order, certainly) the di tieront Communist parties that are on fully opportunist courses to change their politics to conform (sic) with that of the acts of the USSR." (The faction's internat bulletin No.3, March 1964, pe 19. Emphasis added) In the final analysis, if in the USSR and in the "People's Democracies" the "liberal" (Khruschevist) wing goes along with the political revolution, if this wing can through pressure (and not through orders!) lead the Conmunist Parties in the capitalist countries to align their politics with the "revolutionary" course of this wing, what becomes of the role of the Fourth International? What would be its historical justification if you add that in the sector of the colonial countries, which he clains to monopolisc, Comrade Pablo's activities are characterised by the practical abandonmen t of any ccnstruction of an indigenous Trotskyist organisation, beginning with Algcria? Merely reading Sous le Drapeau _du Socialisme is enough to show that outside the fraudulent use of the label “African Commission of the Fourth International", the magazine never makes the least effort to spread even the idea of an organisation.
Still more, the indicatiorfs noted above have been developed in the discussion article, "It is Time to See Clearly"; namely, the idea of a nass International, not on the nasis of a progranme, hut on the basis of grouping together all tendencies in quite a different way than on the organisational principles of denogrratic centralism. It is worth reproducing here sone lengthy extracts so that Comrade Pablo's new ideas on the question of thelnternational will stand out clearly: "The rebuilding of ideological unity in the ranks of theinternational wokkers' movement will take place from now on through the reconstruction of a type of new democratic International, whose programme must correspond to the new realities of our extraordinary century, and within which the right of free discussion and the right to igeplagtond: tendencies will be acknowledged.
"Only a very high level of ideological education and of socialist femocracy can achieve recovery of the organic. unity of the international workers! movement, at present shattered under the harsh.blows of the revolutionary reality. of our time. "It may be that the present crisis will be revealed historically as the one which finally prepared the coexistence of all currents of the international communist movement inside a single Communist Party in each country, with a democratic regine, and recognising the rights of tendencies.
[page 19]
-16=
"For in fact, the progress of the world revolution characteristic of our time, in which must be included the now revolutionary development now prevailing in the USSR. which expresses itself globally in "de-Stalinisation", tends towards a reconciliation of viewpoints on some essential problems, while posing at the same time the need for a free discussion, conducted on a very high level, in order to find efficacious answers for sone questions new to the whole international communist movernent, which are posed by the new realities of the revolutionary world in which we live. ("It is Tine to See Clearly", September 27, 1963.) "A communist movenent in which this possibility existed of democratically working out the political line through discussion could regroup all the communist tendencies. Those who excluded thenselves would denonstrate at the outset their sectarianism or their Stalinisn. Given the events which the communist novenent must face it could not avoid following this road. Togliatti's text will remain as the onc that first openly expressed this, Thore remains the forn of this new : communist international, Togliatti came out against a centralised organisation. At the staze where the communist movement is, this is perhaps the only form. A centralised world party cannot be really Leninist unless its revolutionary politics, its profoundly denocratic regime accompanies centralisn. Otherwise it's a natter of bureaucratic, authoritarian Stalinist centralisn. In addition, it will surely not be uscless to re-think the structure of the communist novement. The presence gn the same international of parties in power a long tine, of parties in the capitalist countries, of parties in power in the underdeveloped countries, etce., must probably find new forns of organisation." ("The Testanent of Togliatti", Sous le Drapeau du Socialisne, No.10, October 1964. Comrade Pablo has left far behind the following conclusion in his article "In Praise of Trotskyisi', an article which appears in the light of his backsliding‘to have been an expression of an internal conflict between his past and his present departure from Trotskyisn. "We have succeeded in working out a tactic which takes into account the double necessity: to epenly defend the complete line of revolutionary Marxism, to struggle practically in the ranks where the class is essentially active ... Such a concept, flexible, bold, also difficult, of our practical action, implies an international organisation of our tendency that is both highly political and disciplined. We know that our International is not that of the nasses,.e Nor can it be, as it now is, that of the nasses tomorrow. But it is absolutely indispensoble for the cohesion, the survival, the future of the revolutionary Marxist tendency. It is thanks, in addition, to the firm voluntary discipline, resulting from a very high political education and consciousness, that the spearhead of the revolutionary Marxist tendency is felt in the combat and Gives its militant physiognomy to our movenent." ("Eloge du -Trotskyisne", Quatrieme Internationale, No .16, July 1962. -- Sen Today Comrade Pablo is a long way from the Fourth International of "firm voluntary discipline", In his current docuncnts there is no more talk about the programme of the fourth International which must be defended and enriched in order to serve the mass Fourth International of tomorrow...
[page 20]
a Pe The point of departure now is "the new realities of our extraordinary century", the new problems faced by the workers' movement. Without any doubt, the current situation presents gigantic problems; but it is not possible to solve them solely through ... free discussion and the right of tendencies. Togliatti likewise talks about new problens in order to call for new foris in the Communist movenent; but he does not limit himself to that, he also proposes, in a quiet but insidious way, & political reply to at least some of the new problems, a reply which is even not "rightist Communist", but revisionist. (It°is impossible to imagine Bukharin or Brandler proposing to transform the bourgeois state from within into a workers! state.) What Togliatti does is in accordance, moreover, with what can be called the classic pattern of the revisionists in introducing their merchandise -- new problens have arisen and it is necessary to re-think obhr policies.
We have seen above that Comrade Pablo, too, proceeds to revise the Trotskyist political positions on many problems, forgetting what our novenent has defended and coming quite close on many points to the Khrushchevist or Titoist positions. In "It is Time to See Clearly" he clains that "the progress of the world revolution ... tends tewards a reconciliation of viewpoints on some essential problens ..."' This is manifestly false. The rise of the revolution has on the contrary broken the monolithisnm and fostered a clash of diametrically opposed points of view. But the fact is that there was a reconciliation of the viewpoints of Comrade ¥ablo with those of Khrushchev, the Titoists, Togliatti, not only against the positions of the Chinese but above all against the majority of the Fourth International.
The Organisational Difference.
Trotskyists have never conducted an organisational struggle separated from defence of their political progranne. They have always. given priority to the political 4ssues. That is why Trotksyists have never combined with rightists against the Stalinists.
But a struggle over organisational principles is also a political struggle. And in this field, too, Comrade Pablo is revising (Sous le Drapeau _du Socialisne prefers to say “re-thinking'') the organisational concepts of Trotskyism. It has become a hanit with him to characterise the discipline which we appeal for within the frame of democratic centralism as "formal". There is nothing "formal'' about our organisational concepts. They are grounced in princiviecs and theory just as much as the rest of our programme. They are an integral part of our fundanental principles. They constitute the chapter entitled, "Leninist Theory of Organisation". A difference over this theory, is just as “"fundanental", has as little to do with merely "formal" questions, as a difference over the 4eninist theory of the state or the Marxist theory of value. That this difference shows up in a pattern of action rather than in verbal positions does not alter its gravity -an entire tendency of the LSSP recently approved a coalition with a bourgeois government in practice while still voicing the Leninist theory of the state.
The school of Lenin and Trotsky does not play around with party loyalty, with the International; it recognises that only betrayals of historic sweep with regard to principles justifies splitting fron the party or the Internationa. As long as such a betrayal has not occurred, any break, any split, is irresponsible and ineffectual, even if one's position is one hundred per cent correct. Because the
[page 21]
ate
in_an organisation capable of triunphing. And it is impossible to build an organisation against a party to which the majority of the revolutionary cadres renain attached precisely because it has not betrayed the revolution (even if it may have committed sone tactical errors) °
In defending the integrity of the organisation, we are acting rot only in the interests of the Fourbh International but also in the interests of the whole communist movement. One cf the nain struggles that most certainly must be conducted against the Stalinist concept of the party in this movement is the struggle for the right of tendencies. In this struggle the bureaucracy raises the well-known argument: frecdem to form tendencies neans installing a regine of pernanent splits.
We must provide the practical proof that it is possible to combine conplete free discussion within the movenent, rights of the most anple kind for tendencies, with the necessary discinline:-in action.
We must provide the practical proof that the right of tendencies has nothing to do with the systematic organisation of disintegrating factions, because it presupposes in the final analysis that party ; discipline takes precedence over any "tendency discipline"; it “ presupposes a comnon effort ih clarifying and building the party.
It is by our practical bchavioug that we must provide the denonstration of the correctness of our theses. The Fourth International, by denonstrating that it is possible to conbine the right of tendencies with discipline in oxternal activities, will provide a thousand tines more arguments in favour of freedom of tendencies within the world Communist movement than a hundred articles written in favour of de-Stalinisation, a iSO
Here is our principle of organisation: the minority, enjoying all the deriocratic rights of a tendency during a period of discussion and at Congresses adheres to thé discipline of majority rule, even when it is convinced that it is one hundred per cent right, as long as it agrees that the International has not betrayod its principles, that the majority of the Trotskyist cadres are to be found within the International, without which it is impossible to.forge the necessary instrunent for the world revolution.
Conrade Pablo knows this principle as wel as we do. He applied it = for years, with much greater strictness than we have dis»layed today with regard to him. If he refuses to apply it from the monent he finds hinself in a minority, there are only two possible explanations; either he is a cynical maninuletor of people, believing in no prinee _—_—_— — — — eee eee ee —— —— ee ee ee eee
It is evidently the second hypothesis that gives us the key to the mystery. Cdc Pablo has begun to seriously dount not only the value but even the utility of the Fourth International (the way in which he repeatedly writes that "the Fourth International will not be able to survive" except under such and such conditions, is quite significant in this respect!) It is the logical and ultimate conclusion of his views on de-Stalinisation and on Khrushchev. His whole course is on this road. The extreme importance which he attaches to being able to lating all its orgenisetional princivies, even at the price of closing the possibility of speaking to members within the International, is the objective expression of this course.
ee ee ee ee SS
[page 22]
a
In"re=thinking" the forns of organisation, Comrade Pablo offers a stranre argunent: In his hypothetical International there would be parties at different lovels of development. But wasn't this the case in the past? Especially in the first years of the Third International? Is it possible to inagine the Marxist novenent renaining at the sane level of development in all countries for very long? Comrade Pablo's argument fuses with the arguments of the rightists of the Italian CP and with that of the London Bureaug This argunent only rounds our the rightist direction of his political course. It is true that anong his arguments on this subject, he adds that on he one hand a flexible application of derocratic centralisn is required, and that on the other, at a tine when we call for a general discussion anong all the tendencies of revolutionary Marxism, we must not try to muzzle a tendency that exists in our ranks. We have long known that it is necessary to be flexible in organisational questions; but if the movernent can reproach the leadership elected at the Reunification Congress with anything in this respect it is to have Sinned by being too flexible toward Comrade Pablo who now recognises no other organisation but hinself personally. As for Comrade Pablo's argunont calling for the sane rule inside the Fourth International as in the world Communist moveiient, it means quite sinply putting the Fotrth International on the sane level as all the other organisations now existing; that is Aissolving the Fourth International an such in both thought and action. This is what he wishes us to do. This is the logical and inescapable ene of his rightist course, of a course somewhere bctween Titoisn and Khrushcheviar. It is not the leadership of the International that nakes lifo inpossible for Corradce Pablo in the International; it is his policy, alien to Trotskyisn, that conpels hin to cenduct hinself more and nere as if he were outside of it and against it.
Only a few nornths ago, the leadership of the International tried to indicate the danger to hin ih articles that raised the question: "Where is Comrade Pablo Headed?" It is now clear that with the developnent of the international crisis of Stalinisz, he turned in a direction farther and farther away from Trotskyisn. He does not listen to the International any nore. The new hypothetidal International that he talks about, the one that permits all tendencies to live in complete fraternity, is a mirage which he is following away fron our movenent into the desort.
October 1, 1964.
EK RE EK Footnotes. le Besides this it is necessary to add a series of Nhrushchev's reforns which were not only (or not so much) concessions to the masses as neasures of indispensable rationalisation to bring the econonic system out of the blind alley in which Stalin had pluheed it. This is especially he case with nany econonic reforms such as the installation of Sovnarkhozes, the extension of the work and jurisdiction of the COMECON, the utilisation of electronic calculating machines, the employment of techniques of operational research. These neasures are no nore "concessions to the masses" than the siniler reforns introduced by beo-canitalisn. 2. On the accusation of Cde Pablo that I displayed the "height of cowardice’ in "beating a retreat" on our position on the Sino-Soviet conflict, I sinply cite the May 1964 issue of Quatrione Intermrtionale. I declared at the plenun, and still maintain, that the najority always distinguished the Chinese bureaucracy from the Chinese revolution and the Chinese tendency in the International Communist novernient. One only need re-read the political resolation of the Reunif. Cong. to see this. Cde Pablo, who denies this, and who clains that we uncritically supported the “Stalinist line of the Chinese bureaucracy", is sinnly displaying bad faith.
[page 23]