Marxist Bulletin No 3 Part IV
Conversations With Wohlforth
Spartacist-ACFI Unity Negotiations
Fourth Session 23 July 1965
- Present:
- Spartacist: Robertson, Stoute, Nelson (alt); (Harper,
Secretary).
- ACFI: Wohlforth, Mazelis, Michael (alt).
Meeting convened at 8:15 p.m. Chairman: Michael
- Agenda:
- 1.Election Statement
- 2. IC World Resolution
- 3. Future Discussions
1. Election statement:
(a) The corrected revision of the second draft was agreed upon;
will be published in Spartacist and Bulletin.
(b) On the popular leaflet, ACFI will bring draft in to next
meeting.
2. IC Statement:
Wohlforth: The 1961 IC document, World Prospect for
Socialism, was essentially an analysis of the international situation,
capitalist development in the post-war period, the Stalinist countries, and the
colonial revolution. Rebuilding the Fourth International is an
evaluation of the International, making an important and definitive assessment
of Pabloism, and, flowing from that, the need to rebuild the FI through the
International Committee. The concluding section is the most important. The
Fourth International founded by Leon Trotsky no longer exists. The task is to
rebuild it, not to set up a new international. Marks a turning point in the
assessment of reality that is becoming increasingly clear, the diverging course
of the two international groupings since the last document, and the struggle to
rebuild the International, regrouping forces around the IC, and the theory and
practice of building national sections.
Nelson: With a few minor exceptions the document looks very
good to us, and we find no major points of difference. We are pleased to note
it develops several themes we had taken up in our 1963 international
resolution, Toward the Rebirth of the Fourth International; the
development of the IC document on the basis of the intersecting crises of
Stalinism and capitalism in the post-war period is good. In our own document we
went into this, and used it as a basis to examine the crises that had beset the
Trotskyist movement. If ACFI can agree with this IC document, it marks
significant progress in our unity negotiations, since the document incorporates
the perspective that Spartacist held in our earlier documents on the necessity
in each country to build strong national parties as opposed to a section in
your 1963 international resolution, The Rebuilding of the Fourth
International:
our task now is not the conquest of state
power but the conquest of the masses in preparation for the conquest of state
power. Everywhere and in all countries our cadres must break away from
the routine habits of propaganda group existence and reach out, no
matter how meagre our forces may be, to establish contact with the masses
themselves on whatever political level this can be done. This must be the
main orientation of the whole international movement and the major
task of each national section. Those sections which do not attempt such
work will quickly find themselves bypassed by developments during the period of
revolutionary upsurge.
At that time we in our international resolution, Toward
Rebirth of the Fourth International, section 18, said:
The task of the international revolutionary Marxist
movement today is to reestablish its own real existence. To speak of the
conquest of the masses as a general guideline internationally is a
qualitative overstatement. The tasks before most Trotskyist sections and groups
today flow from the need for political clarification in the struggle against
revisionism, in the context of a level of work of a generally propagandistic
and preparatory nature. An indispensable part of our preparation is the
development and strengthening of roots within the broader working-class
movement without which the Trotskyists would be condemned to sterile isolation
or to political degeneration in the periods of rising class struggle and in
either case unable to go forward in our historic task of leading the working
class to power. Above all, what can and must be done is the building of a world
party firmly based on strong national sections, the assembling of a cadre of
working-class militants won and tested in the process of the class struggle and
on the firm basis of the revolutionary perspective of the Fourth International,
the program to realize workers democracy--culminating in workers
power.
Insomuch as the new IC document represents a change in your own
perspectives in terms of what you saw two years ago, I think it is a good
thing, one more obstacle removed on the road to unity. The document coincides
more with our own analysis of the degeneration of the world movement and in
particular the American movement, where it puts in its proper perspective the
objective conditions which were a large contributing factor in the degeneration
of the SWP. The main error of the existing parties after Trotskys death
is that they tried to preserve Trotskyism as they knew it rather than go ahead.
You had placed much more stress on the subjective factor. The IC document does
a good job of pin-pointing the weakness in Pabloism, the abandonment of the
transitional program and their dropping any reference to dialectical
materialism as a method. While you are often abstract, they are nicely
concrete. The most serious omission in the document is that there is no section
that developed the application of the Permanent Revolution to the colonial
revolution. Implied but not explicit. Our 63 document Toward
Rebirth..., has a section that nicely develops what is missing (Paragraph
12):
The theory of the Permanent Revolution, which is
basic to our movement, declares that in the modern world the
bourgeois-democratic revolution cannot be completed except through the victory
and extension of the proletarian revolution--the consummation of workers
democracy. The experience of all the colonial countries has vindicated this
theory and laid bare the manifest inner contradictions which continually
unsettle the present state of the colonial revolution against imperialism.
Precisely in those states where the bourgeois aims of national
independence and land reform have been most fully achieved, the
democratic political rights of the workers and peasants have not been
realized, whatever the social gains. This is particularly true of those
countries where the colonial revolution led to the establishment of deformed
workers states: China, North Vietnam ... and Cuba. The balance, to date, has
been a thwarted success, either essentially empty, as in the neo-colonies of
the African model, or profoundly deformed and limited, as in the Chinese
example. This present outcome is a consequence of the predominance of specific
class forces within the colonial upheavals, and of the class related forms
employed in the struggles. These forms imposed upon the struggle have been, for
all their variety, exclusively from above, i.e., parliamentary
ranging through the bureaucratic-military. And the class forces involved have
been, of course, bourgeois or petit-bourgeois. A class counterposition
is developed out of the complex of antagonisms resulting from failure to
fulfill the bourgeois-democratic revolution. The petit-bourgeois leaderships
with their bureaucratic forms and empiricist methods are ranged against
participation by the workers as a class in the struggle. The involvement of the
working class is necessarily centered on winning workers democracy and requires
the leadership of the revolutionary proletarian vanguard with its programmatic
consciousness of historic mission. As the working class gains ascendancy in the
struggle and takes in tow the more oppressed strata of the petit-bourgeoisie,
the Permanent Revolution will be driven forward.
We would like to submit this section as an amendment to the IC
resolution. To repeat my original statement, the IC document is one we support,
a good document.
Mazelis: It is very hard to know what to make of most of
the things Nelson had to offer. One of the clearest points he made was at the
end, that is, that it would appear that he would seek to amend or add to the
resolution where it doesnt state your view, or enough of a developed view
of the colonial revolution. I agree that the resolution as it stands, being
more of a summing up of developments in the world movement, and not an
international resolution, has these omissions. It is important that this be
dealt with, be discussed, but does not have to be specifically in terms of this
document. Of the other points you raised--really, I dont know what to
think. There is an element of absurdity. I cannot agree with the way you
approach the whole discussion, a bookkeeping kind of approach, a
cross-referencing of documents--I think it is absurd, patronizing and petty,
and politically its fantastic. There are no grounds for the kind of
conclusions you draw. I dont think the discussion tonight should be
primarily on these kinds of questions. If you dont agree with the
formulations of our 63 resolution, it is you who were in contradiction to
the IC. You are twisting things around to show that in 63 you were right
and we were wrong and that now the IC agrees with you. In 63 we had noted
that today is a period of the conquest of the masses. I dont disagree
with what you read from your 63 resolution, except for the beginning of
it. The example of the British movement should prove that reaching out to the
masses is exactly what is necessary. On the degeneration of the SWP--you are
more absurd, you simply dont make sense. There is no disagreement between
us and the British and the French on the SWP. As far as our assessment of
Cannonism, there is no disagreement. Summing up, to put it mildly it struck me
funny, it is silly, the stress that you put on (1) discussion of the IC
document simply in terms of past differences; (2) in discussing these
differences, twisting things to try to show that you have won the IC over to
your views.
Robertson: To say that this document is in agreement with
our former positions and in disagreement with yours is not absurd. As far as I
know the British wrote this without any thought in their heads about the past
documents of either of our groups. While we are quite in agreement with the IC
document, we feel it less than World Prospect for Socialism, and
in its own terms. I found lack of guidelines here for the actual building of
sections of the FI. The document ended at its half-way point. I agree with
Wohlforth that the old FI has been killed. Some generalization on the role of
Pabloism in the colonial world is essential because the Pabloites have made the
Third World the center of their perspective. Two other criticisms:
ambiguity near the end of section on Algeria. The final paragraph on Cuba begs
the critical question. Algeria and Cuba were treated in different language,
unlike the IC statement in the Newsletter which spoke of Algeria and
Cuba in bracketed language. This document draws the line of the IC on Cuba
between our two positions. They say Cuba is not a healthy workers state.
But what is it? They should come forward and say. On Stalinism, it is a
careless formulation to use the word exploitation, suggests a New
Class theory and capitalist extraction.
Wohlforth: When Robertson says it is a question of whether
or not the IC document agrees with the positions of Spartacist as against those
of ACFI, the IC document clearly states essentially what we were trying to say
in 63 on the question of the role of the working class where it talks
about on p. 12:
The intervention in the class struggle is not
separate from the theoretical discussion upon which we have insisted. There is
no development of Marxist theory except insofar as revolutionary parties fight
in practice to penetrate living reality with that theory, enriching it in the
course of the struggle, to negate the revisionism which has destroyed the
International originally founded by Trotsky. It is not enough to make formal
theoretical corrections on the one hand and to carry out intensive activity in
the class struggle on the other. Such a procedure might give the appearance of
limited success, but only when Marxists see themselves and their consciousness
as part of the 1iving class struggle, developing with it and transforming its
quantitative ebbs and flows into an enriched theory from which to develop the
programme of the International, is the unity of theory and practice actually
recognized. Only in this way will the cadres of the sections of the
International be trained. Their internationalism will be worthy of the
struggles of the international working class, because it develops as a living
part, the conscious and most vital component, of these struggles.
What they are saying here is that we said in 63, regardless
of the size of your movement you dont have a two or three stage
development: our tasks today are propagandistic, tomorrow the mass movement,
etc. Rather, the process of solidification takes place along with the process
of intervention in the mass movement. Why is this old dispute being raised,
since in concrete work the Spartacist comrades are simply carrying out this
perspective? That is, despite your small size, you are seeking to become
involved in the mass movement. Essentially Spartacist today agrees with what we
said in 63--a bookkeeping judgment would be that Spartacist has been won
over to our position. The net effect from all this is to learn once again it is
not very worthwhile to go over old documents. No difference exists between us
on this today either because you have been won to our position or we
didnt disagree then, that there was a difference in formulation
and emphasis. Doesnt help us to go over the old dispute. A movement
cannot be built isolated from the masses. Objective conditions change the way
you intervene but not the essential objective: conquest of the masses. The
comrades of the Spartacist group would be making a mistake if they felt the IC
or the SLL does not mean what they say on p.9, 2nd paragraph: (about the
empiricism of Canon and of the American movement). The ideas in our historical
project come from the British and were inspired by a trip to England in Feb
64 and there is fundamental agreement between ourselves and them on it.
They are in fundamenta1 agreement with our history project. Omission of the
Permanent Revolution? There was a really clear difference between the 63
international resolutions of our two groups, and this was on the revolutionary
perspectives of the petty-bourgeoisie, leading to Spartacists position on
the Cuban revolution. The IC document in no sense has the assessment you do of
the role of the petty bourgeoisie in the colonial revolution. We have this in
common with the British. They do not have your position on Cuba, so the
amendment you suggest is one with another theoretical line. It would be better
to submit your material on the general theory leading to your position that the
petty-bourgeoisie is capable of creating deformed workers states than to
introduce it through this amendment. Exploitation is used in the
sense that the deformed workers states reflect capitalist exploitation; to an
extent they are ambiguous transitional formations with capitalist norms of
distribution.
Nelson: To reply to Wohlforth on why we raise old disputes,
the purpose of these sessions is to examine and discuss the theoretical and
political differences that may or may not exist between us. Part of this
discussion is the matter of our agreement with the international resolution and
our relationship with the IC. I disagree that we should approach the document
separately and objectively as you suggest. We must examine our common histories
on points that are developed in the IC document. There were some differences
between us that involved differences of appraisal. You said we differed on the
role of the petty-bourgeoisie. However, both our documents made explicit that
the petty bourgeoisie was, as a social stratum, incapable of successfully
carrying through a workers revolution. In every case, they have fallen short.
You have not yet come to a dialectical understanding of the nature of Stalinism
as a political system, but have continued to maintain the model that existed in
the 30s and the theoretical conclusions stemming from that model.
The USSR played a counter-revolutionary role. A whole series of events had not
yet taken place which relate to an analysis of the kind of states issuing from
revolutions with petit-bourgeois leaderships. We are examining your positions,
and you are supposedly determining what our positions are (but you had no
difficulty in determining our positions at the time of the last convention). We
saw our role as propagandistic and you saw yours as conquest of the masses. We
had different positions, and we had separate documents--that is
how serious our differences were. This cant be glossed over. Differences
must be examined to determine past mistakes and get them out of the way. We
have discussed other old differences and come to some conclusions which allowed
us to go forward toward unity. The IC documents treatment of Cuba is not
that ambiguous. On p.8, paragraph 1, the document says The building of an
independent workers party and the establishment of workers councils
in Cuba as part of a proletarian internationalist orientation, with the
extension of the revolution to Latin America and a revolutionary alliance with
the workers of the USA and the rest of the world
It seems to me
that this assumes a social revolution has taken place with a bureaucratic
leadership.
Mazelis: I agree with Wohlforth that the term
exploitation should be looked at differently than, for example, a
reference to Soviet imperialism would--I dont think there is
any different evaluation on or softness toward state capitalism. Robertson is
right when he says the document we are discussing wasnt written with an
eye to the past documents of either of our groups. However, these points are
all that our discussion should be. Nelsons contribution was made within a
scholastic and subjective framework. Old differences can and should be
discussed within a proper context, and I dont feel he has done this. He
has stressed these old differences, and in an extremely scholastic way. On PL
we admitted our mistakes. We arent afraid to admit mistakes. We must
discuss differences as they evolve, bring them to the present, if the
differences are real and if they find expression in our work. We have to see if
the overriding method is the same--not say this document says what we
said then ... we were right and you were wrong. The process we want with
Spartacist that we think is being achieved at some level is to bring
differences up to date, not see them simply in the past. On the 63
documents, I tend to think there was a real difference there, not just in
formulation. We feel Spartacist has made a lot of healthy steps forward since
then toward the mass movement. I dont think there are no mistakes being
made now by Spartacist. This kind of assessment of past differences is how we
should approach things, and not as Nelson has.
Robertson: Especially in light of tonights
discussion, my most serious criticism must be taken up. I feel compelled to
call upon the ACFI to recognize that unity between us is possible and
desirable, otherwise we will lose momentum toward unity, especially if things
continue like your sharp attack on us in your summary at the Algeria meeting,
calling us Shachtmanites etc. We dont make our criticisms of
you in this manner. We find more agreement with this document than we do with
you, despite the fact that one of the conditions of your existence is that you
not have any differences with the British. Two years ago when you had a bloc
with Philips your American document had a semi-syndicalist approach. We are a
propagandistic group, and our mass work is related to and subordinate to this.
We recognize the need to do mass work and that is why we kept trying to get
into CORE, etc., while we were still in the SWP. You should stick more
closely to the British--then you will share their strengths as well as their
weaknesses, like the SWP when it leaned on Trotsky. For our part, we continue
to find even fuller political grounds for unity, and in addition we find
greater organizational need for us to unify. We need to fuse with you even
though you are only 1/5 to 1/10 of our size.
Wohlforth: Or 1/3.
Robertson: We are continuing to grow. Since our last
meeting with you we have picked up organizing committees in the deep south and
in Connecticut. We have picked up a black cadre in Chicago--not just one or two
Negro comrades but a black cadre from the anti-Willis movement--and elsewhere a
new supporter in the SWP. We need your abilities. You think you are 1/3 our
size? Frankly, we have been doing our best to check your claimed membership,
and we find your claims mostly bluff. To ascertain the relationship of forces
at the time of unity we will propose to get signed statements of membership
from each comrade and then we will see where we stand. What do you mean by
membership anyway? You speak of an Iskra program. Do you have democratic
centralism? In terms of standing disagreements with you and/or the IC we see a
recession of them. We would like to see some movement forward in these
discussions. We can go on endlessly finding documents to discuss--there are
lots of things we could talk about. But the main point isnt just this but
to find out if unity is possible and desirable. If we dont make progress
in this direction there will be more incidents like the Algeria discussion, and
momentum toward unity will die.
Wohlforth: I have been concerned about the animosities
between our two groups. We feel extremely upset by the movement of the
Spartacist comrades to take political differences we have not had time to
discuss and bring them to the public and insist that the discussion center
around our differences on Cuba at a time when we had made no agreement on
public political debate. This will set back progress toward unification. We
have been denied our request for rank and file discussion, and the things we
want to discuss have been pushed before the public. The tone of my summary was
perhaps a subjective response to your action. I propose that we make a decision
to regulate discussion between our two groups--to postpone public debate till
we have privately discussed disagreements among ourselves. I find it hard to
declare that there is a political basis for unity when (1) a tremendous amount
of differences exist and (2) your action which was not an action of good will.
I have a strong feeling that we are very close to achieving at least one
notable objective, no matter how things evolve in the future, of removing
artificial differences. What were our differences on the American Question in
1963--I would like to see this clarified. We had assumed that on this question
our differences had been removed. In 63 there were formulations on both
sides that both sides would like to reformulate. We made too many concessions
to some of Philips formulations. But you tried to amend the majority
document rather than ours, though you are not now claiming the SWPs
position of 63, but what I wrote you should do. I propose we try to get
this question cleared up. Are the two groups separated by a different
assessment of the American movement and our tasks today? We say No, we
are not separated, because what is crucial is what we have become
today--this should be the context of discussion. Discussion on how many
members each of us has is beside the point--absolutely beside the point. It
would be like the British asking you how many members you have compared to
them.
Robertson: That is exactly what we want. We want as many
votes as we are entitled to on the basis of our membership.
Wohlforth: That is not what you should want, but to
ascertain whether or not you belong in the International. Politics, not
numbers, comes first. I am sure the IC is not going to query you, and are not
interested. They will be concerned only with your potential to build a movement
in this country, which is related to your theoretical development. In these
discussions we have to show an ability to admit our mistakes. The learning
process is different from going back and saying we were right then.
We were half Shachtmanites in 1961, and at least I think that you
have developed since then. It is not whether you were right and we were wrong,
but whether you have learned something.
Stoute: About mistakes, it is not that we are afraid to
admit making mistakes--we always assess our past positions--but what we wrote
then still looks good to us today, and we are still carrying out the same line.
If you think we have made a mistake, point it out to us and we will evaluate
it. You mentioned that we should make a decision about public political debate.
On Algeria and Cuba, this is not a new question but a question we have both
been discussing in the past years in our publications; not something new but
already public. We dont raise question in a polemical manner like you did
in your summary. In your summary you didnt attack our position but
destroyed a position we never held. You found it necessary to call us
Shachtmanites. We dont use the same tone toward you as we
would use towards a Shachtmanite or Stalinist. You seem to feel it necessary to
make it very clear that there is not one little bit of difference between the
British and you.
Nelson: If you dont learn from history, you are
doomed to repeat it. This is the basis for our raising old
questions (they arent old). Are there differences between our groups on
the American Question? I say no essential differences. Wohlforth is being
demagogic in raising the straw man on relative size and what the attitude of
the IC would be. Our discussions have the purpose of political clarification.
Discussion should be in terms of where we have come from, how have we gotten
here. You said there are formulations in our 63 documents we should both
forget. No indeed! The truth is that on almost every major point and tactic in
dispute between us over the last years, you have been in error mostly by your
own admission: on the youth question, nature of the SWP (which resulted in our
split), on PL, on your assessment of the level of struggle and tasks of the
revolutionary party. In 63 you supported the party majority on Black
Nationalism and submitted only an action amendment. On the American Question
your position was that now was the time for the conquest of the masses. We have
to agree on what the mistakes were in order to come to a position now. We know
our common history. We see a basis for a principled unity to be consummated
now, no obstacles to unity now, and all our discussion is raised in this
context. The question of numbers, this is important so that the minority in a
party or national section will have proportional representation. On public
debate--first you did not notify us of your intention, could have been
eliminated if we had had a joint forum. Mazelis said to come down and speak
from the floor. Algeria and Cuba are tied up together. We were compelled to
reply to your position on Cuba, especially as sections of the radical public
know we are engaged in unity discussions.
Mazelis: Not that we are opposed to discussion of these
questions. Robertsons arguments were demolished by Wohlforth at the
meeting, but we paid the rent and the purpose of the meeting was not to discuss
our differences with you. Robertson should have gone into the questions at much
less length. We were upset because the whole character of the meeting was
changed. This is in line with your military confrontation policy. On our
histories over the past few years--there is not really much agreement--we are
not speaking the same language. I wonder if you really understand and mean what
you say when you say Over the past 5 years you have been wrong on every
major question. Our admission of error over PL is in no way an admission
that you were right. We have shown we know how to make an assessment of PL.
Since then, it is you that have been dead wrong and not us. We dont agree
with you. We think you were dead wrong. We are proud of our 63 document,
and are sorry you dont support it. When we admit some errors and see a
forward development on our part, Robertson says empirical zig-zags.
We feel we have gained. We gained from our bloc with Philips. We are not
ashamed. We feel you have not developed in the same way. We are interested in
discussion with you, in unity with you, in working together, precisely
because you have developed, whether you realize it or not. You have
developed against your own will.
Robertson: We did not artificially raise the issue of Cuba.
You can t discuss Algeria theoretically without bringing in Cuba, Egypt,
etc. You invited our people to come down and we saw this as opening up
discussion with our members. If there is going to be an opening up of
discussion, it will not be a one-sided discussion. Yes, you demolished
our position on the petty-bourgeois state--a position
we dont hold. It wont work, its not smart to use these
tactics, its really not. On the 63 American Question documents, we
submitted an excellent amendment to the majority document. With our amendment
it gave thrust to the SWP position, to set down roots in mass struggle. The
declared position of the SWP was not their actual one. Our amendment looks good
today. Your document turned the SWP document inside out. We have been following
out our position, and in our sections have a balance between propaganda and
activity. Hindsight is a tool we have, a powerful test of method. We dont
think you have Marxist method. We see a difference between your
protestations and your actions. You do what you want, and tack on
justifications. Of course politics comes first, but number is important which
is why Wohlforth snapped l/3 when we said 1/5 to 1/10.
We said there never was a basis for a split. Healys calculations were
predicated on our demolition. The only reason you must deal with us today is
because of our numbers. We have always been prepared to be dealt with on the
basis of democratic centralism. Unity is a necessity given the extent of our
agreement. We gather from reports from Europe that there has been a mistaken
reversal of the relationship of forces between us in this country. This will be
and is being set straight. Our mistakes--theyre really not very many.
Speaking personally, I reacted insufficiently in the summer or 61 in
letting you try to oppose the party over the youth (letter to Ed), in that I
tried to control you rather than fight you. In IDORP I let the phrase the
SWP is our party slip through ill-defined--I was sloppy and had to pay
for it. In the fall of 62 I failed to recognize early enough that you
would bloc with the Majority to get us thrown out. These were serious errors.
They might have led to our destruction. I would say in general, however, that
we have done very well. Remarkably so, and the documents as we go over them
look pretty good. It is not bragging to say that our purpose has been straight
as an arrow. I repeat--is ACFI a democratic centralist organization?
Wohlforth: At the Algeria meeting, there is a difference
between what we did and what the Spartacist comrades did. We did not address
ourselves publicly to our theory. We were ambiguous on purpose theoretically on
Cuba. The essential lessons of Algeria could be achieved largely within that
framework. In our whole history we have never had a public polemic with
Spartacist. However, you chose to have a public polemic. In our opinion your
theory leads to bureaucratic collectivism. We dont feel we should say
this in the Bulletin. On past differences, where we were supposed to
have been wrong on everything and you were supposed to be right on everything
except for your errors in not being tough enough toward us, I think it is
primarily a difference of method. I do not see how at one and the same time we
have erred, followed a zig-zag empiricist course, have nothing approaching
Marxist method, and then in the same breath you think a principled basis for
unity exists. If we felt you didnt approach Marxist method, we would be
forced to come to the conclusion that there isnt a basis for unity. We
feel you have developed and have a different position than you used to whether
you recognize it or not. You may have an incorrect method abstractly and in
your Cuba approach, but this doesnt mean in your general work you
dont have anything approaching a Marxist method--if you didnt your
work would be different. Robertson says his purpose has been straight as an
arrow. Marxism doesnt move like an arrow. We feel our assessment of the
SWP was correct and because of that assessment we now have a relationship with
the most viable section of the SWP. We have always refused to let the SWP
alienate us from the rank and file of the SWP. The position we took at that
time was correct. You havent done what we did as regards PL--a serious
tactical error, and a big one. On the American Question, what we proposed the
party should do flowed from our analysis of the American and world situations.
The SWP did not share that analysis, did not have a method of proceeding from
the conjunctural analysis to concrete tasks. Our position on the Negro question
stemmed from that analysis. You made concrete amendments to a document which
didnt have a correct analysis. I still wonder whether we share the same
conjunctural analysis. You had Hansens theory at the last meeting. Marcus
seems to agree with our conjunctural analysis, being a theoretical person. On
democratic centralist functioning, we are a democratic centralist organization.
However, I have a very deep suspicion that we are not in agreement with you as
to what democratic centralism is. Democratic centralism is an organizational
question that flows from the theoretical tasks, the nature of the period, and
the nature of our movement. We must have democratic centralism, but not always
the same organization at all times. We have no temptation to set ourselves up
as a party at this time.
Stoute: What does your deep suspicion on what we consider
democratic-centralism flow from?
Wohlforth: From your military formations
policy, Spartacist buttons, etc.
Nelson: On the question of our theoretical development, and
the expression our purpose has been straight as an arrow as being
un-Marxist: theory is verified and tested by history. We have an analysis, and
positions based on our theory, they are on paper, and over 3-4 years we have
had an opportunity to test them. Our theoretical development has been
consistent--not slamming around from excess to excess, on the Cuban state,
Black Nationalism and the SWP. If you think in fact that you were correct, when
did the party become something other than revolutionary? At the 63
Convention you felt it was still revolutionary, yet you were ready to leave in
the fall of 63. When was the process of the partys degeneration
consolidated? There seems to be a rather curious quality about your statements
concerning the future of our group --you seem to assume a separation between
our groups for a long time to come. We are prepared to move this night to
consummate unity. There has always been a programmatic basis for unity. The
existence of two separate and identical forces is detrimental to the
development in this country of a revolutionary movement. Politics demand that
we unite. For you to maintain a separate course and to seek to maintain a
separate course is to play a role detrimental in this country to the building
of a force capable of building a revolutionary party.
Wohlforth: Our assessment of the development of the
discussion over the last 2 weeks is that unification now would be a proposal to
have an internalized war to the death, would not be a serious unification. I
believe your assessment of our role would motivate you to do this, you will
feel it necessary to conduct a struggle against us within a common
organization. This will not be unification but destruction. This is why we are
not proposing that we unify tonight and why we propose an entirely different
course than we have been following thus far. What has been prepared over the
last couple of weeks is a deepening antagonism between the two groups. We need
more common action. Only when we have comradely relations between the two
groups can we have unity. You arent really prepared to say we can have
unity tonight; you may mean we can have unification in three months. We need
more discussion here and internationally. What you mean by unity is
really lets internalize the fight. What we mean by unity is
an end to the struggle.
Robertson: We will certainly have to discuss democratic
centralism. We will bring in documents to the next meeting. This is appropriate
since the majority of any new organization that would be formed will come from
the Spartacist side. But unity presupposes a willingness to unite. It will take
months and years of common struggle against common enemies in a common
organization to erase the old line between us, these are the hard facts. Of
course unity couldnt be completed tonight but would take several
months, but you dont even yet agree that there is a political
basis for it--this is the obstacle to progress. You wont agree
that unity is politically feasible. This is what we want to talk about. We are
ready to unify now. Why can we unite with you despite your zig-zags,
etc.?--Because you have an umbilical cord to the SLL and they are
stable. That will keep correcting you when you get off course, but the trouble
is, you generally tend to overcorrect. Your present terrible mistake is
refusing to unite with us. You seem to believe that if we dont unite we
can have a beautiful coexistence. That is polyvanguardism. Such a theory
is deleterious to the working class. As regards PL, you made a serious error
last fall in sending in Danny and Fred as open members of ACFI. We were trying
to develop indigenous pro-Spartacists but you went in openly and this brought
about a hardening up against Trotskyists organizationally. At the time we
didnt have suitable opportunity for our policy. As late as two weeks ago,
Epton thought the Bulletin and Spartacist were publications of
the same group. It is a serious and elementary mistake to think we want to
start with politics and tactics rather than theory. We mean program. We
arent talking the same language. Cannon always talked program. You are
wrongly separating Cannon and Trotsky on this matter.
Wohlforth: The antagonisms and political assessments which
have been brought out tonight have political and theoretical roots impelling
factionism, external or internal. They express political differences that need
to be clarified, not removed entirely. If we simply make a statement there is
no political bar to unity, there may be unity but it will be a unified war. You
comrades recognize this. If we agreed to unity you would write to your comrades
saying Wohlforth is prepared to unify, prepare for the internal
war. No sane political person would make the assessment you have made of
us tonight and still say a basis for unity exists. Because of all this we have
to clarify things more. We havent clarified our differences on the
American Question. You are saying that just discussing our differences is
impeding unity. You arent serious political people if you say this,
its a game.
Nelson: Wohlforth has turned the basis for our friction on
its head. Frustration will continue to exist and there will be in fact a war to
the death as long as our two groups are competing organizationally and
internationally in the same arenas. This is the source of friction. As a
unified organization we will be able to control these things, not have an
internal war to the death. In the 3rd and 4th Internationals, when there was
more than one organization in the same country, one or the other had to be
destroyed. Only one party will make the revolution in this country. Politics
and program, not abstract questions, are decisive. There is no such thing as
method abstracted from the actual building of a movement.
Stoute: If you dont think there is a basis for unity,
why have you come to these meetings in the first place. The kind of differences
you suggest might be a bar to unity were all within the framework of a common
program. This sort of difference will come up even if we were not two separate
organization and should be expected within a national organization, even if no
differences existed in the first place. The real reason you have not agreed to
unite is something other than what we have been discussing.
Mazelis: To say we are appended to the British is a moronic
kind of statement and I cant believe Robertson believes that. It is
completely cynical and insulting to us to say we maintain our existence by
having no differences with the British. This amounts to calling us politically
unprincipled, and I dont think we have to prove that this is wrong, that
as a matter of fact we do have some honest but quite compatible differences
with the British. The basic problem is not one of having obviously compatible
differences, but Nelson says we have bean dead wrong on most major political
questions in the past years. What are our current errors then? Even if there
were none now, if what Nelson says is true we would have differences in six
months. Dont you think we should approach things in the way we want to
approach them? We are trying to create the basis for unity, not prepared to say
tonight there is a pre-existing basis for unity. We think we see development on
your part, but we feel we have also developed.
4. Topic and Time of next meeting: 30 July, on democratic
centralism.
Robertson distributed a Spartacist leaflet attacking Workers World
for endorsing Jesse Gray who is running in the Democratic primary. He also
distributed Spartacist correspondence with Deacons and a cover letter.
Meeting adjourned about midnight.
|