Marxist Bulletin No. 4
Expulsion from the Socialist Workers Party
Document 20
Report on Internal Party Situation to the Plenum of the National
Committee By Farrell Dobbs
28 December 1963
Comrades:
The suspension from membership of Comrades Robertson, Mage, White,
Harper and Ireland involves a major question of vital concern to the party:
Shall the party demand unconditional loyalty from all its members; or will a
disloyal faction be allowed to conduct internal war against the party, acting
under cover of alleged minority rights?
Criticisms of the suspensions, which have been advanced by some
comrades, have raised an even more basic question concerning the character of
the party itself: Shall we remain a Leninist-type party, founded on the concept
of basic political homogeneity, guided by the principles of democratic
centralism, and operating as a disciplined whole through the principle of
majority rule; or shall the party degenerate into a loose all-inclusive
formation of autonomous factions? Shall it be derailed from its basic political
homogeneity, stripped of its democratic centralist principles, rendered
incapable of acting in a disciplined way as a united body with a single
fundamental purpose?
Our answers to those questions will be vital to the partys
future. The Political Committee has taken its stand in keeping with our
understanding of the established principles of the party, and its now up
to the Plenum to make its decision for the guidance of the party membership.
For the information of the plenum in reaching its decision, I will undertake to
recapitulate the facts in the case and motivate the disciplinary action taken
by the Political Committee.
The suspensions hinge on the Robertson-Ireland and Harper
documents, which were appended to the Control Commission report of October 24
and with which youre all familiar. We first learned of the existence of
these documents on the eve of the last party convention. Wohlforth exposed them
in an article he submitted to the discussion bulletin (Vol 24, No. 27). He said
of the Robertson-Mage-White faction: Theirs is a split perspective. They reject
party discipline and party building. They seek to sneak people into the party.
They function in part as an independent entity carrying on an organizational
faction war within the party. They are a faction that includes non-party
members and have become so deeply alienated from the party that as a faction
they have already split in content--those were the characterizations of the
document by Wohlforth at the time he made reference to them in the bulletin.
As National Secretary, I at that time, on the eve of the
convention, requested copies of the documents from Robertson. He refused to
make them available and said the proper procedure would be to convene a Control
Commission inquiry. I then asked Wohlforth for copies of the documents to which
he had referred, and he denied my request saying the documents were what he
called private political material. For the moment I will leave
aside the handling of the matter at the convention and focus at this point on
the steps taken after the convention.
On August 2, the subject was brought before the Political
Committee. A motion was adopted noting that the Wohlforth accusations raised
grave questions involving a hostile attitude toward the party, double
recruiting and a split perspective. The Control Commission was asked to conduct
an investigation of the matter. The Control Commission held a series of
hearings in New York. It obtained copies of the documents in question from
Robertson, Ireland and Harper. Mage and some others of the faction appeared at
the hearings. All of them were given ample opportunity at that time to disavow
the documents. Not a single one of them did so.
On October 24 the Control Commission submitted a report of its
investigation. Now the comrades are already familiar with the split line in the
Robertson-Ireland and Harper documents that were appended to the Commission
report -- and on the basis of that report the Political Committee took
disciplinary action on November 1, suspending the five from membership. I want
to read to you the characterization of the disloyal conduct of the faction as
set forth in the Political Committee motion:
Assuming the guise of a study circle the group
leadership projects a discussion policy that disregards convention decisions to
close discussion on disputed issues and goes ahead factionally on a
business-as-usual basis. In external activity they propose to function as
united blocs seeking to work as free-lancers in areas where they
are unhindered by the presence of comrades loyal to the party. They undertake
the recruitment of outside contacts into the group on the basis of the
groups program, methods and practices. New people recruited into the
group are considered ready to apply for party membership only after they have
first been indoctrinated against the program, convention decisions and
organizational principles of the party. Group discipline is put before party
discipline. Group work within the party is cynically projected as the
best possible opportunity for building our tendency and not through any
mistaken concepts of loyalty to a diseased shell. Such are the concepts,
methods and practices with which the Robertson-Mage-White group is
indoctrinated by its central leaders and by the Harper-Ireland propagators of
the leadership policy. Those concepts, methods and practices are alien to our
party, wholly disloyal and utterly intolerable.
That was the characterization in the Political Committee motion
that suspended the five from membership in the party. Since the suspensions,
various comrades have raised criticisms of the Political Committee action. The
texts of the criticisms as they have been received up to this time are in your
folders and youve had an opportunity to familiarize yourself with them.
I will not undertake a reply to each specific statement of
criticism, I will seek instead to deal with the general categories involved.
A feeling is expressed that the party was not given sufficient
information about the case. Insofar as the comrades have felt handicapped
concerning full knowledge of all the facts, we must recognize there has been an
oversight and steps must be taken to correct it. That can be quickly
accomplished. We propose that all the material pertaining to the case be
published internally for the information of the party membership. All of the
material submitted to the plenum can in fact be ready within a few days after
the plenum for distribution to the membership. And that information can be
supplemented reasonably soon thereafter by publication of the pertinent details
concerning the plenum action on the case. In that way we can quickly have all
the facts before the entire party membership.
It is claimed that the suspension procedure violated Article VIII,
Section 3 of the party constitution. The assertion is made that charges should
have been presented in advance and that the accused should have had a chance to
answer the charges at a trial.
Those criticisms reflect a misunderstanding of the constitutional
procedures involved in this case, and they reflect a confusing of branch
methods of discipline with the exercise of the national powers of the Control
Commission. The Control Commission is an extraordinary body constitutionally
invested with special powers as provided under Article VI of the constitution.
When the Control Commission acts in any case, Article VI supersedes Article
VIII, Section 3. Article VI establishes the Control Commission as a permanent
national body, elected by the party convention. It is given wide latitude in
acting to safeguard the integrity of the party and to enforce its basic
principles. The Control Commission has constitutional authority to investigate
any individual or circumstance within the party, and it acted entirely within
its power in demanding from the Robertson-Mage-White group the documents in
question. Moreover, the Control Commission is authorized by the Constitution to
delegate any of its authority to representatives in the exercise of that power,
a provision intended to meet practical problems as was the case in this
situation. Comrade A. Chester of the Control Commission and Comrade Taber,
designated as a representative of the Control Commission, conducted the
investigation here in New York.
A charge is made that the Control Commission acted as an agent of
the Political Committee and that the Political Committee went beyond the
Control Commission findings. That charge again simply misconstrues the
constitutional provisions involved. Article VI specifically provides that the
Control Commission shall present its findings and recommendations to the
Political Committee for action. It further provides that the Political
Committee may take immediate action, or it may refer the matter to the National
Committee, if it so chooses. The case before us was handled exactly as the
constitution provides and there are no grounds whatever for criticism on that
score.
A criticism is made that White was not called before the Control
Commission. It is also pointed out that White and Mage did not sign the
documents in question, and the Political Committee is accused of convicting
them through guilt by association.
Those allegations merely fog up the central point of the case. The
documents involved constitute a declaration of war on the party. They define
the party as a right centrist formation. They speak of irreconcilable internal
divisions between reformists and revolutionaries. They call for
planned and united group action within the party. They state the aim to pick
and choose their battles, to detect times when it is most advantageous to
attack and when it is best to maintain silence. They do this within the
framework of a proscription against any mistaken concepts of loyalty to a
diseased shell.
Some critics of the suspension would dismiss these documents as
the product of what they call individual stupidity. The Political
Committee holds otherwise. Its a declaration of war on the party.
Its a disloyal course that cannot and will not be tolerated. All leaders
of the Robertson-Mage-White faction must bear the responsibility for their
collective position. Its immaterial whether one or another faction leader
signed the documents or not. Let us note in passing, however, that in their
replies to the suspensions neither Mage nor White disavowed the documents. They
actually reaffirmed them, but they did it of course with their customary double
talk. All the leaders of the Robertson-Mage-White faction must face the
consequences of everything the faction does. That just happens to be the way
political life works out, and people who cant face up to that fact of
political life should stay out of leading positions.
Its somewhat different in the case of the ranks of the
group. Some of them may have gotten sucked into the attack on the party without
realizing what they were doing, what they were getting into. If any of them
want to turn around they should be given a chance to do so. But the leaders of
the group knew exactly what they were doing and now they must face the
consequences.
Critics of the suspensions attack the Political Committee on the
grounds that it is exercising alleged thought control. The assertion is made
that the charges are based solely on the opinions of the suspended comrades. It
is demanded that the Political Committee must produce concrete evidence of
disloyal acts. And some of the critics have likened the Political Committee
action to capitalist use of the Smith Act.
Here again, several basic facts are overlooked by
the critics. The party is a voluntary organization. People can belong to the
party or not, as they may choose. But theres nothing voluntary whatever
about the acceptance of governmental authority. Its exercised over
everyone, whether they like it or not. And thats why governmental
attempts to proscribe views are anti-democratic. People who disagree with the
views of the governing party are not simply told theyll have to organize
a rival party; theyre threatened with jail. The difference is
qualitative.
As a voluntary organization, the party has the right to define the
basis of its existence. Thats traditional to the whole history of
organized political action. Now we, obviously, wont allow fascists or
terrorists or white supremacists in our ranks. Of course, those political
categories are extreme examples which do not apply in the case before us. But
those categories do serve to illustrate in an immediately perceptible way the
fact that the party does put distinct limits on the right of advocacy within
its ranks. In addition to that, the party exercises its right to define all its
basic beliefs programmatically in setting down the conditions for membership,
and the party has an equal right to define the organizational principles with
which all members must comply. Those who dont subscribe to the
partys basic beliefs have the democratic right to withdraw from the
organization. On our part, we cant allow them to remain in the party and
advocate anything they please, especially under the circumstances in which we
must operate within the main fortress of imperialism.
We not only cant let disloyal people advocate anything they
please within the party, we cant let them do so behind the back of the
party, as the Robertson-Mage -White faction has done and is still doing. If the
documents in question are only a harmless expression of views and opinions as
they hypocritically pretend, why didnt they submit those views and
opinions openly for party discussion? Why did we have to pry the documents out
of them? The answer is plain for all to see. The documents characterize the
party as a right centrist formation and project a split perspective. The
leadership of the Robertson-Mage-White faction advocates rejection and
violation of the most elementary condition of membership in this organization:
loyalty to the party. For them, obligations to the party are subordinated to
and superseded by their own factional aims. Theyre conducting a wrecking
operation inside the party, and thats why they tried to keep the
documents a secret, because party wreckers are not popular in our ranks.
We face a declaration of war, and it is the duty of the leadership
to defend the party against the would-be wreckers. We dont have to await
formal proof of specific hostile acts, nor do we have to let concrete evidence
pile up, one fact upon another, until the sheer weight of their attack on the
party makes their patent disloyalty obvious even to the most blind. Disloyalty
requires corrective measures, right here and now. We recognize the right of the
Robertson-Mage-White faction leaders to oppose the Socialist Workers Party.
Well defend their democratic right to form a rival party on their own to
combat us. But they wont be allowed to act as wreckers within the SWP.
Our critics argue that disciplinary action against the
Robertsonite leaders is an attempt to settle political differences by
organizational means. They contend that disciplinary action signifies in
practice suppression of the right to organize dissenting groups within the
party.
Those charges are false. The party convention settled the
political issues in dispute by a decisive majority. All minority viewpoints
within the party had a full opportunity to be heard. There was no restriction
of legitimate minority rights. In fact, the situation was just the opposite.
The leadership bent over as far as it possibly could to assure full freedom of
expression and just a little bit better than 100 per cent of what were the
legitimate rights of the minorities. When we came to the convention and the
vote was taken, it was proven that the minorities had simply lost the political
argument within the party.
The actions of the convention represented, comrades, a compelling
expression of the will of the party membership in its overwhelming majority.
The political line was clearly defined by the convention and the comrades now
want to get on with responsible, disciplined, loyal party building work. That
requires party unity on the basis of democratic centralism. That means
subordination of the minority to the majority; that means the unconditional
right of the majority to decide and the unconditional duty of every party
member to accept the decision and help carry it out. Thats what
democratic centralism means.
No one, comrades, is asked to surrender dissident political views.
There is no impairment whatever of the normal rights of a minority. There is no
prohibition of the right to organize dissenting groups, of the right to
organize factions within the party. But a minority must loyally submit to
majority decisions and wait for a new opportunity to advance its dissident
views when internal party discussion is again in order. Meantime, comrades
holding minority views should pitch in and help build the party.
So far as the party leadership is concerned, the efforts of all
loyal comrades are valued, without a single exception. Political differences do
not in any way disqualify any comrade from having a full opportunity to serve
the party. The demand for loyalty is not to individual leaders, and there
isnt a scintilla of truth in any contention to the contrary. The demand
is for loyalty to the party program and to the organizational principles of the
party. That demand in no way disqualifies loyal party builders who may hold
dissident views on one or another point. But in the case before us we are
dealing with a disloyal group of faction leaders who are out to wreck the
party, and thats a horse of a different color.
Some of our critics contend that we cant do anything about
these wreckers because they have minority rights. Were told that a
faction has an unqualified right to its own internal life and we are instructed
that official party bodies have no right to pry into the written or oral work
of a minority.
It is necessary to remind comrades who hold that view that this
party is not a loose federation of autonomous factions. The partys
thoroughly established principles reject the spurious concept of so-called
all-inclusiveness. That concept would paralyze the party internally
and render it impotent in its external work. Historically we have striven for
homogeneity in our organization on the basis of the partys principles.
Our programmatic aim is a struggle for power to transform society. All our
activities, our methods, the internal party regime are designed to serve that
aim. And our great historic task requires complete discipline and centralized
direction within the party. The party must assert its right to control its
public activity and to regulate its internal life. The party cannot sanctify an
atmosphere of uninterrupted conflict internally. No minority can be allowed to
run wild inside the party. The part must be subordinated to the whole, the
minority to the majority, in any democratic and disciplined organization. A
disciplined party must regulate the conduct of organized groups in its ranks;
as well as the conduct of every individual member. Its official bodies must
determine what is correct procedure, based on the partys principles and
statutes.
The 1953 Resolution on Party Organization, which you find in your
folders, sets forth the partys organizational principles. I should note
in passing that some parts of the resolution deal with a given political
conjuncture. For example, the references in the 1940 section to the
proletarianization campaign. But these specific conjunctural features are
secondary to the basic line of the documents, and our principles are very
clearly delineated in those documents. There is other fundamental material on
the partys organizational principles available in other documents. One of
these is The Struggle for a Proletarian Party, by Comrade Cannon, which
served as a guide to our cadres in the 1939-40 internal struggle. We propose
that a commission be established to codify all of this material in a single
document for the purpose of educating and re-educating the cadres of the party
in democratic centralism, to inspire party patriotism as part of revolutionary
consciousness, and to show the vital interrelation of principled politics and
organizational principles. Those needs are more urgent than ever in the current
political situation with which Comrade Halstead dealt yesterday in his report
which I wont attempt to repeat here.
We are told by the critics of the suspensions that the leadership
should present an assessment of the history and development of the
Robertson-Mage-White faction. In reply I would point out that their
articulateness in the long internal discussion has made their political history
reasonably well known to the party generally. Not so fully understood, however,
except in the branches where they exist, is their long record of disloyalty to
the party. Well, lets take a look at the record.
In the fall of 1962, Wohlforth and Philips announced what they
called a re-organization of the minority as it had previously
existed during their cohabitation as a group with Robertson-Mage-White.
Wohlforth and Philips issued a declaration of loyalty to the party, you
remember it was published in the bulletin prior to the convention. Robertson,
Mage and White kept mum. The party wondered who is loyal, who is disloyal, why
the split? Next came the Robertsonite provocation of the New York study
group, which was a concrete act. They set up this little factional tea
party for minority supporters and what they called sympathizers,
and they organized it behind the back of the party branch. When the Political
Committee called them to order, Robertson, Mage and White issued a joint
declaration to the National Committee, youll recall, in which they
denounced the Political Committee as bureaucratic. They said they
would abide by normal discipline; they said they would not as a
faction surrender the necessary and essential functions of the
group. They left the meaning of normal, necessary and essential to
their own definition in the name of their so-called rights as an
organized group.
Next came the Wohlforth accusations on the eve of the convention.
He revealed the existence of the documents in question and described them. This
threw considerable light on the cause of the minority split in the fall of
1962. Those who opposed the line of the Robertson-Ireland and Harper documents
went, with Wohlforth and Philips in the minority split. Those who agreed with,
accepted, supported the line of the documents stayed with the
Robertson-Mage-White faction. And I should say, by the way, that once that
split took place a vote was no longer necessary on the documents. Those opposed
voted with their feet, and thats why its a fraud for the
Robertson-Mage-White faction leadership to advance the claim that the documents
arent official because they allegedly werent voted on.
At the time of the Wohlforth article in the bulletin exposing the
Robertson-Ireland and Harper documents, Robertson, Mage and White rushed to the
bulletin in a jointly signed article in which they called Wohlforth a liar. But
in that article they made no affirmation of loyalty to the party. Instead they
submitted as an appendix to their article in the bulletin a copy of a letter
that Robertson had written to White a bit earlier. In that letter Robertson
called the Robertson-Ireland document a reflex of the need for struggle when
Trotskyists and centrists co-exist in one party.
At the convention the facts then known were reported to the
Nominating Commission. Among some critics of the suspensions it is now
contended that the Nominating Commission transformed itself into a virtual
control commission and exacted punishment against minorities without any
hearing or trial on the charges. Nothing could be further from the actual facts
of the situation. The Nominating Commission simply excluded the
Robertson-Mage-White and Wohlforth-Philips groups from the slate it brought
into the convention as its recommendations for the incoming National Committee.
The Nominating Commission explained to the convention why representation was
not included for those groups. It said their loyalty to the party was in
question and took the view that loyalty must be a prerequisite to the usual
practice of giving minorities representation on the party National Committee.
Robertson was nominated from the convention floor. A secret ballot
vote was taken and Robertson got 7 votes out of a total of 61 delegates voting.
Wohlforth was not nominated. Neither group got representation on the National
Committee in the democratically conducted convention elections which took place
by secret ballot. Now this clearly meant that the convention agreed their
loyalty was in question, and remind yourselves, comrades, that the convention
just happens to be the highest body in this party. When it is in session, the
convention has absolute power, up to and including changing any part of the
constitution and basic programmatic and organizational positions of the party
that it chooses, and that was its opinion.
A parenthetic question arises: Where does the Wohlforth-Philips
group stand today? In the split with Robertson, Mage and White, they declared
their loyalty to the party. But they waited several months, right up to the eve
of the convention, before informing the party of the Robertson-Mage-White split
perspective. Wohlforth refused my request for copies of the Robertson-Ireland
and Harper documents. And now the Wohlforth-Philips group has denounced the
Political Committee for its action in suspending the leaders of the
Robertson-Mage-White faction because of their disloyalty to the party. Clearly,
the Wohlforth-Philips group still has some things to explain to the party.
To get back to the case of the suspended Robertson-Mage-White
faction leaders, those who appeared before the Control Commission refused to
disavow the documents in question. They failed to give any assurance of their
loyalty to the party. Since then youve seen their written protests and
youve heard Robertson and Ireland here before the plenum today. They
remain dishonest to the party from beginning to end. They deny double
recruitment of the type claimed. They say they will not flout
legitimate discipline. In each instance theyll fill in the
definition according to what serves their factional aims, not in accordance
with the basic organizational principles and the fundamental good and welfare
of the party. They accuse the Political Committee of taking factional reprisals
against them. What was Irelands usage today -- the leadership
faction? Everything in the party is reduced down to a game of factions in
their view. Robertson says, You guys. Theres a lot of meaning
comes through in these small usages of one or another kind, particularly before
the plenum of the National Committee.
They predict the bureaucratic degeneration of the party, inventing
nothing new, but just repeating what Robertson, Mage and the others learned
from their study of Shachtmans past attacks on the organizational
principles and the program of the Socialist Workers Party. They predict the
descent of the party into Stalinism, the usual claim of a disloyal faction that
is conducting a split attack on the party. They ridicule the idea of party
patriotism. They sneer at the concept of party loyalty as a
religion. And to this day, they are carrying on as usual in their
war against the party, showing letters and documents around on the sly,
peddling scandal and petty gossip, fishing for new suckers in the party.
I have here a note from Comrade Dave, the Chicago organizer, who
writes: Tonight it was brought to my attention that the enclosed
documents and testimonials were sent to Chicago c/o SWP, 302 S. Canal. I am
returning them to you together with the covering letter which accompanied
them. Now the accompanying letter is signed by Al [Nelson] of the
Robertson-Mage-White faction. It says in part, Enclosed for your
information are copies of motions, letters and statements representing a number
of comrades calling for the lifting of the suspensions. I urge you to give this
material your closest attention, and request that, if you are so moved, you add
your voice to those of the comrades who have so protested. Would you kindly
forward me a copy of any material you may submit to the National Office.
Attached to [Nelsons] letter is Wohlforths statement in protest of
the suspensions, Wendell Phillips letter in protest of the suspensions,
the motion adopted in New Haven in protest of the suspensions, the statement by
Arne Swabeck in protest of the suspensions and the motion submitted by Myra to
the Political Committee on the night that the suspensions were voted.
How this material came into the hands of the Robertsonites, we
dont know, but their aim in using it is obvious on the face of it. They
havent changed their methods one iota. If they were in any way, shape or
form serious about wanting to be loyal, disciplined members of this party, at
this time of all times, particularly under circumstances where they were given
an opportunity to address the plenum, wouldnt they be meticulously
careful not to be violating party procedures? Instead they practice
factionalism as usual, fishing for new suckers. And the practice doesnt
end up nationally; it goes abroad.
We have here a copy of a letter that Healy wrote to Germain under
date of November 8. He says, We have just learned of the following
developments within the SWP. Five members of the Robertson group, including
Robertson, have been suspended from membership of the SWP by the Political
Committee upon the recommendation of a report made by a Control Commission
investigation. This report consists of quotations from documents written by
members of the Robertson group over a year ago. Now listen to this next
part: It is the first time in the entire history of our movement that I
have ever heard of people being suspended for having written things in an
internal bulletin.
Whether the Robertson-Mage-White faction leaders gave erroneous
information to Healy or if Healy added his own interpretation, or whether
its a mutual effort in which they both put their considerable talents in
this direction at work, we dont know. But its a blatant falsehood.
Were accused of taking action for an article allegedly written in the
internal bulletin, when it actually took a Control Commission proceeding to pry
this article out of these disloyal faction leaders. The false charge is made in
order to try to deceive people abroad--and if there are some branches within
the party that havent caught the full score because they didnt have
to live with this faction within the branch, how much more difficult must it be
for groups elsewhere in the world to understand the true situation.
Now the December 10 joint statement of those suspended, which they
have submitted to the plenum, adds up simply to a renewed declaration of war on
the party. They would have the comrades believe that their war is against the
party leadership, not the party itself. But as their documents show,
thats not true. Their fight is against the program of the party which
they term right centrist. Their fight is against the partys
organizational principles which they call bureaucratic.
Theyre at war with the party leadership simply because the leadership is
determined to enforce the program and the principles of the party. In short,
they dont consider the SWP their party; they consider it a right centrist
hunting ground for factional raiders. Youll find the basic intent of the
Robertson-Mage-White line echoed in recent issues of the Newsletter
in which Healy purports to read the whole SWP out of the Trotskyist movement.
Must we stand like sheep while all this is going on? Must we
tolerate their factional raiding tactics until the splitters themselves decide
the most propitious time to make their split? Is that what were reduced
to? What a commentary that would be on the party leadership and on the party
itself. But thats not the case.
This party knows how to recognize disloyalty on the part of people
who are conducting a wrecking operation, and it knows how to deal with them.
Its the duty of this plenum to deal firmly and in no uncertain terms with
these factional raiders. We consider it the duty of the plenum to expel them
for their disloyalty. We consider that firm disciplinary action is imperative
to preserve the program, organizational principles and integrity of the party.
We consider that decisive action by this plenum is vital to the good and
welfare of the loyal, young reinforcements who are beginning to pour their
energy and devotion into our movement and who represent the future of our
movement.
In closing I want to present a motion to the Plenum on behalf of
the Presiding Committee. The motion reads as follows: The Plenum of the
National Committee concurs with the characterization of the leaders of the
Robertson-Mage-White group as set forth in the Political Committees
motion of November 1, 1963, and approves the Political Committee action in
suspending five of the groups leaders from membership in the party.
Because of their disloyal conduct, the plenum hereby expels from
the party Comrades Robertson, Mage, White, Harper and Ireland. All material
pertinent to the case shall be published forthwith in the internal bulletin for
the information of the party membership. The plenum hereby creates a special
commission to prepare a draft codifying in a single document a full
reaffirmation of the partys organizational principles as they have been
set down in various official party documents at earlier times. The commission
shall be composed of Comrades Cannon, Dobbs and Warde. Upon its completion, the
draft shall be submitted for consideration at a forthcoming plenum of the
National Committee.
28 December 1963
|