Documents 3 to 17 and 19 to 24 originally published in Internal Bulletins of the SWP and the International Bulletins of the International Committee
Dear friends:
This is to acknowledge your letters of August 30 and September 2. A full report from Burns should be under way on his latest trip. I will confine myself only to comments.
It is obvious from the fact that they could not wait for your reply to their August 10 letter and from their liberal citation of statutes all around they are moving, under Livingstone's prodding, to precipitate organizational action. In the best case, this is simply mad on their part; in the worst, there may be some hitherto unsuspected treachery. Assuming the first alternative to be the case, it might be worthwhile to explore their request for a 'direct, oral exchange of views' and to make the best propositions in this respect that the circumstances permit. In case of the second alternative, it is my opinion that we will not have very long to wait, but must be prepared with a public statement of a clear-cut political nature which can be signed by various organizations and perhaps issued jointly. I believe that modalities for either alternative must be worked out by you. If some time can be gained, it is to our advantage, of course. In this regard, assuming that they are just rushing ahead madly but not deliberately -- and are really looking over their shoulder now and again -- a proposition for joint organization of a representative gathering two or three months hence to settle the crisis on the basis of the true relationship of forces might be advisable. I am for my part convinced that the cadres everywhere will rally overwhelmingly to the defence of the tested programme.
The action taken with regard to Tom is really a bit of brazen arrogance which hits a new low. For a year they show no interest in the American at all. Then, suddenly, with unabashed factional brass, they discover that he is not living up to statutes, although they know very well that it is not a matter of free choice with him that is involved at all. It is just another scandalous example of their utter lack of responsibility -- there are plenty of others believe me. Why did they pick on him? Apparently because they believe that he is isolated and that they can thus bring pressure on him of the type they seem to be trying all around. In what school did they learn these methods?
In this connection, it seems to me that if the correspondence Bob had with Livingstone prior to the French split over the Yugo affair is available, it would be a good thing to publish it at this time, to shed some light on these methods alien to our movement and to the fact that they did not begin yesterday.
Practically, T. will probably reply with a protest but, in order to see what they have up their sleeve, agree to ask his organization for a transfer as per regular procedure. Meantime, let them think that he is isolated. They are making much of an alleged unprincipled combination, but of course the reply to the letter to Tom would reveal along with the rest of the recent correspondence -- copies of which are at hand -- that there was no more principled behavior anywhere at any time. However, this would not be made public here without your agreement and, if you agree, you can do it yourselves. It is entirely in your hands. (By the way, I notice that Jerome does not offer to make any of his correspondence public.)
The article on Frankel should have been sent to you some time ago in the rough form it has been in since last May, but Burns has been using it educationally. It should reach you soon, so you will have an idea of how thoughts have been running here, and it will be worked on some more. Otherwise, things are moving along smoothly towards the end of the month gathering.
Best regards,
Harry
Trotskyism Versus Revisionism Document Index | Toward a History of the Fourth International | Trotsky Encyclopedia Home Page
Last updated 17.10.2003