Last week World. Outlook published the text of an attack acainst the Fourth ‘Tnternational which appeared in the September 13 issue of Izvestia. The following is the text of a letter in reply, addressed to the editor of the Moscow daily by Pierre ‘Frank, a member of the United Secretariat of the Fourth International «
September 30, 1963
Edit or:
We read with considerable interest an article in the September 13 Izvestia devoted to the Fourth International. We
a teen ee appreciated the fact that for the first time in the history of your newspaper you decided to inform vour readers that the Fourth International, the world party of socialist revolution founded by Leon Trotsky in 1938, is alive, that it is active in more than thirty countries, that it holds conferences and world congresses and discusses the profound political problems and aifficult tactical questions fecing the world working class in our epoch, Anyone familiar with the history of the international labor movement, on reading this article carefully -~ especially between the lines, as has “been customary in the Soviet Union Since Stalin seized power ~- will see at once that the Fourth International is a genuine vorkers' organization cheracterized, - like many of the past, by a rich internal life and struscles of tendencies; i.e., the sometimes painful but irreplaceable method of proletarian democracy. Such an organization, of course, is . the complete opposite of those created under Stalin as the official Communist movement; i.e., organizations characterized by monolithism, in which genuine debate or discussion is prohibited and in which decisions are reached through deals behind the scenes. The Fourth International indeed is following the road blazed by the Communist International in its first years before Stalin imposed his absolute control on it preliminary to destroying it and (finally dissolving it. - No aoubt 1 many of your readers will be interes ted in the information thus conveyed. However, the article written by your contributor, the well-known S. Ivanovitch, is in error on some points. This may be due to the difficulty of finding Trotskyist newspapers and marcazines on the newsstands in the Soviet Union beceuse of the censorship. We therefore request
that you publish this. letter in an early issue. so as to provide © your reacGers with more accurate information about the. Fourth ~ interna tional and its positions.
First of. all, while it is true that the Fourth Inter- “national suffered a serious split some ten years ago, as S. Ivanovitch reports, a reunification of the movement took place at a Yor1d Congress last June. The united organization brought together the overwhelming majority of Trotskyists- throughout the world... Several minor groups which refused to accept the basic . positions adopted. by the Reunification Congress are now con- es fronted with a crisis of perspective. Some of them may be lost — completely to the revolutionary-socialist movement; but others, (§ perhaps most of them, will eventually fing their way to the oe reunited organization.
The Fourth International is accused by the distinguished lir. Ivanovitch of being a subversive organization in view of its ideological differences with Soviet officialdom. He accuses the organization of carrying on slanderous campaigns. He cites, for instance, our charge that various Communist parties after World War II helped maintain the capitalist system in key areas. like Europe by their policy of blockins the workers from taking power.» This is a charge based on facts. If Mr. Ivanovitch, who is widely known to enjoy digving in archives, wishes, 0 study by. comparison some genuine slanders, we gpurgest- that he.go through back issues of the Soviet press, including your own, especially — for the years 1946-38. Let him note in particular what was published in that period of the infamous "Moscow frame-—up _ trials" about Lenin's collaborators in the October Revolution and in the leadership of the Communist International -- Trotsky, Zinoviev, Bukharin and thousands of others who were the glory of - the Russian and international working-class movement.
There is not much point debating what the distinguished . lir.-Ivanovitch chooses to characterize as Narch-reectionary conceptions" of the Fourth International, wich he holds to be ‘inimical to the class—consciousness of the workers, As an exemple, the impressively alert Mr. Ivanovitch cites the following: "The Trotskyists consider armed insurrection to be the only’ means to licuidate the rule of the bourgeoisie, rejecting all other roads of mass struggle for the socialist transformation of society." Another example cited by him is the important role which.the Fourth International considers the colonial revolution © to hold in the great struggle for the emancipation of mankind.
“If these are "arch-reectionary" conceptions, the Fourth ; International is in good company. They were held bv such out-. standing Narxist authorities as Marx, Engels, Lenin and -~ with your permissioh -- Trotsky. But, ir. Ivanovitch and his kind may. reply, this just repeats ol¢c formulas and Gisplays dogmatism.
Times have changec. Besides, didn't Marx himself say that perhaps in England violence might not be necessary in view of the absence of militarism and Dirceancratiem in that land? To | this argument Lenin did not hesitate to reply in gic, denying the possibility suggested by Marx, sincs in the meantime both militarism and bureaucratism had Jeveloped in England. Have they disappeared anywhere in the world since 1918? The only country that: comes to mind where this might be the case is San Marino which also enjoys the distinction of being one of the first countries to sign the nuclear test~ban pact.
‘ S. Ivanovitch, whose theoretical qualifications are, of course, beyond praise, cites in his article the power of the ~ socialist camp as a new factor in world politics. We were pleased to note this, for the concept is quite familiar to us. In truth the Fourth International was the very first in the world to call attention to the change in relationship of forces in favor of socialism following the victory of the Chinese Revolution,
The Fourth International, however, unlike :f. Ivanovitch, “holds that the imperialists. are. not ready. to recugnize that their days are numbered. Nowhere have we seen the capitalists prepared. to abandon power to the workers in a peaceful takeover, desirable as this would be. We think that Fidel Castrowas completely correct when he observed that the world has not yet seen a single example a peaceful transition from capi-~ talism to socialism.
What Marxist would deny that in a contest limited to economic. competition the victory would inevitably’ go to socialism? The historic justification of more than a century of struggle by the working class against capitalist exploitation resides precisely in this economic superiority of socialism over capitalisa. But the crucial question is whether capitalism, with the forces and pesivions still et its disposal, has no alternative but to graciously accept the precetermined doom of its system in a peaceful economic race. Amovican imperialism in particuler -- woich we think Mr. Iv ranov itch will agree is a "paper tiger" tkst has nuciear teeth ~~ scarcely seems to have accepted the alvcrnative of favalisvic ally a. ccepting the
3 disappearance of the capitalist system and ar enving the future to world socialisa with peaceful resignation,
Angola: and Mozambi us,
add, the whites in the
Oppressed and exploited peor in the worid today want their freedom now. Thoy prefer to get it peacefully; but if
peaceful means fail they will not hesitate to resort to more. effective methods. This is one of the outstanding conclusions to be drawn from the whole historical. period since the end of the second world war. The Fourth International believes that revolutionary-socialists should recognize it despite the opin ion of the S. Ivanovitchs thet the conception is "archreactionary."
It was perhaps inevitable that the world-famous journalist 5S. Ivanovitch should accuse "the most rabid ideologists of the Fourth International" of holding that "a new world war is. inevitable and in consequence the working class nust determine what must be undertaken to exploit the armed conflict between countries that will break out in order to seize power." © |
This accusation is almost as old as Marxism itself. It was employed before 1914 against socialists who defended the antiwar motion of the international congress held at Stuttgart... .. in 1907. It was habitually used by the Social Democrats against the Communist International. Finally it was employed by Stalin to slander Trotsky. The argument has always served the demagogic aim of diverting consideration from the real means of preventing imperialist war.
_ Revolutionary Marxists long ago came to the conclusion that the only effective way to prevent imperialist war is> through the revolutionary struggle of the masses for power. To tell the masses that they can win disarmament by putting pressure on capitalist governments, that imperialist rulers will respond to petitions bearing interminable lists of signatures, sows dangerous illusions. The only disarmament that is won is the ideological disarmament of the masses and in the final analysis the imperialist preparations for. war are aided.
We come to the principal theme of the erticle by your star correspondent. According to S. Ivanovitch the Fourth Inter-national has formed a bloc with the leaders of the CCP /Chinese Communist party / ageinst the Twentieth and Twenty~second congresses of the CPSU /Communist party of the Soviet Union_/.
The Fourth International has expressed without reserve exactly what it thinks about the dispute between the governments and parties of China and the Soviet Union, particularly our opinion that the Chinese position is more progressive than the - Khrushchev line on the colonial revolution and the road to socialism. But the Fourth International has also made clear on what points it considers the Chinese positions to be gravely erroneous. . So, oO
While speaking about the Fourth International in relation to the Twentieth and Twenty-second congresses, S. Ivanovitch
hy 3)
OMe
ei
Fo ate Sma
-Q—
did not bring up two rather important questions, "peaceful and parliamentary roacs to socialism" and "de-Stalinization." Was this impudence, or simply an oversight? It was already a little heavy to make out that the Chinese are both Stalinists and | Trotskyists at one anc the same time, but to imply through this omission that the Fourth International, the Trotskyists, are opposed to de-Stalinization -- that they seek to defend the memory of Stalin -- is really laying it on with a trowel.
The Fourth International could not but applaud in the most enthusiastic way the denunciations made at the Twentieth and Twenty-second congresses of the crimes of Stalin against the — revolutionary militants who held the highest posts in the Soviet Union and the Communist International and who were liquidated because they. were opponents or potential opponents of Stalin or because in some cases they simply knew too much about these terrible purges.
The Fourth International likewise applauded the denunciation of the concentration camps, the lies, the frameup trials, and similar thinzs uncer Stalin's rule that injured the first ‘workers state and the cause of communism.
The Fourth International expressed ‘its exultation over the rehabilitation of Stalin's victims, the liquidation of the arbitrary regitie, the re-establishment of a certain number of. . elenentary legal norms. -
Yes, the Fourth International applauded everything in the fwentieth and Twenty~second congresses that justified the _ struggle which Trotsky anc the Left Opposition carried on against Stalin and the Soviet bureaucracy beginning in 1923.
But the Fourth International also stated that the denun-~ ciation of the "cult of the personality" did not go far enough. The cult was not the cause of Stalinism but one of its manifestations. In moving from Stalin to Khrushchev, from the regime of the grossest lies to the regime of half lies, the working . class won some big and much-appreciated concessions but did not regain the rights it enjoyed in the first years of the Revolution in Lenin's time ~- workers' democracy was not. re-~ established, political power still remains today in the hands of a privileged and conservative bureaucracy, hostile to the international proletarian revolution.
The twentieth anc Twenty-second congresses, so important. in the domestic politics of the Soviet Union, did not take up Stalin's international policies, which for immediate gains that most often provec illusory, sacrificed numerous workers movenents, led to the crushing of tite second Chinese Revolution (1925-27) through the policy of the bloc of four classes,
helped Hitler come to power through the concept of "social fascism,." and led the Spanish Revolution into e blind alley .. through the Popular Front. Stalin's ill-fated foreign policy, carried out under the banner of "building socialism in one country” in opposition to going forward in the struggle for world socialism, cestroyed the Communist International,
And this brings us to our last point: The generous S. Ivanovitch credits the Fourth International with profiting from the dispute between Moscow anc Feking. We would suggest that this expert in the politics of Trotskyism is really incapable of distinguishing between the objective causes of the dispute between Moscow and Peking and the causes for the growth of the Fourth International under present conditions. The period of Stalin's rule was not only a cruel one for the Soviet people but one of grievous defeats for the international workers' movement in many countries. These defeats were a powerful objective factor in consolidating the Stalinist regime. Things are different today. The mighty upsurge of revolution-~ ary forces after the second world war is incompatible ‘vith main~ tenance of bureaucratic domination. Neither the Yugoslav Revo~ lution, the Chinese Revolution, nor the Cuban Revolution of | today ~~ none of these victorious revolutions could submit to the yoke of the Hoscow bureaucracy. These winning struggles, which shook the Communist world more and more powerfully, posed the- problem of creating a new revolutionary leadership. But it is the Fourth International, which through sections and groups in thirty countries, through its "dirty little papers," through the activities of thousands of devoted members, has kept high anc firm the banner of revolutionary Marxism in the face of Stalinist degeneration.
Despite himself, the éistinguished S. Ivanovitch, whom we thank again for his article about us, provided sufficient indication of the real role of the Fourth International to attract attention.and even sympathy from many indepencent-minded Soviet Communists for-Trotskyism. We venture to precict that his article will be gratefully remembered by many when the Fourth International becomes the rallying point for all those who wish to definitively licuidate what is left of Stalinism in favor of the restoration of Leninisn.
Pierre Frank