Marxist Bulletin No 3 Part IV
Conversations With Wohlforth
Spartacist-ACFI Unity Negotiations
Fifth Session 30 July 1965
- Present:
- Spartacist: Robertson, Stoute, Ne1son (alt); (Harper,
Secretary).
- ACFI: Wohlforth, Mazelis, Michael (alt).
Meeting convened at 8:22 p.m. Chairman: Nelson
- Agenda:
- 1.Minutes
- 2. Democratic Centralism
- 3. N.Y.C. Mass Election Leaflet
- 4. Epton Campaign Work
- 5. Discussion on SWP
- 6. IC correspondence
- 7. Time and Agenda of Next Meetings
1. Minutes: Minutes of July 9 were approved as
corrected (corrections incorporated).
2. Discussion on Democratic Centralism:
Robertson: The burden is on us to show how we think a group
of our size ought to function, since in the event of unity the comrades
from the Spartacist would initially be the majority. You have received our
bulletin on the Smith case. Other documents explaining our position are
For the Right of Organized Tendencies to Exist Within the Party and
Rescind the Suspensions. We approach the question from the point of
view of factional democracy. I was disturbed by comrade Wohlforths remark
last week that PL, the SWP, and Spartacist all claim to be democratic
centralist organizations. But PL and the SWP seek to ban factions, while
Spartacist defends the right of principled factions if properly regulated.
Regulation is necessary to direct factionalism toward its legitimate
end--arrival at a political line. The SWP used its regulatory powers for the
purpose of suppressing the internal life of the party and reducing it to a mere
safety valve every two years. There is also the question of the kind of balance
that should be struck between the democratic and centralist aspects. During the
whole period of the American Trotskyist movement, the range of conditions under
which Trotskyists have struggled has not been sufficiently great to justify any
shift from the previous balance, i.e., the American party has never been either
a mass party nor an illegal party; it has always been a propaganda group. In
comparison with the total range in which democratic centralism was projected by
the Bolsheviks to operate, we have experienced only a narrow range. We are a
small propaganda group operating under conditions of legality. We dont
deprecate the organizational question. It is one of the programmatic points
defining a Trotskyist-Leninist organization, and the way an organization
functions carries strong inferences about the role of that organization as a
working class and revolutionary movement. The Russian movement split in 1903
over what was basically an organizational question: whether the majority will
rule, what membership means. It would have been wrong for Lenin to have said
these were only organizational questions. While it would have been
better to have had a clean, clear split (e.g., over an issue such as
whether or not to have a bloc with Liberalism), nevertheless the issue was
raised in this way, and it was important. Finally, if we try for a crystal
clarity on organizational questions in these negotiating meetings, what the
rights and obligations of membership are, there will be less grounds for anyone
claiming to be surprised later.
Wohlforth: We dont see how we can comment on the case
of Smith since in our opinion it is a messy business. In order to make a fair
judgment one would have to have gone through this particular experience and
know the person involved. It is difficult for us to come to any kind of
conclusion about the extent of our agreement or disagreement since we
dont have a Constitution or similar document in front of us. On what I
said last week, I meant that merely saying that we are democratic-centralist is
not enough to indicate basic agreement in practice. The SWP, PL, Spartacist,
and ACFI too, all claim to be democratic-centralist. In the
SWP content violates form, while PL lacks even the form. The SWP
has a resolution before the coming Convention banning permanent factions, a
departure from their previous formal position. On the content of democratic
centralism in the history of the SWP, we may have a difference, for we
dont look back on the SWP as a model on either organizational or
political questions. Cannon was always an unprincipled factionalist, and
Trotsky intervened against him. In Trotskys opinion, Cannon was a
Zinovievist. Trotsky was unhappy with the way in which Cannon handled the
Shachtman struggle, and only a few days before his death he threatened to break
with Cannon. Cannon always felt a common front of the leadership against the
ranks had to be maintained, and this helped lead to the destruction of the
central cadre. The artificial separation of the ranks from the leadership leads
to clique relationships. (This of course does not mean certain types of
problems, like personal problems, should not be taken up first by the
leadership.) Organizational questions cannot be raised apart from programmatic
or political questions. We should not take the 1903 experience as a model,
because Lenins own development was not complete at the time. Had he been
what he was in 1917, it would have been different, not that he was wrong in
1903. This was the birth, not the full development, of the Bolsheviks, and we
should not seek to repeat the whole history of the Bolsheviks in 1965. Trotsky
always insisted on methodological struggle. We have no differences over formal
formulations--disciplined cadres, assignment to tasks, moving around, etc, but
at the same time, in dealing with someone incapable of this type of functioning
but who still maintains political agreement we should seek sympathizer status.
Were not saying you were wrong on Smith but we are certainly not saying
this was a model. Id like to see your Constitution when you get it worked
out. We feel a certain attitude around Spartacist, a formalism on the
organization question, a rigidity.
Nelson: There are two weaknesses in your statement on
democratic centralism. First, your not knowing what our position really is
without a Constitution. We are not brand new, and our attitude on democratic
centralism is not at all new. Part of our thinking on this subject was involved
in our choice of the two articles in our pamphlet, i.e., Building the
Bolshevik Party and What is Revolutionary Leadership? Second,
in part on the historical basis of the organizational question and the basis of
this alone that we could come to agreement or disagreement. There is a
relationship between the task of the vanguard party and its organizational
forms. What you said last week about the SWP, PL, and Spartacist all claiming
to be democratic centralist--this is an agnostic position. You know we are not
the same. You know our background, our stated positions, etc. Your weakness is
that despite statements to the contrary you disconnect the political basis of
organizational attitudes much too much. Your attitude toward Cannon is purely
subjective, that Cannon is no more than an organizational front man for
Trotsky, nothing more than an organizational judo expert, or in the words of
Marcus just a window breaker. In your own words, Cannon becomes
Foster. Shows a weakness in your understanding of the role of the
organizational question in the building of a revolutionary party. Cannons
tactics toward the Progressive Party are still considered a model. Individuals
and groupings in the SWP complained that their intellectual capacities were
being squashed by the bureaucratic Cannon. Trotsky didnt dismiss the
question but saw that it was a smokescreen for fundamental political
differences. Trotsky insisted on discipline in building the F.I. The Smith case
is a concrete example of the way we operate and how we view the obligations of
members. It is not messy, as you claim, but clear-cut. He committed a breach of
discipline, and when he attempted to defend and justify it we brought charges;
his final expulsion was not for the original breach but for his public attack
on Spartacist. The Slaughter article, in the section Lenin and
Inter-Party Struggle, does a nice job in condensing a formal statement on
the role of the organizational question in the revolutionary party:
Political and organizational questions therefore cannot he
separated. In an epoch where the construction of a leadership of the working
class is the most vital historical problem, it is exactly on the questions of
concrete planning and discipline for revolutionary work that political
differences become explicit. Some Marxists seem to conceive of the party as
simply a contractual discipline to stop individuals from going off the rails as
they react to class pressure. But it is more than that: it must become the
vanguard of revolutionary action, the representative of the general interest of
the working class.
In the construction of a revolutionary party there is a
constant need to strive to maintain a correct relationship between democracy
and centralism. The balance of this relationship tends to change with the
objective situation. During times when the revolutionary movement operates
under legal conditions, as in Britain today, it is essential to have full
democratic discussion on all questions concerning the working class and the
party. This does not, however, mean that democracy is a free-for-all, with
nothing being decided. To the Marxist democracy is a weapon in the struggle
against capitalism. Discussion is necessary to arrive at decisions upon which
the activity of the party can be based.
The constant training of new leaders in the revolutionary
party requires the greatest patience by the leadership. Local autonomy and
initiative, allowing the leaders and the rank and file to learn from their
mistakes, is essential for the branches of the revolutionary party. The more
experience the revolutionary leadership has the more flexible it will be in
assisting the ranks by theory and practice to understand the need for a
democratic centralist party.
The main point of this is that democratic centralism is the form
of the revolutionary party, and this form flows from its political tasks.
Balance varies according to the objective situation. The general balance
between democratic and centralist havent changed that much in the history
of the SWP. The British comrades during their early struggles didnt seem
to be as horrified as much as you are in hindsight about Cannon. Healy in rep1y
to our protest over our exclusion from the old minority tendency quoted as a
model for the minority to follow the relationship of the SLL to Cannon and the
SWP. You shouldnt try to read the Cannon of 1962 back into his earlier
history. He maintained a revolutionary party in this country admirably under
adverse conditions, and maintained it longer and better than any other national
section. The SWP and YSA Constitutions are examples of our attitude toward
democratic centralism.
Mazelis: You seem to want a vote of confidence on the
question of Smith, and this would not be proper. The Smith case must be judged
from an overall politica1 standpoint. We need not only examples of Spartacist
functioning but also a Constitution to discuss or a resolution. We feel there
were serious differences between Cannon and Trotsky on the organizational
question, and we agree with Trotsky. We are thrashing out this question in the
absence of written material, and while we can get somewhere we cannot get all
the way. You misunderstand our position on Cannonism and the SWP, take it out
of context when you refer only to window breaking or
Foster. This doesnt mean we equate Cannon with Foster or
Debs, but it doesnt mean we view Cannon as a Marxist or Communist
politician either. Our history project document deals with this in detail.
Stoute: We stand in the tradition of the SWP--the old SWP
stands for something we can say we are in agreement with now, that we can apply
to our movement today. This of course doesnt mean we endorse everything
Cannon ever did. Your attitude is that we must either wipe out everything the
SWP has been or must embrace it totally. This is not the way it is. I would
like Wohlforth to elaborate on his statement that Spartacist is a rigid,
military, formation.
Robertson: Nelson made a valuable point that
examples of our application of democratic centralism are of far
more value than our Constitution for your information, since our Constitution
will be absolutely standard. There is something that has not been taken up.
For the Right of Minority Tendencies to Exist discussed at length
and concretely the question Wohlforth said would be of greatest interest to
him: relationship of a minority to the organization as a whole. We will have a
Constitution, but you wont learn as much from it as you can from the
material before you, and it is in that sense we introduced it. We dont
care whether you think we are right or wrong, but want to show you how we
proceed, the concrete application of a certain type of discipline. If you
feel we are formalist, I will say we are an organization with several currents
in it; this stems from your presently being small enough to have complete
homogeneity--therefore democratic centralism seems like sheer formalism to you.
You should be thankful we are formalists. The SWP has learned to dispense with
these formalities. Since we are a larger organization we must bring less
personal and more impersonal forms into play. We have an internal life and this
must be regulated. You are loading a lot on Cannons shoulders. Shachtman
always said Cannon was a Zinoviev, but where did Trotsky say this? To reduce
the experiences of the SWP from 1928 to 1940 to Cannon is overstressing the
central figure. You want to see documents? We have taken over the experiences
and practices of the earlier Trotskyist movement. We use Struggle for a
Proletarian Party to train our new members with (in it, by the way,
Cannon says pay attention to what I say here, not to anything I may have
done). It is not automatic by any means that we have as yet gone beyond
the SWP. On the role of leadership, the leadership is elected to handle the
infinity of day to day problems, reserving for the entire organization decision
on fundamental differences. Cliquism was certainly rife in the SWP. One thing
we have strived to do is shatter preferential access to information. Our
comrades are heavily informed and this creates a much healthier organization.
Wohlforth: We have refracted differences on this question,
derived from other differences, such as on the SWP, and our general approach to
building a movement. I now agree with Robertson--having a constitution here
wouldnt prove anything. Im sure we would find any constitution you
presented acceptable. The difference is in approach to politics and building a
movement. On ACFI being a homogeneous group, we strive to create a homogeneous
group (though we are opposed to monolithism). The way you strive to have a
homogeneous group is the way you have democratic centralism. Discipline flows
from political cohesion. Any disciplinary problem is in essence a political
problem, including the 1903 split. Cannon sought to create organizational, not
political, homogeneity. We dont disagree with what Cannon says in his
book but with the experience of the Cannon regime. However, Cannon wrote his
own history. Trotsky intervened in the 1932 Cannon-Shachtman fight and used the
term Zinovievist regarding Cannon. Trotsky intervened in the Field
question and in 1940, urging political rather than organizational fight. Our
difference on this question is similar to our differences on method, theory,
and program. Our feeling is that you are formalistic about organizational
questions. This will find greater reflection when we discuss tactica1 questions
relating to our work in this country.
Nelson: I see that method has raised its
saintly head (it always does), unscathed and pure. I am listening to the words.
You have profoundly over-simplified Cannons role. As far as seeking to
create homogeneous groups through organizational means, such a thing is not
even possible. However, the main point I want to make is to question the
purity (pardon a certain sarcasm) of your intentions. I dislike
hearing pious words when dirty actions have preceded. Back to the
bookkeeping. You express a desire for avoiding organizational
excesses ... yet you played a key role in the organizational excesses of
the SWP and YSA against us. Your words fall on slightly calloused ears. I
happened to go through this (comrade Michael didnt it might be
good for him to hear this). You became the theoretical arm of the
party in their desire to get rid of us. It was your document Party and
Class that provided the Majority with the basis for our expulsion. This
was not just naiveté on your part. Then in 1964 in the YSA I and the
comrades of our tendency were fighting the frame-up suspensions. We defended
ourselves not primarily on technical grounds, but brought out the political
reasons and context of the suspensions, the question of Party-Youth relations,
etc. Comrade Mazelis played a despicable role that night. The Majority was
unable to deal with our arguments and with the damaging evidence against them.
Mazelis, as the most capable person in the room, took the floor as lawyer for
the Majority, stating that with our line on Cuba we could not function
as disciplined YSA members. When we tried to lean on the Constitutional
technicality that YSA members can belong to any adult political organization,
Mazelis claimed that the YSA in fighting us was fighting Menshevism in the YSA
(I have the notes right here I took that night). This was your role in
facilitating our expulsions from the SWP and YSA. You were able to do a better
job than Jack Barnes, Peter Camejo, or Barry Sheppard were able to because they
didnt have your background and understanding. This is your past again.
These past actions do not coincide with your words tonight.
Michael: I didnt live through all this. This is the
second week youve brought up these old questions, and I dont see
why you are doing this. I dont think this will help. You can put all this
in a bulletin and Ill read it, but I am interested in what our
differences are today. What are our tasks today? If we discuss this
first, we can then have a clearer discussion on these old questions. I
cant see that this sort of discussion helps us.
Mazelis: I agree strongly with Michael. I dont intend
to take up the gauntlet. I do feel we made mistakes--but not the ones Nelson
stated. This is the wrong way to discuss democratic centralism and the wrong
way to go about the whole process of unification. Not because we are ashamed
but these questions can only be clarified in light of our positions today.
Nelson has given us a sarcastic and subjective outpouring of the way he feels
his tendency was wronged by us. We have a completely different viewpoint. Later
at the proper time we will sum up all these questions. It will be part of a
summing up and not this kind of abstract bookkeeping, as he himself refers to
it. I dont feel under any obligation to take up these points just because
they have been raised here tonight. They will be taken up later, but in the
right way. We want to relate them to developments up to the present.
Stoute: You said we seem to have a disagreement on whether
or not a revolutionary movement should be made homogenous on the basis of
politics or organizational rules. We dont propose to bring about
homogeneity on the basis of organizational rules. However, one never has
complete homogeneity and this is why we have organizational rules. You
said we cant settle this question tonight. How will we settle this
question? You know what we are made of. You have a better knowledge than anyone
else where we stand on all these questions.
Robertson: You may not like what Nelson said, but these
things are vivid in the minds of our comrades. This is your past as well as
ours. This is the single obstacle in our minds; repetition of this extremely
bad conduct must be avoided. Wohlforth is standing the question of political
homogeneity on its head. One struggles for political homogeneity not because it
gives real democratic-centralism but because then you dont need recourse
to the organizational rules. I deplore factions if by argument you can prevent
their formation in advance. Most political leaders spend much of their energy
on internal struggle. But whenever organizations meet new situations,
differences develop. Wohlforth made a mistake--we are most interested in
political homogeneity but when you dont have it you must function by
rules. My reference to Comrade Cannons Struggle for a Proletarian
Party was answered by Wohlforths counterposing Theory and Practice.
But words are part of practice and cant be separated out. You have found
comrade Cannon to be the source of the ills of the strongest national section
of the Trotskyist movement bar none. Many Spartacists would call themselves
Cannonites. We look upon the earlier period of the Trotskyist movement in
America as our heritage, to be accepted, critically.
Wohlforth: On the question of past differences between our
groups, we have not objected to their discussion and feel this is an important
part of the unification process and have discussed them ourselves in our
communications. However, we feel that at this and the last meeting such
discussion has been broadened artificially. We didnt get much clarity at
the last meeting, and tonight is another example. You feel that in order for us
to understand what you mean by democratic centralism, you have to discuss what
Mazelis said on a particular night. Maybe Nelson was saying Mazelis knows what
democratic centralism is because he correctly attacked you for Menshevism in
the YSA. But I had a feeling Nelson was saying something e1se that
whatever Mazelis says now doesnt make any difference because he
finked. If you want to discuss this, you can put finking on
the agenda. This has been brought in artificially and has not led to clarity.
We must try to view this discussion process as aimed at its goal. It would seem
proper to first probe the level of agreement and disagreement today. We can
then make judgements on the past if one of us wants to keep a record. Our
conclusion is that the split in l962 was principled; you think it was
unprincipled. We should put this on the agenda so that it can be discussed in a
positive manner not poison all our discussions. To the extent that we presently
have differences on democratic centralism, these are not sufficient to bar
unity. Since Spartacist feels such an identity with Cannon I am worried as to
whether or not Spartacist comrades proceed first from political to
organizational questions or vice versa. Your failure to understand the real
role of Cannon will lead you in one way or another to make errors on the
organizational question. We have a feeling you may have made an error (on the
Smith case), but we dont know enough. We might have a sharp difference
with the way you handled the case. However, whatever differences we have on
this question would be subordinate to differences on all other questions. We
have a different emphasis on the org. question, but this is subordinate to the
political questions. We should hold up on discussion till we see what is the
level of current agreement. In that framework we can have a real
discussion on past differences. Human beings have a correct desire to justify
themselves. We will do our best not to discuss these differences now, as we
were tempted to do at the last meeting.
Nelson: Politics determine -- that is why we are here. The
friction that exists between us is that our two groups are very similar
politically yet continue to remain organizationally separate and competing.
Continuing this separation on the basis that we have to examine further and
still further the basis for unity is in the course of time becoming quite thin
to anyone with eyes to see. It is not artificial to bring in old
questions. We went through a common experience in the same party. Your role
towards us in the YSA was not one of exposing Menshevism. Our record and our
documents show the struggle of a Bolshevik minority to maintain itself in the
face of bureaucratic suppression. Unfortunately for you, this cant be
pushed under the rug. Because of your past role, we have to get understanding
of what proper minority rights are. We have the scars to show your past
attitude. Now the wheel has turned. The minority split originally was over
whether or not you and your supporters were willing to accept a minority
position in our common tendency. You denied our tendency had the right to
democratic centralist organization. One instance of this was when our tendency
selected a representative to go on the YSA local exec. You refused to support
our candidate, running your own instead and letting the majority choose the
weaker one. This was unprincipled. The differences we had could have been
maintained within a common tendency. The question of discipline was the origin
of our split. In your history project you analyzed Cannons
history, but when it comes to your own history then suddenly you
arent interested. You cant separate what we are now from where we
came from.
Mazelis: We dont want to discuss it now, not because
we are not interested but because it is a question of how you deal with it and
the framework in which it is raised. We will deal with it in the proper way.
Your subjective interpretation cant lead us anywhere. The incident you
mention has a certain importance, but you are exaggerating it. We could not
vote for the representative not because we didnt accept democratic
centralism but because of the situation. A trip to England by Philips was being
made at the time. During a crisis in the organization we felt it was wrong for
you to wield your majority as you did. Your way of interpreting these matters
is not our way. Since this incident preceded our split by two weeks, we simply
didnt wish to be bound by any decisions.
Wohlforth: I think we can show what we mean by the relation
of organization to politics and why we feel it is necessary to discuss the
split in the tendency as a separate point. We and the British came to a common
judgment at the time of our split. We had no intention of carrying out your
line. If we felt differences today were of the same depth we would not be
interested in unity. We have no intention of playing games. We want to find out
before we unite whether or not there is enough political agreement that we can
maintain your line. A split is forced upon people when they cant carry
out the line of the majority. We are not putting forward the position that our
differences in 1962 were not important. We will have unity if there is enough
political agreement that either side could abide by the majority. We should be
discussing now only our present attitude toward the organizational
question.
Stoute: The 1962 split was unprincipled and shouldnt
have taken place. It was unjustified politically and was basical1y around
organizational differences. How you reacted organizationally at the time is
where our disagreements came in. Do you think the concept of democratic
centralism that we sought to put into practice in 1962 was wrong? What kind of
minority rights would you expect?
Robertson: Your position on the 1962 split is now a serious
political difference between us. You had a cavalier attitude toward democratic
centralism within our tendency. You supported the SWP hatchet job on us on the
basis that organizational questions are not important. You acted as the
policeman of the majority over us when they desperately wanted to throw us out.
Your actions show a difference in the revolutionary fiber of individuals. You
lied to our Bay Area comrades. There must be some reflection on your part on
what stood between us then now that the question of unity is raised. You have
been wrong on every major question since then and dont show any
reflection. It was a bad split and the proof is that we are still faced with
it. I told you then that perhaps someday a split would be justified but it
wasnt clear then, and it still isnt as long as we proceed along
parallel political lines. What were the differences then? You wanted personal
and political capitulation; you demanded we go before the party as liars. We
were begging for democratic centralism. You took our money to send Philips to
England while telling us it was for consultation on the trade union
question; now you admit it was to work out the details of our split.
Cannon never did the things you have done! We want unification because for us
politics comes first. You must realize that you cant build a movement the
way you acted. You casually say now we had no intention of carrying out
your line. Your actions drove a lot of people out of the Minority, old
party cadres, good people with maybe one more fight left in them. We blame you
for blocing with Dobbs in order to get us. These are not subjective
questions. This is what looms largest: Will you do it again?
Nelson: It would have saved a great deal of trouble if what
you advance now as the real reason for your split with us in 1962 had been the
reasons given your own supporters and to the SWP then. However, the comments
you made then can still be read in documents. The comrades on the West Coast
knew Philips was lying through his teeth when he gave his
reasons--that is why they voted him down 17-0. It was phony
demagoguery, designed to stampede political opinion. Because of this good
comrades were lost. You drove out the people whom originally you had bragged of
attracting! And there was no political basis for it. The people that left had a
good history in the movement, but you wasted them, and people continue to be
wasted. The existence of two separate groups with such similar lines has made
us a laughing stock among serious people. Two groups cannot continue to exist
in the same areas fighting for the same people. We will either unite or one
will be removed from the scene. If you call this military, go back
to Lenin and look at the ruthless struggles he waged. This is the criminal side
of dishonest and unpolitical approach. You want to fraternize with our rank and
file? They have read the documents, and they feel that politics determine over
organization.
Wohlforth: As I was impressed at the last meeting and more
impressed this week, and as we suspected from the beginning you are opposed to
unification. In fact, Robertson clearly states now that we have a real
difference and unless it is resolved there can be no unification. We have not
in the slightest changed our position on the origin of our split. If you feel
this is the one difference, there will be no unity. This is not a parallel with
1902. The split was principled--and later proven so. As far as the origin of
the split, I tried to explain as clearly as I could and dont expect you
to accept this. As we look back on our past there were questions on which we
admitted errors, but we have no apologies on the split. It was correct, clear
and proper. If you wanted to function as a tendency with us you could have
signed our statement. Robertson gets all excited and I smile because I view it
so differently, I cant take it seriously. He views it differently because
he has a different method. He ought to understand that we believe what we say.
This was not an incident of which we are ashamed. We felt the split was a good
and necessary thing, and the French and British felt the same way. We had no
intention of submitting to your discipline. We were not interested in that type
of functioning and felt the work involved was too important. We are not going
to get any further clarification than this. It was a very good and healthy
split. The comrades in this room do not express seriousness. They thrust in
questions in which they know we will get disagreement. The main difference is
that Robertson feels we are a bunch of bastards. Instead of progress we are
getting retrogression, and it is not the fault of ACFI. You have brought up
questions to show we are rotten finks rather than seeking to find areas of
agreement and proceeding from there. You tell us we are 1ucky to be dealing
with you instead of with your snarling ranks. You should encourage them to read
the Bulletin instead of factional stuff from the past. You are preparing your
membership not for unification but for a deeper split, and as the responsible
leadership you are responsible if that is the end result. Obviously the
Spartacist group is hostile to unity because they take every matter and turn it
into snarling dispute that would disrupt the final step--concrete common work.
More common work or no unity. We are going to work in common first or there is
not going to be any unity. If you think we are going to waste our time in
hostile confrontations, we are not, because we have more important things to
do. I urge that we proceed first to make clear the principled basis. We should
take up the important theoretica1 and methodological differences and only then
proceed to past differences. We must proceed to fruitful common work. It is
absolutely important to prepare unification but you are preparing your comrades
for a split. You should bombard us with fraternization.
Mazelis: The last session and especially tonight have in
large measure reflected retrogression. Wohlforths remarks were another
last-ditch effort to try to salvage whatever progress we have made, and go on
to the final stage. You talk of immediate unity and then prematurely raise
issues the way you do. We are more honest about unity, want to proceed in such
a way that when the bitterness comes out it will be in a good context. That is
why we propose to start working together. You simply call us finks again, and
dont even begin to understand what our motivation was, you dont try
to put yourselves in our place. We have tried not to take you up on this. I
cant stress too strongly that this will get us no place. You are
sabotaging unity. We plead for an end to this approach. You must have no
political mind at all if you expect to raise questions in the way you have.
Nelson: You should be honest and not resort to
debaters language for the minutes. If you will examine the history of the
attempt to unite our two groups, it is one year since we made the first
proposal for unity, right after you were expelled. Retrogression? Do not
complain of a process which you have set in motion. Any outsider can tell from
seeing our positions that there is a basis for unity between us. We emerged
from the SWP with greater differences than there are now, but there was still a
basis then for unity. These differences could exist within a single
organization with democratic centralism. This would be parallel with our
relationship to the IC, i.e., we might have to carry out a line at variance
with our own opinion, but as long as we had the right to participate in the
arrival at the line we would do this. The issues you have reacted to our
raising are live issues. The issue of 1962 is extreme1y pertinent. What
would be our position in relation to the IC given this defense of your 1962
role? The IC nailed the French Pabloites to the wall for expelling the majority
of the French section. Would you repeat the same action today were we in a
common organization? The differences within our tendency then were far less
than those separating us from the Pabloites, and we continue to maintain the
split in 1962 was unprincipled. These issues must be discussed. It is
c1ear that there has never been a political basis for the separation of our two
groups. It is from this separation that factionalism comes.
Robertson: At the time of our split you said it was
absolutely unprincipled to have any contact between our two groups. Now
you say you have not changed your position on the split. Common work is not our
problem. Michael has been drawn into common work ... on our initiative. You
were able to give an exact rundown on what the differences were between our
groups but still you are not willing to admit that unity is possible. What are
we preparing our ranks for? We frankly dont know what the outcome with
you will be. We have told them everything we say here. On 1962, we are not
proposing that you grovel. We are not asking you to sign a statement
that you did wrong. But you will have to hear these words. We do not see any
political good will on your part (by this I dont mean
friendliness, the fake seduction tactics you used on the SWP and
PL). If the split in 1962 was such a good thing why then are you in this room
now? All you can come up with is the Pabloist theory of Spartacist getting
better despite our own intentions.
Wohlforth: We feel the split was principled, justified, and
necessary in 1962, but that the Spartacist group has evolved and that being in
a different position outside the SWP and facing different problems, that
unification today is possible. So far in our discussions we see no barrier to
unification. The most important differences have in fact been discussed already
-- differences in method. We are willing to go back to ACFI and the IC and
propose to them that we make a statement that unity is both principled and
desirable despite differences in method. But I will also have to state that
there is a grave danger that these methodological problems are so severe that
they are forcing the Spartacist group into an attitude of hostility toward us
and preventing the natural process of unity, and that while there seems
to be a principled basis for unity, until we have worked together we cannot
tell whether it would work out. If Spartacist is sincerely interested in unity
they will go back to their organization and propose that in the negotiation
sessions a serious effort be made toward seeking agreement on political
questions and common collaboration. Common work will help break through the
present stalemate and lead to fruitful discussion. Finally we must try to
handle the question of past differences in this same spirit and seek to make
the best of the current process. By common work and collaboration we should
hold discussion on areas where both groups can become involved in and function
as a common group and a common tendency, e.g., the comrades in SDS should seek
to function as a common fraction.
Nelson: You are now ready to go to ACFI and the IC and say
that the political basis for unity exists. We came into these sessions with
this position, and we said if you would agree to abide by the decisions of a
joint conference that you could have ful1 privileges. Without your agreement we
would have a literary exchange but no organizational fusion.
Robertson: My own first reaction to your proposed agreement
is a favorable one. We have already willingly drifted into common work, e.g.,
our involvement of one of your people in the Garment Center Anti-Vietnam war
committee. You have made a valuable statement, that unity between our groups is
principled and desirable. In turn you state you want common work. You insist
that we clarify issues that suggest agreement rather than discuss past
differences. But fruitful discussions are not simply positive ones,
not simply putting a good face on things. I would like to postpone decision
until we have a chance to review the minutes of this and earlier sessions. It
is a big step.
Wohlforth: I agree fruitfu1 and
positive are not necessarily the same. This agreement should be
complemented with a clear statement that past differences are not on the
agenda. We can discuss them later. Nothing is gained by discussing them week in
and week out. Unity is not tied to resolution of past differences. One of the
points of unification would be tabling any discussion of past differences for a
year. They must be put aside. This is one of the proposals we would make. We
not going to unite with you in order to fight over who did what in 1962.
Robertson: Tell us one thing
where is the
re-evaluation that has led you to believe that unity is now permissible? You
stated several times tonight that it was a great split in 1962. When did the
change take place? The only explanation you have given is comrade Pablos
explanation. We have to discuss at one or another point our differences. There
is a contradiction in comrade Wohlforths remarks, that you did right in
1962 and now are interested in unity and preparing your ranks for it. How can
you justify the split in 1962 while saying that we oppose unity? In the
future should you change your conclusion on PL, for example, will we then face
a new split? It is this quality which gives us the gravest apprehension. How
can you square your affirmation of your past record with unity now? This
contradiction which we see in you does not bode well. It seems to me from
tonights discussion that a split would be on the order of the day next
time we have differences, and we will have differences. That is why we
introduced a discussion of democratic centralism, so that we will have a way of
dealing with these differences when they arise within a common organization,
especially differences of a magnitude comparable with those in 1962, i.e.,
differences that werent all that much.
Wohlforth: It is clear we havent changed our minds.
It is not clear whether you feel unification is possible. You must make up your
mind whether you think unity is possible, or impossible on the basis of our
position on 1962. We dont expect you to understand our motivation on this
question, and must make it clear to you that we will not have an interminable
number of discussions on past differences. That would be your way of stating
that unless we capitulate you will not unify with us. If this is so, it will be
an admission that you really feel the past break was principled. We have come
to conclusion that the bar to unity is not principled political differences,
but whether or not you really want unity. Spartacist must stick spoons in their
mouth and hold back the outpouring of previous differences. We need experiences
in common work.
Nelson: On the question of postponement of discussion of
past differences, I dont know. Subordination and regulation, certainly,
if subordinated to the whole of which they are a part. If your proposal is
based on a genuine desire to go forward, then the movement forward would find
translation into concrete organizational steps toward the unification process.
Otherwise it is no more than your continually restating were here
because were here. That is the reason those discussions have grated
so much. We have to go forward into positive organizational steps.
Robertson: We will take your proposals to our REB and
consult. Obviously the rest of the agenda is tabled pending clarification of
this.
7. Next Meeting: Thursday, August 5.
Meeting adjourned at 12:30 a.m.
|