*From The Archives Of The “Revolutionary History” Journal- Materials On British Trotskyism:On the tasks of the British Bolshevik-Leninists

Markin comment:

This is an excellent documentary source for today’s militants to “discovery” the work of our forbears, whether we agree with their programs or not. Mainly not, but that does not negate the value of such work done under the pressure of revolutionary times. Hopefully we will do better when our time comes.
********

The following five source documents were intended as Appendices to John Archer’s article CLR James in Britain, 1932-38, which appeared in Revolutionary History, Vol.6 No.2/3, Summer 1996. They shed valuable light on relationships between the Trotskyists in Britain and the International. We were not able to publish them at the time because of limitations on available space. We are pleased to make them available to our readers through the web. As the editor's introduction to John Archer’s article stated, we have a great deal of important material from this author which we still hope to publish when the opportunity arises.
****
On the tasks of the British Bolshevik-Leninists

The first International Conference of the Fourth International, was actually held in Paris, from July 29-31, 1936. It was usually referred to as the “Geneva” Pre-Conference, for security reasons. More material from this conference can be read in Documents of the Fourth International. The Formative Years (1933-40), Pathfinder Press 1973, edited by Will Reisner.

James attended as a delegate from the Marxist Group, with Bert Matlow as an observer. The Bolshevik-Leninist Group in the Labour Party was represented by Denzil Dean Harber, with Charlie Van Gelderen attending as an observer. The Marxist League was invited but was not present.

More material on the British groups and the “Geneva” conference can be found in Against the Stream. A History of the Trotskyist Movement in Britain 1924-38 by Sam Bornstein and Al Richardson, and in John Archer’s PhD Thesis Trotskyism in Britain 1931-37 (Central London Polytechnic, 1979).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Resolution on the Tasks of the British Bolshevik-Leninists,
unanimously agreed by the “Geneva” Pre-Conference,
July 29-31, 1936
The Geneva Conference considers it an extremely urgent necessity to effect with the least possible delay the unification of the three English groups which at present are working on the basis of the fundamental principles and programme of the Fourth International. Clearly on this question of fusion, no group can demand that another dissolve itself and that its members join the first group individually. In the opinion of the Conference, the continued existence side by side of the three groups weakens the effectiveness of our movement, by the fact that, without there being apparent differences of principle, they are separate from one another and often work for opposed ends, thus preventing the development of the progress of the Fourth International in Britain. The Conference sees no principled reason for such a division of the forces and demands a fusion on a democratic basis which will make possible the establishment of a section of the Fourth International in this country.

The conference regrets the absence of a representative of the Groves group and the fact that it had not sent a document to the Conference. The Conference invites them to give their approval in principle to the official documents which have come out of the Conference.

The Conference is further of the opinion that the experience of the Bolshevik-Leninists within the ILP must be brought to an end, and that this group which at this moment is working within that organisation must shift its field of work in the direction of the mass organisations, especially towards the Labour Party and the Labour League of Youth. It is true that the Bolshevik-Leninists in the ILP can do trade union work, but they could do it much more effectively if in the eyes of the workers they were not associated with the bankrupt ILP. Their membership of the ILP rises like an impenetrable wall between the Bolshevik-Leninists and the mass movement of the youth, the potential reservoir of revolutionaries, from which the British Section of the Fourth International will draw the greater part of its cadres ” as well as the base of the Labour Party. It is necessary to know, not only the moment at which it is profitable for revolutionary Marxists to enter a reformist or centrist organisation, but also the moment when it is imperative to leave it, and to implant their movement and their ideas in another milieu. The ILP today is nothing but a centrist sect in decline; further work within it can only condemn our forces to mark time and vegetate in a restricted area. The Labour Party, the Trade Unions and in particular the reformist organisation of the youth offer much greater possibilities to strengthen our movement and speed the growth of the section of the Fourth International in Britain.

The Conference recommends to the group which is working in the ILP at this time to act in this way. If the Marxist Group decides to make a new experience (with the journal Fourth International) it will without any doubt reach the conclusion that no further development of the Bolshevik-Leninist forces is possible in the ILP. But there is the danger that this experience involves a loss of time which would be damaging, because it would signify that the Marxist Group would remain without a real or clear perspective for a long period of time. The concrete methods of effecting the departure from the ILP and entry into the Labour Party and the Labour Party's youth organisation, as well as the unification of the forces of the Fourth International in Britain within the Labour Party, must be left to the English comrades to work out. The Conference instructs the International Secretariat and the General Council to follow the development in Britain with the greatest attention and to supply to the British Comrades all the help they can, in accordance with the line proposed by this resolution

July 31, 1936
*******
Letter to the Marxist Group
This is the full text of the document referred to by John Archer on p.69 of Revolutionary History Vol.6 No.2/3. It was only possible there to give a summary in a footnote.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


from the International Secretariat for the Fourth International,
dated November 7, 1936.
From the International Secretariat for the Fourth International: Berne November 7, 1936

To the Executive Committee of the Marxist Group, London.

Dear Comrades,

We regret that we have not received either the minutes or an official report of your national conference of October 10. The two resolutions accepted by the majority of the Conference, that of James and that of Cooper, have reached us only unofficially. It flows from these resolutions that the decision has been taken – contrary to the decision of the international conference at Geneva – that the group must continue its association with the ILP.

We do not wish to deal exhaustively with this resolution, in which you gave what is, in our opinion, an incorrect appreciation of the ILP: “revolutionary in comparison with the Labour Party or the Communist Party”; “attitude nearly correct on the Abyssinian and Spanish questions...”. There is no such thing as a “nearly revolutionary” party or a “nearly correct” attitude. In the language of Marxism, you call it by the clear term – Centrism. We do not want to reveal here the contradictions which exist in this same resolution in which you speak of... “the isolation from the masses” of the ILP, of its “organisational breaking-up”, of the movement of its leadership to the right, of the “decline in number of its members”; the poor quality of its membership, its lack of industrial contacts, its specific attitudes correct only in superficial appearance and its centrist oscillations, the reasons why the ILP “has become an obstacle for the correct development of the Bolshevik-Leninist work”, and yet ... you decide to remain in this moribund body.

You speak of “crushing” the ILP, of making “a mass withdrawal” at the moment of a split.

The several days which have passed since this resolution was accepted already permit a verification of the correctness or falsity of your perspective. As had been predicted many times, it is not you (!) who are going to crush the ILP, but it is the bureaucracy, much stronger than you, which is going over to the attack to divide you up and introduce confusion in your ranks. We do not have the exact figures of your membership, either now or for the past six months. But it is a fact that you have lost many of them without effectively weakening the ILP. We demand from you that you send us an exact balance sheet, because these are the facts themselves which speak the clearest language.

We have here your minutes, of 25 October, in which you discuss your attitude to be taken towards the sale of your journal, Fight, outside the ranks of the ILP. The attitude of the bureaucracy is crystal clear: “They have declared that the Trotskyists were engaged on an activity hostile to the party”. But, on the contrary, your attitude is ultra-equivocal. What, for example, does this mean: “Our object is to utilise, to break from the ILP, on a political question of the greatest importance which would permit such a split; in our opinion, the question of the sale of the journal is not such a question”.

“Comrade Cooper declared that we should go over to the political question as soon as (?) they attack us on the organisational plane”. If we understood correctly, Comrade Cooper is of the opinion that the prohibition of the sale of Fight is not yet an organisational attack, and that it is necessary still to wait. It is absolutely correct that the question of Fight in itself does not represent a “political issue”. But does this mean that we must wait on and on before leaving? The bureaucracy – and all the experience of France proves this a hundred times – will not attack us on the political plane, on which it is much weaker than we are. The bureaucracy of the SFIO began also by prohibiting La Verité , and as our French comrades, under the influence of Molinier, did not go over in time to the counter-offensive on the political plane, the bureaucracy became stronger, the centrists (Pivert) and the sympathisers no longer solidarised themselves with us, and in the end we finished up by having a split in our own ranks.

Comrade Braun, when he was staying in London, explained to several comrades, and in particular to Comrade Cooper, that with the first issue of Fight the opening of coercive measures will begin on the part of the bureaucracy, and that the Marxist Group must be able to make a turn in twenty-four hours. But we are very much afraid that you are repeating the mistakes which have been so disastrous in France. To call today for a national conference of the ILP can form part of our counter-offensive. But to begin with, this is not a political question, and, in the second place, we are convinced that we are much too weak to force them to have a conference. And, if that is the case, are you proposing to stay in the ILP up to the Annual Conference at Easter? That would be fatal.

There are enough political questions which can serve you as a target for a vigorous attack, without withdrawing a millimetre; we greatly regret that you did not publicly take a position in relation to the Brussels Peace Congress. Fight has been silent on this important question. And all the same, such a resolution or open letter, from the very base of the ILP, would have been of enormous value to combat the centrists of the London Bureau. You did not help us.

In conclusion, we beg you to reconsider your policy on the basis of the facts, to go over at once to the offensive in the political domain, to treat questions of party statues (National Conference of the ILP etc.) of formal discipline etc. ... as entirely secondary questions, to trace a perspective of an open exodus from the ILP with a political declaration which can be used in all our groups in the Labour Party and the League of Youth. Further, we request you to give us an exact report on the forces of the Marxist Group today.

While waiting to hear from you, comrades, we express our fraternal revolutionary sentiments.

For the IS ...
******
This is the full text of the document referred to by John Archer on p.69 of Revolutionary History, Vol.6 No.2/3. It was only possible there to give a summary in a footnote.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Extract from the minutes of the meeting of the International Bureau for the Fourth International on December 13. 1936
England.

Alexander, the delegate of the Bolshevik-Leninist Group in the Labour League of Youth in England:

The decision of the international conference in July, which recommended unification in the Labour Party, has been adopted by the Bolshevik-Leninist Group in the Labour League of Youth, but not by the Marxist Group in the ILP, while the smaller Marxist League has not declared its position. The Marxist Group, at its national conference, adopted at one and the same time a resolution from James to create a new organisation to bring together the different fractions in the various organisations (ILP, LP etc.), and another resolutely to continue the work in the ILP. The Bolshevik-Leninist Group in the Labour Party supported the James resolution. However, since then, under the influence of the American, Field, the James fraction changed its opinion, and decided to quit the ILP to form an independent organisation, by a vote of its London group of 16-6. They have effectively left the ILP (See New Leader). The Bolshevik-Leninist Group in the Labour Party, which moreover calls itself the Youth Militant Group, and which will soon form an adult ‘Militant’ group, the representatives of which were not admitted to the Marxist Group meeting, called upon the latter to re-consider its decision to form an independent group, which would seriously imperil the work in the Labour Party and its Youth organisation, and informed the International Bureau of this dispute. The Marxist Group will hold a meeting next Wednesday to take the final decision; an expression of the views of the international centre will certainly influence this decision.

The situation in the Labour Party, of its left, and especially its youth section, permit very effective work for our ideas in the coming period. Our comrades, who with the advice of cde. Crux and of the IS entered the party and the Labour Youth in February 1936 numbering six, to prepare the ground for the entry of all the British Bolshevik-Leninists, now number 100, and are therefore stronger than the MG which from 120 has come down to 30. Several of the provincial groups of the Marxist Group have come over to the Bolshevik-Leninist Group with the exception of Glasgow, which is awaiting the decision of the Marxist Group as a whole to enter the Labour Party As to the Marxist League, it has always distanced itself from joint work and unification, claiming that the group is a branch of the Marxist Group, and demanding purely and simply that this group enter the Labour Party.

Braun (FN). After two years’ work in the ILP, the Marxist Group had experienced important success in the ILP. However, it had not succeeded in changing the policy of the ILP, or in arresting its continued decomposition. Cde Crux and the IS believed that continued membership of the ILP, which is decomposing and has no serious links with the masses could drag the Marxist Group down in the decline of the ILP and render all its efforts sterile. In 1935 they proposed to leave the ILP in the near future, and with the maximum number of comrades, to enter the Labour Party then.

The opportunities to carry this out have not been lacking, especially since the moment when the bureaucracy of the ILP proceeded to sanctions against the Bolshevik-Leninists (dissolution of the Marxist Group, restrictions on internal democracy) at the time of the capitulation of the Brockway fraction to the Maxton parliamentarians on the question of Abyssinia. But the Marxist Group refused. It decided to make a last experiment with a journal of its own, Fourth International or Fight, the public sale of which was promptly forbidden by the bureaucracy. The party discussion journal which our comrades established was taken from them and launched publicly in opposition to Fight. (FN). Having stuck too long to the ILP, each blow on their heads forced the comrades immediately to go over to the extreme opposite. They condemned the whole policy of entrism, and decided to create an independent organisation. This decision was in the event to provoke a split in the Marxist Group itself, with the Cooper fraction perhaps not having decided to leave the ILP.

The letter from the Marxist Group announcing its decision was read.

Fred (identified at the beginning of the minutes as a representative of the French organisation, but in fact possibly Klement, though more probably Fred Emmett) informed the comrades of the problems of the Labour League of Youth (see the minutes of the meeting of the International Bureau of Youth.)

The Braun motion was read and discussion followed.

Clart (Jean Rous) made a declaration in favour of the motion.

Vilain (Pierre Naville) expressed reservations: the entry into the Labour Party would be effective only if the work were carried on for a long time. However the crisis of the Young Socialists in England foreshadowed a split for April 1937 and hence the creation of an independent youth organisation. Vilain doubts whether the indication is to orient towards an early split if it could only be a very small one which would not contribute in any way to improving our links with the working masses.

Alexander: The Edinburgh Conference of the Labour party (FN) by the block vote of the trade unions and against the opinions of the local organisations of the Labour Party itself adopted a memorandum, which, by reducing the upper age limit of the youth section from 25 to 21 years practically wound the youth section up. This aroused much opposition among the youth and indignation against the leadership (Stalinist) of the youth organisation, which accepted the memorandum. This effervescence can lead in April at the National Conference to the formation of an independent youth organisation, of 8,000 to 10,000 members. Much depends on the support of the local sections of the Labour Party, and from the fact that on all major questions they always have the trade union majority against them. Our entry and our systematic work in the Labour Party and the Socialist League can have good results. It is true that a split in the Labour Party is less imminent than in the Youth, but with a strong opposition from the base of the Labour Party we could more easily defeat the bureaucracy on the battlefield of the youth. However, an independent group, which in any case could not do much, would have the effect of giving the bureaucrats an excuse to exclude purely and simply the Bolshevik-Leninists from the party and the youth.

Artur (who is identified as a ‘member of the General Council’) said that he supported the entry into the Labour Party to support the struggle of the youth.

Vilain: thought that an important split of the Socialist Youth would only have the effect of making them fall still more under the influence of Stalinism, because the split would be on an unclear basis.

Braun: We can only give general instructions. It is for the English themselves to decide their practical realisation. To vote against this motion would be to support the disastrous decision of James.

Xavier: (‘member of bureau’) If the Marxist Group has up to the present not been strong enough to come out of the ILP, how would it be able now to carry out effective independent work? Entry into the Labour Party before April could have positive results.

The motion was supported unanimously, with a reservation by Vilain on perspective. The resolution will be published in the Internal Bulletin of the IS.
*******
Declaration on the English Marxist Group
This is the full text of the document referred to by John Archer on p.69 of Revolutionary History Vol.6 No.2/3. It was only possible there to give a short comment in a footnote.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Declaration of the International Bureau
for the Fourth International
on the subject of the English Marxist Group
The Bureau for the Fourth International, at its meeting of December 13, took note of the letter of the Executive Committee of the Marxist Group of November 21 to the IS, in which it announces the decision of the majority of the London group of the Marxist Group to leave the ILP as quickly as possible and to found an independent organisation.

1. The Bureau for IV International must take note that this important turn is in contradiction to the decisions of the conference which was held four week previously, and that it rests solely on the basis of the decision of the majority of the London Group (16 to 6). The Executive Committee of the Marxist Group ought to have called a new conference on this subject, preceded by a report and a discussion of a fundamental character involving all the members. Since this elementary rule of democratic centralism is not observed, the Bureau for the IVth International cannot recognise that the decision taken is valid.

2. Every important political turn requires that the leadership of the organisation as a whole must submit a clear and true balance-sheet of the past policy. The leadership of the Marxist Group has, however, not carried out this duty. There have been three different opinions in conflict in the past:

a) One part of the Marxist Group has supported the tactic established by the resolution of the Geneva Conference:

“The conference is therefore of the opinion that the experience of the Bolshevik-Leninists within the ILP ought to be terminated, and that the group which at the present time is working in this organisation ought to transfer its field of work towards the mass organisations, especially towards the Labour Party and the Labour League of Youth.”

b) The Cooper tendency has outlined the perspective of staying in the ILP until a split permits a “mass withdrawal”. It would consider that the ILP still is a good field of work because it “still offers a large liberty of speech and action to the BLs and the possibility to organise mass work...” “Since there are no decisive reasons or necessary circumstances, or crises in the ILP, we should prepare for the next annual conference (Easter) as the final point of the struggle”.

c) The James tendency proposed to form an independent organisation of all the British BLs as a sort of organisation following fraction work in alien organisations (ILP and LP):

“Since the numerical force which would probably result from this fusion is not sufficient to form an independent BL party, the Marxist Group considers that the independent group must carry on fraction work in the different political parties, with the sole object of gaining sufficient forces to form an independent Bolshevik- Leninist party” ... “in view also of the specific position in the various localities, the Marxist Group considers it inadmissible that all its members should be invited to leave the ILP at once, or within a fixed period.”

The James tendency, just like that of Cooper, places all its hopes in the creation of a new journal (The Fourth International, later Fight), while the Geneva resolution shows the danger which ignoring its decision would involve, in view of the complete lack of a political perspective. Four weeks after the October Conference, the Executive Committee of the Marxist Group saw itself obliged to declare for leaving the ILP and recognising the correctness of the Geneva Resolution. Nonetheless, it does not say one word about how its own perspectives have been shown to be false. On the contrary, it does not point to the responsibility which it bears for having stayed too long in the ILP, but it attacks in general though in a disguised fashion the tactic of entry into alien organisations. It quotes the passage from an article by Trotsky where he says that a party (but not a little propaganda group) must have complete organisational independence, and it adds that the experience of the BLs since summer 1934 proves the correctness of those words. This shows nothing but that, in opinion of the authors of the resolution, the policy of the Bolshevik Leninist groups - which precisely were only propaganda groups and not parties - was false. And they draw from this the following conclusion for the Marxist Group.

“In the light of what is said above, and of the fact that its influence in the ILP has been compromised during the last two months of fractional struggle, when activity has consequently been weakened, and its perspective of gaining more supporters in today very small, the group decides to form an independent organisation as soon as possible.”

Not a word is said about the degeneration which has taken place during the last few months - and that is the sole reason for it - because they did not separate themselves soon enough from the rotting corpse of the ILP.

If they write in another passage of the same resolution that it is permissible to work within centrist-reformist organisations, they give by that a proof that the supporters of the resolution do not defend their opinion in a consistent fashion and that they are tangled up in their own contradictions.

In reality, the decomposition of the “majority” group, which in 1933 did not enter the ILP, and the undeniable success of the Marxist Group to winter 1935 prove that the tactical step of entry was entirely correct. But, as the French experience has already taught us, we have to know, not the right time to enter, but the right time to come out. The decomposition, the internal disputes, the passivity, result solely from the prolonged opportunist existence in the ILP, against the advice of the IS, of the Geneva Conference and of Comrade Crux (Trotsky).

3. When you conceal the mistakes of the past months in this way, and when in consequence you start from false premises, you must necessarily reach false conclusions for the future. Instead of repairing the damage, you will greatly increase it. Neither the split from the ILP which Cooper expected, with the possibility of a “mass withdrawal”, nor the numerical reinforcement which, according to the James resolution, would have enabled an independent organisation to be formed, have taken place. On the contrary: for more than six months, the Marxist Group has not gained a single member of the ILP and, on the contrary, it has lost half of its former members. Even though, therefore, these hopes, and with them the conditions for independence, have not been realised, a majority of the London group of the Marxist Group has decided - and that in direct opposition to the resolutions taken four weeks previously - to create an independent organisation. Not a shred of justification for the reasons for this decision is given, but reference is made, simply and in a completely general way, to the “international situation”. There can be no doubt that not a single member of the ILP, even if he sympathises politically with the Marxist Group, will follow him into complete and hopeless isolation; at the same time you could probably always find comrades of the ILP who would join the Labour Party to strengthen the Left Wing which is forming there, despite all the mistakes which have so far been made.

4. The decision of the Marxist Group to create an independent organisation has a result which is all the more disastrous because the fusion of all the groups, which the Geneva Conference characterised as an urgent necessity, will be obstructed by it. The resolution presented by Comrade James states, among other things: “The group understands that in these conditions an organic fusion with other groups is impossible.” But, unlike the Marxist Group, which becomes weaker and weaker because it stays stuck in an opportunist fashion to the ILP, the Bolshevik-Leninist group in the Labour Party League of Youth, formed only in February of this year with six comrades, has developed extremely rapidly. It is today much stronger than the Marxist Group. Activity and optimism flourish there, and everything indicates that despite the enormous difficulties it will grow still more. Its principle task is to inoculate British Youth against the Stalinist plague, in order that what has happened in Spain and in certain regions of Belgium, where the Socialist Youth, left to itself, has fallen totally under the influence of the Communist International, cannot happen in Britain. The decision of the Executive Committee of the Marxist Group, which makes fusion impossible, shows not only an action against the recommendation of the Geneva Conference, but also against the Marxist Group's own declaration which it took at its National Conference of October 10, where it declared that the premise for the formation of an independent party is the fusion of all the BLs.

5. By the decision to create an independent organisation, you also neglect completely to notice the changes in structure which are taking place in the Labour Party itself, and which will increase enormously as a result of the sharpening of the political situation on the Continent. Just as, in its time in France and especially in Belgium, a progressive Left Wing developed in the Socialist Parties, today an analogous process is taking place in the Labour Party. The Edinburgh Conference signifies, in this connection, an important phase in the history of the Labour Party. Let us quote what Stafford Cripps wrote in Controversy, and what is confirmed by other words from Dalton, the leader of the Right:

“The most significant development of at the Conference was without doubt the attitude of the constituency parties. The opposition to the platform ... of the great mass of the delegates from the local organisations of the Labour Party, who voted together against the platform and against the block vote (of the trade unions) on all important questions. All their political feelings were outraged by their continual defeats, and the principal problem which arose from the Conference was that of the democratisation (!) of the Labour Party itself. The indignation was so great that one felt a spontaneous movement of delegates from the localities, which took places on the night of Thursday, where 240 (out of 290 delegates) were present and declared unanimously for setting up an official ad hoc committee which was then set up to bring together the constituency parties so that they could make more effective their demands for wide power.”

Only someone politically blind could fail to see that the Bolshevik-Leninists, protected by the growing opposition coming from the radicalised worker masses demanding democracy in the Party, contains enormous possibilities of development. Further on this point, the following remark by Cripps is equally very important: “Discipline will become impossible because the base of the movement will do what it feels itself call upon to do without regard to the apparatus.” The Marxist Group takes note in its letter that the splitting away of this Left Wing of the Labour Party is inevitable, and that this will join the right-centrists and strengthen them. It draws from this the conclusion that “even purely as a tactical question, an independent organisation, assuring a centre even a little stable and solid is an urgent necessity in England”. But do the authors of this letter believe that a few dozens of isolated Trotskyists will check, from outside, this strong centrist current? It is absurd. It is only in the closest contact with this Left Wing, it is only as active members of this Left Wing, that you will obtain sufficient possibilities of influencing it, to win the revolutionary part of it for Bolshevik-Leninism. From outside, you will be regarded as impotent and hopeless sectarians, who fear contact with the masses, but who want to impose themselves on the masses from outside as sage counsellors. The “tactical” argument, the only one of those who propose the creation of an independent organisation, crumbles from within itself.

6. The proposal of the London group to provide help for the BLs in the Labour Party from outside by “combined work” may be inspired by the best intentions. But the first who should give their opinion of this help should be the comrades who are in the Labour Party themselves. But they are the most severe opponents of this over-hasty independence, and they declare that an independent group outside could only cause them harm, because they would in that case be regarded as agents of an alien organisation, from which an excuse could very easily be got to exclude them prematurely and without political motivation. This could happen, not only at the hands of the National Executive of the Labour Party, but even of the local organisations of the Labour Party which we wish to win. The combined work, in the way it is proposed, has proved itself to be completely impossible in practice itself. In Belgium, theoretically, such a possibility existed, as a result of the existence of the independent Brussels group. But the collaboration with the comrades of the Action Socialiste Revolutionnaire did not take place, and could not take place, for the reasons which have already been set out. Today, after the fusion, the situation is such that at Brussels, where there was the independent group, the Belgian Party is unfortunately still weak, and has not yet overcome its isolation. That is in another argument against independence.

7. Further, the danger exists that an independent group, turning eternally in a vicious circle, will cultivate sectarian and opportunist tendencies in its own ranks. Field in America is an eloquent example of the political impotence which results from these tendencies. The personal struggles carried on, without principles, by Field, Oehler, etc., against our American section, and which the majority of the London group wish to avoid, is, as experience proves, the sole “political” activity of such a group. It is a bad symptom to see the majority of the London group write that “it is a vice of the Trotskyist movement to create differences, to erect them into insurmountable obstacles and to wage a war of words on this basis”. This is the eternal argument of the Fenner Brockways, Schwab, Field and tutti quanti.

Another proof of the same opportunist influence is that they write that our movement has a “bad reputation” because of “fractional struggles” (as a result of impolite formulations: “philistine centrism”). The fractional struggle at certain periods becomes inevitable. The old Bolshevik Party also had a “bad reputation” in this respect. Intrigues none the less, which ought to be avoided, are always the accompaniment of a bad policy. That is why during the last year the struggle within the Marxist Group was full of personal bitterness, while the BLs in the Labour League of Youth were practically free from this.

8. The Bureau for the IVth International, on the basis of what is said above, is convinced that the Marxist Group must as a whole re-examine fundamentally the decision of the London majority, which cannot be binding for the whole national membership. No one will reproach the comrades for having made mistakes in the past, from the moment that they recognise and openly correct those mistakes. But when a new vote is taken, you must also take into account the comrades who, with or without the consent of the leadership of the Marxist Group, have entered the Labour Party, and have expressed their votes in their manner of acting. The best solution in the present circumstances seems to be this. Let all the English BLs who recognise the decisions of the Geneva Conference for the IVth International convene by the democratic method a constituent conference, where according to the principles of democratic centralism they will discuss and decide which road is the best. The conference will create the homogenous and single organisation of the BLs and will in this way meet the demand of the Geneva Conference for a “unification on the base of fundamental principles and the programme of the IVth International”. Any solution which does not correspond to the wishes of the majority of the English BLs can only fail, and constitute a danger for the work of the BLs. The IS would in that case feel itself obliged to reconsider its relations with such a minority.

December 13, 1936

adopted by the Bureau for the IVth International unanimously
********
Statement from the BL Group
This is the full text of the document referred to by John Archer on p.70 of Revolutionary History, Vol.6 No.2/3. It was only possible there to give a short commentary.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Statement to the Bureau for the Fourth International
from the BL Group in the Labour Party
regarding the fulfilment of the Geneva Resolution
in the Question of the Unity of the British Groups.
Our group accepted the Geneva conference resolution in its entirety and endeavoured to put it into practice. Special attention has been paid by us to the question of unity, and great efforts have been made by us to unite the three groups in this country on the basis of the Geneva Conference resolution. The following have been the results:

1. The Marxist League. From the formation of our group in Feb. 1936 up to the time of the Geneva Conference our group made repeated offers of unity to the Marxist League, but always met with a refusal. We were not even able to obtain a joint meeting of the members of both groups to discuss the matter. After the Geneva Conference we again approached the Marxist League with renewed offers of unity. A further rebuff was the result. The IS wrote to the Marxist League requesting them to cease raising formalistic objections to unity and we then wrote again renewing our offer. We have since had no reply. Copies of all the above correspondence are in the hands of the IS.

At the National Conference of all Bolshevik-Leninists in Great Britain, held on October 11, 1936, the Marxist League was represented by only three comrades, whose statements made it quite clear that their group had no intention of fusing with any other group in the near future. At this same national conference the Marxist League, although itself working inside the Labour Party, made every effort to prevent the Marxist Group leaving the ILP and entering the Labour Party (See its statement to the MG National Conference on Oct. 10th).

A Co-ordinating Committee between the three groups was set up at the October 11th conference. Two meetings of this committee were held shortly after the conference and a representative of the Marxist League was present at each of these, but the role of this comrade was confined to stirring up factional disputes and no effective co- operation took place. Since that time there has been no meeting of this Co-ordinating Committee.

Meanwhile the Marxist League, so far as it can be said to function as an organisation, grows ever more opportunistic, and the policy out forward by its members differs a little from that of the Socialist League. Though most of its members are in the Labour League of Youth, it does not support our fight there and refuses to sell our paper - the Youth Militant. On the contrary, it supports Socialist Youth (which its controlled through the Socialist League), a paper putting forward the centrist policy of the Socialist League and giving no clear lead to the youth.

Further the Marxist League organised the distribution of the English edition of the POUM bulletin, and thus actually supports the opportunistic policy of that party.

It must be remembered that the Marxist League is very small in numbers (about 20 active) and is mainly confined to certain parts of South London. It can in no way be considered a Bolshevik-Leninist organisation, but consists mainly of the personal following of Groves and Dewar, who have steadily degenerated politically since the split in the English section in December 1933, and who attempt to shield their opportunism behind the name of Cde. Trotsky and the prestige of the international organisation.

We consider that experience has amply shown that no unity can be obtained with the Marxist League.

2. The Marxist Group. The degeneration of the Marxist Group is well known to the Bureau of the Fourth International, and is described in the declaration made by the Bureau on the 13th December. The BL Group in the Labour Party expresses its entire agreement with the criticisms of the actions of the MG contained in this declaration. But the situation has now become even worse. The open meeting calling for the new party was held on December 16, despite the declaration of the Bureau. Moreover, although it had been agreed that the journal Fight was a joint publication between our group and the MG, the MG have used their majority on the Editorial Board to publish the second number in the name of the MG, and to advocate in it the new line of the MG. This not only renders our further co-operation on the paper impossible (and this despite the great efforts which we made to set it on its feet) but also greatly endangers our position inside the Labour Party, since the first number which was published in the name of the British Bolshevik-Leninists was sold by us to our contacts inside the Labour Party.

It is obvious therefore that the London MG is determined to persevere in its new course and is not deterred by the fact that it is acting contrary to the wishes not only of our international organisation but also to the majority of the British Bolshevik- Leninists.

It should clearly be realised that the deep internal degeneration has now reached an advanced stage. The following facts are of great significance:

a. The great bulk of the supporters of the new turn are petit-bourgeois in character and their present line expresses their fear of contact with the masses - so far as we are aware only three are of working-class origin (Ballard, Milligan and Westwood).

b. The former leadership of the group (Cooper-Marzillier) are bitterly opposed to the new line (although Cooper voted for it at the Nov 15th meeting) and have refused to leave the ILP. They still, however, remain members of the group, and even of the EC, since the majority being too weak to expel them have allowed them to remain as a “fraction” inside the ILP. The great bulk of the membership of the MG outside London which opposed entering the Labour Party did so upon similar grounds of ILP loyalism and will hence certainly stay in the ILP.

c. Very few of the old experienced comrades now remain in the MG - with but one exception all the remaining comrades of the old minority of the Communist League, who joined the ILP in 1933-34, are either already members of our group or agree with our position and will join us shortly. The general political level of the MG is now very definitely lower than our own.

d. The majority of the group who have taken this new turn consists almost entirely of the personal following of Comrade James, who is himself completely under the ideological influence of the Field group and is in close touch with Crame of the Canadian section of the Field group. It is obvious from the resolution of James passed at the No. 15th meeting of the MG that insofar as they have any political line at all in carrying out their new turn they base themselves in the arguments of Bauer, Oehler, Field etc. The fact that the MG now have principled differences with the policy of our international organisation was admitted by Cde. James in a conversation with Cdes. Harber and Tippet, [ Note by JJP : Subsequently Michael Tippett became a very prominent (and IMHO excellent - listen especially to A Child of Our Time) composer and sought to distance himself from his history in the CP and later the BLG. He became a pacifist and was temporarily imprisoned for opposition to WW2. In the late 1970s was to express support for the “ideas” of prince Charles Windsor. See Appendix 2 of Bornstein & Richardson's Against the Stream for more on Tippett and Trotskyism] when he stated that the reason why they had not expressed these differences in the form of theses was because they feared this would mean expulsion from the international organisation.

In the view of all the above facts we consider that the organisational proposals contained in the declaration of the bureau of December 13th are now out of date and cannot help towards the attainment of unity in the present circumstances. Our group is now probably larger than both the Marxist League and the Marxist Group together and is unanimously in support of the Geneva resolutions. We have ceased to be merely a youth group and are developing work in the adult party. (A new duplicated monthly paper - The Militant - is appearing on 15th Jan.) Moreover, some eighty per cent of the membership of our group is of proletarian origin.

Work has however been held up during the past few months by the efforts we have made to bring the MG and the ML over to our correct position. Nothing has been left undone by us in this respect, but despite all our efforts we have been unable to achieve unity, although nearly all the best elements in the MG have joined us. Far too much of our time of late has been devoted to discussion on relations with other groups instead of getting on with our own work in the Labour Party and the Labour League of Youth.

In view of all the above facts we cannot agree to call another joint national conference with the Marxist Group, since we do not think that it would achieve any useful results. Moreover we are calling a national conference of our own group in February next in order to discuss our own problems and all our energies must be devoted to this.

In the light of all that has been said above we consider that there are no prospects of attaining unity in this country as a result of a merger of the three groups concerned, or of any two of them. Since the Marxist Group and the Marxist League are getting further away from our political position instead of nearer, we consider that the only way in which unity can come about will be through a continuation of the same process as has been taking place in recent months, the absorption by our group of the best elements of the other groups. This process is, however, impeded by the fact that both the other groups have hitherto been able to claim international recognition on the same basis as ourselves. We therefore consider that the time has now some when the Bureau for the Fourth International should state openly that there is only one group in this country which can be considered to be part of the international organisation - our group - and that the other two groups, the MG and the ML, can no longer be considered as sympathetic organisations for the reasons given above and those contained in the statement of the bureau of the 13th Dec. A statement by the bureau of this kind will greatly promote the disintegration of the other groups, which must inevitably follow from their mistakes and from our growth and will thus bring the establishment of a section in this country appreciably nearer.

The Executive Committee, Bolshevik-Leninist Group in the Labour Party

Dec. 29th, 1936

*From The Archives Of The “Revolutionary History” Journal- The case of Fenner Brockway (later Lord Brockway)

Markin comment:

This is an excellent documentary source for today’s militants to “discover” the work of our forbears, whether we agree with their programs or not. Mainly not, but that does not negate the value of such work done under the pressure of revolutionary times. Hopefully we will do better when our time comes.

************
 
The case of Fenner Brockway


Fifty years ago the third and most grotesque of the Moscow trials was staged. Once again the small forces of the Trotskyist movement were mobilised against the mighty propaganda machine of the Kremlin, the communist parties and their venal fellow travellers.


This was to be expected. But to make matters worse, the attempts to refute the allegations made against Trotsky in all of the trials were hampered by those who, whatever their political differences with Trotsky, may have been expected to have defended him against the Stalinists’ slanders. One such character was Fenner (now Lord) Brockway, a leading member of the Independent Labour Party, who refused either to support the Dewey Commission in Mexico or the British Committee for the Defence of Leon Trotsky. His refusal to take a firm stand against the slanders did not, however, spare the ILP’s co-thinkers in Spain, the POUM, from being massacred by the GPU.



The following critique of Brockway’s evasions was written by Hilary Sumner-Boyd under the pen-name of Charles Sumner, and appeared in the July 1937 edition of the British Committee for the Defence of Leon Trotsky’s Information Bulletin. Sumner-Boyd was secretary of the Committee and a leading member of the Marxist League.



At its annual conference in March, the Independent Labour Party passed a resolution on the Moscow trials which stated that “It is imperative that there should be an impartial investigation by representative socialists who have the confidence of the working class”, and that the investigation “should analyse both the detailed evidence given at the trials and the full reply which it is understood Leon Trotsky intends to publish shortly”. It is greatly to be feared that one member of the national council of the ILP at least – Fenner Brockway – has not been loyally carrying out this resolution. The subject at issue, which in the last analysis involves the character of the present government of the Soviet Union and the prospects of the world revolution, is so important, and the instructions of the annual conference of the ILP so clear, that it is necessary to establish the facts definitely in order that the members of the ILP may judge the matter for themselves.



Fenner Brockway’s connection with the proposed enquiry into the Moscow trials has all along been extremely ambiguous. In August, directly after the Zinoviev trial, the New Leader (28 August 1936), of which Brockway is the responsible editor, wrote: “We think it is the duty of the International Working Class Movement to appoint a Commission of Investigation. It should visit Trotsky in Norway, and also ask permission to visit Moscow and examine the evidence given at the trial.” A few months later, however, Brockway refused to sign the Open Letter (Manchester Guardian, Herald, etc., 1 December) appealing for such a Commission of Enquiry, although it bore the signatures of Brailsford, Horrabin and other working class leaders. Brockway has, moreover, consistently refused to have anything to do with the British Trotsky Defence Committee, which exists for the purpose of furthering an investigation of this kind. Apparently Brockway recoiled before the virulent campaign of slander carried on by the Communist Party against all who dared to question the evidence presented at the trials.



Then came the United Front Agreement, the programme of which expressly forbade all criticism of the Soviet Union and the policy of its Government. At this point Brockway's conduct, as it appears, became positively disingenuous. It seemed likely by this time that the efforts of the Committees in various countries, and especially in America, for an investigation into the trials, would be rewarded by the establishment of an International Commission of Enquiry. Brockway hastened to write to Norman Thomas, leader of the Socialist Party of the United States and a member of the American Trotsky Defence Committee, urging that a Commission of Enquiry be established, not to investigate the Moscow trials, but to examine “the role of Trotskyism in the working class movement”. An investigation of the Moscow trials, according to Brockway, would “merely arouse prejudice in Russia and Communist circles”!!! Now at the same time that he was making this preposterous proposal to Thomas, he also wrote to George Novack, secretary of the American Committee, proposing a Commission to enquire “into the charges against Trotsky”. Thus to the Committee officially Brockway makes one proposal, while to Thomas privately he makes a quite different and incompatible one. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that in this case Brockway was playing a double game. (The implications of Brockway’s proposal to Thomas are fully examined in Trotsky’s article which appears in this Bulletin.)



In spite of Brockway’s efforts to draw a red herring across the path, an International Commission of Enquiry was shortly afterwards established. Towards this Commission of Enquiry Brockway has consistently taken up an equivocal and dishonest attitude. He has himself perfectly expressed this in a letter of 9 April to the British Committee, in which he says: “We are prepared to collaborate with the Enquiry, but don’t use the word ‘endorse’ as that would be going too far”. Thus he does not “endorse” the Commission with which he is “collaborating”! This is the most frivolous temporising, unworthy of any serious revolutionary. It is cleat that Brockway is once again taking shelter behind his well-known opportunism: if in the future he thinks it advantageous to come out strongly against the Moscow trials, he can always point to his “collaboration” with the Commission; if, on the other hand, he continues to flirt with the Communist Party, he can declare that he never “endorsed” the Enquiry.



In order to elucidate the position as far as possible, the British Committee on 1 May addressed to Brockway the following questions:



1. Is the ILP and the International Bureau prepared to send a delegate to the Commission? If not, in what concrete forms do these organisations envisage their ‘collaboration’. 2. Are the ILP and the International Bureau prepared to accept the verdict of the Dewey Commission? (An impartial enquiry whose verdict is not unequivocally accepted by the organisations which ‘collaborate’ with it, is of course completely useless.) 3. As part of its ‘collaboration’ is the ILP prepared to give the widest publicity within its power … to the proceedings and the report of the Commission?



For nearly a month no reply was forthcoming. Then on 28 May, Brockway wrote and answered the first two questions in the negative, the third not at all – and at the same time doing his best to maintain his opportunist position by offering to “provide evidence” to the Commission. Except for the testimony of a few individuals like Maxton, Paton and Smith, which has already been given, it is difficult to see what “evidence” the parties adhering to the International Bureau could give. This offer is clearly a sop.



One reason only is offered why the International Bureau is unwilling to support the Commission of Enquiry (which Brockway persists in calling “American” as contrasted with “International”, presumably in order to make it appear less representative, although its personnel is in fact international). The reason given is that ”a disastrous mistake has been made in initiating the enquiry through a committee which describes itself as a ‘Committee for the Defence of Trotsky’” since this will present an “argument to those who condemn Trotsky which it will be impossible effectively to meet”. This contention is at once specious and disingenuous. To begin with, it is untrue that the Commission was initiated by the American Trotsky Defence Committee. The Commission was organised by the co-operative action of all the national Committees for an enquiry into the trials. Such committees exist not only in New York and London, but also in Paris, Antwerp, Prague and other European capitals. Since Brockway attaches so great an importance to the name, we ask him to note that the French Committee is called the Committee for an Enquiry into the Moscow, Trials, while those in Prague and Antwerp are known as Committees for Justice and Truth. In addition to these special committees, the American Socialist Party – affiliated to the Second International – and the Italian-American Anarchists also took an active part in setting up the Commission. When it had been agreed that the enquiry should be held in New York – in order to be within easy reach of the chief witness, Trotsky – the major part of the work of organising the Commission inevitably fell upon the American Committee, aided by the Socialist Party and the Anarchists. The fact that the enquiry is being held in the USA also explains the great preponderance of Americans serving on it, just as the personnel of its sub-commissions in Europe is largely composed of European representatives of working class organisations. Thus Brockway’s assertion that the Commission was initiated by the American Committee is simply false



Even supposing, however, that it were true, the contention that because it is called a committee for the defence of Trotsky it would provide “an argument to those who condemn Trotsky which it would be impossible effectively to meet” is utterly dishonest. In the first place, any commission of enquiry into the Moscow trials, as Brockway himself has pointed out, “will merely arouse prejudice in Russia and Communist circles” – and in all other circles which are willing to condemn Trotsky unheard. Secondly, how could this argument be more effectively met than by the International Bureau and its affiliated parties officially taking part in the enquiry, and thus giving it a still broader and less “partisan” basis? If Brockway and the Executive Committees which he represents were sincere in their desire to “collaborate” with the Commission and to get at the facts behind the trials, this is clearly the course they would have pursued. Thirdly, it is surely irrelevant by whom the Commission is initiated. The guarantee of its impartiality, and the criterion by which the working class movement will judge it, are to be found, first, it its own personnel – and Brockway himself was compelled in the New Leader for 9 April to pay the highest tribute to the unchallengeable probity and passion for justice of the members who had so far been decided upon – second, in the full reports of its public proceedings and examination of evidence, and third in its final summing up and verdict. To judge it on any other grounds is the part of the enemies and not the friends of truth. Finally, the verbal objection to the name “Committee for the Defence of Trotsky” is sheer casuistry. Neither logically nor psychologically does it imply a conviction of Trotsky’s innocence, but only a conviction that he may be innocent – and this is obviously required of any impartial committee. It is an age-old principle of civilised justice that no one is to be adjudged guilty until he has been given the opportunity to state his case before a properly qualified body, that is, before he has had a chance to present his defence. Even those who plead guilty are in civilised countries allowed defending counsel. But Trotsky has pleaded not guilty; and there are those – though apparently Mr Brockway is not one of them – who are not convinced that the case against him was proved beyond reasonable doubt at the Moscow trials, and who are therefore anxious to hear him state his case and to act in his “defence” in order to arrive at whatever may ultimately prove to be the truth.



These considerations are so clear that they cannot have escaped the subtle mind of Fenner Brockway. It is greatly to be regretted that he chose to disregard them and to act in a way that is at best cowardly and at worst dishonest. Now the GPU has transferred its activities to Spain and threatens the life of Brockway’s political allies in the POUM, Brockway has gone to their defence. But if he had come out courageously in support of the investigation into the Moscow trials, and had used his influence to secure for the Commission of Enquiry the support of the ILP and the International Bureau, it is more than possible that the GPU would not have dared, in the face of the indignation of the revolutionary working class, to use in Spain the methods which have brought about the Russian Thermidor.



Charles Sumner