Free the Class-War Prisoners!-28th Annual PDC Holiday Appeal-Partisan Defense Committee Workers Vanguard No. 1034

Free the Class-War Prisoners!-28th Annual PDC Holiday Appeal

This year marks the 28th anniversary of the Partisan Defense Committee’s program of sending stipends to class-war prisoners, those behind bars for the “crime” of standing up to the varied expressions of racist capitalist oppression. The PDC’s Holiday Appeal raises funds to send monthly stipends to 21 class-war prisoners and also provides holiday gifts for the prisoners and their families. We do this not just because it’s the right thing to do. The monthly stipends, just increased from $25 to $50, and holiday gifts are not charity. They are vital acts of class solidarity to remind the prisoners that they are not forgotten.

The Holiday Appeals are a stark contrast to the hypocritical appeals of bourgeois charities. Whether it comes from the megachurches of Southern televangelists or the urbane editors of the New York Times, the invocation of “peace on earth and goodwill toward men” at this time of year is nothing more than a public relations scam to obscure the grinding exploitation of workers and the beggar-the-poor policies that are the hallmark of both major parties of American capitalism. The lump of coal in the Christmas stocking for millions of impoverished families this year is a drastic cut in their already starvation food stamp rations. Christmas turkey for many is likely to be sculpted from cans of Spam.

The prisoners generally use the funds for basic necessities, from supplementing the inadequate prison diet to buying stamps and writing materials, or to pursue literary, artistic and musical endeavors that help ameliorate the living hell of prison life. As Tom Manning of the Ohio 7 wrote to the PDC four years ago: “Just so you know, it [the stipend] goes for bags of mackerel and jars of peanut butter, to supplement my protein needs.” In a separate letter, his comrade Jaan Laaman observed: “This solidarity and support is important and necessary for us political prisoners, especially as the years and decades of our captivity grind on.... Being in captivity is certainly harsh, and this includes the sufferings of our children and families and friends. But prison walls and sentences do not and can not stop struggle.”

We look to the work of the International Labor Defense (ILD) under its first secretary, James P. Cannon (1925-28), who went on to become the founder of American Trotskyism. As the ILD did, we stand unconditionally on the side of the working people and their allies in struggle against their exploiters and oppressors. We defend, in Cannon’s words, “any member of the workers movement, regardless of his views, who suffered persecution by the capitalist courts because of his activities or his opinion” (First Ten Years of American Communism, 1962).

Initiated in 1986, the PDC stipend program revived an early tradition of the ILD. The mid 1980s were a time of waning class and social struggle but also a time when the convulsive struggles for black rights more than a decade earlier still haunted America’s capitalist rulers, who thirsted for vengeance. Among the early recipients of PDC stipends were members and supporters of the Black Panther Party (BPP), the best of a generation of black radicals who sought a revolutionary solution to black oppression—a bedrock of American capitalism.

Foremost among these was Geronimo ji Jaga (Pratt), former leader of the BPP in Los Angeles. Geronimo won his release in 1997 after spending 27 years behind bars for a murder the cops and FBI knew he did not commit. FBI wiretap logs, disappeared by the Feds, showed that Geronimo was 400 miles away in San Francisco at the time of the Santa Monica killing. Other victims of the government’s deadly Counterintelligence Program (COINTELPRO) remain entombed decades later. Absent an upsurge of class and social struggle that transforms the political landscape, they will likely breathe their last breaths behind bars.

Among the dozens of past stipend recipients are Eddie McClelland, a supporter of the Irish Republican Socialist Party who was framed on charges related to the killing of three members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary in Northern Ireland, and Mordechai Vanunu, who helped expose the Israeli nuclear arsenal. At its outset, our program included five British miners imprisoned during the bitter 1984-85 coal strike. State repression of labor struggle in the U.S. added to our program, for a time, other militants railroaded to prison for defending their union against scabs in the course of strike battles: Jerry Dale Lowe of the United Mine Workers in West Virginia, Amador Betancourt of Teamsters Local 912 in California and Bob Buck of Steelworkers Local 5668 in West Virginia. (For more background on the PDC and the stipend program, see “18th Annual Holiday Appeal for Class-War Prisoners,” WV No. 814, 21 November 2003.)

The most recent additions to the stipend program include Lynne Stewart and the Tinley Park 5. Stewart is an attorney who spent four decades fighting to keep black and radical activists out of the clutches of the state, only to find herself joining them behind bars on ludicrous “support to terrorism” charges. The youthful anti-fascist fighters known as the Tinley Park 5 were thrown in prison for heroically dispersing a meeting of fascists in May 2012.

At the time of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, we warned that the enhanced police powers being amassed to go after immigrants from Muslim countries would also be used against the oppressed black population and the working class as a whole. That the “war on terror” takes aim at leftist opponents of this or that government policy is affirmed by the massive “anti-terror” police mobilizations and arrests that have accompanied protest outside every Democratic and Republican national convention, among other gatherings, in recent years. Other recent examples include the FBI-coordinated nationwide crackdown on “Occupy” movement encampments and the state of siege in Chicago during the 2012 NATO summit.

The witchhunt against the Tinley Park 5 coincided with and fed into the hysteria whipped up against the anti-NATO protesters, particularly anarchists and participants in Black Bloc actions. Sitting in jail awaiting trial for 18 months are three protesters set up by a police provocateur. They were arrested and charged under Illinois anti-terrorism statutes, the first time these laws were ever used. Free the anti-NATO protesters! Drop the charges!

Continuing the Legacy of Class-Struggle Defense

The PDC is a class-struggle, non-sectarian legal and social defense organization that champions cases and causes in the interest of the whole of the working people. This purpose is in accordance with the Marxist political views of the Spartacist League, which initiated the PDC in 1974. The PDC’s first major defense effort was the case of Mario Muñoz, the Chilean miners’ leader threatened with death in 1976 by the Argentine military junta. An international campaign of protests by unions and civil libertarians, cosponsored by the Committee to Defend Worker and Sailor Prisoners in Chile, won asylum in France for Muñoz and his family. The PDC has also initiated labor/black mobilizations against provocations by the Ku Klux Klan and Nazis from San Francisco to Atlanta to New York to Springfield, Illinois, and mobilized sections of the integrated labor movement to join these efforts.

Cannon’s ILD, which was affiliated to the early Communist Party, was our model for class-struggle defense. It fused the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) tradition of militant class-struggle, non-sectarian defense and their slogan, “An injury to one is an injury to all,” with the internationalism of the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, a revolution made not merely for the workers of Russia but for the workers and oppressed of the world. These principles were embodied in the International Organization for Aid to Fighters of the Revolution (MOPR), a defense organization formed in the Soviet Union in 1922 that was more popularly known as the International Red Aid.

The ILD was born out of discussions in 1925 between Cannon and Big Bill Haywood, who had been a leader of the Western Federation of Miners and then the IWW. The venue was Moscow, where Haywood had fled in 1921 after jumping bond while awaiting appeal of his conviction for having called a strike during wartime, an activity deemed a violation of the federal Espionage and Sedition Act. Haywood died in Moscow in 1928. Half his ashes were buried in the Kremlin, the other half in Chicago near the monument to the Haymarket martyrs, leaders of the fight for the eight-hour day who were executed in 1887.

The ILD was founded especially to take up the plight of class-war prisoners in the United States. Initially, the ILD adopted 106 prisoners for its stipend program, including California labor leaders Tom Mooney and Warren Billings, framed up for a bombing at the Preparedness Day parade in San Francisco in 1916, and Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, immigrant anarchist workers executed in 1927 for a robbery/murder they did not commit. The number grew rapidly: Zeigler miners in Illinois whose fights over wages and working conditions pitted them head-on against the KKK; striking textile workers in Passaic, New Jersey. The ILD monthly, Labor Defender, educated tens of thousands of workers about the struggles of their class brothers and carried letters from prisoners describing their cases and the importance of ILD support.

Many of the imprisoned militants were IWW members. After a brief membership in the Socialist Party (SP), Cannon himself had been an IWW organizer and a writer for its press. Witnessing the anarcho-syndicalist IWW crushed by the bourgeois state while a disciplined Marxist party led a successful proletarian revolution in Russia, Cannon rejoined the SP in order to hook up with its developing pro-Bolshevik left wing. In 1919, that left wing exited the SP, with Cannon becoming a founding leader of the American Communist movement. He brought a wealth of experience in labor defense. As Cannon later recalled, “I came from the background of the old movement when the one thing that was absolutely sacred was unity on behalf of the victims of capitalist justice.”

In the year preceding the executions of Sacco and Vanzetti, the ILD and sections of the International Red Aid led mass actions in their defense, including protests and strikes of tens of thousands on the eve of the executions. The SP and pro-capitalist union tops undermined the growing workers mobilization by looking to the political agencies of the class enemy, a policy accompanied by a vicious anti-Communist campaign of slander and exclusion. Cannon addressed the two conflicting policies:

“One policy is the policy of the class struggle. It puts the center of gravity in the protest movement of the workers of America and the world. It puts all faith in the power of the masses and no faith whatever in the justice of the courts. While favoring all possible legal proceedings, it calls for agitation, publicity, demonstrations—organized protest on a national and international scale.... The other policy is the policy of ‘respectability,’ of the ‘soft pedal’ and of ridiculous illusions about ‘justice’ from the courts of the enemy. It relies mainly on legal proceedings. It seeks to blur the issue of the class struggle.”

— “Who Can Save Sacco and Vanzetti?” (Labor Defender, January 1927)

The principle of non-sectarian, class-struggle defense has guided our work, in particular our more than two-decade struggle to free Mumia Abu-Jamal. As a small organization, we don’t pretend that we are able to mobilize the type of hard class struggle that not only built the unions in this country but also harnessed the social power of the working class to the defense of labor’s imprisoned soldiers in the class war. Such struggles are today a very faint memory. Nor do we want to distribute rose-colored glasses through which even the most minimal stirrings against particular atrocities by the racist capitalist rulers appear as sea changes in the political climate—a practice that is common fare for sundry proclaimed socialists.

Instead, we are dedicated to educating a new generation of fighters in the best traditions of the early Communist defense work before it was poisoned by Stalinist degeneration. As Cannon wrote for the ILD’s second annual conference: “The procession that goes in and out of the prison doors is not a new one. It is the result of an old struggle under new forms and under new conditions. All through history those who have fought against oppression have constantly been faced with the dungeons of a ruling class.” He added, “The class-conscious worker accords to the class-war prisoners a place of singular honor and esteem.” Keeping the memory of their struggles alive helps politically arm a new generation of fighters against the prison that is capitalist society. We urge WV readers to honor the prisoners by supporting the Holiday Appeal.

The 21 class-war prisoners receiving stipends from the PDC are listed below.

*   *   *

Mumia Abu-Jamal is a former Black Panther Party spokesman, a well-known supporter of the MOVE organization and an award-winning journalist known as “the voice of the voiceless.” Framed up for the 1981 killing of a Philadelphia police officer, Mumia was sentenced to death explicitly for his political views. Federal and state courts have repeatedly refused to consider evidence proving Mumia’s innocence, including the sworn confession of Arnold Beverly that he, not Mumia, shot and killed the policeman. In 2011 the Philadelphia district attorney’s office dropped its longstanding effort to legally lynch America’s foremost class-war prisoner. Mumia remains condemned to life in prison with no chance of parole.

Leonard Peltier is an internationally renowned class-war prisoner. Peltier’s incarceration for his activism in the American Indian Movement has come to symbolize this country’s racist repression of its native peoples, the survivors of centuries of genocidal oppression. Peltier was framed up for the 1975 deaths of two FBI agents marauding in what had become a war zone on the South Dakota Pine Ridge Reservation. Although the lead government attorney has admitted, “We can’t prove who shot those agents,” and the courts have acknowledged blatant prosecutorial misconduct, the 69-year-old Peltier is not scheduled to be reconsidered for parole for another eleven years! Peltier suffers from multiple serious medical conditions and is incarcerated far from his people and family.

Eight MOVE members—Chuck Africa, Michael Africa, Debbie Africa, Janet Africa, Janine Africa, Delbert Africa, Eddie Africa and Phil Africa—are in their 36th year of prison. After the 8 August 1978 siege of their Philadelphia home by over 600 heavily armed cops, they were sentenced to 30-100 years having been falsely convicted of killing a police officer who died in the cops’ own cross fire. In 1985, eleven of their MOVE family members, including five children, were massacred by Philly cops when a bomb was dropped on their living quarters. After more than three decades of unjust incarceration, these innocent prisoners are routinely turned down at parole hearings. None have been released.

WRITE LYNNE!

Lynne Stewart is a lawyer imprisoned in 2009 for defending her client, a blind Egyptian cleric convicted for an alleged plot to blow up New York City landmarks in the early 1990s. Stewart is a well-known advocate who defended Black Panthers, radical leftists and others reviled by the capitalist state. She was originally sentenced to 28 months; a resentencing pursued by the Obama administration more than quadrupled her prison time to ten years. As she is 74 years old and suffers from Stage IV breast cancer that has spread to her lungs and back, this may well be a death sentence. Stewart qualifies for immediate compassionate release, but Obama’s Justice Department refuses to make such a motion before the resentencing judge, who has all but stated that he would grant her release!

 

Jaan Laaman of the Ohio 7

 

Jaan Laaman and Thomas Manning are the two remaining anti-imperialist activists known as the Ohio 7 still in prison, convicted for their roles in a radical group that took credit for bank “expropriations” and bombings of symbols of U.S. imperialism, such as military and corporate offices, in the late 1970s and ’80s. Before their arrests in 1984 and 1985, the Ohio 7 were targets of massive manhunts. The Ohio 7’s politics were once shared by thousands of radicals, but, like the Weathermen before them, the Ohio 7 were spurned by the “respectable” left. From a proletarian standpoint, the actions of these leftist activists against imperialism and racist injustice are not a crime. They should not have served a day in prison.

Ed Poindexter and Wopashitwe Mondo Eyen we Langa are former Black Panther supporters and leaders of the Omaha, Nebraska, National Committee to Combat Fascism. They are victims of the FBI’s deadly COINTELPRO operation, under which 38 Black Panther Party members were killed and hundreds more imprisoned on frame-up charges. Poindexter and Mondo were railroaded to prison and sentenced to life for a 1970 explosion that killed a cop, and they have now spent more than 40 years behind bars. Nebraska courts have repeatedly denied Poindexter and Mondo new trials despite the fact that a crucial piece of evidence excluded from the original trial, a 911 audio tape long suppressed by the FBI, proved that testimony of the state’s key witness was perjured.

 

Hugo Pinell, the last of the San Quentin 6 still in prison, has been in solitary isolation for more than four decades. He was a militant anti-racist leader of prison rights organizing along with George Jackson, his comrade and mentor, who was gunned down by prison guards in 1971. Despite numerous letters of support and no disciplinary write-ups for over 28 years, Pinell was again denied parole in 2009. Now in his late 60s, Pinell continues to serve a life sentence at the notorious torture chamber Pelican Bay SHU in California, a focal point for hunger strikes against grotesque inhuman conditions.

Jason Sutherlin, Cody Lee Sutherlin, Dylan Sutherlin, John Tucker and Alex Stuck were among some 18 anti-racist militants who, in the Chicago suburb of Tinley Park in May 2012, broke up a gathering of fascists called to organize a “White Nationalist Economic Summit.” Among the vermin sent scurrying were some with links to the Stormfront Web site run by a former Ku Klux Klan grand dragon. Such fascist meetings are not merely right-wing discussion clubs but organizing centers for race-terror against black people, Jews, immigrants, gays and anyone else the white-supremacists consider subhuman. For their basic act of social sanitation, these five were sentenced by a Cook County court to prison terms of three and a half to six years on charges of “armed violence.”

Contribute now! All proceeds from the Holiday Appeals will go to the Class-War Prisoners Stipend Fund. This is not charity but an elementary act of solidarity with those imprisoned for their opposition to racist capitalism and imperialist depredations. Send your contributions to: PDC, P.O. Box 99, Canal Street Station, New York, NY 10013; (212) 406-4252.

************

Note that this image is PVT Manning’s preferred photo.

Reposted from the American Left Historyblog, dated December 1, 2010.

Markin comment:

I like to think of myself as a fervent supporter of the Partisan Defense Committee, an organization committed to social and political defense cases and causes in the interests of the international working class. And an organization committed, at this time of the year, to raising funds to support the class-war prisoners’ stipend program through the annual Holiday Appeal drive. Unfortunately having to raise these funds in support of political prisoners for many years now, too many years, as the American and international capitalist class and their hangers-on have declared relentless war, recently a very one-sided war, against those who would cry out against the monster. Attempting to silence voices from zealous lawyers, articulate death row prisoners, anti-fascist street fighters to black liberation fighters who ended up on the wrong side of a cop and state vendetta and anti-imperialist fighters who took Che’s admonition to wage battle inside the “belly of the beast” seriously. Others, other militant fighters as well, too numerous to mention here but remembered.

Normally I do not need any prompting in the matter. This year, however, in light of the addition of Attorney Lynne Stewart* (yes, I know, she has been disbarred but that does not make her less of a people’s attorney in my eyes) to the stipend program, I read the 25th Anniversary Appeal article in Workers Vanguard No. 969 where I was startled to note how many of the names, organizations, and political philosophies mentioned there hark back to my own radical coming of age, and the need for class-struggle defense of all our political prisoners in the late 1960s (although I may not have used that exact term at the time).

That recognition included names like black liberation fighter George Jackson, present class-war prisoner Hugo Pinell’s San Quentin Six comrade; the Black Panthersin their better days, the days when the American state really was out to kill or detain every last supporter, and in the days when we needed, desperately needed, to fight for their defense in places from Oakland to New Haven, as represented by two of the Omaha Three (Poindexter and wa Langa), in their better days; the struggle, the fierce struggle, against the death penalty as represented in Mumia’s case today; the Ohio 7 and the Weather Underground who, rightly or wrongly, were committed to building a second front against American imperialism, and who most of the left, the respectable left, abandoned; and, of course, Leonard Peltier and the Native American struggles from Pine Ridge to the Southwest. It has been a long time and victories few. I could go on but you get the point.

That point also includes the hard fact that we have paid a high price, a very high price, for not winning back in the late 1960s and early 1970s when we last had this capitalist imperialist society on the ropes. Maybe it was political immaturity, maybe it was cranky theory, maybe it was elitism, hell, maybe it was just old-fashioned hubris but we let them off the hook. And have had to fight forty years of rear-guard “culture wars” since just to keep from falling further behind.

And the class-war prisoners, our class-war prisoners, have had to face their “justice” and their prisons. Many, too many for most of that time. That lesson should be etched in the memory of every pro-working class militant today. And this, as well, as a quick glance at the news these days should make every liberation fighter realize; the difference between being on one side of that prison wall and the other is a very close thing when the bourgeois decides to pull the hammer down. The support of class-war prisoners is thus not charity, as International Labor Defense founder James P. Cannon noted back in the 1920s, but a duty of those fighters outside the walls. Today I do my duty, and gladly. I urge others to do the same now at the holidays and throughout the year. The class-war prisoners must not stand alone.

From The Marxist Archives -The Revolutionary History Journal-The case of Fenner Brockway (1930s Socialist- Britain)

...the Marxist movement has at certain historic moments drawn a multifarious array of adherents, some episodic, other historic like Lenin and Trotsky. Lord Brockway (and the lord was operative here in his political trajectory) did his share to muddle affairs in British left-wing politics in the 1930s. Worse he ran from the defense of a fellow left-winger, Leon Trotsky, was being hounded across the world. Essentially under a death sentence. Brockway had no clue that an injury to one is as injury to all. He was, unfortunately, not alone in that time when the crimes of Stalin needed to be exposed. But alone or in a crowd his name should leave a bad taste in every left-wing militant's mouth.   
 

Click below to link to the Revolutionary History Journal index.

http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/revhist/backissu.htm

Peter Paul Markin comment on this series:

This is an excellent documentary source for today’s leftist militants to “discover” the work of our forebears, particularly the bewildering myriad of tendencies which have historically flown under the flag of the great Russian revolutionary, Leon Trotsky and his Fourth International, whether one agrees with their programs or not. But also other laborite, semi-anarchist, ant-Stalinist and just plain garden-variety old school social democrat groupings and individual pro-socialist proponents.

Some, maybe most of the material presented here, cast as weak-kneed programs for struggle in many cases tend to be anti-Leninist as screened through the Stalinist monstrosities and/or support groups and individuals who have no intention of making a revolution. Or in the case of examining past revolutionary efforts either declare that no revolutionary possibilities existed (most notably Germany in 1923) or alibi, there is no other word for it, those who failed to make a revolution when it was possible. 

The Spanish Civil War can serve as something of litmus test for this latter proposition, most infamously around attitudes toward the Party Of Marxist Unification's (POUM) role in not keeping step with revolutionary developments there, especially the Barcelona days in 1937 and by acting as political lawyers for every non-revolutionary impulse of those forebears. While we all honor the memory of the POUM militants, according to even Trotsky the most honest band of militants in Spain then, and decry the murder of their leader, Andreas Nin, by the bloody Stalinists they were rudderless in the storm of revolution. But those present political disagreements do not negate the value of researching the POUM’s (and others) work, work moreover done under the pressure of revolutionary times. Hopefully we will do better when our time comes.

Finally, I place some material in this space which may be of interest to the radical public that I do not necessarily agree with or support. Off hand, as I have mentioned before, I think it would be easier, infinitely easier, to fight for the socialist revolution straight up than some of the “remedies” provided by the commentators in these entries from the Revolutionary History journal in which they have post hoc attempted to rehabilitate some pretty hoary politics and politicians, most notably August Thalheimer and Paul Levy of the early post Liebknecht-Luxemburg German Communist Party. But part of that struggle for the socialist revolution is to sort out the “real” stuff from the fluff as we struggle for that more just world that animates our efforts. So read, learn, and try to figure out the
********

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

***Out In The 1940s Crime Noir Night –Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall’s “Key Largo”

DVD Review

Key Largo, starring Humphrey Bogart, Lauren Bacall, Edward G. Robinson, Lionel Barrymore, and Claire Trevor, Warner Brothers, 1948
“One Johnny Rocco, more or less, in the world is no business of mine.” So says one world-wise, world weary, been-through- the-mill ex-World War II military man, Frank McCloud (played, understatedly, by one cinematic 1940s tough guy, Humphrey Bogart) in the film under review, Key Largo. And he was right, dead right that a single guy , a single guy singed by life’s pitfalls could, would, or should take on one more hoodlum in this wicked old world.

But, of course dead right or not, this would be an exceedingly short film if Frank threw in the towel when he faced one real live Johnny Rocco hoodlum (played to a sleazy tee by serious 1940s gangster-type Edward G. Robinson). Moreover I set up the last paragraph to see if those who follow crime noir in all its glory were paying attention. Crime noir, for the one hundredth time, no, the one thousandth time, is based, for good or evil, on one premise, crime at the end of the day does not pay. And criminals must pay, either forfeiting their lives or doing one to ninety-nine in stir, the can, prison, okay.

And so world-weary, world wary, seen it all Frank McCloud must once more call on the better angel of his nature to eradicate one very live Johnny Rocco. Let’s give a few plot details to flush on this story and see why Frank had to bust up some two-bit racketeer. One Johnny Rocco and his courtly entourage of petty thugs decided to hit Key Largo, specifically the Key Largo Hotel, off-season, maybe to save a little dough on the room rates. No, no, no to make a score off of some counterfeit dough hot off the presses that his old crony Ziggy will pass off as real kale. But see Johnny has a problem because although a few years back he was king of the hill up in the Midwest he has been deported as, if you can believe this, an undesirable alien and has been cooling his heels in anything goes Batista-era Cuba waiting for his big comeback. So this deal, real dough for fake (at a serious discount of course) brings him back to old Estatos Unidos, well, Key Largo which is only a stone’s throw from Cuba.

And everything would have been fine except just then one ex-serviceman, our friend Frank McCloud, who happened to have been the hotel owner’s (played by Lionel Barrymore) killed in action son’s commanding officer in the European Theater, decided to stop by and commiserate on his way to Key West. And everything would have been very fine if a big blow, a hurricane, did not also gum up the works forcing everybody (everybody except the Native Americans left to fend for themselves during the storm) into the claustrophobic hotel lobby area where the frayed nerves of all were exposed.

Naturally since old Johnny had all the guns, all the gunsels, and a very nasty disposition when he was crossed he was hands down the winner, right. No, no you were not paying attention. See a dame, well, actually two dames, come in to muck things up. No femme fatales here though, just Nora (played, very understatedly by Lauren Bacall), who was married to the owner’s deceased son and is pretty easy on the eyes. While the sparks between Bogart and Bacall do not light up the screen like they did in To Have And Have Not they go for each other. So Frank’s hands off the world approach is doomed, doomed big time, if he wants to get anywhere with Ms. Nora. And then there is Johnny’s lush girlfriend, Gaye, who old Johnny does not treat right, no way. Add a slap or two to Nora by Johnny and Johnny is doomed, doomed big time. RIP. Thus there is, whether it makes any different in the great mandela in fact one less Johnny Rocco in the world. Got it.

***The Life And Times Of Michael Philip Marlin – Yeah, Trouble, Trouble With A Big T

As readers know Tyrone Fallon, the son of the late famous Southern California private operative, Michael Philip Marlin (Tyrone used his mother’s maiden name for obvious reasons), and private eye in his own right told my old friend Peter Paul Markin’s friend Joshua Lawrence Breslin some stories that his illustrious father told him. Here’s one such story.  

From The Pen Of Frank Jackman-with kudos to Raymond Chandler

As Michael Philip Marlin, Los Angeles’ rough-edged, hard-nosed, no nonsense windmill- chasing (skirt-chasing too) private eye drove up the main driveway of the vast Jeter estate, yes, those Jeters the ones who made fortune in the LaBrea tar sands oil money racket, he was trying, desperately trying to remember where he had heard or seen that bit about the rich, the very rich actually being different from you and me. As he turned up in front of the massive mansion named La Strada (they always names their estates something, something European as if to put paid to the point that they had made it) he finally remembered it was F. Scott Fitzgerald in a book he had read a few years back.

He also remembered that the rich, the very rich, were not so very different from you and me when it came to crime, crime all the way up to murder. What was different is that they could afford, easily afford, the fee in his case to hush it all up and go on about their business. And since the private eye business, like everything else in the year 1939, was slow he was glad for a chance to make some office rent dough to get along for another month. He just wondered what kind of nastiness he was supposed to hush up this time, not murder, not from what he had heard through his police grapevine but something that needed hushing if it required his services.    

As Marlin entered old Jeters’ study, the guy who had actually made the money that got these digs, make the money walking over a mountain of human bones, including a couple of suicides when things got tough in 1929,  he saw the living corpse that was what was left of one Herman Jeters.  Human wreck or not, apparently he was feisty enough to want no trouble left surrounding his name before he passed on. Passed on and left his fortune to an errant son who seemingly was hell-bent on spending every last dime on wine, women, and song.

Oh yeah and some high-end gambling too which is what had old Jeters disturbed. Apparently young Jeters, Jeff, had run up a sizable debt at Marty Bennett’s casino over in Santa Monica up the Pacific Coast Highway, something like 50k, and Marty, purely for professional pride and for good business practice was squeezing the old man for the dough. On top of that a dame, wouldn’t it figure, had her hooks into the young pup, planned to marry Jeff and live in splendor. Old Jeter had her down as just another gold-digging whore who had to be paid off like the previous times. So Marlin was on the case, on top of what a rich man wanted done when he had his wanting habits on.   

What the old man did no tell Marlin was that this dame, Leslie Lamour (yeah this was Hollywood remember and just the kind of name which Susan Smith or Jane Jones took when she stepped off at Vine Street from Omaha or Davenport), was something to look at, something that he would take a run at himself if he got the slightest encouragement. She was in any case not in the market to be bought off for chump change, particularly since she was working with Marty Bennett on this Jeff project but also because old man Jeters had been the cause of  her father’s suicide back in ’29. Yeah, this case was not going to be the walk over Marlin thought.   

First off things got just a little bit complicated when somebody put two, two slugs, into Jeff Jeter’s chest and stuffed him in a closet in Leslie’s apartment. That left a big hole in Marlin’s job since now there was nothing and nobody to negotiate with. Marty was out big dough and Leslie was down for the count now that Jeff was by-by and so she was back on cheap street. Of course, while it was not strictly in the line of business, trouble business or otherwise Marlin was more than helpful in helping Leslie get over her loss. (Yes she had an alibi, airtight, and so no snooping cops were going to pin the crime on her even if it was her closet, maybe especially because it was her closet.) They shared a few nights of satin sheets at her place while Marlin figured out who was going to do the big step- off for young Jeters murder.

And Marlin did figure it out, figured it out pretty quickly once he found out that Marty was head over heels for Leslie and got so daffy that he let his emotions get the best of him. He had hired Jeff’s chauffeur to do the deed and so Marlowe had to go mano y mano with the chauffer. Well not exactly hand to hand since that chauffer tried like hell to drill Marlin with a sweet .38. Marlin plugged him dead, very dead, to give the state its best shot at Marty. So Marty was left holding the bag, no more than the bag since he was the last anybody heard scheduled for the big step –off at Q for the Jeters murder. Leslie, well as Leslies everywhere will do, she walked away from whole thing leaving Marlin with nothing but a lingering sandalwood trail to remember her by. You say you never heard about all of this, about the Jeters murder. What did I tell you before the rich, the very rich are different, very different from you and me. The whole thing had the big hush on it, and I mean big.           

all- radical caroling time is here, and its on!

 

SUNDAY, DECEMBER 22^nd, 2:00-4:00 p.m. @ BOSTON COMMON, Park Street Station – RAIN or SHINE –

please take your feet to the street and join us as we raise our voices to raise awareness around issues of social un-justice, economic exploitation, political oppression, environmental degradation, and general havoc-reeking practices known as “the holidays” and capitalism.

 our playlist focuses on questioning capitalist and holiday norms practices. the cheatsheet for the street songbook with all of the lyrics, and the flyer, are available from our event page (you can join there or email me directly) : https://www.facebook.com/events/1402573919983168/?source=1

for those new to radical caroling and street art actions:

what happens?

this is an open event, anyone may join us at anytime. we will be singing, signing, and playing instruments.  there will be homemade percussion for kids, songbooks to share, lyrics written on large poster boards and infosheet handouts (explaining our message and providing alternative practices) for those passing by who are interested.

why bother?

many folks simply don’t know the whole story, bringing knowledge to the streets, in the form of satirical (and hopefully enjoyable) art, can get folks to stop, listen, contemplate a message, it can alter how and what they see, and possibly reconsider the choices they make.  i remember not knowing i HAD a choice, actually didn’t  even realize i was actively MAKING a choice…until folks educated me.  so basically we learn, we share, we learn, we share, and we attempt to create change. and we have fun.

this is a kid friendly event and we aim to be accessible to ALL who wish to participate.  so if you have the knowledge to spin, the voice to raise, the freedom to join and the time to spare to spread the good word of building a more fair and just world for all-then lend your voice and SING!

in solidarity-  karan

End-of-the-Year Reflections on Drawing the Court Martial of Chelsea Manning-Deb Vanpoolen

Although Private Manning vs. the United States was one of the most important trials in US history, no cameras were allowed inside the courtroom.  Without cameras in the courtroom, the world’s masses of people impacted by the Wikileaks releases could not be properly informed of the proceedings.  In the three years following the Wikileaks releases and Manning’s arrest, the mainstream US media provided miniscule coverage of anything to do with Private Manning, including her entire three-year pre-trial confinement and the two years of pre-trial hearings.   Thus, before the court martial began, I saw a dire need for alternative media as well as ordinary citizens to daily attend and closely report on the trial so that quality information about the historic trial was accessible to as many citizens of the whole world as possible.

Although I had virtually no experience in courtroom sketching, I predicted that my portrait drawing skills might prove useful in communicating images from the courtroom to the public.  I arranged my life (found a work-trade/rental situation providing massage, cleaning, and gardening services in exchange for rent) so that I could attend each day of the court martial which began in the first week of June and lasted until the third week in August, 2013.  I taught myself how to use a smart phone’s internet hot spot, a portable scanning device, the Picassa computer program, and Facebook and Twitter accounts so that I could immediately upload images during breaks in the courtroom proceedings. 

Throughout the summer’s proceedings, I experienced a huge spectrum of emotions.  I was deeply impressed by the way Private Manning held her professional, intensely attentive composure throughout each day of the trial.  She was almost always sitting on the edge of her seat, focused on each word that was spoken in the courtroom. Every single time one of the defense team prepared to speak, Manning flipped the switch which turned on the defense team’s microphone.

I was deeply inspired and encouraged by the opening and closing statements of David Coombs as well as the statement Chelsea Manning read on the final day of the trial.  I was very happy upon hearing the amazingly articulate testimony of Professor Benkler who schooled us all on the “aiding the enemy” charge’s potential to wield a fatal blow to freedom of the press in the US.  The day Benkler testified followed several days of ridiculous, nauseating prosecution witnesses who claimed—under oath--that national security was harmed by Manning’s actions.  When Benkler appeared, my heart leapt for joy because it recognized that truth had been resurrected (after a few days of hellish defeat) inside the Ft. Meade courtroom!  I was nauseatingly angry on the day the prosecuting attorney Ashden Fein spent over five hours giving his highly repetitive and mind-numbingly boring closing statement (which resulted in Coombs’ closing statement being postponed until the next day, when much less press was present).

I was also very moved by the following testimonies:  Lauren McNamara who spoke regarding Manning’s transgender desires; Debra Van Alstyne, who described her interactions with Manning as her aunt who offered Manning nurturing shelter at key times in her life; and Casey Manning, Chelsea’s older sister, who described Chelsea as a wonderful, loving, and dearly missed sibling.  I cried throughout the testimony of Casey Manning as the unceremonious courtroom was transformed by the presence of undeniable, sisterly, strong love between Casey and Chelsea Manning.

David Coombs often met with Manning supporters after the proceedings and I deeply valued each word he shared with us about Manning’s well-being and about the intricate developments of case.  He was consistently very warm and appreciative of our presence, as well as open to answer any questions we asked.  I was also thrilled to meet and work alongside of some of the very hard-working lawyers, journalists and activists who were regularly attending and/or commenting on the case:  Alexa O’Brien, Michael Ratner, Cornel West, Chris Hedges, Medea Benjamin, Debra Sweet and Ray McGovern.

The large group of Manning supporters, dubbed the “truth battalion” by David Coombs, was not only supportive of Chelsea, but also of each other.  Each day I went to Ft. Meade, I was fascinated to observe who else came to the proceedings and to learn where they were from and what exactly motivated them to support Chelsea by silently sitting in the courtroom.  Many supporters--whether they came just for a couple days of proceedings or were regular attendees--acknowledged me and thanked me for my work covering the trial.  The supporters, most of whom donned “truth” t-shirts for the day, were very friendly, intelligent, and informed.   Almost each day of the trial there were at least ten Manning supporters sitting in the courtroom and many days over thirty supporters were in the courtroom with another twenty in the overflow trailer.

I attempted to draw each witness who testified, even if they were on the stand for just a few minutes.  Throughout the summer, in between the times of witness testimony, I drew several portraits of Chelsea, David Coombs and Judge Denise Lind.   The drawings from the trial, as well as some watercolor portrait paintings of Manning, can be viewed at the following link: www.debvanpoolen.com.  Four of the images are available as limited edition giclee’ prints and can be ordered via the website.  

HAPPY HOLIDAYS!  

FREE CHELSEA MANNING! 

Dear Alfred,

VFP needs your help to keep up our work.  Thank you for your interest in Veterans For Peace in 2013. It was a great year.

We made a difference in working for peace and pushing our government to avoid  more war. We will do it again next year, but we need your help now to keep up the struggle in 2014. Please consider making a year-end donation.  Follow this link to make your donation.

With our five areas of focus in the strategic plan: Current and Future Wars, G.I. Resistance, Drone Warfare, Redirecting of military budget to community needs and closing Guantanamo Bay, there is no other veteran organization that  consistently brings the voice of peace to such a broad set of issues.

2014 looks to be an exciting year for Veterans For Peace as we continue to resist war and forward the cause of peace. We are grateful to you for your support as we close out the old and bring in the new.

Donate to us today before the year is up. Your donation is tax deductible.

Sincerely,



Michael McPhearson
Interim Executive Director

 

Forward to a Friend Veterans For Peace, 216 S. Meramec, St. Louis, MO 63105, 314-725-6005 www.veteransforpeace.org

BOSTON FIRST NIGHT AGAINST THE WARS 2013-2014 EDUCATIONAL Come celebrate the close of 2013 with First Night Against All Wars! Join a growing coalition of people dedicated to ending all forms of oppression ! Noon until 6pm Tuesday, December 31, 2013... Facebook page First Night Against All Wars https://www.facebook.com/firstnightagainstallwars   Meeting first at 565 Boylston St. Community church of Boston and then walking on over to our set up location on the steps of the Boston Public Library (corner of Boylston & Dartmouth starting at Noon till six after the parade).   We'll have free hot chocolate and snacks for passersby who stop to pick up your literature. We're also going to have a bright sticker that has broad appeal and that everyone opposed to these wars can wear.   We're organizing an educational action that reaches the 100,000s of people who will be in Boston to celebrate First Night. We want to welcome them. We want to celebrate.   But we also want everyone to be fully conscious of the many wars: • Wall Street and Government's War on Us! •The wars on women. •The wars on people of color and immigrants. •The wars on working people.   •The wars in Africa and Middle East. •The war on the environment.   These are all connected!   Help make this happen!   To help with the planning and organizing, please call "Dan the Bagel Man", Daniel Kontoff, at 857-272-6743. Daniel.Kontoff@yahoo.com   Our second planning meeting will be on Monday, December 16 at 6:30 PM at the Community Church 565 Boylston Street Copley SquareSee More

565 Boylston Street, Boston, MA 02116

565 Boylston Street, Boston, MA 02116

View Map

· Get Directions

***The Roots Is The Toots- The Music That Got Them Through The Great Depression And World War II…

 

… and ten thousand tearful partings at the train station, Grand Central, Union, South Station, Adamsville, Podunk, as Jimmy’s number has been called (or fill in that government issue’s, G.I. okay, name who has caused the tearful parting), called to go fight against the night-takers who stalk their world, go to push back against the night of the long knives some maniacs have declared against the commonality. Jimmy and kindred numbers to wade on the dangerous ocean swirled fragile beachheads of Europe, to take guard duty in some frozen lean-to up north near the Arctic Circle, to flame-blow inside some cave on some unnamed, maybe nameless Pacific atoll, to wait, always wait, tented against the China Sea squalls.

She swore she would wait for him, wait for him in lonely home-fire rooms (his picture right next to Christ on that lonely room wall). All the time wondering, fearing whether he has laid his head down on some Italian beach, some frozen tundra, in some watery grave, against some stony bridge, and what will become of her (and the baby). Thinking, thinking too hard for the times that she will get by, get by somehow.

And he, Jimmy (or fill in your named one, okay) now in some landing craft off some foreboding beach, in some woe-begotten lean-to holding off frost-bite, in some water-rat cave, in some make-shift beaten down tent, hoping to high heaven that he will not have to lay down his head so far from home, so far away from her wondering in his lost moments whether she will really wait for him, wait for him alone. Silly boy haven’t you been reading her letters, her every day letters (although usually delivered in bunches, APO hassles- you know snafus), she was built for forty, fifty year Jimmy love, yeah she was built to get by until you return thank you very much.                                  

From The Marxist Archives -The Revolutionary History Journal-The WIL view (Britain)

...those not particularly invested in the various disputes that have arisen in the world Trotskyist movement are unlikely to realize that such differentiations are key to the struggle for a revolutionary program. Whether the disputes between small groups and grouplets seem esoteric we can leave aside but the struggle for program, a program that marches in step with the objective needs of the working class is decisive-and messy.    

Click below to link to the Revolutionary History Journal index.

http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/revhist/backissu.htm

Peter Paul Markin comment on this series:

This is an excellent documentary source for today’s leftist militants to “discover”the work of our forebears, particularly the bewildering myriad of tendencies which have historically flown under the flag of the great Russian revolutionary, Leon Trotsky and his Fourth International, whether one agrees with their programs or not. But also other laborite, semi-anarchist, ant-Stalinist and just plain garden-variety old school social democrat groupings and individual pro-socialist proponents.

Some, maybe most of the material presented here, cast as weak-kneed programs for struggle in many cases tend to be anti-Leninist as screened through the Stalinist monstrosities and/or support groups and individuals who have no intention of making a revolution. Or in the case of examining past revolutionary efforts either declare that no revolutionary possibilities existed (most notably Germany in 1923) or alibi, there is no other word for it, those who failed to make a revolution when it was possible. 

The Spanish Civil War can serve as something of litmus test for this latter proposition, most infamously around attitudes toward the Party Of Marxist Unification's (POUM) role in not keeping step with revolutionary developments there, especially the Barcelona days in 1937 and by acting as political lawyers for every non-revolutionary impulse of those forebears. While we all honor the memory of the POUM militants, according to even Trotsky the most honest band of militants in Spain then, and decry the murder of their leader, Andreas Nin, by the bloody Stalinists they were rudderless in the storm of revolution. But those present political disagreements do not negate the value of researching the POUM’s (and others) work, work moreover done under the pressure of revolutionary times. Hopefully we will do better when our time comes.

Finally, I place some material in this space which may be of interest to the radical public that I do not necessarily agree with or support. Off hand, as I have mentioned before, I think it would be easier, infinitely easier, to fight for the socialist revolution straight up than some of the “remedies” provided by the commentators in these entries from the Revolutionary History journal in which they have post hoc attempted to rehabilitate some pretty hoary politics and politicians, most notably August Thalheimer and Paul Levy of the early post Liebknecht-Luxemburg German Communist Party. But part of that struggle for the socialist revolution is to sort out the “real” stuff from the fluff as we struggle for that more just world that animates our efforts. So read, learn, and try to figure out the
********

The WIL view

We reprint the following document to provide a contrast to the article on the Left Fraction by Harry Selby. It first gives an account from the point of view of the Political Bureau of the Workers International League of the development of Trotskyism in Britain up until the “Peace and Unity Conference” held in August 1938. It then deals with developments after the conference, especially in respect of the disintegration of the Revolutionary Socialist League. Reasons of space prevent us from reproducing in this issue the various resolutions, statements and letters to which reference is made in the document.

The document was intended to accompany the discussion inside the WIL initiated by the proposal of the minority led by Gerry Healy for immediate unification with the RSL on the basis of the proposals of the International Secretariat of the Fourth International. Undated and untitled, the document was written in the latter half of 1943. The last date given in the document is 4 July 1943, but it was probably issued around 11 September, as it was written to accompany a document which appeared on that date answering a criticism of the WIL made by Lou Cooper of the Socialist Workers Party of the USA.

John Archer adds that in his opinion the statement may have also arisen because there was contact at a rank and file level between members of the WIL and the RSL.

In order to acquaint our membership with the events leading up to the present relations between ourselves and the RSL as well as with the International Secretariat, we present a short factual summary of the early development of the Fourth International in this country together with the main documents relating to the 1938 Unification Conference.
British communism has always been more backward than in other countries. This was the case not only among our own cadres, but also in the Communist Party, whose leadership was always regarded by the International movement as the most backward in the world.
The initial cadres of the Left Opposition in the Communist Party of Great Britain were, in the main, petit-bourgeois. While accepting the ideas and principles of the International Left Opposition, they made no attempt to concretise these ideas and apply them to the British movement. The spirit of a petit-bourgeois discussion circle was fostered in the early meetings. No real attempt was made to acquaint the youth members and sympathisers with the theoretical differences between the Bolshevik Leninists and the Stalinist bureaucracy nationally or internationally, or with the programme of the Left Opposition. The leadership showed the greatest incapacity to train the younger elements or to conduct any decisive political action.
During the period of the campaign of the Left Opposition for re-entry into the Communist parties, it was possible for a loose collection of individuals to hold together, for in this country it enabled them to appear in public as “critics” while binding them to no real programme of activity. However, when the German betrayal impelled the Left Opposition to consider the reform of the Comintern no longer possible and to adopt the perspective of orientation towards the new Fourth International, the basic weakness of the British Bolshevik Leninists was revealed.
The directive given to the British comrades was to turn towards the centrist organisations as the main field of work. This perspective worked out by comrade Trotsky was fundamentally correct, but due to the complete incapacity of the Trotskyists to carry out this tactic, the outcome resulted in failure. This turn towards the centrists marked the first of what was to be a series of splits. Incapable of acting as a unified body, the opposition burst asunder, one group entering the ILP, the other at first remained independent and later entered the Labour Party. This initial split took place without any thorough discussion or preparation, the factional lines running parallel to the personal alliances of the various individuals.
From 1934 until 1938 a continuous series of splits took place. The political lines were, as a rule, not fundamental in character, but on questions of tactics, which were raised to immutable principles. The factions were characterised by a core, who, generally speaking, broke along lines of personal affiliation. The few who remained on the periphery of these factions – mainly fresh elements turning to the Trotskyist viewpoint – moved aimlessly from one group to another, seeking a lead.
The French Party’s turn to the Socialist Party and the Oehler split in America over the question of entry into the Socialist Party, created a new basis for the various factions. The “principle” of the “independence of the Bolshevik Party” became the centre of the new and “higher” forms of political discussion.
During the whole of this period, the International Secretariat was completely misinformed as to the real situation in the British movement – its strength, the forms of work it conducted, its support among the workers, and in every other aspect of its activities. The loose connection between the IS and the British movement facilitated this.
The Trotskyist groups which evolved and disappeared were myriad. The Communist Left Opposition, the Marxist League, the Marxist Group, the Militant Group, the Chelsea Action Group, the Revolutionary Socialist League, the Unified Revolutionary Socialist League, the Militant Labour League, the Revolutionary Workers League, the Workers International League – all these in the London area alone, and others emerged from time to time in the provinces.
By September 1938 there were three distinct groups in existence in the London area as follows (the names of the leaderships of these organisations are given to identify them, as subsequently the names were changed): The Revolutionary Socialist League (James, Duncan, Lane, Wicks, Dewar), the Marxist League (Wicks, Dewar) had just entered into a unification with the RSL on the basis of the Independent tactic. The Militant Group (Harber, Jackson) was an entrist group in the Labour Party, and the Workers International League (Lee, Grant, Haston) was an entrist group in the Labour Party.
There also existed the Revolutionary Socialist Party of Edinburgh, which was moving towards the Fourth International and was about to effect a unification with the RSL on the basis of the Independent tactic. The leaders of this group were Maitland and Tait.
Each year, and sometimes twice a year, a “unity” conference was called, but without any serious preparation or intention. The soft elements who had proved themselves incapable of any continuity of organised work, who had dropped out of the movement from time to time, appeared on the platform and played a prominent role in the “discussions”. Each year it became more and more obvious that a genuine unification among the old elements was absolutely precluded, because of the determination of the “leaders” to retain their independence and resist any encroachment on their positions, and, most importantly, because of the absence of a genuine rank and file. It was evident that unification would only take place on the basis of a common programme of action, on the basis of common work.
Such was the position in the British movement when the “Peace and Unity Conference” took place in September 1938. In the bulletin circulated for pre-conference discussion, there were three theses submitted for discussion by the WIL, the RSL and the RSP. The conference was attended by representatives of these three groups, as well as a representative of the Militant Group. At this conference the “Peace and Unity Agreement” was drawn up and presented by the American comrade. There was no political discussion on the differences of tactics and perspective, for Britain, which had separated the groups for years – only this “Peace and Unity Agreement” which the groups were given 20 minutes to sign. All groups signed except the WIL. We reproduce here the Peace and Unity Agreement.
(Here follows the text of the Peace and Unity Agreement of August 1938)
The American comrades addressed the whole of the membership of the WIL on several occasions with the object of convincing them to accept the above agreement as the basis for unity. The WIL unanimously rejected this. We claimed that the so-called “unification” was not a unification at all but was merely the prelude to further splits because of two fundamental factors: there was no unified tactic and therefore no unified body; with two tactics in operation without a majority decision, it was impossible to work as a unified body. The WIL expressed to the American comrade the desire to become a sympathetic section of the Fourth International, which he assured us he would exert his influence to effect. We were asked to send a delegate to the International conference, failing which we were to hand a statement to DDH [Harber], a delegate of the unified section who attended the conference. The WIL decided to send a written statement and delivered it by band to DDH, as instructed by the American comrade. The statement of the WIL is produced below.
(Here follows the text of the statement addressed by the WIL to the Founding Conference of the Fourth International)
The International Conference accepted the “unified” organisation, the RSL, as the official British Section of the Fourth International. It rejected the application of the WIL to be recognised as an official section or even a sympathetic section and predicted its inevitable degeneration and collapse.
Below is produced the statement of the 1938 International Conference on the “Lee Group” (WIL). It must be pointed out that the accusation in Section 3, that our statement was addressed to the world at large, presents a mis-statement of fact. We addressed our statement in a sealed envelope to the conference as headed.
(Here follows the resolution of the Founding Conference of the Fourth International on the “Lee Group” [WIL])
Hardly had the ink dried on the Peace and Unity Agreement and the American delegates departed for home, when the cracks in the “unified” organisation began to appear. These cracks rapidly widened into splits. After signing the agreement, the RSP, which launched a vicious attack against the WIL at the International Conference because of our warnings on the nature of the unification, had split away before the year had ended. What is more, they split precisely on the basis we predicted. The “lefts” soon followed suit, setting up their own “official section” of the same name, the RSL. This was followed by a rapid disintegration of the majority of such provincial groups and contacts as the unified section still retained. It is noteworthy, that although the International took a very “hard” stand when the WIL refused to accept the Peace and Unity Agreement as the basis of agreement and made a caustic public condemnation of the WIL, no public statement was ever issued denouncing the splitters from the “unified” section. Thus we have it that such elements who did not enter the unification honestly – Wicks, Dewar, Lane, Maitland, etc., etc. – these are the people who are using the statement of the International against the WIL today.
For the information of members, we produce the statements of the first two splits issued by the RSP and the RWL (the latter is the nucleus of the present ”TO” [Trotskyist Opposition]). Although these are somewhat lengthy they are of value insofar as they demonstrate the exact line of development as foreseen by the WIL.
(Then follow the statements of the Edinburgh RSP and the London ”RSL” [later called the RWL] splitting from the united RSL, section of the new Fourth International)
Once again the old situation existed, except that it was more chaotic than at any time in the past. Our movement continued to consist of “general staffs” but without the armies.
During this period the WIL continued its work, convinced that the only way out of the impasse of British Trotskyism was to turn our backs on the old clique spirit and petit-bourgeois milieu and draw in fresh workers to reinforce the ranks of the movement. That we suffered from the denunciation of the IS is undoubted. But as we had the correct policy and the correct attitude, the general harmony within our ranks gave us a superiority in the orientation and organisation of our cadres. A new phase began in the development of our movement. Whereas in the years 1934-39 we witnessed a series of interminable splits, superficial re-unifications and splits again, the last period 1939-43 has marked a period of genuine unification of all the serious elements and the growth and influence in our ideas among the British working class. This unification has taken place within the framework of the Workers International League. Any member or section seeking the road to the genuine building of the party in Britain found their way into the WIL as an organisation putting forward the policy of the Fourth International, conducting its activities in a serious and disciplined manner, and basing itself upon the principles of democratic centralism.
Just over 12 months ago we made contact with the comrades in the RSL who now constitute the TO. At that time the RSL was composed of three warring factions, the so-called “Left” (Robinson, Mercer), the “Centre” (Harber, Davis), and the “Right” (Lawrence, Lane). The TO claimed to hold a position identical to the WIL on the political and tactical questions facing our movement. The “Left” characterised the WIL, as well as the IS and SWP, as “chauvinist” and “opportunist” and retained the entrist tactic. The “Centre” was between the two, claimed also that the WIL and the IS were “chauvinist” and “opportunist”.
It must be pointed out that the TO was working in very close and comradely collaboration with the WIL. We were paying Lawrence at the same rate as our professionals – in effect he was a professional for our organisation. But as a result of Stuart's intervention the TO changed its course. It turned away from collaboration with the WIL and returned to the perspective of re-entering the RSL with the object of gaining the majority,
Today the position of the RSL is that both “Left” and “Right” have been expelled. The TO has taken into its ranks elements who have opposed the political position of the WIL and the Fourth International for a period of years, who have opposed entry into the WIL on the grounds of political differences. That the TO has been influenced by these elements is undoubted.
In a letter to the WIL, dated 4 July 1943, they write:

We are not prepared at this stage to open up “written discussion” with WIL on the points of agreement and disagreement with your present political program – but we certainly do not consider the program as a whole to be incompatible with membership of the FI.

Not only have the TO moved their political position, but they have expelled and are expelling members from their ranks who disagree with their tactics and who demand a genuine collaboration with the WIL, and yet remain in agreement with the basic policy on which the TO was formed.
Thus, from a position of comradely collaboration with the TO, we have reached a position today where the TO has political disagreements with the WIL; they have made no gains from the RSL; they are expelling members who disagree with their tactic and methods and demand a genuine collaboration with the WIL. The responsibility for this situation rests on the shoulders of Stuart, who prevented the TO from fusing with the WIL in the most favourable circumstances and diverted the political struggle onto organisational questions. When his tactic of re-entry into the RSL appeared to be failing (far less winning the majority), Stuart proposed to the TO … that they found a new Trotskyist party in this country, that they establish a new Trotskyist journal, with no apparent programme other than the alleged programme of “Democratic Centralism” and that they conduct a public struggle against the WIL and the RSL. He thus repudiated his previous “principled” position, apparently lending international authority to a further split in out. movement. Here is reproduced the letter from Stuart to the TO:
(Then is reproduced the letter of JB Stuart [Sam Gordon] to JL [John Lawrence] dated 4 February, 1943)
As the result of this and other letters of Stuart, the leaders of the TO are drawing the logical conclusions: when the TO eventually does fuse with the WIL, they will maintain their fraction within the WIL as the “true” Fourth Internationalists. In other words, instead of liquidating the factions after the fusion. the TO is discussing the maintenance of the split within the ranks of the fused organisation, yet it has no avowed political differences. This is a false and unprincipled conception of unification and lays the basis for a future split.
The above documents provide the facts of the British situation as a background to the discussions now opening up in the organisation.
Political Bureau
Workers International League