stand on the issues involved in the Ernest Tate Case, hence the bizarre title of Wohlforth's statement: "Spartacist Joins Revisionists Against Fourth International."
Robertson, we should imagine, must feel grateful to Wohlforth for this small assistance in the rather sticky job of trying to remove the loathsome taint of "political similarity" between the Spartacist group and an outfit that so clearly echoes the abominations of "third period" Stalinism.
- WOHLFORTH'S STAND ON THE ERNEST TATE CASE
[Below we publish the full text of a statement on the Ernest Tate Case which appeared in the February 13 issue of the Bulletin edited by Tim Wohlforth. The original title of the statement is "Spartacist Joins Revisionists Against Fourth International" and it is: claimed to be "by political committee workers league." The subheads appear as shown in the original. We have taken the liberty of correcting some obvious typographical errors. Joseph Hansen has supplied footnotes to help clarify the more obscure or contradictory points. These are identified in each instance. The emphasis appears as shown in the original. ]
* * *
On November 2lst, 1966, Farrell Dobbs, National Secretary of the Socialist Workers Party, wrote to James Robertson, National Chairman of the Spartacist League about the so-called "Tate Affair." "We trust that you will clarify your stand -- and its relation to your expression of political solidarity with Healy -- in an adequate way and as rapidly as possible," Dobbs demanded.
Robertson hastened to oblige Dobbs, the man who sent condolences to Kennedy's widow. And so the lead editorial of Spartacist #9 is entitled: "Oust Healy!" This. is the real political relationship between Spartacist and the SWP. This is the concrete meaning of the statement in our Perspectives Resolution: "The Spartacist must be understood as a 'left' expression of the nationalism and revisionism of the SWP."
Let us now take a look at the Tate Affair. Our purpose is not so much to fass judgement on the facts of the case, about which we know little,(1) but rather to discuss how such a question should be approached. It seems that there was an altercation between stewards at a large meeting in London, sponsored by the Socialist Labour League and Ernest Tate who was selling literature in front of this meeting. Tate claims he was beaten because he was selling literature critical of the SLL and of Gerry Healy, national secretary of the SLL.
However, as previously reported in the Bulletin, two papers which printed Tate's charges issued apologies to Comrade Healy stating in part: "We have since been informed that Mr. Healy asked a steward to clear the pavement in front of the entrance of the Hall so that passengers alighting from coaches would not be delayed in getting to the meeting, that he certainly did nothing to prevent the writer of the letter from selling literature; and others were selling literature on each side of the entrance without any interference."(2) These are the basic facts as known to us and as known to Spartacist.
first task
Our first task is to put this incident within the context of the class struggle. Trotsky deals with this question with great thoroughness in his "Their Morals and Ours." When attacked for having hostages during the Russian Civil War Trotsky responded: "The petty-bourgeois moralist thinks episodically, in fragments, in clumps, being incapable
(1) It is odd, in view of this professed ignorance and the extreme seriousness of the case, that Wohlforth does not join Robertson in demanding a workers' commission of inquiry. -- J.H.
(2) The two papers were Peace News and the Socialist Leader. They published legal retractions that were almost identical in text. They referred first to having published a letter by Ernest Tate in which he accused "Mr. Gerry Healy, National Secretary of the Socialist Labour League, of having instigated several of his supporters to assault and prevent him from selling literature outside Caxton Hall, where an SLL meeting was being held." Then came the alibi provided by the distinguished client of the solicitors: "We have been informed that Mr. Healy asked a steward to clear the pavement in front of the entrance of the Hall so that passengers alighting from coaches would not be delayed in getting to the meeting; that he did nothing to prevent Mr. Tate or anyone else from selling literature; and that. others were selling literature at each side of the entrance without interference." Both retractions then “sincerely apologise to Mr. Healy for having published the suggestion that he employs violence or seeks to curtail freedom of expres-— sion.
It is particularly instructive that Wohlforth omitted quoting the sentence including the actual apology. It goes counter to his defense of Healy's "right" to use violence against workers who disagree with the SLL. -- J.H.
of approaching phenomena in their internal connection. Artificially set apart, the question of hostages for him is a particular moral problem, independent of those general conditions which engender armed conflict between classes."
This is Spartacist's method. The SWP raises this incident and the Spartacist judges it without exploring its context! the politics of the forces involved in the incident, the relation of these forces to the class struggle. On the basis of its moral evaluation of this isolated incident the Spartacist concluded: "Oust Healy. "(3)
We are reminded of two recent incidents within the trade union movement which may help illustrate this point. During the New York City Welfare strike conducted by the SSEU a person turned up in front of a strike meeting distributing a piece of literature entitled: "Strike? An Obsolete Weapon." The leaflet turned out to be an open appeal for scabbing against the strike. It ended up by urging welfare workers to get in touch with the Socialist Labor Party, a sectarian group opposed to working in legitimate unions.
One SSEU militant, stumbling to the meeting after 8 hours on the picket line in bitterly cold weather, took one look at this leaflet and began to work over the person distributing it. As far as this militant was concerned this "socialist" gentleman was as much a scab as somebody crossing the picket line. (4)
Earlier this fall a group of thugs descended upon James Morrissey, the leader of a rank and file opposition within the National Maritime Union, and beat him up with lead pipes. Morrissey's crime, no doubt, was distributing literature critical of NMU President Joe Curran. How do we judge these two incidents? Are they of equal weight? Are they really identical? We hold that despite a formal identity they are in reality opposites in content. In the case of Morrissey violence was being used to terrorize the rank and file workers who were struggling to make their union a more effective weapon for fighting the bosses. In the case of our "socialist scab," violence was being used to terrorize those who would break the unity of the working class against the bosses, those who act as the agents of the class enemy.
A strike without some sort of intimidation and terror, yes terror, against those who. seek to break the unity of the class is not serious.(5) An unserious strike is a blow against the working class. Violence used to terrorize workers when they seek to battle the bosses and the bosses' agents, the union bureaucracy, is unforgivable, crim-— inal, intolerable.
(3) Spartacist maintained that the incident was not isolated. Spartacist.cited its own experiences with Healy, offered to submit fresh evidence to a bona fide workers' investigating commission, and pointed to the two incidents in the current scandal -- the beating inflicted on Ernest Tate and Healy's appealing to the bourgeois courts. Wohlforth's argument that the beating was an "isolated incident" stands, of course, in contradiction to his view that it was morally justified. In fact, in the very next paragraph, trying to put up a case for Healy, Wohlforth seeks to show empirically that it -is quite customary in the labor movement to reply to political arguments with physical violence and that this often warrants applause. -- J.H.
(4) If this alleged incident is not simply a concoction, the worker obviously reflected the notorious political backwardness of the American proletariat and was sadly in need of attending a class where he could learn about working-class democracy and elementary morality in the conduct of political disputes within the labor movement as well as gain a correct understanding of the views held by a leaflet distributor willing to brave "bitterly cold weather" to bring what he thought (if mistakenly) was a socialist message to striking workers. The Socialist Labor party is well known in the American radical movement as an ossified sect with no influence in the unions, fanatically devoted to the program and memory of Daniel De Leon, one of the pioneers of American socialism. The fact remains that the American working class can still learn much from De Leon's writings although he has been superseded in the field of theory by the contributions of the Russians who led the October Revolution. It is sad that one of the members of this conmpletely uninfluential group should have been beaten and still sadder that Wohlforth should feel under compulsion to hail the beating and even label it as morally good. -- J.H.
(5) In the days of the Stalinist terror against working-class political opponents, the standard excuse advanced by Stalin's hatchetmen for using physical violence to stamp out dissidence, was that their opponents, particularly the "Trotskyites," were breaking the "unity" of the working class. Wohlforth at one time understood the falseness of this. argument to perfection. As a newly converted "conditional" supporter of Mao, he appears to have undergone a "cultural revolution" on this as well as some other important items. -- J.H.
The only way we could thus make a decision as to who was right or wrong in the above cases was to go beyond the act of violence itself to get at the politics of the participants. There is no other way for Marxists to proceed.
classic position
The first question then is who is Ernest Tate: what are his politics; how does he fit into the class struggle? Tate is the representative in England of the Socialist Workers Party. His specific task is to peddle SWP literature throughout England and to work together with the SWP's political co-thinkers in Europe -- the Pabloite revisionists like Germain, Frank and the little British Pabloite grouplets.
The SWP and its international friends have become the agents of capitalism within the working class movement.(6) This is the classic centrist role they are playing all the more clearly and openly as every day passes. Can there be any doubt about this?
What is the position of the SLL? This too is crystal clear. The SLL is the only organization in England to battle consistently and unceasingly for the interests of the working class. As the SLL sums up its relations with the SWP: "It is a fight between the working class and the servants of the class enemy." (See SLL declaration "Course of the Socialist Workers Party" in Jan. 2nd Bulletin.)(7)
The relationship between these two international forces -- the Fourth International and the Pabloite Revisionists -~ is symbolized by this confrontation with Tate. Less than two weeks before the meeting in question, the Young Socialists and the French Revoltes youth has sought to defend the Hungarian Revolution during the international demonstration at Liege. Tate's political collaborators sought to prevent the SLL and YS members from carrying a banner supporting the Hungarian Revolution. These finks even went so far as to seek police help in preventing our comrades from carrying this banner.(8) Tate then shows up in front of the SLL meeting also organized to defend the Hungarian Revolution to peddle a pamphlet containing scandal which, interestingly enough, originates with Spartacist.(9)
When the SLL and YS raise a banner defending the Hungarian Revolution in Liege Tate's political allies bloc with the Belgian Stalinists and call the cops. When the SLL holds Hungarian memorial meeting in London Tate turns up to sell his political smut.(10) These are the politics of the contending forces in front of Caxton Hall.
political scabs
Tate and his political allies represent political scabs of the worst sort. These gentlemen have been instrumental in aiding the right wing of the British Labour Party in expelling our comrades. These gentlemen have a habit of calling the cops against our com-
(6) Wohlforth comes late to the field. This charge was invented decades ago by the Stalinists. Its age does not improve its flavor. -- J.H.
(7) In other words, Healy serves as prosecuting attorney; Healy serves as judge; Healy's stewards carry out the sentence; and Healy's altar boy Wohlforth pipes the moral sermons. An efficient system! Credit for perfecting, if not inventing this megalomaniac way of drawing the class line properly belongs, however, to Stalin. -- J.H.
(8) Wohlforth appears to be counting on the ignorance of readers of the Bulletin. The slander which he repeats here first. appeared in The Newsletter. It was exposed in detail by Henri Valin in an article "The Healy School of Falsification." See World Outlook January 27, p. 104.
(9) The unmentionable pamphlet, Healy "Reconstructs" the Fourth International, contains documents originating from all three of the tendencies that attended a conference of the "International Committee" in London last April. An introduction, "Sectarianism and Tinpot Despotism -- An Example for the Textbooks," attempts to draw some of the main political lessons. A copy of the pamphlet can be obtained by sending $.35 to the Socialist Workers Party, 874 Broadway, New York, N.Y. 10003. -- J.H.
(10) "Smut." In this obscure way Wohlforth may be referring to the letters written by Healy which were a prominent part of the documents in the pamphlet, Healy "Reconstructs" the Fourth International. It is true that these letters need to be read to be believed. However Healy has not denied their authenticity, and the internal evidence shows them to be genuine. -- J.H.
rades. These gentlemen bloc with the Stalinists everywhere -- in Belgium, France, England, U.S. -- against the interests of the working class.(11)
On the other hand the SLL has consistently championed the interests of the working class. It has fought in every corner of England exposing the role of Wilson as a servant of capitalism. It has exposed the fake lefts who refuse to fight Wilson seriously. It has reached out to the young workers of Britain and built a strong working class youth movement.
‘The SWP comes along and writes us a letter accusing the SLL of "the poisonous methods that were the hallmark of Stalinism in its worst period." We cannot help but. view this “moral indignation" in the same light as we would that of a supporter of Joseph Curran who attacked SSEU militants for reviving trade union. hooliganism. (12)
The truth is that the SWP is presently in a political bloc with the Stalinists. As we pointed out in the last issue of the Bulletin the SWP is collaborating with the CP to limit the struggle against the Vietnam War to politics acceptable to pacifist — Muste. Today the SLL and its comrades in the International Committee throughout the world consistently expose this political bloc of the revisionists with the Kremlin's agents and call for the military victory of the National Liberation Front.
spartacist
Where does Spartacist stand in this principled political struggle? The Spartacist views itself as_a "supporter of the IC." It speaks of "the political similarity between the Spartacist League and the SLL." On the other hand an earlier issue of the Spartacist ‘characterizes the SWP as moving "from centrism to reformisn.
Spartacist is very broad minded about it all. They are very happy to overlook their proclaimed political solidarity with the SLL and supposed political antipathy with the SWP. Everything is to be subordinated to a clear stand -- on an incident in front of Caxton Hall, taken out of context, distorted by the revisionists and used by them in a war against principled Trotskyists.
The Spartacist's role in this affair is even more reprehensible than that of the SWP. The SWP makes no bones about it. They are the political opponents of the SLL and the Tate affair is just one weapon -- admittedly a slimy one -- to usé in this war. —
But Spartacist claims political solidarity with those it slanders and attacks. These "moral" people find nothing immoral in exchanging slander and scuttlebut with the revisionists and uniting with them in a common organizational struggle against Healy. Dobbs asks Robertson where he stands. Robertson gets up and yells: "Oust Healy." First the SWP peddles Spartacist's organizational criticisms of the IC. Now Spartacist peddles SWP's organizational criticisms of the IC.
common front
The relationship is clear. The real politics of the SWP and Spartacist require © a common front against the common enemy. The difference between reform and revolution must be subordinated to the mutual hostility to the revolutionary camp. ;
We state that this organizational bloc of the political smut peddlers is the politics of the Spartacist while its supposed adherence to "revolutionary principles" is an artificial formal declaration unrelated to Spartacist politics—in-action.
We warn Spartacist: There is presently a war going on between revolutionary Trotskyists represented by the International Committee and revisionist agents of capital represented by the SWP-Germain-Frank Pabloite formation. You are on the other side in this war. Henceforth we will have no relations with you.
eee (11) Wohlforth's capacity to testify on the occurrence of unspecified alleged incidents in many countries may appear surprising in view of his professed ignorance about the facts of the Ernest Tate Case. The enigma is easily resolved. Wohlforth is simply displaying in hs his own fashion his familiarity with the area of London known as> Billings-— gate. -- : (12) Ana what about Wohlforth's silence concerning Healy's hiring solicitors and pringing the full majesty of the law of the class’ enemy down upon a working-class political opponent and two working-class newspapers because they sought ‘to publicize a beating that Wohlforth approves? This spectacular silence provides a convincing measure of the worth of his "moral indignation." -- J.H.
THE COMMUNIST