[Militant No. 342, 11th February 1977]
‘Militant’ 335 [17 December 1976] carried a letter from Ian Findlay, National Education Officer of the Young Communist League, chiding us for not producing a reply to Monty Johnstone’s “Trotsky and World Revolution”, published in ‘Cogito’ as the second part of a “major critique” of the ideas and activities of Leon Trotsky.
We assured Comrade Findlay that we would publish a thorough and detailed answer to the second instalment of Monty Johnstone’s attack, just as we did to the first part [in ‘Lenin and Trotsky: What they really stood for’, by Ted Grant and Alan Woods]. As we pointed out, however, to answer a long article full of lies and distortions and misconceptions requires considerable research, which takes an enormous time.
In our editorial reply to Comrade Findlay’s letter, we also took up his points about the policy adopted by the Communist International, under Stalin’s leadership, to the Chinese revolution and the Kuomintang in particular. Now we have received a further letter from Monty Johnstone touching on some of these points.
We apologise to Comrade Johnstone for the delay in publishing his letter [sent on January 4th], which is entirely because of the acute shortage of space in our present 12-page paper.
The Editors completely disagree with the points in Comrade Johnstone’s letter. Originally we had hoped to print the letter together with a reply. But again because of the space required to explain the misrepresentations even in this relatively short letter, our reply has been crowded out by our important report from Sri Lanka and material to answer the continuing attacks on the ‘Militant’.
To avoid further delay, we are therefore printing Monty Johnstone’s letter this week – and next week we will carry a detailed refutation of his erroneous points.
There is something else, however, that we would say to Comrade Johnstone. He wrote pressing us to print his letter as it stands, and has since phoned to ask whether or not we were going to. But, as we have often had occasion to point out in the past, ‘Militant’ is much more willing to give its opponents a hearing than the ‘Morning Star’.
We would ask Comrade Monty: Why has the ‘Star’ not published the letter [printed below] that was sent concerning the attacks on this paper in the NEC of the Labour Party? Will he be taking this up with the editors of the ‘Star’ on our behalf?
Trotsky and the Chinese Nationalists
Dear Comrade
Before making the very serious charge of “distortion” and “fabrication” against others in the labour movement there are three elementary requirements of honesty: to have read what they have written, to specify the alleged “fabrications” and to substantiate the assertion that these are in fact fabrications, i.e. lies made up by the writer. Your attack (Militant, 17 December) on my ‘Trotsky and World Revolution’, published in Cogito by the Young Communist League, does not satisfy a single one of these requisites, and I must formally request that you either substantiate or withdraw your defamatory accusation of “fabrication”.
The only fabrication that you specify is in fact the one made in your obituary of Mao Tse-tung, to which Ian Findlay’s letter drew attention. However, after admitting (but not explaining) the untruth of your article’s statement that Chiang Kai-shek had been an honorary member of the Executive Committee of the Communist International, you write “In 1926 the Right Wing Kuomintang under the aegis of Chiang Kai-shek was accepted as a ‘sympathising party’ of the Communist International with one vote against – Trotsky’s.”
If you had actually read my article you would have seen that this legend is also demolished there, and it won’t do blandly to repeat it without any attempt at substantiation. I wrote: “Another myth that stems from Trotsky is that the Kuomintang ‘was accepted into the Comintern (as a “sympathising party”) …A reading of the hundreds of pages of reports of (the sixth) Plenum in International Press Correspondence at the time, as well as the complete German report of the proceedings, shows that the idea was never even mooted there – let alone adopted. Nor is it possible in the reports of any other Comintern meeting to find mention of it.” And, in a footnote, I quote Trotsky’s reference to “a vote at the (Soviet) Politbureau, when everybody against the vote of one (Trotsky) sanctioned the admission of the Kuomintang into the Comintern with a consultative vote”, and I point out: “No precise date is given, but it is said to have been after Chiang’s first coup in Canton on March 20, 1926 – i.e. after the Sixth Plenum of the Comintern Executive. The Politbureau of the Soviet Party of course had no powers to admit parties to the Comintern.” Yet you imply that the presence of a fraternal delegate from the Kuomintang at the Seventh Plenum indicates that it had already been admitted.
In fact, as E H Carr pointed out, the appearance and speeches of greeting by representatives of the Kuomintang at both the Sixth and Seventh Plenums do not imply such admission. (Socialism in One Country, Volume III p 765). At this time the Chinese Communist Party was working inside the mass Kuomintang, and as late as May 1927 Trotsky protested against suggestions that he wanted a Communist withdraw from the Kuomintang “which is not proposed at all.” (L Trotsky, Problems of the Chinese Revolution, Ann Arbor, 1967, p 94).
Although Father Christmas is not a relative of mine, I should like to take this opportunity to offer £5 to any reader who can demonstrate one single fabrication in my article. In case of dispute I should be happy to accept the arbitration of a mutually agreed independent specialist.
The only specific charge made against my article is its brevity! I made it clear in the space at my disposal I should “not be able to elaborate on many questions that require much fuller treatment – ideally after unheated collective discussion by Marxists of different backgrounds and affiliations.”
However, it is ludicrous to try to discredit in advance any attempt to deal with some of the main issues in 18-20,000 words as I do. Actually I have before me an article by Ted Grant attempting in only 5,000 words to deal with the history of the Comintern from 1919-43 and to present Trotsky as being correct on the issues with which I deal in Cogito! The point of course is not the length but the substance. It is particularly ridiculous to dismiss as “lightminded” my critique of Trotsky’s Spanish policies because it only covers three pages (i.e. about 5,000 words of text) …in contrast to Trotsky’s 400 pages of writings on Spain! Moreover you make no reference to my fuller analysis of the strategy involved in my article “Trotsky and the Popular Front” in Marxism Today, October and November 1975 to which my Cogito article refers its readers.
The fact that I devote my main space to analysing Trotsky’s political positions rather than replying to his various rival groups of followers – and yourselves in particular! – is presented as indicating that I am “a beaten adversary” who is “completely incapable of answering the book Lenin and Trotsky: what they really said [the correct title is Lenin and Trotsky: What they really stood for – editor] by Ted Grant and Alan Woods.
This is cheap demagogy. The Editor of Militant was present when I debated with Ted Grant on “The Historical Role of Leon Trotsky” in an encounter which Ted said reminded him of the debates of the Old Bolsheviks. I have no doubt that he disagreed with what I said but he heard me answer Ted Grant’s arguments point by point – and he will have a chance to do so again in the next public debate which I am sure the YCL will only be too happy to arrange with you.
I was sorry to read that you have given up hope of “educating” me. Personally I am still hopeful that even Comrades Taaffe, Grant and Woods may not in the long run be entirely uninfluenced by our facts and arguments. And I concede that I may indeed learn something from them in the course of a debate in which I hope all participants will recognise that none of us possess a “spotless banner” or a monopoly of Marxist truth.
Monty Johnstone
The Facts The ‘Star’ Hides
Dear Comrades,
Your report of the last meeting of the Labour Party NEC [27.1.77] contained many omissions and errors. By 16 votes to 10 the NEC supported Michael Foot’s proposal to begin an inquiry into the paper ‘Militant’, an inquiry which could lead to a witch hunt and the reimposition of bans and proscriptions inside the Labour Party.
Bill John, the AUEW [Eng] NEC representative, demanded a sorting out of the sympathisers of the Communist Party in the labour movement as the next step in the witch hunt, as the right wing have attempted in the AUEW. Why wasn’t this reported in the ‘Star’?
Your report also failed to point out that it was the vote of four erstwhile left wingers, John Forrester, Renee Short and Barbara Castle as well as Michael Foot, which gave the right a majority to start this attack.
John Forrester represents the AUEW [TASS] in which Ken Gill and other members and supporters of the Communist Party have a dominating influence. John Forrester usually supports most of the ideas put forward by CPGB members in TASS. Why then did he vote for a witch hunt?
Renee Short is a Vice-President of the British Soviet Friendship Society. Why then does she find herself in the same company as Bill John, Callaghan [who supported attempts to expel Nye Bevan in the 1950s] and the other witch hunters?
The fact that, if the attack on the ‘Militant’ is successful, the witch hunt would quickly turn on to precisely these people shows how blind they are in helping to prepare the way for a McCarthyite frame up. If the Marxists are attacked, the left wing supporters of the ‘Tribune’ group would be the next section of the Labour Party to have their heads on the chopping block.
Why is the ‘Star’ so coy in giving these facts? Is it because the CPGB would not mind seeing the Marxists hounded in the Labour Party?
An article by the ‘Star’s’ Editor last year, in fact, while pretending to oppose the attacks, actually joined in the campaign of slander against the ‘Militant’. He wrote of the “Conspiratorial operations” of sectarian groups like ‘Militant’ which are “undemocratic” [11.12.76]. These are exactly the same charges that are laid against the Marxists by the Labour right wing and the ruling class!
Do you imagine the left [including those who sympathise with the policies of the ‘Star’] would come out unscathed from a witch hunt? Or are you so blinded by fear of the influence of the ‘Militant’ that you cannot see that?
Yours fraternally
Bob Labi
Greater London Regional Council of the Labour Party
Schreibe einen Kommentar