Main LA Index | Main Newspaper Index
Encyclopedia of Trotskyism | Marxists’ Internet Archive
From Labor Action, Vol. 13 No. 46, 14 November 1949, p. 2.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for ETOL.
|
Our Paris correspondent Saul Berg’s report on the recent Congress of the Peoples Against Imperialism appeared in the October 24 issue of LABOR ACTION. In the Socialist Workers Party’s paper, The Militant, about the same time, an article on the congress by one Ali was published. The reply to Ali by Comrade Berg, printed below, was sent to The Militant, copy to Labor Action. One must read Ali’s fulmination in order to realize how mild and restrained Comrade Berg’s reply is, under the circumstances. Among other things, as Berg barely notes, this gentleman announced the discovery that the Independent Socialist League is an “anti-working-class tendency” – no less! – whereas, as is well known, Ali’s Fourth Internationalists insist that the Stalinists are a working-class tendency! The editors of The Militant, in printing this gem, did not see fit to warn their readers that their correspondent was frothing at the mouth. – Ed. |
To the Editor of The Militant:
In The Militant for October 24 appeared an article by Ali on the Congress of the Peoples Against Imperialism. Since the article criticized myself and the Independent Socialist League in terms that I have hitherto encountered only in the Stalinist press, I ask for the opportunity to reply.
But before dealing with the specific attacks on our position, I must mention the shocking sectarianism of this report by Ali. Presumably it is the only information that the readers of The Militant will get about the congress; yet it devotes two paragraphs to the sketchiest possible report of the main events of the congress and of the participating organizations, and then all the rest to a long diatribe on the subject of the delegate of the Vietnamese workers in France not being placed on the International Committee.
A comparison with the treatment of the congress in Labor Action will show clearly enough that Ali or the editors of The Militant do not have the slightest interest in really building up a feeling of solidarity toward the congress and in conveying to their readers the spirit of anti-imperialist struggle that remained the DOMINANT note of the congress.
And now to the details of Ali’s incredible series of lies and slanders.
(1) The question of Levon’s exclusion from the International Committee: I will leave it to Rous to defend himself against Ali’s charges directed against him. He is perfectly well able to do so. But as for what was before the congress, it was in no sense a question of voting for Stalinism versus Trotskyism. The congress had already agreed that every national affiliate from Asia and Africa would be represented on the International Committee, even if there were more than one organization from the same country. There was therefore no question of Levon OR some other Vietnamese being on the committee. The membership of one on the committee would in no sense prejudice the right of the other to membership.
It was therefore ONLY a question of deciding whether to ADD Levon to the committee by defining the delegation of Vietnamese Workers in France as a national movement. Furthermore, if that had been passed, we would have immediately been confronted with a demand for representation for the organizations of African Students in Britain, some of whom are influenced by Stalinism. Their status, that of a small community temporarily located in another country, is exactly the same as that of Levon’s organization. It can be seen, therefore, that the delegates were wise in voting that Levon’s organization is a local one and ineligible for the International Committee. Furthermore, it was made clear that this in no sense prevents Levon from participating with voice in all the work of the Paris center of the congress.
Of course, what is really idiotic is to explain that Levon was kept off the committee by Rous plus the ISL plus Common Wealth! How the devil does that add up to 60 votes? Actually the 60 votes included the Spanish POUM, the Moroccan Istiqulal, the Party of the Algerian People, the British ILP and others. Does Ali think these organizations are “pro-Stalinist,” “Burnhamite,” “anti-working-class,” etc., etc.?
What convinced me that Ali must be an idiot was his statement that most of the delegates of Common Wealth were Burnhamites. Burnham wants war against Russia now; he believes that some sort of managerial exploitive society is inevitable and he rejects socialism as a utopia. Common Wealth, on the other hand, opposes both power blocs as imperialist, advocates socialism, and emphasizes the struggle for democratic workers’ control in nationalized industries. Obviously, then, if Ali calls Common Wealth “Burnhamite,” he MUST be an idiot, because the only alternative conclusion is that he is a vicious, dishonest, unscrupulous slanderer, and I wouldn’t want to think that of him.
(2) My abstention on a declaration of the European Commission pledging support for the colonial peoples in the fight against imperialism: Ali complains that this resulted because the statement did not mention Eastern Europe. An astute reader, however, might notice something peculiar about this, because the resolution of the congress on Colonial Peoples and War was adopted unanimously, despite the fact that it did not mention national oppression in Eastern Europe. So evidently some other considerations must have been involved in the European declaration.
Here are the facts. Chairman Brockway announced that the European declaration was NOT a resolution that was before the congress for adoption. It was the Europeans’ declaration only; it was not subject to amendment by the congress; and it was only up for acceptance – that is, to be read into the minutes, as we would put it in American parliamentary procedure. Given this interpretation by the chairman. I dismissed the whole vote as senseless. I specifically asked that my position – for unqualified immediate independence for all colonial peoples and for total opposition to both imperialist blocs – be entered into the minutes, so that slanderers like Ali could not misconstrue it, and I proposed that a resolution by the Congress on the obligations of the European workers be drawn up which could be subject to amendment, and which finally could be really voted on for and against, by the congress.
It is interesting to note that Jef Last of De Vlam [Dutch left-wing Socialist organ – Ed.], whose name is certainly known in Europe a thousand times better than mine, voted AGAINST acceptance of the declaration, being so dissatisfied with this very murky form of procedure. But Ali does not mention any votes against. Can it be that he is afraid to launch his slanders against a well-known European anti-imperialist? He will not be allowed to conduct his outrageous campaign by long distance. He will answer for his dishonest efforts and he will be asked to answer here, in Europe, in the functioning center of the congress.
I think that now the record is clear.
|
|
Saul Berg |
Main LA Index | Main Newspaper Index
Encyclopedia of Trotskyism | Marxists’ Internet Archive
Last updated on 10 December 2022