A Letter to James P. Cannon [1]¶
Core Argument¶
In this letter of 28 October 1939, Leon Trotsky (writing under the pseudonym J. Hansen) addresses James P. Cannon, a leader of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP), on the conduct of an emerging internal faction fight. Trotsky’s core argument is that a serious ideological struggle has become politically necessary and unavoidable, but that it must be sharply separated from any perspective of a split, purge, or expulsions. He insists that the point of departure for the discussion cannot be the threat of organisational reprisals; if the leadership begins from such a standpoint, the debate will become poisoned and its own authority compromised.
Trotsky draws on the concrete example of a Comrade Gould, who reportedly proclaimed at a membership meeting that the majority wished to expel the minority. Trotsky proposes that such suspicions be met with a demand for a special control commission to verify rumours, and that any majority member issuing threats should face censure. He argues that the presence of new or uneducated youth in the party makes a serious educational discussion essential, but that this can only succeed if the leadership guarantees full rights for the minority during the debate. He proposes a compromise on the methods of discussion and political collaboration: both sides should eliminate personal denigration, commit to loyal collaboration, and refer any false moves—threats, rumours, resignations—to a special commission for investigation as separate facts, not thrown into the general discussion.
Trotsky criticises the recent convention as having failed because the time was not ripe, producing an “abortion” of genuine debate. He rejects the idea of a referendum as absurd, warning it would facilitate a split along local lines. Instead, he recommends a new convention based on two platforms, with full organisational guarantees for the minority. This is the only means, he argues, to conclude the discussion and resolve the party crisis.
The letter is a polemic against conceptions of party struggle that prioritise organisational surgery over ideological clarification. Trotsky argues against the view that a fight over ideas must be accompanied by expulsions or demotions from the start. His decisive point, stated in the postscript, is that desertions or expulsions may be inevitable results of a sharp discussion, but they cannot be the objective or the point of departure. The leadership must be seen to act in good faith, so that any splits that occur are understood by the whole party as unavoidable consequences, not the aim of the leadership. The letter thus defends a conception of democratic centralism in which ideological victory is won through open debate and organisational guarantees, not through pre-emptive purges.