Letter of resignation of James Burnham from the Workers Party¶
Core Argument¶
Digest: James Burnham’s Resignation from the Workers Party (21 May 1940)
In this letter of resignation addressed to the National Committee of the Workers Party, James Burnham announces his definitive break not merely with the newly formed organisation but with Marxism itself. The core argument is that Burnham can no longer, by any honest extension of terminology, consider himself a Marxist. He insists that this conclusion is not the product of the recent faction fight within the Socialist Workers Party, but rather that the faction struggle compelled him to make explicit beliefs he had held for years, some from the outset of his political involvement.
Burnham systematically repudiates the central pillars of Marxist theory. He rejects dialectical materialism as scientifically meaningless, though he concedes that Trotsky was correct in insisting it is psychologically and historically integral to Marxism. He dismisses the Marxist theory of universal history as empirically disproven by modern anthropology and history. Marxist economics he judges largely false, obsolete, or meaningless in application to contemporary economic phenomena; what remains valid does not, in his view, justify the theoretical structure. He explicitly denies that socialism is inevitable or that it is the only alternative to capitalism. Instead, he advances the claim—central to his subsequent theoretical work—that a new form of exploitive society, which he terms “managerial society,” is not only possible but a more probable outcome of the present period than socialism.
On the question of the Soviet Union, Burnham rejects the Trotskyist characterisation of Russia as a “workers state” in any intelligible sense. More fundamentally, he argues that Stalinism must be understood as one manifestation of the same general historical forces as fascism, and he leaves open the question of whether this judgment applies also to Leninism and Trotskyism. He disagrees entirely with the Leninist conception of the party—not merely its Stalinist or Cannonite modifications but the original theory of Lenin and Trotsky—which he deems incompatible with genuine scientific method and genuine democracy. He describes the Fourth International’s Transitional Programme as “arrant nonsense” and a key example of Marxism’s inability, even in Trotsky’s hands, to interpret contemporary history.
Burnham is explicit that the Workers Party remains a Marxist, Bolshevik, Leninist party, and that the split from the Socialist Workers Party was not based on anything fundamental. He acknowledges his own share of responsibility and admits he has not been a full-time political worker. He rejects the two alternatives of either remaining silent or launching a faction struggle to break the party from Marxism, on the grounds that such a struggle would destroy the group and he is unwilling to lead it. Resignation is the only course left.
The letter is notable for its polemical edge. Burnham anticipates and dismisses the Marxist habit of settling political and scientific disputes by accusing opponents of “rationalisation” or of succumbing to bourgeois pressure. He concedes the influence of the defeats and betrayals of the past twenty years but insists that his beliefs are facts, whatever their psychological origins. He acknowledges the moral obligation to past comrades, including Trotsky and Cannon, who will exploit his departure as confirmation of their own positions, but concludes that this obligation is no longer sufficient to determine his actions. The letter closes with a series of practical proposals for the manner of his separation, including the possibility of expulsion, withdrawal, a leave of absence, or a brief period of partial collaboration.