The Minority and the Demand for the Withdrawal of the Red Army From Occupied Territories¶
Core Argument¶
This chapter documents a factional dispute within the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP) in 1946, centred on the demand for the withdrawal of the Red Army from occupied territories. The Political Bureau’s account is a polemic against the party’s Minority, accusing them of political dishonesty and unprincipled manoeuvring. The core argument is that the Minority, led by figures such as Healy and Goffe, did not hold a consistent revolutionary position but instead subordinated political principle to the goal of aligning with an ‘international majority’ in the Fourth International, the better to wage an organisational struggle against the Majority leadership.
The narrative traces the evolution of the dispute. At a Central Committee meeting on 10 February 1946, a resolution was passed almost unanimously—with only Goffe dissenting—calling for the insertion of a demand for the withdrawal of all occupation forces, including the Red Army, into an international resolution. Healy voted with the majority. However, after the International Pre-Conference, where this amendment was not adopted, Healy reversed his position. At a National Council meeting on 6 April 1946, he argued that demanding the Red Army’s withdrawal would equate the USSR with imperialism and play into imperialist hands. The Minority then campaigned vigorously against the demand at aggregate meetings.
The turning point came when the International Secretariat (IS) replied to a letter from the RCP, stating unambiguously that the position must be “for the withdrawal of all occupation armies, including the Red Army”. A subsequent resolution of the International Executive Committee (IEC) in June 1946, passed unanimously with Goffe’s support, confirmed this. The chapter’s polemical force lies in exposing the Minority’s response: Healy first claimed he had always held this position, then sought to move on; Goffe remained silent. The Political Bureau charges that the Minority now claim to have always supported the IEC resolution, despite having bitterly attacked the same position as ‘revisionism’ leading to Shachtmanism. The chapter cites a June 1946 Workers’ International News editorial, which Goffe had voted against, to demonstrate that the Majority’s position was identical to the eventual IEC line.
The chapter draws on the theoretical context of Trotskyist opposition to Stalinism, insisting that revolutionary internationalists must not conflate defence of the USSR as a degenerated workers’ state with support for the Stalinist bureaucracy’s military occupations. The polemic is directed squarely at the Minority’s methods: changing position without explanation, denying previous stances, and treating political questions as mere weapons in a factional fight. A prior example is cited—the Minority’s reversal on “workers’ control of hiring or firing” after a heated six-month campaign—to establish a pattern. The Political Bureau concludes that such behaviour discredits the party and demoralises the membership, and calls on Minority members with revolutionary integrity to combat these methods.