The Soviet Union¶
Core Argument¶
The chapter’s core argument is a polemical dissection of a shift in the International Secretariat’s (ES) position on the Soviet Union, specifically the deletion of a key paragraph from the final draft of a document. The original paragraph warned that the USSR risked destruction in the near future, not through direct military intervention, but through the combined economic, political, and diplomatic pressure of American and British imperialism, in the absence of a mass movement capable of rallying to its support. The author contends that this deletion was not a minor editorial adjustment but a substantive retreat from a critical conclusion, one that should have a decisive effect on party orientation and propaganda among workers.
The chapter draws on the internal record of the RCP’s Central Committee minutes from 9–10 February 1946. It reports that Dixon moved an amendment to eliminate what he saw as a conflict in the document between the USSR’s strength as a world power and the probability of the bourgeoisie destroying its economic base through penetration and manoeuvres. Dixon’s motion carried eleven to two, with only Goffe and Healy opposed. The author notes that the deleted paragraph was specifically referenced in Dixon’s motion, and demands an explanation for why the RCP’s amendment was not accepted. The Minority comrades, now supporting the deletion, are accused of failing to give the party their reasons.
At the International Conference, the paragraph was supported by ES supporters and disputed by the RCP, gaining support only from Irish and Palestinian delegates. Despite the deletion, the author argues that the false perspective remains in the final draft, evidenced by continued talk of an “early and fatal end” for the USSR, a “critical phase of existence,” and the best chances for economic revival lying in the “economic contribution of the countries now under Soviet control.” The chapter thus functions as a factional critique, arguing that the ES has evaded the logical conclusion of its own analysis—that the USSR’s survival depends on a mass movement—by removing the most explicit statement of that danger. The polemic is directed against the ES leadership and the RCP Minority, accusing them of inconsistency and a lack of transparency.