* * *¶
Core Argument¶
Here the text reproduces a detailed, point-by-point audit of amendments proposed by the British section of the Trotskyist movement to a draft international resolution, assessing which have been accepted, which partially conceded, and which rejected. The core argument is that the international leadership has made a series of literary or phraseological concessions to British criticisms without genuinely altering the document’s political substance. The chapter functions as a forensic comparison between the British amendments and the final resolution, exposing a pattern of superficial accommodation masking continued theoretical and strategic divergence.
Key claims include that the British proposal to condense economic statistics and present only general conclusions was implemented, but that their demand to correct an overemphasis on British imperialism’s weakness—by introducing factors for partial recovery against US domination—was only met by upgrading the description of certain weapons from “only” to “best”. On the USSR, the British sought an analysis of why the USSR was not defeated, stressing the importance of the nationalised economy. The final resolution inserted a sentence acknowledging the nationalised economy and planned production, but the chapter argues this is a “literary concession” that actually sharpens the emphasis on Soviet weakness, evidenced by the alteration of “victoriously met” to “withstood” in describing the war test. On Germany, British proposals regarding national oppression, Stalinism’s counter-revolutionary aims, plunder, land reform, and dismemberment were met “all too briefly and superficially” in new paragraphs. On building parties, the British amendment urging analysis of centrist currents and reformist/Stalinist organisations was conceded in a new insertion, which the chapter quotes approvingly. On entrism, the British proposal to recognise the possibility of total or near-total entry in Europe (as for Britain) was not accepted in essence, but a partial concession changed the original phrase “particularly in Europe” to “particularly in continental Europe”, leaving the door open for Britain alone—a move the chapter welcomes but deems “patently false” for excluding other countries. On democratic and transitional demands, the British proposed that “workers and peasants government” is a central task, not a transitional demand, and that a Communist-Socialist-CGT government is its concretisation. The chapter notes the deletion of the original point 10, which had made workers and peasants government the central slogan, and its replacement with a formulation making “Socialist-Communist Government” the central slogan, with workers and farmers government as its concretisation. The chapter concludes that despite unclear relationships between these formulations, the British amendment has been “resolved”. The final item notes that a British clarification on the slogan “The soil belongs to those who till it” was met by rewriting point 8 of the transitional demands.
The chapter draws on the internal political context of the post-war Trotskyist movement, specifically the drafting and revision of an international resolution, and the relationship between the British section and the international leadership. The polemic is directed against that leadership, which is accused of making cosmetic changes to avoid genuine theoretical and strategic debate, particularly on the nature of the USSR, the strategy for building parties in Europe, and the correct formulation of transitional demands. The tone is one of grudging recognition of minor victories combined with persistent criticism of the leadership’s evasiveness.