Healy wanted to join the Labor Party, but he only had a minority of the RCP. He appealed to the International to allow him a Minority Faction in the RCP that would join the labor party. This meant breaking up democratic centralism for the RCP. It later led to reunification under Healy, the assets transfered to him even while he received only a minority of the vote.
https://www.marxist.com/ted-grant-permanent-revolutionary-4.htm
1.
“In September 1947, despite the RCP’s energetic protests against “a disgraceful manoeuvre to get rid of the democratically elected leadership of a section of the Fourth International”, the IEC accepted the minority’s request, and the next month a special conference of the RCP ratified the International’s decision to split the party. It was a mortal blow to the RCP.”
2.
The RCP approached the International in Paris, but were told in so many words: don’t ask us, speak to our British section in the Labour Party. Negotiations were opened with Healy, who agreed to unity, but only on certain conditions. Allegedly in order to facilitate unification, there was to be no discussion of the disputed questions for the initial period of six months. Meanwhile, all the property, offices, etc., was to be handed over to the “united” leadership—that is, to Healy.
Ted opposed these conditions, but the majority of the leadership disastrously acquiesced and the “unification” was accepted. In July 1949, the RCP formally dissolved itself, and its members joined the Labour Party individually. By the edict of the IS, they were placed under the leadership of Healy, on the absurd grounds that his utterly false political perspectives had been proved correct.
The former members of the RCP majority far outnumbered Healy’s 80 or so supporters, and would certainly have deposed him at the Club’s 1950 conference, if there had been a minimum of democracy in the group. But there was not. The decision to halt discussion on the disputed issues was a manoeuvre aimed at paralysing the comrades who disagreed with Healy. Once the fusion took place, Healy acted in a dictatorial fashion, expelling people on the most trivial pretexts up and down the country.
Ted recalled: “The atmosphere was really terrible. The theoretical level was abysmally low. It was really ignorant.” Haston was shattered. In February 1950, he resigned, unable to stand the poisonous atmosphere any longer. Most of the few assets the RCP had were in the name of Haston, but, according to Ted, by this stage Haston was too demoralized to take legal action, and therefore all the assets of the RCP ended up in Healy’s hands. For this reason, Ted always insisted that the property of the organization should never be in the name of one individual, no matter how trustworthy.
3. Charlie Van Gelderen:
“You will agree, I feel sure, that the JH question is not sufficiently important for me to commit political hari-kari at this stage.”
4.
Healy proceeded to expel all those who refused to break personal contact with Haston. Ted too was expelled, after 22 years membership of the Trotskyist movement. He was also a member of the Executive Committee of the Fourth International, but that made no difference to Healy or his masters in Paris.
5.
Ted’s expulsion was ratified at the Third World Congress on the motion of Ernest Mandel who was known by his Party name, Ernest Germaine.
6. On 1953:
Healy, the former slavish supporter of Pablo, immediately jumped ship and went over to Cannon.
7.
Naturally, every guarantee was broken, and two or more months before the PCI congress, which was held last week, the actual party minority (led by P. Frank, J. Privas, R. Mestre and Corvin) was preparing to split and to steal the party’s equipment. On June 27th they actually broke into the party offices, using keys they had made at the beginning of May, and stole one electrically powered duplicator, two hand operated duplicators, some typewriters, etc. The PCI has written a series of statements addressed to the whole international branding Frank et al as the thieves and Pablo as the architect.
A Quick Response
Seeing as how two factions can end up as two thieving groups, we should see these as two seperate tactics for the same crime. One wants to steal the party’s equipment through minority control and expulsion of the majority and direct theft. The other wants to steal the party by appointment or individual control and through expulsion of individual leaders, potential “threats,” combined with private ownership by the leader of party equipment.
To the first, we need to reply that the majority must always be the more organized faction, the more represented faction in the main office, the one more prepared to defend the common property of the party. A minority faction disproportionately represented has already committed theft. The private ownership of party equipment should never go towards any leader of the party or board member. Such a benefactor should have no active role in the administration of the party. Otherwise, as Proudhon, the anarchist with an important faction in the First International of Marx and Engels famously said, “property is theft.”
The RandomPoster33 Press Page 
Leave a comment