22 April 1952 Ernest Mandel ('Comrade Albert'), International Secretariat
---
Comrades,
Since the leaders of your tendency have refused me the right to address you in person, I am communicating to you in writing my opinion on some of the important questions that you are called upon to discuss.
There is first of all the question of your declaration concerning the organizational agreement concluded at the last plenum of the IEC, a declaration that remains outstanding. You must reach a decision on this matter quickly. Otherwise the IS will be obliged to send the organizational resolution on the French question to the sections either accompanied only by the minority's declaration, or accompanied by your first declaration. The latter would not fail to provoke a vehement reaction on the part of the members of the IEC. It in fact presents in an utterly incorrect light both the decision taken by the IEC and the spirit in which it was taken. I do not think it is in the interest of the French section to see a polemic unleashed against it by most of the members of the IEC, a polemic that a declaration of the kind of your first draft would inevitably provoke. No one is asking you to conceal the fact that you concluded the agreement at the IEC while maintaining all your political ideas. Say so briefly and simply, but without unnecessary and inappropriate polemic on this occasion. Otherwise you will receive — not from the IS, but, I am certain, from the other members of the IEC — the response that such a polemic would deserve.
There is next the question of your attitude toward the draft political resolution presented by Comrade Frank, a draft clarified by the resolutions of Comrades Michèle Mestre (on trade-union work) and Privas (on entrist work). In the very opinion of one of your representatives on the PB, Comrade Garrive, these documents represent the coherent elaboration and application of the line of the Tenth Plenum — the line known as "entrism sui generis." We know, of course, that you disagree with this line, and a fortiori disagree with its application. However, the essential function of the Eighth Congress of the party is not to hear expressions of agreement or disagreement with this line, but to apply this line. This is how democratic centralism operates on an international scale. The day after your national congress, the function of the regional assemblies or the cell assemblies is not to discuss the merits of the decisions of your congress but to discuss their application. The day after an international congress, the national congresses do not discuss in the first instance the merits of its line but rather its application. In any case, your representatives at the Tenth Plenum solemnly committed themselves, through the resolution of agreement that they accepted, to apply the line of the Tenth Plenum. You know this very well, just as you know that there is no other way for you to remain disciplined within the international after the party congress than to apply this line.
It is therefore a matter for you to decide now what place the Eighth Congress of the PCI will occupy on the path of applying the line of the Tenth Plenum, which involves an important turn for the French section.
Either you will fight, between now and the congress, against the "coherent application of the line of the Tenth Plenum," and thus, whether you wish it or not, against the whole of its line. In that case, the time remaining to us before the party congress will be largely devoted to a polemic that will not advance the party's understanding of this line of "entrism sui generis," that will not make the party more capable of applying this line, that will increase its confusion, that will diminish its cohesion, that will make the application of this line, in your own view, more dangerous. You will not delay the application of this line by even a single day — a line which the great majority of the leadership of the international is convinced represents the only path to the party's salvation. You will succeed only in creating all the conditions for this application to be carried out with the maximum damage to the party. Is that really your aim? I still persist in refusing to believe it.
Or else you will bring forward your opinion, which differs from that of the minority, on a number of questions of analysis of the situation, of political, social, or economic assessments, as well as on a number of proposals for the concrete application of the line of the Tenth Plenum made in the minority's texts on this or that field of party activity, without calling into question the application, as a whole, of the orientation of the Tenth Plenum, which, in the opinion of the great majority of the international leadership, is likewise the application of the line of the world congress for France.
In the first case, there will be no real discussion, only a vain polemic that will convince no one. This polemic will be all the more vain in that it will be conducted, I hope, moreover, with the conviction that the line of orientation which you will set against the line contained in the minority's documents will not in any case be applied after the Eighth Congress of the party, which, in order to remain disciplined within the international, will have to apply in a coherent manner the orientation of the Tenth Plenum. It will be an academic exercise unworthy of a revolutionary party, causing moreover enormous harm to the party by forcing it to carry out a turn without cohesion or effective preparation. It will at the same time make it impossible for you to continue in your role as party leaders after the congress, whatever the outcome of that congress may be. It would indeed be absurd for you to claim to apply an orientation that you had violently opposed the day before, and for which you will have created a climate of incomprehension or even hostility within the party.
In the second case, there will be a genuine constructive discussion on every question that you raise, with the possibility of effective modifications to the documents presented — effective not only as to their wording but above all as to the orientation that would follow from them after the Eighth Congress. There will be the possibility of making a joint effort within the party to prepare it better to carry out its difficult turn. There will be the certainty that you will continue to play your role as leaders and that the organizational crisis that has afflicted the party for more than a year will be gradually overcome.
The first path, which is contrary to the interests of the party, is the path you will fatally take if you adopt a "counter-text" in opposition to the documents presented by the comrades of the minority, which represent "the coherent application of the line of the Tenth Plenum," by the very admission of one of your own leaders.
The second path, which represents the interest of the party, is the path you will take if you draw up amendments — numerous amendments if need be — to the minority's documents. Once again, no one is asking you to abandon your ideas. You are only being asked to act as responsible leaders who recognize in practice democratic centralism on an international scale: before international congresses, discussions within the sections are centered on the line to be determined; after international congresses, the leaderships of all sections must make an effort to apply the adopted line in a coherent manner, whether or not they agree with that line.
Whatever the decisions of the Eighth Congress of the party, the line to be applied after the congress will be that of "entrism sui generis" — the division of the party into three sectors, one sector carrying out entrism immediately, a second modifying its activity so as to be able to make the entrist turn in the near future, and a third continuing independent work. This regrouping of the party requires the revision of all its sectors of activity, a revision begun by the minority's documents. At the same time, it guarantees the continuation of independent work, with La Vérité and its other organs, with its own trade-union and youth activity, with its recruitment, and with the satisfaction of all its inherent needs. To discuss, between now and the congress, anything other than this is in fact to hold a congress for nothing, to demoralize and disintegrate the party. Do not make decisions that will make you bear such responsibilities.
In discussing the agreement reached at the Tenth Plenum with your leaders, I left them in no doubt whatsoever that this agreement meant above all the application of the line of the Tenth Plenum, and the preparation of the party, through a broad and constructive discussion, for the best application of this line. Your leaders gave the impression at that time of having understood this thoroughly, and of having no illusions about the possibility of elaborating an "intermediate line" of compromise between yours, a minority within the international, and ours, that of the overwhelming majority of the international. They repeated that the only thing they were seeking with the agreement was organizational guarantees for such a discussion, as well as guarantees regarding the regime prevailing in the party from the point of view of democratic centralism. However unjustified the fears and suspicions concealed behind such a demand for "guarantees" were, I never hesitated to give them to you sincerely. What has happened in the party since the conclusion of the agreement should confirm us in the entire loyalty and sincerity with which it has been applied on my part. It is not I who fled from political discussion. It is not I who proposed or encouraged the slightest organizational measure tending to limit what is in fact the exercise of the entire day-to-day leadership of the party by your tendency. Banish on this score every unreasonable fear. Our desire, all of us, is to be able to collaborate with you in the leadership of the party. But this collaboration must be based on the line of the Tenth Plenum. This is not a "capitulation" that is being asked of you, but the fulfilment of a duty that every communist should consider it an honour to carry out.
With fraternal greetings,
Albert
22 April 1952