December 2, 1953
Dear Farrell,
Following the drawing up of the enclosed document we received your note of the 27th. This enclosed statement was drawn up to be circulated in our own group with a copy going to Europe and one to yourselves. This document was our opinion as of November 29. At that time we had not received "Against Pabloist Revisionism" nor had we received your revelations as to Quatrieme Internationale's comments on Iran.
[p. 183]
Your Open Letter was like a bolt from the blue. Our connections have always been very poor with the International and the various sections. Our relations with Pablo have been most fraternal—they have amounted to our sending the odd report, their making some general favorable comment and our sending them whatever help we could scrape together. We had no complaints and since we have had poor connections with the sections were totally unaware that anyone else had any. Some of us have occasionally noted tendencies in the movement with which they disagreed, however we have never had any experiences which could be pulled together into anything meaningful. So as I say your Open Letter came as a shock. In everyone's opinion an unprecedented and unjustifiable act. We are at a loss to understand why your differences are not being expressed through other channels — particularly when we are so close to a world gathering. It is my opinion that you have prejudiced your getting a proper hearing on the political issues at stake by this utilization of the press, by this taking of the dispute to the public. The international to most of us here is a very precious thing. We are not at all prepared to toss it aside but should it need to be reshaped are prepared to reshape it
Its reform does not appear to be your position and not just from your taking this dispute to the public but from your defiant recognition of the French majority. We assume the whole affair there will be up for examination when the gathering takes place —and in the light of subsequent developments it may be that we have to reconsider the whole thing. But I myself do not feel that any principle was violated by the leadership's intervention in France as your letter suggests. We intend to be at the gathering and will line up with any forces that we think it advisable to do so. I have not yet read your "Against Pabloist Revisionism." I have received your copy and hastily flicked through it before loaning it to one who at the time was in a better position to examine it. But even a casual glance through it tells me that you take up several aspects of the document that I disapproved of. Off hand it appears that we see eye to eye on the political aspects of the question. Should this prove to be the base we will present these views to the world gathering.
Fraternally, Ross Dowson