[p. 17]
Los Angeles, California
Dear Comrade Goonewardene:
This is in answer to your letter of January 2, in which you propose the arrangement of a world congress to unite all the Trotskyist forces. While I respect the good faith which motivates your proposal, I do not think it is realistic in the present situation. Too much has happened and too many questions remain unresolved to warrant the hope that a quickly arranged congress could agree on decisions that would be generally satisfactory to both sides and binding on all participants. Taking all the factors into consideration, including the hostility and distrust which have been engendered. I am of the opinion that the reunification of the world movement, if it can be accomplished at all in the foreseeable future, can be accomplished only in stages. What is needed, as I see it, is a recognition that the different opinions regarding the causes of the split are pretty well fixed on both sides and are not apt to be changed by argument.
It is true that in the three-year period since the departure of Mestre in France, Collins [Lawrence] in England, and Cochran-Clarke in the United States, the political pronouncements of the two sides appeared to come closer together than was the case in the period prior to the formal split. More particularly in the past year, since the Twentieth Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the positions taken on the most important questions of the day came even closer together. If the thinking of the two sides should continue to evolve in the same way, then they both would have to consider the question of unity, not as a demagogic slogan to maneuver with, but as a project to be realized.
A consistent approach of both sides toward common positions on the political questions of the day would justify a deliberate and serious attempt at reunification, even if some of the important differences of general conception remain unresolved. It would not be wise to pretend that these differences do not exist or to try to get around them by ambiguous compromise formulations which would be subject to different interpretations. It would be better and more realistic to contemplate a possible unification for common political action, and to agree to disagree on some questions, allowing the test of events and clarifying nonfactional discussion to bring about an eventual settlement.
There remains the organization question, if it is permissible to apply such a narrow definition to the different conceptions of the International in its present stage of development and the whole complex of organizational and administrative practises which played such a big role in exacerbating the conflict and finally precipitating the definitive split. As far as I can see, there has been no approach toward agreement in this domain. If one is seriously interested in the actual unification of the movement and not simply in talking about it for propaganda purposes, he will have to realize that this difference exists and come forward with some practical and realizable formula to deal with it.
The question is not what ideal conception of the International and its functioning one may have in mind, but rather by what forms and methods all the Trotskyist organizations in the world can be brought together, taking them as they are with their ideas and practises as they are at the present time. One can hope that with time and experience and argument, and the further development of our movement, the conflicting opinions can be changed and modified and brought closer toward uniformity. But this agreement cannot be imposed at the present time by any formal decisions, and there is no possibility of a return to the status quo ante in this respect.
There is no way around this obstacle to unification except by means of a sweeping organizational compromise, which would permit the formal unification of the international movement before the dispute is settled. This organizational compromise cannot be left to the chance decision of a congress. It would have to be agreed upon beforehand.
So far, the International Executive Committee has merely talked about unification in a propagandistic manner, without making any concrete proposal as to how it could be brought about, taking the organizations of the International Committee as they are. The circular of the International Executive Committee, dated November 1956, does state, however, that it believes a solution can be found for the organizational problem. I have indicated above my personal opinion of the form this solution would have to take in the present circumstances.
Yours fraternally,
J. P. Cannon
JPC:rh