Los Angeles, California
Dear Comrades:
Enclosed herewith is the draft of my reply to Goonewardene with a copy for the International Committee. If you agree with it, you can put my letter in the mail to Ceylon and send a copy along to Jerry with your comments. If you disagree with my letter, or want to change it in any substantial way, you can hold up the mailing of the letter to Goonewardene until we work out an agreement. While it is advantageous for us to put this correspondence in a personal form, I naturally do not want to act as a freelance and initiate any action which has not been considered and agreed upon beforehand.
We have thought a lot about this question and discussed it among the NC members here. It appears to us that we cannot any longer let the Pabloites exploit the unity slogan while we merely give a negative answer or remain silent. Neither can we take the position, or create the impression, that we will be opposed to unity under any circumstances; or that we appear to be setting up artificial and unreasonable conditions. If we appear to act simply as bullheaded factionalists, we would only help Pablo to consolidate his ranks and even to create sympathizers among the organizations adhering to the International Committee.
That is the tactical side of the question. But even more important considerations prompted the formulations in my letter to Goonewardene. It is a fact which we long ago recognized that the Pabloites began to backtrack on a number of their positions relating to Stalinism and the role of our parties at the time of their split with Mestre, Cochran-Clarke, and Collins [Lawrence]. We didn't take these changes for good coin at the time and remained hostile to the idea of an early unification. Then came the Twentieth Congress, and the similar appraisals of it by ourselves and the Pabloite press, and Germain's letter to Breitman again proposing unity.
You will recall that I wrote to Breitman at that time expressing the opinion that we should not jump hastily but wait and see what the further evolution of Pabloite policy would be in relation to the crisis of Stalinism. Then came Poznan, the Polish upheaval and the Hungarian revolution, and Chou En-lai's tour of Eastern Europe as a policeman of Stalinism.
Here we ran into something really new. Whereas the conciliatory line of the Pabloites on the East German uprising and the French General Strike in 1953 sharply conflicted with our line and really brought the smoldering conflict with them to an open explosion, the Pabloite line on all the big events and developments of the past year has been very similar to ours. It would be absurd for us to deny or ignore these important facts and to refuse to recognize that they constitute a number of the most important prerequisites for unification. At a time when we are campaigning for regroupment of forces in this country and England, and are actually contemplating all kinds of possible cooperative relations and fusions with other tendencies which may begin to move in a revolutionary direction, we would certainly find it hard to explain why we refuse to even talk about unity with an international tendency which is taking a political position much closer to our own.
No, we cannot refuse to talk. My letter to Goonewardene takes the situation as it is and offers to discuss the question of unity. At the same time, the letter lays down conditions for built-in guarantees against any reestablishment of the old Pabloite regime. If the Pabloites refuse it, the whole argument about unity will be turned around. Instead of having a free field as the champions of unity, while the orthodox Trotskyists appear to be sulking and refusing to discuss the question, the Pabloites will be kept busy explaining why their concept of a "centralized world party," armed from head to foot with all kinds of disciplinary powers, is more important than a unification of all Trotskyist forces for political action in the raging crisis of Stalinism. We can say to all who are interested that we are for united political action on the basis of the positions developed by both sides during the past year. Whenever the Pabloites recognize the necessity for a reasonable organizational compromise, we will be ready to go ahead with the unification.
[p. 16]
But suppose the Pabloites accept the proposal in my letter and ask us to spell out our terms? Then we must be prepared to take them up on it and tell them precisely what we want. As we have discussed the question here at considerable length over a fairly long period of time, our demands would shape up concretely somewhat as follows:
1. The International Committee and the International Executive Committee should draw up a joint "Memorandum of Agreement" on the basic principles of our movement as laid down in the Founding Congress of 1938 and the political positions taken by both sides during the past year, and call for the immediate unification of Trotskyist forces in all countries, without waiting for a congress.
2. The two International Committees should then set up a joint sub-committee to prepare "The Fourth World Congress of Unification" and to represent the present International Executive Committee and the International Committee in the political and administrative direction of all international work, pending the joint world congress.
3. The "Memorandum of Agreement" should also declare that the united International committees obligate themselves to recommend to the Fourth World Congress of Unification that the new International Executive Committee, and whatever sub-committees it may set up, shall be constructed on a parity basis; that they endeavor to arrive at decisions by agreement and refrain from disciplinary actions or threats of same throughout the period while the possibility of harmonious collaboration is being thoroughly tested out in practice.
4. In France the two organizations should be consulted as to their ideas of steps to be taken to facilitate their cooperation as sections of the same international organization. If their decision is to maintain separate organizations for the next period, it should be suggested that a Liaison Committee of representatives of both parties be established, with a chairman who would be acceptable to both sides, to coordinate the activities of the two organizations and regulate their relations with each other. This Liaison Committee should be a consultative and advisory, not a disciplinary body.
5. In all other countries where the movement is divided, a similar procedure should be followed to facilitate the fusion of the two organizations, allowing for proportional representation in the leadership of the united body.
* * *
Naturally we have no way of knowing for sure what the reaction of the Pabloites will be to the door opened by my letter to Goonewardene. But if they accept it, as some comrades among the NC members here are inclined to think they will, we must be prepared to move directly forward with proposals somewhat along the lines indicated above and carry through the unification without any unnecessary delay whatever.
It is not profitable to play with the idea of unity. It is best to be definite and concrete about it, either to accept it or reject it, and mean business about it in either case. We are opposed to unity under conditions which would permit a restoration of the old Pabloite regime which caused the splits in the first place, and we will not hesitate to say so, if it comes to that. On the other hand, if the Pabloites accept our terms, we must not mumble and haggle over unity and back away from it.
No doubt there will be all kinds of difficulties in carrying through the unification, at least in its first stages. But it is the considered opinion of most of the NC members here that the overall advantages of a unification of the world movement at this particular time would far outweigh the difficulties and irritations. There is no doubt that unification would give our parties everywhere a stronger appeal to elements breaking from Stalinism. We must bear in mind that the crisis of Stalinism will continue to roll and create new opportunities and tests for our cadres everywhere.
We are thinking especially of France. The Stalinist rigidity of the bureaucratic crust of this party of the French working class, which has been able to stifle all revolutionary manifestations up to now, only guarantees that the revolt of the communist-minded workers in the ranks will explode all the more violently in the next stage of the development of the world crisis of Stalinism. This explosion will very probably take the form of a big split. The great danger, as we see it, is that this coming revolt against French Stalinism will get away from our cadres and take a centrist turn, which would confuse and muddle everything for a long time to come. We certainly need, by all means, the maximum concentration of all forces in France on the crisis of Stalinism, and an arrangement of relations which will enable them to cooperate and work together along the lines laid down in the "Memorandum of Agreement."
* * *
If the PC in New York and the British leaders agree with the general lines of the letter to Goonewardene, and the above proposals to follow it up if the Pabloites decide to accept the proposal for an organizational compromise, then I think a meeting of the International Committee, together with the leading body of the French organization, should be called to discuss the question and get ready to act promptly in the next stage of the negotiations, either way they go. That is, to take the question of unity off our agenda if the Pabloites refuse the proposal for an organizational compromise; to carry through the unification resolutely and quickly if the Pabloites accept.
Fraternally,
J. P. Cannon
JPC:rh
Enc.