Draft Letter
Dear Comrades,
We have now had the opportunity to discuss your letter, dated June 19th, 1957, addressed to the International Committee. One of the chief objections raised in this letter is that Comrade W. Sinclair [Hunter], a leading member of our organization, should have replied to your document, "The Decline and Fall of Stalinism." "If this position was maintained," you say it "would naturally close the door to any serious discussion on reunification."
After carefully considering these remarks, we must inform you that the British Section cannot share your opinion. Everyone should surely be aware that there are deepgoing political differences between the forces of the International Committee and your organization. We feel that it would be a mistake to obscure these and to object when they are brought forward. If a lasting unification can eventually be achieved then it can only be on the basis of fundamental political agreement. We will therefore be pleased to circulate any reply you may wish to make to Comrade Sinclair amongst our members.
A realistic conception of unification must start from the very favorable situation before World Trotskyism on the one hand and the fundamental differences between our tendencies on the other. Provided this is understood and not sloughed over, then we can seek out ways and means to see whether the objective situation can help our movements over a period to arrive at basic agreement. To try to gloss over these differences as if they didn't exist, could only lead to the perpetuation of the split by increasing the genuine political mistrust that is already there.
We are of the opinion that you are tending to do this and your remark that after your Congress "you will be compelled to draw all appropriate conclusions and act from then onwards accordingly" could in fact be interpreted as an ultimatum. The problems of the World Movement cannot be settled in this way, and we feel sure that all serious Trotskyist militants will appreciate this.
[p. 63]
The Thirteenth Annual Congress of the British Section of the Fourth International, which was the most representative gathering our movement ever held in Britain discussed in the most objective fashion this problem. A resolution was unanimously passed which declared:
"Congress maintains that the immediate practical side of a political unification must be taken in stages. It proposes to the International Committee that a parity committee consisting of the International Committee and IEC representatives should draw up a memorandum of agreement on the issues where there is basic agreement. This joint body should constitute the leadership of the world movement and its primary task would be to prepare the Fourth World Congress of Unification. It would recommend to this Congress that for the next period the international leadership be a parity leadership on all committees which would lead by persuading individuals and sections rather than by invoking the discipline of statutes. Only in this way will possibilities of principled unity of the Fourth International be realized."
We feel that this is the best way to face up to the problems as they really are, and we hope that upon reflection you will agree with us.
We must however disagree with you when you maintain that our attitude towards Comrade Grant's group is ultimatistic. Our movement in Britain discussed for many years the tactics and strategy for the construction of the revolutionary party. By an overwhelming majority the International movement as a whole decided with us that the entrist tactic was the best way to do this. As far as we are aware no decision has ever been taken by your bodies to reverse this, and certainly the International Committee is fully in support of this policy. More than ever we are convinced that it is the correct road for our movement.
The Grant group are in favor of the ex-RCP policy of "open work," and we for our part have no desire to resume the old discussions of the forties. What happened to the RCP and the majority of its leaders should be instructive enough in this respect and we refer you in this connection to the report you presented to the Third World Congress which unanimously expelled Comrade Grant and Haston as members of the old IEC. (See Walter's report.) (See also your resolutions and documents of 1947-49 on the RCP.)
When we say that they must disband the RSL we are simply repeating that our movement rejects the tactic of "open work", and there is nothing ultimatistic about this. It is simply a statement of fact.
We would say in conclusion that the Grant group is a very secondary question to the international problem as a whole. It was not connected with the FI during the Autumn of 1953 when the split took place. If there are still people who want to do "open work," we do not see why they shouldn't get on with it. We for our part will not tolerate any resumption of the old factionalism, and for this reason we are absolutely opposed to any forms of activity which will repeat the wasteful practices of the past, reopening old issues which have long ago been settled by history.
The contents of this letter reflect the opinions only of this section which is affiliated to the International Committee. The final decisions rest with that body.
Yours Fraternally,
s/Burns [Healy]
Secretary