[p. 62]
Copy to Burns [Healy]
Los Angeles
Dear Tom:
I enclose herewith copy of a June 21 letter from Patrick [Mangan] to Warde [Novack] and copies of two enclosures he sent with the letter:
1) A June 13 letter from Healy to the Revolutionary Socialist League, and
2) A June 19 letter from the IS to the International Committee.
It is unfortunate that we have to receive this material from the Pabloites and not from our own sources of information. Ever since the May 7 letter of the IS, which presumes to ignore and bypass the considerations and conditions laid down in my letter to Goonewardene and my later letter of April 29 to Patrick, it has been clear to every one of us with a grain of political sense that the Pabloites are not at all concerned about a genuine unity on a workable basis with the orthodox Trotskyists. Their game is merely to maneuver with the slogan of unity and big-salesman talk about "concessions"—for which we have no need whatever and still less interest—in order to disarm and befuddle the unity elements in their own ranks and to provoke a new split among the organizations of the International Committee.
It is now also fairly evident that the British have decided to follow the example of the French and do everything they can to facilitate the Pabloite strategy. It is interesting to note how quickly the Pabloites leaped at the opportunity to throw the blame for the failure of unity, not on their own rejection of my reasonable proposals—which, in the existing situation, are the only possible formula for a workable attempt at unification—but on the factional ultimatism of the British.
As soon as I get the necessary factual information I intend to write the PC at length on this question with some practical proposals for the next steps. Meantime, I would like to have the following information without unnecessary delay:
1. Copies of all the letters you have received from Burns relating to these matters since my letter to Goonewardene under date of March 12. Also copies of any other letters you may have received from international sources, or from NC members in the field, relating to this business.
2. Under date of March 12—nearly four months ago!—I wrote a long letter to the PC, with a copy marked for the International Committee, in which I outlined the concrete proposals we should make to the Pabloites in case they responded to the letter to Goonewardene. In that letter I suggested that Burns call a meeting of the International Committee right away to consider the proposals and inform us of its decisions in the matter. Was this meeting ever held? Were any reports of it ever received? I have not seen any such reports, although at the time of my April 29 letter to Patrick I had assumed that no objection had been raised to my suggested proposals; otherwise I would not have written the letter. But now it appears that the British organization has decided to act unilaterally along a contradictory tactical line without indicating to us what role, if any, the International Committee as such is playing in the matter, and what line, if any, it has decided to take. Has it been decided to blow up the International Committee and forget about it?
I am really anxious to get concrete information on this point before making further suggestions to the PC as to our policy. The break-up of the International Committee would be a major victory for Pablo, handed to him on a silver platter.
Awaiting your reply,
Yours fraternally,
/s/James P. Cannon
JPC:ra
AIRMAIL