Dear Sherry,
You must have already received our answer to Jim's proposals. What you must insist on with them are the following points:
(a) There is no question for us of changing the statutes of the International in the direction of a federation, etc. Only a congress has that power, and we will be against such a modification. The concession which we can make in that area is to accept de facto a system letting them act for a period of time, in fact as a quasi-independent organization loosely associated with the International. Their ideas about the International are flatly liquidationist and centrist, greatly resembling those developed by Clarke-Cochran-Lawrence. We broke with the latter on this question, and it is, to say the least, a cruel irony of history to see the "orthodox" take up the same path.
[p. 28]
Jim's idea about the International as such carrying out entryism into a conceivable centrist international reveals the course their thought has taken since the split—right into the opportunist and liquidationist swamp.
The International as such does not and will not ever proceed on entryist lines. That would be the end of our movement. It will only fuse with an International that takes up its program. Individually or even on a section basis, one may maneuver with entryism but the International as such remains independent. That's the ABC of Trotskyism, proclaimed by the pope of the "orthodox" together with so many other fundamental things. We must be aware that we are going to merge with a tendency in which a mixture of sectarian and opportunist ideas prevail and which is topped off with Stalinist-like organizational conceptions (or at best Zinovievist) on the national scale.
(b) It is not a question of granting them parity in the IEC and the IS, just like that. They only represent at best one-third of the International. They must stop bluffing on that point. Their argument that the International is split into two equal halves is just bluffing. As for the Ceylonese, they are completely with us (more than ever) and if they've written to Jim, it is because we asked them to do so. Their opinion of the split is that it was a matter of a "betrayal" by those who brought it about.
It is not a question whether we should pursue negotiations or form parity commissions only with the lunatics among their friends in Europe: the Lamberts, the Swiss, etc. They must send at least one of theirs. Otherwise it amounts practically to taking no further interest in the unification. They know their allies here very well, and we don't have either the patience or the interest in starting again to spend our energy and nerves on wasting our time with them.
This question of their representation is very important, including consequently the matter of the composition of the IEC and the IS.
With whom among them can we form such common structures which can discuss and work out these matters seriously and effectively. If they don't participate, that means having to do deal with the Swiss and types like Lambert because even the English will only have the possibility of sending one or two there.
You see the difficulties if we should accept a "parity" leadership. That suits Jim fine and those friends who in reality start with the idea of a decorative International and so wish to render it impotent. But that doesn't suit us at all, we who see the serious, effective functioning of the International as the ideological motor, the stimulating element for our entire movement, and for the activity of the sections and the work of constructing new sections.
We do not want to render the functioning of the International impotent. They must understand that and they must offer us an answer which prevents such a result in practice. A parity leadership, with whom (concretely)? They don't give a ______ if the International's leadership is unable to work, is ineffective, etc. They would even want it to be that way. They would like in reality to apply their conception of a decorative International through this shuffling. But for us that is unacceptable.
I write all this to you to alert you, to clarify the meaning of our letter, and to indicate the limits in which concessions are possible.
Would you bring with you, if possible: (a) J. Beal's book on Foster Dulles; (b) Mills' "Power Elite"; (c) the book just published about the IWW.
Ask them as well if they see anything inconvenient in our publishing Warde's [Novack] criticism of "Power Elite" in Q.I.
Try to see Natalia again before you leave and talk to her about our congress and our sincere desire to see her there.
Regardless of the final result, your mission is already a success and you've accomplished it in your typically exceedingly serious manner which we appreciate truly very much.
I've come back from England. It might be useful for you to know, I think, that Burns [Healy], for several reasons, needs the unification and will push in that direction.
We have put off the IEC until June so that you can attend and make your report. Take care of your health.
Very fraternally,
/s/ Gabe [Pablo]