Dear George,
Great events often have their grotesque shadows. At the very moment Stalinism entered its death crisis in Moscow, the International Committee decided to break up the parity committee. The main reason given for suddenly reversing the process of reunification is really unique in the history of the Trotskyist movement. It is said that the "German Pabloites," faced with a call for a solidarity strike in Bremerhaven at the time of the great London dock strike, instructed their contacts not to follow that call, because it was given by the Cannonites. Thereby they are said to have acted once again "as strikebreakers," and of course with strikebreakers one doesn't unify oneself, does one?
[p. 6]
Is it really necessary to add what follows?
1. The leadership of the German section did not receive and has not received till this very day any "call" for a solidarity movement with the British dock strike, launched by the International Committee.
2. The Bremerhaven comrades and contacts of our German section are without a single exception shipyard and metal workers, and not dockers. They could therefore not implement any call for solidarity with a dockers strike, even if they had received one.
3. Under the given circumstances, and whereas in Hamburg also our German section has no dock workers in its ranks, the only action of the section at the time of the London dock strike had to be a propaganda and literary one (as was the action of the SWP, the LSSP and most of the Trotskyist organizations around the world). It consisted of reports given to members and sympathizers, and an article in the German paper, lauding the strike and citing it as an example of working class militancy in the face of a conservative union bureaucracy playing the game of the bourgeoisie.
Don't you think it somewhat lightminded and irresponsible to have as serious a matter as the reunification of the world Trotskyist movement decided upon by some gossip and uncontrolled facts, which can only throw ridicule on the authors of the said resolution? Is your great love of truth, historical and factual, not somewhat perturbed by this childish attempt to decide political matters by means of gross falsifications and slanders? Some people in the Moscow Kremlin seem to have been forced to admit publicly that in the long run one cannot build any policy, even a reactionary one, on a pyramid of lies. Is this the moment for some so-called orthodox Trotskyists to enter upon such a road?
Cannon himself thought it necessary to write a 20-page letter on the subject of unification of the Trotskyist movement. Whatever one's ideas on the practical possibilities of the unification may be, it surely is a political issue which should be decided by political analysis and discussion, and political tests as well, and not by whims of irresponsible people, who are busy giving instructions to the whole world, and who get very angry when some sections of mankind don't even receive their instructions.
I can only repeat what has been my opinion ever since the split was precipitated. It is unprincipled politics to start in such vital an issue for the movement by empirical and pragmatic criteria like mutual distrust, considerations on "relationship of forces," arbitrary prejudices ("it won't work"), etc. The only principled basis for approaching the question of unity is a decision on the nature of the political differences. Evidence accumulated since the split points overwhelmingly in the direction of what I firmly held ever since that moment: the differences were of a tactical nature and did not involve issues of a programmatic character. They therefore did not tend to accumulate and increase, but rather led to periodic adjustments of tactics which cannot be said to have brought both tendencies farther apart. Careful study of the documents submitted to the international discussion by the International Committee showed this already clearly. Whatever may be the inconsistencies of these documents, by characterizing the nature of the Third Chinese Revolution and the People's Republic of China in the way it is done in these documents; by clearly indicating the dynamics of the world relationship of forces between the classes, actually come very near to the documents of the 4th WC which you so violently and unjustly criticized. Cannon's big article on the XXth Congress of the CP of Russia rounds out this analysis by an appreciation of the internal evolution of the Soviet Union in all points similar to that which the International has elaborated.
The comparison of what was written on both sides two years ago and what is written today could help many comrades to understand what was fundamental and what was accidental in the dispute. Surely no serious Trotskyist will continue to argue today that it was "capitulating to Stalinism" to point out that under the new and unfavorable relationship of forces in the Soviet Union, the bureaucracy could only hope to save its power and privileges for a short time by giving in to the pressure of the masses and making big concessions to them. The Militant is writing the very same thing now week after week, and I'm glad to read it there! At no time did we draw any other conclusions from this fact than to look upon it as a new phase in the crisis of Stalinism, i.e., a phase of rapid maturing of the objective and subjective conditions of the political revolution in the Soviet Union and of the overthrow of the bureaucratic dictatorship. Having come to express the same ideas, don't you think it is high time to make the most of the exceptionally favorable conditions for an upsurge of our movement on a worldwide scale, by uniting our forces and overcoming a useless and senseless split in several countries?
Needless to say, the liquidationist nature of the Cochranite grouping and its handful of international followers was recognized and condemned by us even before the 4th WC, and speaking for myself I find no difficulty for pointing out that you understood the true nature of that grouping earlier and better than we did.
In any case, this is no time to make a strengthening of our movement today dependent on a precondition of setting-the record-straight with regard to the responsibilities for the split. We are living thrilling moments in the history of Trotskyism. Great causes for which we fought as a tiny minority are seized upon by millions of people and imposed by them first by pressure upon the bureaucrats, then by revolt and revolution against the bureaucrats. In this period, which must fill every revolutionist and every Trotskyist with utmost pride and confidence, the petty quarrels of yesterday look only as small but nonetheless real obstacles on our road to progress.
Do away with these obstacles!
Uphold the agreement on the parity commission!
Initiate the international discussion which, today, could lead to a rapid reunification congress of the world Trotskyist movement!
Concentrate your blows on imperialism and Stalinism which both are in the throes of their death agony, and don't waste your efforts in weakening for historically unimportant reasons the Trotskyist movement which needs the strength of every living Trotskyist to achieve the great task before it!
Fraternally yours,
E. Germain