[p. 83]
[salutations missing from this copy]
I was certain that you would react in an adequate way to the regrettable accident which happened [the arrest of Pablo and Santen]. It is difficult for me to give you more details in writing. But in an Italian newspaper which is very close to me and which you certainly receive there are most of the facts that can be published about it for the moment.
Moreover, you will soon receive a special bulletin published by several British members of Parliament and containing many public protests of parliamentarians and leftist intellectuals of numerous countries. We believe it would be very good if you too could organize in your country some public protest movements of this kind (letters to the Netherlands Embassy, copies of same to be sent to the committee of British members of Parliament). The protest of the Chilean senators or that of the British parliamentarians or that of Jean-Paul Sartre are excellent models to adopt.
Confidentially, we are somewhat surprised about a letter we received on this matter from the IC. Burns [Healy] had come to see my friend in Paris, very friendly, in order to offer support and ask for information. That was very well. Afterwards, the IC wrote a letter in which, under pretext of a better (?) defense, it proposes that a mixed "commission of inquiry" be established first in order to judge the case. It is obvious that we cannot submit such activities to the "control" of a "commission" composed of persons who are not members of our organization. And we find it strange that these comrades do not seem to be ready to defend the arrested friends before "judging" them first, while numerous labor leaders of several countries who are not even our friends have defended them immediately without first asking to inquire about their activities!
I hope you understand the good reasons for this position and that you will succeed in doing something in your country. It is this political "aid" that is most precious to our friends.
We have followed the evolution of the LSSP with a certain anxiety since last May. We have intervened repeatedly in their discussions by means of detailed political letters. We have sent there one of our men a few weeks ago. By the way, he has seen the letter that you sent then and which, on the whole, is in the same sense as our intervention. We endeavor to avoid that the majority of the party, and especially the great majority of the old Trotskyist cadres, adopt an opportunistic position. We believe we can succeed. But the discussion is only beginning. We shall send you our documents on this.
Now about the unity of the family. I believe the essential problem is twofold. First to recognize frankly that the former quarrels have been bypassed largely by the events and that the new differences (particularly in connection with the Algerian question) have also been decided by life. Then this question must be faced without distrust or suspicions, while understanding the motives of both sides.
I understand very well what is at the bottom of your demand for parity. You want the two branches of the family to have the time to readapt themselves to each other in daily and practical collaboration before certain rights of a central organism can be rigorously applied against one or the other branch or its parties. I believe this demand can be easily satisified, for example by exceptionally reserving certain rights of intervention to the family feast (world Congress) only, without the possibility to delegate these powers, and by setting the date for the first family feast at three years after the moment of the reestablishment of unity.
However, I ask you to understand on your side that the proposition of parity cannot be accepted. For us this is a point of principle that is an integral part of our dearest principles. The family exists, without interruption of its continuity, with its precise organic functions, according to the norms established by the principles. Intermediary solutions are possible for the branches of the family, where one may even, in transition, admit a certain duality; but never for the family itself.
[p. 84]
The family replaces in our movement the material power of the apparatus which assures the cohesion of the Reformists and the Stalinists. This is the only cohesive force that we have got, intended to avoid a crumbling or a periodical rupture of the movement. To scuttle directly or to corner the principle of the family structure, for which our Old Man fought throughout the entire last part of his life, means scuttling a fundamental point of the program. That would be contrary to the interests of the family, the entire family. You must understand that this is contrary to your own interests to the extent that you are sincerely attached to these principles, which I hardly doubt.
Besides, in principle (and if one accepts a proposition of the kind I formulated above) the task of the center is not, above all, to "wage war" or to discipline" in the organizational field, but rather to formulate a political line as to the new events. A "parity" center, that is, a potentially paralyzed one, risks to be unable to do this work without which the family ceases to exist structurally. Nobody can predict what the alignment of forces might be in a new democratically elected center. If there is a majority of one or the other branch, it appears unlikely that the alignment would for long remain the same as before unity. It is more probable that there will be all kinds of realignments. But in any case, the organ will be capable of functioning and of taking decisions, except for disciplinary interventions in the branches, as I explained above.
If you insist upon the formal aspect of your proposal, we remain at a dead end. If, on the other hand, you insist upon its real contents (which can be satisfied under other forms as the parity form), then I believe it would be easy to reach an agreement; for I am convinced that on both sides there exists a genuine desire for unity.
The same remark applies to the name of our meeting. To be realistic is one thing; to abandon principles is another.
The family's continuity is an imperious duty, transmit-ted to us by the Old Man and his generation which we must maintain at any price. Only in case of the most serious political crimes does one have the right to interrupt this continuity: 1914 and 1933 are the only two examples to this effect. One does not have the right to play with the public existence of the family. First it exists; then it ceases to exist under pretext of a seperation; then it reappears suddenly, to disappear again the day after tomorrow under pretext of a new separation. I very sincerely believe that in your inner self, with the organizational tradition that you are embodying, you understand that we could not accept such an attitude.
We gave a determinate name to our meetings of 1954 and 1957, maintaining continuity at any price in bad moments. To suppress it in 1960, when our branch alone is numerically stronger than the two united branches in 1953, when the family could "jump ahead" on a world scale (and for this, unification would undoubtedly be one of the main impulsions) would be irresponsible and unprincipled. To insist on this formal demand is to make unity impossible once more.
But if I have well understood what is at the bottom of your objection, you want us to recognize publicly that we do not represent the entire family. I believe a declaration this sense, which would merely reflect the truth, would be easy to obtain, especially if it can be made in a constructive spirit, in the framework of a motion or a step that would make it possible to accelerate reunification. If you have any suggestions or propositions to make in this sense in order to facilitate unity, I am sure we can examine them and discuss them with you, inspired by a common desire to reach an agreement.
Frankly, I do not understand why the name of the meeting could be an obstacle to the presence of an observer. If it were a question of a delegate of a framework of official negotiations, the objection would be valid. But it seems to me that you can without any difficulties send an observer to a meeting whose name you dislike but whose contents interest you-since you have sent observers to congresses in Cuba or in Tokyo whose name and contents are, after all, less close to you than those of the meeting in question.
I believe that the presence of this observer will be particularly useful to you for two reasons: first, to know what we say and discuss; then, to realize what we represent today. In the two fields, but particularly in the second one, there exists on your side an obvious lack of information that lets you arrive at many incomplete or erroneous conclusions. You know Marx's fine quip: "Ignorance has never helped anybody." . . .
I believe that for a great number of reasons there exists at present a conjuncture favorable to unity. Most of the reasons for the split have disappeared. A climate of trust can easily be established. We have missed the past occasion of 1956-1957, and the movement has paid dearly for it, especially in France and Great Britain. This must not happen again today. A genuine negotiation on the essence must be entered into. One must not attach one's self to the form of the proposals which risk to block again for a long time a process which everybody actually desires and demands.