[p. 61]
Dear Walter [Ernest]:
You have asked my comments on the dispute over SLL tactics and over certain other things like Chinese Communes. I am sure you can pretty well guess where I stand with these articles of mine on the Rise and Decline and on the International structure. However, if it is needed that I should clarify my views on each specific issue, I shall have no objection in doing it.
To your main questions I reply as follows:
1) The differences are of a fundamental nature. Just as the differences between the CPs and the Trotskyists over the attitude to the ruling group in the workers' state is fundamental—one holding their role as revolutionary and the other as brake on the onward march of revolution, in the same way, the present middle position of the FI that a part is likely to split and become revolutionary is also fundamentally different from ours. However, since I do not find any objective basis of this difference except a petty. bourgeois impressionism from the growing strengths of Soviets and the Chinese, I hold that a free discussion and further unfolding of events will lead to our clarification when the two views will fuse and while we take the best from the new "Realities," we do stay at our fundamental premise as before.
2) I hold that the differences by themselves were not so deep in 1953 nor are they today that co-existence within a single organization is impossible.
3) However, in spite of my reply as above, I do not condemn the splitters of 1953. Organizational factors left no choice. I am not sure if our own organization, if we had one at the time as a section would have acted differently. It is not easy for a party with a mass base to risk about tactical line.
4) I hold that the split was very very unfortunate and damaging to the International movement. Both sides should concede. Apprehensions should be removed from the minds of the present International minority. Free political discussions should be arranged without a prior condition of acceptance of this or that line. Let the posterity not blame the FI leaders that but for this or that unyieldingness (intransigence) unity could have been possible.
Stalinists have so constantly blurred over the class lines and based their politics on the struggle within the camp of bourgeoisie with a hope to win a section of this hostile class to the aid of the limited tasks that any blurring of the class lines and pinning hope on winning sections of bureaucracy or of the national bourgeoisie in the name of colonial revolutionary leadership simulates itself with Stalinism. Your unstinted support to the policies of the FLN without class analysis, and your preference of Labour Left to the Conference of the Industrial ranks is, to me, a blurring of the class lines. That is what I call pro- Stalinism there. For the present I leave further explanation which I shall take up only when required.
Kindly send my warmest greetings for the Chilean Trotskyists for achieving the unity of organization and for erasing the six-year old split at least from national scale.
With warmest greetings,
Yours,
Raj Narain Arya.
Kampus, India