[p. 11]
Dear Farrell,
Morris and I are drafting this preliminary letter in response to your urgent request for comment on developments in the world movement since your departure and more specifically for comment on the documents of the IC in the recent period.
The delay in submitting such comment before this has been occasioned by the fact of our uncertainty as to what was happening. An almost imperceptible shift appeared to be taking place in the axis of our approach to the problems of the world movement from what we had agreed upon before your departure. We were not sure whether this was due to some misunderstanding or to a lack of knowledge on our part of facts which were not available to us at the time of our pre-departure discussions.
Assuming that you would return some time in August, we thought it would be preferable to await your return for a full discussion to clarify whatever misunderstanding may have arisen and to resolve what appeared to be a change in our orientation and perspective. Your recent note stating that you may remain abroad until the latter part of October impels us to submit this preliminary letter recapitulating our views on the problems under consideration and voicing our thoughts on post-departure develop-. ments based on the information at our disposal.
First to recapitulate: When we first received the announcement that the IC was calling a congress for June 1958 we interposed the objection that such a project would be too pretentious and not representative of the tasks and perspectives required by the orthodox Trotskyist tendency at this stage of its development. As against the concept of a congress which presumably would adopt programmatic documents and launch a programmatic discussion we counterposed the much more modest and realistic aim of a tendency conference of a limited character. We viewed the task of the conference to be that of dealing primarily with the two-fold problem immediately confronting all tendency sections namely:
1. The world crisis of Stalinism and the struggle for regroupment.
2. To arrive, if possible, at a uniform approach to the problem of unification of the international, based on the parity proposal of the SWP.
On the first, we felt it imperative that a discussion take place on the concrete approach by each section to the crisis of Stalinism and regroupment based upon a report of activities in this sphere in their own localities, and the character of their intervention in this crucial aspect of world politics.
On the second, we hoped to convince the British and French that the parity proposal for unification constituted the only effective political approach to the problem of unifying the world movement in order to make more effective our intervention in the crisis of the world Stalinist movement.
Proceeding from the above considerations, it must be said that the character of the documents issuing from the IC conference and its aftermath, gave rise to certain apprehensions here.
1. Instead of grappling with the above listed tasks the documents of the IC seemed to be concerned with long-ago settled generalities in which the specific tasks are dissolved if not entirely negated.
2. What we deduce from the character of the documents is that they involve a projection of the discussion around the 1953 issues which have been long superseded by events upon which there has been essential political agreement with the one important exception of the nature of the international organization and its function at this stage of development of the world Trotskyist movement.
We thought we had arrived at general agreement that a discussion today involving the issues of 1953—with the exception, of course, of the "organization question"- would not only be futile, but would be calculated to exacerbate the existing division in the world movement and make a reunification virtually impossible. In the light of the struggle for regroupment it appeared to us that such a discussion could only complicate and vitiate the regroupment work, especially in those areas where our tendency directly confronts the organized Pabloite groupings. This conclusion we based on the following considerations:
1. The continuing necessity of explaining the split and justifying the continuation of the division in the light of the obvious manifestations of political agreement on the major political events of recent years as expressed in the press and public declarations of both tendencies. (Parenthetically, we have been receiving mail from various parts of the world requesting such explanation and justification. Because of the confusion that exists on this question it is our practice to forward such mail to the IC without essaying a direct answer which would involve presenting the SWP's approach to the question. What the IC does with these communications we do not know as we have not received a single carbon copy of any reply made to such requests.)
2. It is precisely because the continuation of the split cannot be reasonably explained or justified programmatically that we advanced our parity proposal for unity.
3. On the one hand, the documents of the IC tend to focus attention on and sharpen the issues of the 1953 dispute and on the other they speak not of unification but of "reorganization," which would seem to indicate that the proposal for reunification has been shelved. Instead of Pablo's rejection of parity being made the axis of the unity discussion the SWP approach has apparently been replaced by the line of the French—or so it seems to us—who really do not favor any genuine approach to unity.
It seems to us that the perspective you outline in your recent letter of remaining on the continent until October to attend the IC meeting in September and dig up the facts of what precisely the extent of the support the IC has is predicated on the concept of a "reorganization" which would presumably be consummated at a 1959 Congress. If we understand the perspective of extending your stay it is to engage in the field work necessary to uncover whatever viable elements may exist to participate in this projected reorganization.
[p. 12]
It has been our view that our main contribution to the task of reconstituting the international is not organizational but political, namely:
1. We have sought to give a correct political answer to the proposal for unifying the Trotskyist forces on a world scale. In this respect we feel that what is most essential is to place the main emphasis on the parity proposal and not on our political differences of 1953, or present differences on the Algerian question, a trap which the British fell into with the publication of the Sinclair [Hunter] document.
2. Concomitant with a correct approach to unity is the imperative necessity of the application of a correct line toward the crisis of Stalinism as it manifests itself in each country. It is only to the extent that each group applies a Trotskyist line in the regroupment struggle that they will prevail in the struggle for unification and that our tendency will prevail within the world movement in the event of unification.
It is primarily in this light that we conceive of a leading role for the SWP in the international movement, namely, by demonstrating in action the correct approach to regroupment and therefore setting an example for others to follow. We question whether any real progress can be made in the accomplishment of this task by writing more programmatic documents. (Actually the comprehensive SWP documents already submitted have not been properly discussed in the world movement even though they have undoubtedly influenced the thinking of the movement.)
We are not in a position to accept responsibility for the day-to-day work of the world movement. We feel that a much more modest approach on our part will create less illusions and yield greater results. We don't, at this moment at least, think it is possible for us to guarantee to have someone in Europe on a continuing basis. . . .
Nearly six months have elapsed since your departure. There are undoubtedly many things in your experience since you left the country of which we are completely unaware. At the same time, many things have occurred here which cannot be adequately discussed through the medium of written correspondence. So far as solving the basic problems of the world movement are concerned, it is difficult for us to see how this can be accomplished by extending your stay through October. Most important at this stage of developments would be personal consideration and full discussion of all the problems that have arisen.
From the contents of this letter you can perceive that there are obvious misunderstandings and perhaps even some differences on the important question of the tasks and perspectives. What Jim's thoughts are we do not know as we have not heard from him on the matters discussed in this communication.
For all these reasons we have been looking forward to your return, which we thought would be this month, as we fear that a postponement under the circumstances could only contribute to a deepening of the misunderstandings and possible differences that may exist.
Fraternally,
T.