[p. 16]
Dear Jim,
Jerry's report of the Paris IC meeting indicates a shift from the policy worked out at Toronto. In the latter talks we agreed to press for reunification on the basis of the parity proposals. Clarification was added concerning reorganization of the leadership to remove any misunderstanding on that score. Collaboration between the various groups—starting on a minimum basis—was proposed, along with development of political discussion looking toward reversal of the split trends. Reunification was to be approached as a process requiring time. There would be no hastily-prepared congress and no moves toward extension of the IC organizational structure.
The Paris meeting advocates building a united move ment starting from the sections and rejects any intercommittee relations with Pablo. Proposals are advanced to bypass the Pabloite IS and apply parity through creation of an organizing committee of the sections to prepare a world conference. A June meeting of the organizing committee is contemplated. An IC discussion bulletin open to all who accept the above approach would be issued. The proposed world conference would define the political line of the movement and discuss new statutes.
This policy seems to substitute short cuts toward formal reorganization of the movement for the approach set forth in the Toronto talks. The perspective of an early congress would supersede the proposal of collaboration between the groups, starting on a minimum basis and opening a process of clarification whereby everybody could get the real score on Pabloism.
Basically this seems to imply extension of the IC organizational structure with the assumption some IS groups would come in on it. For that to happen the IS groups would have to be ready to act as individual units apart from the top Pabloite setup. Also the participating IS groups would have to be ready to reject Pabloite proposals of formal IS-IC consultation. In short the policy seems to assume a split in the Pabloite organization can be triggered through the call for an organizing committee of the sections.
This assumption does not seem justified. Too much remains to be clarified about the general situation within the divided world movement. The ground is not prepared politically to induce IS groups to break through Pablo's obstructionist tactics and move decisively toward reunification in opposition to him.
On the positive side, an advance seems to have been made at the Paris meeting in that all present appeared to recognize the need to reach the IS groups genuinely desiring reunification. It is the tactical proposals toward that end that are in question. The next step would seem to be discussion of the policy advanced by the Paris meeting, seeking to bring IC perspective back toward the policy agreed upon at Toronto.
What is your thinking on the subject?
Comradely,
/s/ Farrell