[p. 16]
Dear Farrell,
I received your letter of February 23rd with the quotation from Renard's letter. I am very dissatisfied with the resolution adopted by the International Committee, that Jerry sent to us, and I assume that the comrades in the center feel the same way.
It looks as though the "agreement" which Renard refers to was an agreement to accept the French line rather than the line of the Toronto conference. They are not the same thing—not by a long shot. The formulas of the IC resolution calling the pro-unity sections of the Pabloite "International" to jump over the head of their international affiliation and collaborate with the IC in the organization of a world congress, would not impress them as a unity proposal. They would take it, rather, as a maneuver to promote a new split, just like Pablo's "unity" maneuvers. If they should accept the invitation—which they wouldn't—it would cut them off from any chance to work for unity within the Pabloite set-up and eventually to get a majority and force a unification.
I don't think we will make any headway by such compromise "agreements" of the organizations affiliated to the IC. Sometimes it is better to agree to disagree, until some people learn from life what they refuse to learn from argument and logic.
I am not optimistic about an early reunification of the world movement—there is too much opposition in both camps. But I would like to see the forces of the IC adopt a policy that would strengthen the trend toward unification by giving the genuine pro-unity organizations in the Pablo camp a formula they can accept and use to advantage. The latest resolution of the IC couldn't serve this purpose. At least that's the way I read it.
Fraternally,
James P. Cannon
JPC:jh