[p. 12]
Dear Tom,
The decision to request Comrade Smith [Dobbs] to return on the eve of our IC meeting has provided cause for considerable surprise amongst leading members of the orthodox Trotskyist movement in Europe.
Moreover your letter of August 18th reveals a number of misunderstandings about the policy of the IC, and we feel it imperative to reply at once so that these may be removed or at least the ground cleared so that a discussion on any political differences which may exist between us can proceed.
To suggest that the IC is or was opposed to the parity proposals of Comrade Cannon is just not true. Just over twelve months ago we approved these proposals and sent them to Pablo on the eve of his congress. From that day to this we have no indication as to what happened to these proposals. All we know is that they were not even mentioned at the congress and we received no reply.
What more can we do about the parity proposals? You are of the opinion that they should have been reaffirmed at the Leeds Conference—but if they were turned down by Pablo in 1957, what reasons do you suggest have caused him to change his mind now? It seems to us that the only thing that would have happened had we proposed a parity world leadership after the Leeds Conference is that the stalemate would have continued. We cannot see how simple reaffirmation of the parity proposals would provide any more concrete steps towards possible reunification.
We are not looking for a formula to avoid unity. If unity can be achieved in a manner which can strengthen our movement, we are all for it. But there must be agreement between the parties on parity if we are to proceed. Whether we like it or not, when Pablo turned our proposals down then that was that. Of course we can and do draw the attention of other cothinkers to these facts—but when all is said and done, this amounts to little more than good propaganda on our part.
That was the position which faced the Leeds Conference. We are really astonished to read in your letter the suggestion that we intend pressing for a discussion on the issues which gave rise to the 1953 split. This is just not true. We are all well aware that 1953 is not 1958. Since the Khrushchev speech we have made many important regroupment experiences. Labour Review, the magazine of the British Section, supplies an example of this. To begin with a discussion of 1953 now would be to commit a sectarian mistake, which we have no intention of doing. At the same time it is difficult to see how one can forget about what happened in 1953. Was it all a misunderstanding or were there serious political differences between ourselves and Pablo? You go so far as to suggest that these have been removed, but we think that you are misinformed on this point and have not sufficiently studied the Pablo documents since that time.
[p. 13]
No matter how much we may wish to avoid an abstract discussion over 1953, it is impossible to imagine how a discussion on contemporary issues would not give rise, sooner or later, to references to 1953. Had Pablo accepted the parity proposals, then every effort would have been made to proceed towards working out a world perspective based upon our estimation of the international situation today. Whether or not Pablo would agree to parity, there would remain the necessity for a political discussion of the party-building problem of today.
The Leeds conference has decided to consolidate the forces of orthodox Trotskyism by preparing a serious discussion on the problems of our movement. What is wrong with this approach? Would this not be a necessary and fundamental part of any principled process of reunification? It was further decided to circulate the documents from this discussion amongst the Pabloite group. How else can we break the deadlock? What do you propose now that Pablo has turned down the parity proposals? The International Committee will seize upon every opportunity to obtain a principled unification and we feel that the decisions of the Leeds conference should have your wholehearted support. We feel also that the problem of reunification must be recognized as a political problem involving clarification of contemporary perspectives and methods.
To assist the closest collaboration and discussion between us, which is a real tower of strength in the world movement today, we are sending Comrade Preston [Healy] to Canada during the week following November 16th and we ask you to prepare to send a delegation to discuss all these problems with him.
Warmest wishes
/s/ Preston
IC Secretary
P.S. to J.P. Cannon
Dear Jim,
For five years now we seem to be groping along with international work. The letter from Tom which I comment on here is a case in point.
We are all very anxious to come to a thorough understanding with the SWP before proceeding further. This it seems to me is absolutely vital for all future work.
I appeal to you to send the strongest possible delegation to meet me in Canada.
We are all delighted with your progress.
Warmest wishes,
Gerry