[p. 17]
Dear Gerry:
The enclosed letter to Jim crossed in the mail with his letter of February 25. These preliminary exchanges will give you an idea of our general impressions of the Paris proposals. We now need further discussion between us to reach a common understanding on the next steps to be taken within the IC.
As occurred after the Leeds conference, misunderstandings and differences of evaluation have arisen concerning the Toronto policy. In the former case some comrades thought reference to "reorganization" of the movement in the Leeds documents meant rejection of reunification. Actually the term was intended to express the need for reorganization of the leadership in a reunification. Apprehension had arisen within the IC that a parity leadership arrangement might allow Pablo to maneuver himself into continued control of the organizational apparatus. Assessment of the political criteria for reunification therefore tended to center on Pablo's positions and it became necessary to further clarify the leadership question.
The Toronto meeting took these considerations into account and stressed that the parity proposals imply no political or organizational concessions to Pablo. Politically our concern is with the favorable evolution within the cadres presently associated with the IS. Organizationally Pablo may be a representative only of his followers within the parity framework; the IC will not accept him as secretary. Reunification must be based on orthodox Trotskyist positions and will involve reorganization of the leadership. With this clarification it was agreed to urge the IC to press for reunification on the basis of the parity proposals.
Somehow the Toronto understanding got lost in the Paris discussion. Parity on an intercommittee basis was rejected on the ground that Pablo is against unity and would be able to maneuver continuation of the present stalemate. This explanation of the change in policy at the Paris session does not take into account the fact that the Toronto talks presupposed further maneuvers by Pablo in an effort to block reunification. In the same connection a misunderstanding has arisen about our expressed doubt that IS groups would "jump over the head of their international affiliation." Clearly we must go over Pablo's head in seeking contact and discussion with IS groups genuinely desiring unification, as you have done in inviting the Italians to visit Britain. The question is: Are the IS groups prepared to go over the head of the top Pabloite set-up in organizational procedure?
[p. 18]
The Paris proposals assume they will. Plans are put forward to invite IS groups favoring unity into an organizing committee, acting apart from Pablo's IS apparatus, to build a united movement starting from the sections. However we don't think the Italians or others we hope to influence would respond to this proposition. Most likely they would see it as a new form of split rather than a step toward reunification. They might be driven back toward Pablo and instead of getting speedier results we would lose ground.
In a conversation last summer Livio said we should forget the actual or apparent relation of forces between the IS and IC. His remark indicated rejection of Pablo's organizational line and readiness to support a genuine parity arrangement. To this he added, state your conceptions of international leadership and we will see they are given prompt consideration. This statement implied accord with the perspective of reorganizing the leadership. He also suggested that reunification would probably bring about new patterns of political alignment. But nothing he said then or wrote in subsequent letters gives any evidence he is ready to break with the Pabloite apparatus along the lines contemplated in the Paris proposals.
Our approach requires adjustment to the present outlook of the IS groups genuinely desiring unity and we must take into account the necessary stages of their further evolution. Only time and experience will enable them to overcome Pablo's obstructive maneuvers and prepare them to move decisively toward reunification. As yet they remain confused about Pablo's real line on unity and they are full of misconceptions about the IC sections.
I think one of the most effective things you can do right now is to press the invitation for a visit by the Italians. If they come to Britain the simple gathering of facts about the actual situation there will be an eye-opener to them. They could then be expected to spread the truth about Britain throughout the Pabloite ranks, giving a further impulse to the desire for a principled reunification.
Meantime we have no choice but to continue the discussion within the IC, striving patiently to achieve a common policy and full collaboration on the reunification issue.
As soon as your busy schedule permits, we would like to hear further from you on the subject.
Comradely,
Farrell