The idea of creating a nation-wide anti-imperialist organization (in support of third world liberation struggles) was initially put forth by the League for Proletarian Revolution-Marxist Leninist (LPR-ML) to the August Twenty-Ninth Movement-Marxist-Leninist (ATM-ML) in 1976. However, due to the developing differences between ATM-ML and LPR-ML, AIM decided not to take up joint work with LPR-ML on the question of creating such an anti-imperialist organization. LPR-PL thereupon mobilized its contacts to carry out the task of creating and developing the National Liberation Struggles Support Committee (NLSSC). In the following summation, we intend to show how the NLSSC under the leadership of LPR-ML, advances a neo-Trotskyite line that isolates the revolutionaries from the masses and liquidates the task of supporting the national liberation struggles of the third world. We will also put forth our views as to how to support the struggles of the third world against imperialism.
The principal error of the non-LPR members in the NLSSC was, at the very beginning, to conciliate to LPR-ML and fail to follow through on or systematically take up the discussion and struggle of how our (LPR included) work in the NLSSC would, in fact, serve and facilitate the building of a vanguard Marxist-Leninist party; how to subordinate or place our work in the context of party building. The contacts did not firmly grasp the strategic significance of this question and therefore left it up to LPR-ML to take the lead in tackling this problem. But LPR-ML did not and could not, as we will demonstrate later on, take the lead on this fundamental problem. As a result, the NLSSC followed the proposed LPR tactical plan, that is, we took up the path of tactics as process, of determining our orientation on the basis of proposed activities; the course of bowing to spontaneity. The contacts did, however, vaguely see the need to establish a correct orientation and it is the contacts who, throughout the process of development of work in the NLSSC, primarily waged struggle and raised important theoretical, ideological and political questions that spoke to the error of bowing to spontaneity and that eventually brought the question of our strategic orientation (party building strategy and tactics) to the foreground. The following are the various questions and struggles that we raised, and that LPR-ML never really dealt with in any systematic manner:
1) The need to study, deepen our understanding of and concretely link up our NLSSC work with the working class and national minority and national struggles in the United States;
2) The necessity of deepening our understanding of Soviet Social-Imperialism so that we could be able to concretely deal with this question in our propaganda work;
3) The necessity to have a clear theoretical understanding of how to correctly carry our united front work (and many times we incorrectly raised coalition work with Marxist-Leninists as united front work) as it related to NLSSC work and party building;
4) The necessity of systematically taking up and learning how to concretely carry on illegal work as well as the need to seriously handle the security question in NLSSC’s activities;
5) The necessity to combat liberalism and for LPR-ML to take up its leading role in the NLSSC in training or helping to train contacts in the process of doing NLSSC work;
6) The necessity for the LPR-ML to give leadership in setting up a study plan and carrying out the study in relation to our tasks in the NLSSC as Marxist-Leninists;
7) The importance and necessity of summing up our work (including joint summations with the third world anti-imperialist organizations we worked with) so that we could better understand how to move forward;
8) The necessity and importance of correctly handling contradictions among ourselves and. the method of struggle and the attitude towards criticism and self-criticism. This point is particularly important because if LPR-ML in particular had been open and above board and seriously took up criticism and self-criticism then it would have been capable of taking up the criticism and questions that we continually raised, deepening its understanding, and summing up; thus conscientiously grasping its leading role as an ML organization and helping to lay the groundwork for repudiating fundamental errors in the NLSSC in particular and in relationship to the strategic task of party building in general.
We outline the above points to bring out two significant points: One is that LPR’s role in the development of the NLSSC was, following its proposed (and accepted) tactical plan for the NLSSC to continually stress the question of methods of work, i.e., efficiently carrying out tasks to insure the success of activities and the development of the NLSSC. In other words, LPR regarded the above eight points as secondary and proceeding on the premise that its orientation (as reflected in the tactical plan), was correct, was basically concerned with insuring that contacts worked to ensure the success of activities; in fact LPR regarded the above outlined struggles as holding or tending to hold back the real work. The second point is that all these issues, questions, and struggles were raised in a spontaneous manner (i.e., as we confronted or perceived problems) and did not reflect a comprehensive and synthesized view of the fundamental questions. Nor did we strive to synthesize our views and finally to take up the particular question of the relationship of the NLSSC to party building and our views of building a vanguard ML party in general.
At this point, we will briefly outline the line of the NLSSC and the content of its activities. (We mention in passing that when LPR and the contacts first got together to actually begin the work of the NLSSC, LPR volunteered that it had been unable (over a period of 3 months or so) to work out and propose any principles of unity or rationale for the NLSSC, whereupon the surprised contacts accepted this task, worked out and came back with the principles of unity and rationale during the next 2 meetings.) LPR proposed the following tactical plan for the NLSSC, which we united with, at the time.
Phase 1 (February-March-April-May)
A. Preliminary work – development of line, development of tactical goals, POU’s and division of labor, developing first piece of propaganda (rationale for NLSSC), development of organizational structure.
B. Building of the bass – gathering of the closer contacts – 4 public events will be held during this period.
1. Content of events: 1 speaker NLSSC, 1 speaker representative of a NLS in the U.S., discussion, Solidarity statements
2. Purposes of events; give concrete support to National Liberation Struggle strengthen ties with NLS representatives in the U.S.
### MAKE KNOWN EXISTENCE OF NLSSC involve closer contacts and rally prospective members of NLSSC, build some finances (?)
3. Schedule of events:
Friday, March 18 – Iranian Student Association
Friday, April 1 – May 18 Organization
Friday, April 15 – Linea Roja
Friday May 13 – Ethiopian Student Union
### Also during this period the first Public meeting will be held probably on
May l4 with agenda: establish organizational structure, and plan for ALD events
C. Study – original group only – Topics: International Situation
D. Research – National Liberation Struggles representatives in the United States, their publications, their line, films and other resources available.
E. Propaganda-Agitation – emphasis on propaganda. To be produced:
1. Rationale
2. Invitation to events (to include whole series)
3. Speeches for events
4. ALD piece
F. Evaluation – of Phase 1 by original Group (Sun. May 29)
PHASE 2 (June-July-August)
In the first phase we built a base of closer contacts and representatives of National Liberation Struggle in the U.S. We must now concentrate on broadening that base among the masses; especially the proletariat.
A. Concentrate on street corner rallies in communities and pliant gates. Pass on from Propaganda to propaganda and agitation among the masses.
B. Study – both NLSSC and original group, will be involved
C. Research – Both NLSSC and original group will be involved
D. Prop-agit – Agitation is introduced.
To be produced: NLSSC newsletter
booklets (popular) on NIS
Street murals, exhibitions, etc.
Prop and agit for specific events (?)
E. Event – August 16 – measure strength
F. Evaluation – End of August
Phase I. February to May 1977
1) Develop principles of unity, rationale and organizational structure of the NLSSC.
2) Building a base; Gathering of the closer contacts; these were so-called NLSSC contacts purportedly won to the NLSSC through its activities – they were in fact brought to the NLSSC by LPR (one was even a former member of LPR). In short, LPR-ML had finally found “practice” for some of its Marxist-Leninist contacts to engage in, as in our own case).
B) Public forums with the May 18th organization – Haiti, Ethiopian Students Union in North America–Ethiopia, Linea Roja–Dominican Republic, and Iranian Student Association (this last activity did not take place).
The purpose of these forums was to give concrete, support to the national liberation struggles, popularise NLSSC and rally people around it and build up finances for NLSSC. The 3 events drew between 70 to 150 people each. Most of the people coming to these events were third world peoples or the members of the third world organizations.
C) May Day and African Liberation Day (ALD) jointly sponsored by LPR-ML, NLSSC and various third world organizations. To these activities LPR-ML brought its few contacts and showed that it had absolutely no base among the masses. Over 95% of the participants in these activities were members of third world organizations in the United States.
D) Study for the Marxist-Leninists in the NLSSC. LPR proposed studying Lenin’s Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism.
E) Sum up development of the NLSSC after ALD (it is at this point that struggle between LPR-ML and contacts takes on the character of fundamental line differences).
Phase II. (June-August 1977)
LPR proposed to move from building a “base (!) of closer contacts and representatives of National Liberation struggles in the U.S.”, to the Proletariat. The base among the proletariat is to be built by street corner rallies in communities and at plant gates (!).
Phase III (September-December 1977)
Broaden the base to students “which will facilitate building, the NLSSC U.S. wide tour(!).”
* * *
In all of the above plans and activities, a key feature, as we finally realized, was that LPR regarded us, its few other contacts (MLs of petty bourgeois background), and even representatives of national liberation organizations as its “base”. We came to realize that LPR did not have a base among the masses nor did they (in practice) do anything seriously to build a base in the working class. Below, we will show that the NLSSC is in fact LPR’S main area (or focus) of practical work “among the masses”.
1) We have neither seen or heard from LPR about any substantial on-going work being carried out in the factories or in the community. LPR, in fact, adamantly avoids this issue for “security” reasons and instead simply acknowledges and states the theoretical proposition that “the proletariat should be the main focus of work of M.L.s.” It seems almost impossible to meet even one worker or any non-”movement” person who has been won over by or works with LPR in a factory, school, etc.; and this is in LPR’s one and only center – New York City and surrounding areas.
2) We know from our own relationship with LPR that it devotes a great amount of time to the following 4 areas (we have no direct or indirect knowledge of any other areas, anywhere):
A. The NLSSC, all of LPR’s cadre and contacts that we know of are directly or indirectly involved here (working in, with, or coming to the activities of the NISSC). This is the practical work “among the masses.”
B. Theoretical work in the development of line including joint theoretical work with collectives across the country that unite with LPR.
C. Theoretical, organizational, and logistical work to put together Resistance – LPR’s organ.
D. Operation of a bookstore and work internal to LPR’s own organizational operation. (There is also the time spent with contacts, discussing and holding fundraising activities and socializing, etc.)
3) Recently LPR has talked of re-establishing a base with people it broke with in the transition from narrow-nationalism to Marxism-Leninism. LPR has raised this in connection with the NLSSC, i.e. channeling any possible contacts to the NLSSC.
4) All three known leading LPR spokespeople have been extensively involved in the work of the NLSSC.
5) Resistance, LPR’s own organ reflects not only that work in or with the NLSSC is the main area of practical work, but also that a good deal of theoretical work and political exposure is concentrated on the national liberation struggles. In 6 issues of resistance (Dec. 76 to July 77), there are approximately 46 articles. Over 40% or 19 of the articles are directly or indirectly connected with NLSSC activities, are about particular national liberation struggles or, are reproductions of articles written by Third World organizations or M.L. parties dealing with a particular national liberation struggle. Sixteen articles are polemics or theoretical views concerning the communist movement; 7 articles are general political exposure or theoretical statements (One on the fascist threat, one on Carter’s human rights, one on the struggle of the Puerto Rican masses in Chicago last June 4, and the rest on the woman question); one article deals with methods of investigation in a factory; one article is a sum up of past work in the community; two small 4 paragraph agitational-leaflet like articles deal with actual working class struggles in N.Y.
We would note here that Resistance historically covers the practical political activity of LPR. When there was mainly community work being done by LPR, this was reflected in the paper. It is not for security reasons, or for disdain for “bourgeois reporting” that LPR only has 2 or 4 articles on community and working, class struggles.
LPR-ML simply has no practical work among the masses to speak of. Practically all the political activities that LPR-ML has initiated and we have participated in are covered in one way or another in Resistance. The other practical political work “among the masses” that we know LPR-ML to have been involved with in the past 9 months or so is sponsoring a film on Lenin, holding an IWWD activity with a handful or so of contacts, a series of leaflet raids in front of factory gates, subway entrances, street corners etc., and relating to the said activities or the 2 or 3 working class and community struggles that were reported in the paper.
We have also learned inadvertently, through LPR’s 3 leading spokes people, that the NLSSC is LPR’s main area of work. One spokesperson stated that since LPR does not have a base (to speak of} in the working class, the NLSSC was the focus (i.e., main area) of LPR’s work so that through the NLSSC, LPR could win over advanced elements who then could be sent to the base – i.e., among the masses and to the factories. Furthermore, the LPR cadre said that LPR cadres were relatively untrained and the NLSSC constituted a form in which LPR could “train” its cadre, through struggle with contacts, away from opportunists, and therefore without fear of unnecessarily exposing weaknesses to the opportunists. In reference to the main focus of work, another leading spokes-person attempted to “clarify and correct” the “misunderstanding” by stating that the NLSSC is the primary means (i.e., main tool) of winning over advanced elements who then would be sent to the factories etc. But the fact is that these two statements are not in contradiction to each other; both acknowledge that the main area for practical work is the NLSSC (because of the lack of cadres working among the masses to build a base) and none of the spokes-people denied that LPR had a self-cultivationist (theory of cadres and theory of stages) method of training their cadre first in isolation from the struggle of the masses and then sending them to the masses. The third LPR spokes person “corrected and clarified” the above two statements by stating that the NLSSC is a form that would relieve LPR of various important tasks so that LPR could attend to more urgent tasks. The more urgent tasks, we deduce, are the theoretical development of line, especially since several collectives are pressing for leadership, and the paper Resistance. The various important tasks LPR is being relieved of are activities in “support” of national liberation struggles and the leafleting, postering, and other activities to which LPR treats the “masses” at every “festive occasion.”
The struggle between contacts and LPR over the various issues outlined above was in the main spontaneous and did not take the form of clearly defined and synthesised line differences. However, the contacts’ persistence on the one hand, and LPR’s own unprincipled response to differences and struggle, on the other, led to a deepening and synthesizing of differences which were at first on a basically perceptual level. LPR’s response to criticism played a key role in the struggle. First there was LPR’s dogmatism, change of position, and in general unprincipled and sectarian method of struggle, second, LPR began to slander individual comrades, pitting one against the other, intriguing, conspiring, and splitting, even to the extent of spreading rumors that one comrade was an agent provocateur (with no evidence or proof, even when LPR was cornered). And finally, after African Liberation Day, when the time had come to make an overall summation of our work in the NLSSC, LPR refused at first to even sum up, contending that this was holding back “the work.” When we did sum up, there were, of course, two fundamentally different lines. Even in the initial assessments, when summing up African Liberation Day (ALD) in an ALD coalition meeting, differences were well defined. For example, contacts stated that errors made (by U.S. Marxist-Leninists) in the ALD coalition work were rooted in bowing to spontaneity. LPR disagreed, responding that since there were plans, schedules, and division of labor as to when, where, and. who would write, print, and distribute leaflets, secure the route of march, make speeches, etc., we were not “bowing to spontaneity”; the basic problem, according to LPR was that we were not disciplined and efficient enough in carrying out the laid out tasks. Thus LPR reduced bowing to spontaniety, an essentially ideological question, to the TECHNICAL aspects of methods of work and organization (plans, schedules, and division of labor). Such crude opportunism on basic questions of line forced and hastened us contacts to make an overall assessment of our relationship with LPR and to break with the line of LPR.
In thus exposing LPR’s opportunism on various questions, we do not mean to imply that we were in the main correct throughout the process of development of the NLSSC. We had No fundamental strategic differences with LPR and so we united with, carried out, and even helped develop aspects of the soft-sectarian line. what we did do differently was struggle to repudiate what was incorrect in a principled manner, and we have only started to repudiate left sectarianism.[1]
Now that we have attempted to outline the factors leading up to the development of the NLSSC, and have traced the process of development of the work of the NLSSC, it is necessary to draw lessons from these experiences. We do this in the interests of promoting genuine ideological struggle, because only by looking upon where we have been and learning from it can we approach our future without repeating unnecessary mistakes. Also, we feel that in the particular struggle concerning the correctness or incorrectness of the building of the NLSSC resides a general struggle over the tasks facing Marxists-Leninists and revolutionary-minded people in the US today.
It is our bounden internationalist duty to support national liberation struggles (NLS). This duty is part of our overall duty to overthrow our own ruling class. We have a responsibility to make sure that the concrete way in which we support NLS, or any other correct struggle, flows from an overall orientation. By this we mean that our work must flow from an overall understanding of our present objective and subjective level of development, the goals we want to achieve within a given period, and the order of priorities of the different tasks necessary to accomplish our goals. For us, the level of development of our struggle is that the masses have no revolutionary leadership – the bourgeoisie is leading the masses. The goal we want to achieve in this period is to build a party – an organization that can give the revolutionary leadership presently lacking. On these two questions the support of NLS and the goal of building a party, there is general unity among the anti-revisionist communist movement. The third question of our priorities and focus in order to accomplish our goal is where the general unity breaks down into many different opinions. It is in this light that we wish to speak of the lessons we can learn from the NLSSC. We have already outlined the fundamental error committed in the development of the NLSSC; the failure to discuss the plans for NLSSC in the context of our party building work. Although no systematic discussion went on, we have to look deep and see, on the basis of what was put forward in a systematic way, where lies the thinking behind putting forward the plan, to build NLSSC. In order to do this we have to reexamine the tactical plan put forward by the LPR, for the development of NLSSC. We believe that in examining this tactical plan we can uncover the strategic view that LPR refused to reveal. The tactical plan consisted of two phases. PHASE I concerns itself with the initial work of the NLSSC. This work involved the internal development of line in the form of a rationale and principles of unity and the organizing of some initial activities. The forces working within the NLSSC were all Marxist-Leninists, based mostly among the intelligentsia and the petty-bourgeoisie. The forces we were to concentrate on were the representatives from the NLS; comrades who, on the basis of the concrete analysis of concrete conditions facing the masses in their respective countries, were revolutionary before they ever heard about the NLSSC. What was the purpose of concentrating on these forces? It was not to win over the vanguard–the most advanced sectors among the American people – because the forces we were dealing with were already won over to support NLS.
The purpose was to opportunistically use the national liberation organizations to give the illusion of mobilizing various forces in the U.S. in support of the national liberation struggles (NLS) when in actuality the bulk of the people in all activities sponsored by the NLSSC were members of the national liberation organizations; it was being sectarian towards the national liberation organizations by trying to force upon them the views of LPR and some of its contacts on how they (national liberation organizations) should apply Marxism-Leninism to their own struggles against imperialism, feudalism, and bureaucrat capitalism in order to make revolution; it was relying on the national liberation organizations to do the bulk of the organizing and mobilizing for any particular activity and blaming them when attendance was low or when manpower was needed and not available, in general blaming them for the failure of activities. Nowhere in PHASE I of the tactical plan was there mention of how to integrate the initial NLSSC activities with whatever basis of work existed among the masses, in the communities, workplaces and schools. Nothing was put forward as guidance for grouping, contacts at wherever we had a base and thus we were unable to win over any section of the American masses to join the NLSSC or attend or help to organize, activities of the NLSSC. This is because the NLSSC and LPR-ML have no base and do not see the importance of developing one. PHASE I consisted of grouping the conscious element in isolation from the masses and developing line, policies, and plans for work divorced from concrete conditions.
PHASE II of the tactical plan was to “go among the masses”. This took the form of extensive leafleting and agitational work outside factory gates, setting up tables in the communities, and preparing to move to the campuses. In general, this was to result in broadening the influence of the NLSSC as a mass organization. PHASE II does not deal with connecting NLSSC work with work in the trade unions, community organisations, and student organizations that already exist.
According to the tactical plan, first you group the conscious element, prepare them in isolation from concretely analyzing concrete issues and in isolation from day to day practice, and develop line, policies, and plans for work. Then at a certain point (in the tactical plan, this point is defined as the summer months–one of the main factors was the better “mobilizing” that could be done in good weather) the conscious element goes among the masses from an external position (not based among the masses) to agitate and mobilize and build a broader mass organization. This is the strategic thinking behind the tactical plan. This strategic thinking is counter to what Marxism-Leninism Mao Tse-tung Thought (MLMTT) tells us about the relationship between the conscious element and the masses. The conscious element must be among the masses; “THE SEED TO THE SOIL” as Chairman Mao taught us. Our line, policy, and plans must flow from analyzing the real-life situation; we must be among the masses to know this. When we propagandize, agitate, mobilize, and organize, it must be from an internal position, from being among the masses; external work, such as leafletting outside the factory gate, must be supplementary. Our primary focus in regards to mass organizations is to win control of the mass organizations already existing. (This in itself involves the development of different forms of struggle and organization; tactics). Secondarily, we must examine what forms of mass organization need to be built in this period.
The thinking expressed in the tactical plan reflects a left trend in the U.S. communist movement which has never been seriously dealt with. This trend flows from a view that proletarian revolution does not rely on a combination of objective and subjective factors, only the subjective factor is necessary. Neither is it necessary for revolutionaries to give leadership to the mass struggles. Most of the mass struggles are around concrete, everyday issues. This view sees involvement in mass struggles as a diversion from preparing for the time when the subjective factor, regardless of objective conditions, will somehow incite the masses to make revolution. Therefore, there is no need to build a base among the masses, know their conditions and demands and fight for them everyday, always working towards the final aim. There is no need to be within the trade unions, parent associations, student organizations. All that remains is to stand outside from an external position and wait for the magic moment when the masses respond and take to the streets.
At this day and age, nobody in the anti-revisionist communist movement openly trumpets this view in its most crude form. The post modern synthesized form of this type view can be found among, the Trotskyites. Two of the sharpest features of Trotskyism and Neo-Trotskyism are the Trotskyite theory of stages and the Trotskyite theory of cadre. The Trotskyite theory of stages is that the revolutionaries must concentrate exclusively on each other first and prepare themselves for the revolution. This preparation, which is summarized as the theory of cadre, involves intense ideological training divorced from the concrete lives of the masses, training in dogmatic phrasemongering abstract formulas for revolution, training separated from doing an analysis of the conditions facing the masses. Then at some magical point the Trotskyite cadre are to be unleashed among the masses in a frenzy of activity with the purpose of inciting the masses to make revolution. One of the most familiar examples of this view is the ”Guevarist foco theory” which, because it promoted expert of revolution, ultimately led to the failure of the Cuban Revolutionaries to spread the revolution all over Latin America, using Cuba as a starting point. The tactical plan, for reasons we have already outlined, flows from these Trotskyite strategic views.
Flowing from an incorrect strategical standpoint, the creation of the NLSSC was tactically incorrect. From the beginning, the NLSSC was a so-called ”mass organization” made up entirely of Marxist-Leninists. The “mass organization” had no link to the masses lives, activities, or struggles* We, together with LPR-ML were supporting national liberation struggles in isolation from the masses (an isolation that we fostered, not just due to objective conditions.) In practice, we not only separated the struggle of the masses against exploitation and oppression in the U.S. from the NIS, but we also made the latter primary over the former; a position that is objectively no different from the Trotskyite thesis of seeing the external factor (support of NLS) rather than the internal factor (struggle within the imperialist country to defeat monopoly capitalism) as the decisive element in making revolution in a particular country.
We started out this segment by saying that we hold it is our bounden internationalist duty to support the NLS. We have tried to show the reasons why the NLSSC does not constitute giving concrete and resolute support for the NLS. We agree with comrades who have raised that ”it is not enough to say what you are against; you must try to put forth what you are for.” We do not think we have all the answers, but we definitely have ideas what should be our focus and how we should go about our tasks.
The work of supporting NLS cannot be done outside of, or in separation from, the central strategic task of building a vanguard Marxist-Leninist party., Our work, of which support of NLS is one part, must be done among the working class and oppressed masses and the organizations they participate in their daily lives; at the workplace, community, or school. We have to determine, on the basis of analysis, the most burning national liberation struggle in the international arena today as part of having a good grasp on the international situation as a whole. We must have this grasp, because we must be able to raise the concrete manifestation of imperialism as they relate to the struggle to overthrow monopoly capitalism at home (for example, we cannot explain why workers should follow the example of the dockworkers who refused to unload shipments from South Africa unless we have a firm grasp of how apartheid in South Africa perpetuates exploitation everywhere). We have to develop a plan for work within the trade unions, parent associations, student organizations, as well as develop plans for the development of forms of organization that must be built. Such organizations are; rank and file caucuses within the trade unions, similar-type forms of organization within the parent associations, Puerto Rican Student Union or February First Movement type organizations within the student movement, as well as organizations of the unemployed, tenant groups, etc. Primarily, our focus should be to give leadership to the struggles of the masses in this country and in the process train and develop the best, most advanced fighters to become the nucleus” of our future party. Giving support to the national liberation struggles, as well as supporting and struggling f or the movement of the oppressed nationalities in the US, the struggle for women’s emancipation, and against the threat of fascism and war, are part of our tasks of taking the spontaneous struggles out of their narrow framework and raising the broader political issues that the masses, especially workers, must take up. We feel that this is the only way to give concrete support to the national liberation struggles. The question of supporting African Liberation Day, attending an educational activity around Haiti or the Dominican Republic: must be brought to the people in the form of our day to day work among the masses. Only in this way can the advanced be consolidated; they are our link with the broad masses. The advanced, once they are consolidated to the revolutionary cause, will go among the masses and truly organize for an activity. This consolidation hinges upon how-well we explain the concrete interrelationship among ALD, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and the struggle of the masses in the US. This interrelationship is an objective reality; it is our job to make the people conscious of this. We cannot rely on blanketing an area with leaflets and posters to do this protracted work. Many of us, due to our class background and ideological deviations, are too impatient for this. But it is pure wishful thinking, pure voluntarism to hope that grouping elements divorced from the masses (see. PRASE I of tactical plan) will result in “expanding the influence” of a “mass organization”(See PHASE II). It’s more than wishful thinking; it is a dangerous theory which perpetuates the low level of fusion.
As we struggle to correct some of these historical left-sectarian errors, we will be raising support of national liberation struggles and other crucial political questions and struggling for the masses to take these struggles up as their very own. If support for the national liberation struggles, or any other correct struggle, is not seen in this way, it is in essence contempt for the masses. Expecting people to support national liberation struggles not on the basis of true unity based on struggle, but on the basis of agitation at the factory gate or at tables in the community, leads to seeing the masses as a mob to be driven from activity to activity on the basis of phrasemongering and revolutionary posturing. We view the masses as makers of history and we must prove to them through practice the correctness of revolutionary struggle. To give concrete support to the national liberation struggles and further the unity of the people of the US and the people of the world, we must carryout our work in a systematic and scientific way, focusing on winning over the most advanced elements. We must provide a revolutionary alternative to the reformist leadership by being among the masses and addressing their needs in a revolutionary way.
[1] With regard to our break with the National Liberation Struggles Support Committee, we are doing self-criticism for shelving the issue, for not dealing with it collectively, and therefore it does not appear in the document. We all agree that we made errors in the manner in which we broke with the National Liberation Struggles Support Committee. But, we think it was correct to break with the style of work and line of National Liberation Struggles Support Committee, as is expressed in the sum-up. However, there are disagreements among us as to whether or not withdrawing from the National Liberation Struggles Support Committee was the correct resolution.