First Issued: August 1, 1978.
Transcription, Editing and Markup: Paul Saba
Copyright: This work is in the Public Domain under the Creative Commons Common Deed. You can freely copy, distribute and display this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit the Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line as your source, include the url to this work, and note any of the transcribers, editors & proofreaders above.
Recently, a small number of Marxist-Leninists gathered to discuss the crisis in the communist movement. The delegates had previously established a firm basis of unity for such a meeting by reaching agreement on 18 points; these points briefly set forth the fundamental principles of scientific socialism, a rudimentary application of those principles to US reality, and clear lines of demarcation with opportunism generally and revisionism and ultra-leftism in particular. In addition, numerous discussion papers along with several practical proposals had been circulated well in advance both to allow for better preparation and, even more importantly to encourage action. After extensive debate, the delegates agreed to establish the Organizing Committee for an Ideological Center (OC).
The need for the OC stems from two salient facts. First, the communist movement has been unable to overcome the disastrous impact of revisionism by re-establishing a revolutionary vanguard party. Since the final demise of the Communist Party USA as a revolutionary instrument in 1957, anti-revisionist elements have waged a twenty year struggle to resuscitate the organisational expression of the finest traditions of our people. But in spite of many valuable contributions made through much painstaking work and despite the fact that party-building efforts have intensified in recent years, a viable Party has yet to emerge.
The main reason for this failure is the continued drift of the bulk of party-builders towards “left” opportunism. The largest organisations of anti-revisionists have consolidated around an ultra-left conception of the revolutionary process and are utilizing their significant organizational, financial and publishing resources to draw additional cadre under their wings. In fact, recent developments indicate that the trend towards unity behind the banner raised by the “lefts” is becoming even more pronounced. With the split in RCP, the CPML is not only the largest and best organised of the ultra-left “parties,” but it has also succeeded in enlisting important organisations such as ATM and IWK in the formation of a unity committee based on a “left-wing” program. Thus, the consolidation of the bulk of the “lefts” into a single national organization looms on the immediate horizon.
Moreover, in their attempt to go against the opportunist tide, the Marxist-Leninist forces have made only slight headway. Despite a generally widening break with ultra-leftism, many forces still confine their divergence to a single aspect of the prevailing “left” line; they have yet to deepen their understanding by grasping all the main features of modern “left-wing communism,” or by probing its ideological foundations and theoretical roots. Those who have initiated work towards a more systematic critique arc conducting their activities in isolation. Each small circle of revolutionaries operates independently without sharing the results of its labors until it is ready to publish a full-blown position and enter polemics. In addition, only meager attention has been given to elaborating a plan for the organization and consolidation of the anti-“lefts.” Instead, the same centrifugal tendencies which have been so prevalent in the recent history of the anti-revisionist movement – each small circle striving to establish its organizational hegemony – have been allowed to govern the development of the Marxist-Leninist trend.
The present state of affairs only works to the advantage of the ultra-lefts. The lack of consolidation of the Marxist-Leninist tendency loaves it subject to opportunist deviations of both a right and a “left” character – but particularly vulnerable to those of a leftist variety. The isolation of its various circles and adherents not only impedes ideological consolidation of its own ranks but strengthens the sway of the ultra-left “parties” over their own followers as well. And the failure to elaborate a common plan for maturing a Marxist-Leninist trend can only mean that the small circle mentality will grow and continue to damage the cause of principled unity. Clearly, the anti-“left” tendency must take a significant step forward.
The real question, of course, is not whether a step should be taken, but what kind of step. In our view, the most pressing tack facing honest revolutionaries is the establishment of an ideological center for the anti-“lefts.” Our tendency desperately needs a single center, a single national focal point for its strivings to overcome the ultra-left line. In order to successfully reckon with “left” opportunism we must unite the present distinct and competing centers behind a common effort both to overcome any leftist thinking in our own ranks and to combat the ideological hegemony of the “lefts.” And we must also join together to fight the tendency to allow secondary differences among us to obscure our more pressing unity in opposition to “left-wing communism.”
It is not just any center which will serve these needs – but only an ideological one. That is, we must have a center which focuses the attention of the anti-“left” forces on two interrelated and interpenetrating tasks. First, common energies must be devoted to overcoming the errors of the communist movement and particularly the legacy of ultra-leftism. Otherwise the demands of pressing forward with our work may lead to neglecting the importance of thoroughly rooting out “left” opportunism, allowing the same errors to reemerge even if in a slightly different form. Secondly, it is necessary to allocate sufficient collective resources to the kind of theoretical work which will yield program, strategy and tactics for the US revolution. Here again there is a real danger that the demands of practical activity may divert the attention of revolutionaries from resolving the many thorny problems posed by the class struggle. Thus, we must have a center which concentrates on the ideological reorientation of the communist movement by combining a rectification of past errors with the elaboration of a theoretical foundation for future practice.
An ideological center could achieve this reorientation in a number of ways. In the first place, instead of each independent circle pursuing its theoretical work according to its own separate agenda, a national center could systematize the ideological struggle. By identifying the moot important questions and working out an orderly method to approach them, the attention of the whole tendency could converge on its common problems. National study teams could be established, drawing together the most advanced cadre from the entire tendency and engaging them in joint theoretical work. Such teams could pursue intense investigation for a period of time, draft up working papers and circulate them for broad discussion. Periodic forums and conferences could also be organized to sum up progress and allow for regular input from the tendency as a whole. It would also be possible to publish a regular national theoretical journal which could engage the bulk of the anti-“lefts.” By specifying topics for dialogue and opening its pages for contributions from its adherents, such a journal would allow for a continuous process of comradely debate in the full view of the communist movement as a whole. Finally, the center could sponsor regular conferences to sum up areas of practical work, e.g., in the trade unions, among oppressed nationalities, in the women’s movement, or in building communist organization. By developing preparatory materials to circulate in advance and ensuring that discussions arc written up, reproduced and circulated, the conferences could serve to advance the work of even those who could not attend.
Obviously, a viable ideological center for the anti-“lefts” could not just be declared. Nor could it be constituted by a email group of organizations meeting secretly. Rather since a viable center cannot be imposed upon but must engage its adherents, it could only develop on the basis of the conscious and active commitment of the bulk of revolutionaries in the tendency. Similarly, the exact nature, goals and tasks of a center that serves the anti-“left” forces could not be defined by a narrow group. It is necessary to involve the tendency as a whole in the process of defining what kind of center it needs, how that center should be built and the determination of its main activities. An ideological center worthy of the name can only be the product of a process absorbing the attention of the great majority of revolutionaries in the emerging Marxist-Leninist trend.
The Organizing Committee for an Ideological Center was create to guide such a process. Its primary purpose is to facilitate drawing as much of the anti-“left” tendency as possible into actively defining the character of an ideological center and elaborating a plan for its development. In order to maximize its potential to achieve this objective, the OC is not tied to any distinct political perspective within the anti-“lefts” but is open to all who are in general agreement with its broadly framed l8 points of unity. Nor docs the OC endorse any particular form for participation in the process. It is structured so as to allow for input from organizations, collectives, study groups and individuals. In essence, the OC is transitional in character – it is a step towards an ideological center but not the actual creation of one.
As defined in its constitution, the primary task of the OC is to develop and circulate a draft plan for an ideological, center. That plan would define the nature, goals and tasks of a center, setting forth as clearly and concretely as possible how those goals could be reached and its tasks met. It would also specify the basis of unity necessary to place a center on a solid footing and describe the manner in which that unity could be prepared. In addition, any intermediate steps that would have to be taken in the process of constructing a center would be discussed in order that a clear course for its development would be charted. And finally, the necessary human and material resources for such a body would also be designated and a method to realize them indicated.
Once drafted the plan would be circulated and dialogue organized around it. At first general remarks could be solicited to determine in the draft provides a suitable basis of discussion or must be substantially reworked. If the response is generally positive, then the draft could be subjected to an intense process of review and debate. It could be scrutinized by as many organizations, collectives, study groups and individuals as possible and then considered in broader local and regional meetings. Eventually a national conference could be called to subject the draft (or redraft) to final debate, amendment, and adoption.
In this way the Organizing Committee would promote both the development of a plan for an ideological center and the unification of the bull; on the anti-“lefts” around it. Once that process has matured, the OC would no longer have a function – unless, of course, it was incorporated into future plans.
In addition to its primary task of drafting and organising dialogue on a plan for a center, the OC was also assigned a number of secondary tasks. It was charged with sparking a discussion on the need to centralize the ideological struggle in the anti-“left” tendency so as to create the best conditions for communist unification. It was also directed to initiate a preliminary exchange on the nature of ultra-leftism in the communist movement and how to combat it. In addition, in order to create a firm foundation for tactical decisions on how to best advance the Marxist-Leninist tendency, the OC is to conduct investigations into the state of the anti-revisionist movement as a whole. And finally, the OC is to direct special attention to drawing new forces into its ranks, focusing particularly on strengthening its multinational composition and developing more input from such regions as the South and Southwest.
In order to pursue its work in the interim between its meetings, the OC elected a Steering Committee. Candidates for this body were chosen primarily on the basis on their general ideological consolidation and their organizational experience. Secondary attention was given to such factors as composition by nationality and sex, geography and practical ability. A Steering Committee of five was elected–three places chosen by designated organizations and its Secretary and Chairperson elected by the OC as a whole.
The Steering Committee is calling on all comrades in the anti-“left” tendency to study the 18 points of unity and discuss the general perspective and development of the Organizing Committee. If you feel that we have adopted an incorrect course we urge you to submit your criticisms in writing. On the other hand if you generally endorse the path adopted, we urge you to join us in building the OC, developing the draft plan and organizing discussion around it. We call on the all the anti-“lefts” to join us in a common effort to build a single ideological center for the emerging Marxist-Leninist trend.
1 August 1978