Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line

Other Resolutions Adopted at the OCIC’s 2nd National Conference

Published: Conference Transcripts and Resolutions, Second National OCIC Conference, 1979.
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.

SC Resolution on OCIC Membership (as it relates to the question of Point 18)

a) Unity with Principle 18 is required for membership in the OCIC.

b) Forces who unite with Principle 18 but not with the Resolution on a Line of Demarcation with “Left” Opportunism shall be dropped from membership in the OCIC, at the decision of the SC, if they allow their disagreement with the resolution to obstruct the OCIC’s aggressive pursuit of its work based on that resolution.

c) It is the responsibility of all members of the OCIC to uphold, explain and convince people of the correctness of Principle 18 both within and without the tendency.

* * *

Resolution on a Line of Demarcation with “Left” Opportunism introduced at the Point 18 Conferences

Whereas no viable revolutionary current can make a practice of collaborating with its own ruling class; and

Whereas all the advocates of “left” internationalism have developed a practice based on collaboration with U.S. imperialism to one degree or another; and

Whereas “left” internationalism shares with other major aspects of the ultra-left line an absurdly “left” approach to the struggle against right opportunism generally and revisionism in particular; and

Whereas the break with “left” internationalism formed the watershed of the ultra-left line in the party building movement; and

Whereas the formulation “U.S. imperialism is the main enemy of the peoples of the world” separates the advocates of “left” internationalism from the adherents of proletarian internationalism:

Be it resolved that it is correct to uphold the identification of U.S. imperialism as the main enemy of the world’s peoples as a correct line of demarcation for building a trend in opposition to ultra-leftism.

* * *

Resolution on the Struggle over Principle 18

1) We reject the argument that unity on the nature of the ultra-left line is a prerequisite to demarcation with specific features of the ultra-left line. This argument is based in dogmatism and is advanced in order to avoid the concrete analysis of concrete conditions by retreating to the abstract. On the contrary, demarcation with “left” internationalism is essential in order to establish the preconditions for common work towards deepening the criticism of ultra-leftism and our unity on the nature of the ultra-left line.

2) The concrete work of forging an anti-“left” trend centers on the interpenetrating tasks of deepening the criticism of ultra-leftism; and elaborating a Marxist-Leninist program, strategy, and tactics for the U.S. revolution. Attempts to sever the indissoluble connection between these tasks leads to abstractness in the critique of ultra-leftism which plays into the hands of dogmatism and must be combatted.

3) The question of program, strategy, and tactics is inseparable from the question of common practice; and is most clearly brought out in connection with the question of common practice. It is therefore essential to raise the question of unity in practice in relation to the unity needed to take up the task of forging a Marxist-Leninist trend. In this regard, we hold that the practice of proletarian internationalism, at even the most rudimentary level, is not possible on the basis of “left” internationalism.

4) Underlying the centrists’ adherence to “left” internationalism is an uncritical attitude toward the CPC and Mao Zedong. We reject this flunkyism and accept the implications of identifying “left” internationalism as a central component of the ultra-left line – the rejection of the Theory of the Three Worlds, the need to reexamine Mao Zedong Thought and the thesis of restoration of capitalism in the USSR, and the recognition that the CPC is the center of an ultra-left trend in the international communist movement. At the same time, we recognize the historical contributions which the CPC and Mao Zedong have made to the struggle against revisionism and the importance of extracting the positive aspects of this contribution for our own anti-revisionism. And we also recognize that the CPC’s line is presently shifting rightward and thus calls for renewed analysis by Marxist-Leninists.

5) Errors were committed in the struggle against centrism and conciliation with centrism within the OCIC. Primarily, an underestimation of the influence of “left” internationalism within the anti-“left” tendency caused the struggle to be overly drawn out and the OCIC to be launched before the struggle was concluded. Secondarily, the need to demarcate with ‥left” internationalism was not sufficiently related to the concrete tasks necessary in building a Marxist-Leninist trend. This played into the hands of abstract appeals for conciliation.

6) Another error committed was our failure to draw out the racism and national chauvinism implicit in the line of the “left” internationalists and their conciliators. The “lefts’” tendency to chauvinistically scoff at both the experience of national liberation movements and the statements of the leaders of these movements (particularly at the experience and statements of African freedom fighters), their willingness to make common cause with such virulently white chauvinist regimes as that of South Africa, and their objective unity with the most chauvinistic and racist sectors of U.S. capital should all have been sharply exposed. As a result of this error, we missed an excellent opportunity to deepen the exposure of both national and white chauvinism.

7) The conduct of the struggle provides strong confirmation of some of the basic thrusts of the OCIC’s approach to ideological struggle. First, the value of centralized tendency-wide struggle was demonstrated. It ensured that the struggle focused on essential issues; lessons and insights gained locally were raised to the national level; and the consolidation produced was thorough and broadly shared. Second, the basic rule that local organizational boundaries must be subordinated to the ideological struggle nationally was confirmed. Both the representation of minority viewpoints within local organizations and the prohibition on local organizational discipline on participants in the national struggle encouraged the full involvement of the tendency in the struggle and therefore advanced the ideological struggle which was produced.

* * *

Steering Committee Resolution on a Specific Struggle around Racism at the 2nd National Conference

1. The OCIC strongly commends the comrade who raised to the whole conference the criticism of racism around the characterization of this neighborhood.

2. The characterization of the neighborhood surrounding the hotel as “bad”, the suggestion that conference participants “walk quickly” within two blocks of the hotel, and the suggestion that participants travel in packs could only serve to enhance racist fears. The bourgeoisie has given great attention to spreading racist paranoia concerning the crime and violence stemming from the oppression of minority communities. By arousing concerns for personal safety among the primarily white conference participants, the above characterization dovetailed with this ideology.

3. All white comrades are self-critical for not seriously identifying the racist implications of this characterization of the neighborhood which was both verbally and in writing transmitted to conference participants. This reveals how weak is our understanding of racism.

4. All white comrades had a responsibility for taking up the struggle against racism with other white comrades. The failure to do so by most white comrades was racist.

5. We have to openly confront the racism in our movement. The defensiveness displayed by some comrades around this criticism of racism reflects the continued influence of bourgeois ideology in our ranks. This seriously retarded the process of criticism and the ability of comrades to understand the essence of the criticism. Such defensiveness holds back the struggle against racism in that it makes all comrades hesitant to raise criticisms of racism.

6. Clear racism was displayed by some white comrades’ behavior towards a Black comrade. The lack of respect shown towards this national minority comrade – in both repeatedly interrupting him and In characterizing his criticism as a distortion – was racist.

7. All OC members, individuals and organizations, have the responsibility of to take back this criticism of racism to their respective OC Centers, organizations, and groups. There should be a full discussion of the roots of these racist errors and their implications for all aspects of our practice.

8. The Steering Committee of the OCIC has the responsibility of deepening and summing up this criticism and its relationship to our work. Their summation will be circulated for broad discussion within the OC.

9. This incident confirms the necessity of the whole OC seriously taking up a deeper study of the centrality of the struggle against racism and the continuing summation of our practice. Part of this effort is the need to popularize instances of racism that occurs in the OC.

10. It was correct that the criticism was raised and an initial discussion carried out at the OC conference. It was positive in that it was another step forward in furthering our understanding of racism. Yet we recognize that we have not taken our criticism and rectification deep enough. The process has only begun.