Published: Guardian Clubs Newsletter, September-October 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.
Sept. 29, 1978
The full staff discussion conducted during several meetings to achieve a high level of unity around our joint position on the party-building movement was without question one of the most fruitful in the Guardian’s history.
It was marked by full participation by most members of our staff and at least some participation by all members. This was in distinction to some previous discussions where not all comrades actually took part in shaping an important political position. As such, “The State of the Party-Building Movement” paper represents the product of an extremely creative, participatory and democratic process we should strive to emulate in the future. That we were able to achieve complete unity around this complex subject on the basis of this process is a tribute to the Guardian staffs serious commitment to Marxism-Leninism.
Over the past several weeks we have had the benefit of reading a few papers representing the views of 20 or 30 members of our Guardian Clubs network. These papers, while differing with each other and advancing separate views, are very useful– both by positive and negative example. They were discussed at our meeting last week.
Some of the papers point to shortcomings in our document regarding the need to (a) strengthen the section in page 1 (“State of the U.S. Communist Movement”) by noting the historic-2-line struggles which gave rise to the 4th tendency and the bankruptcy of the first three tendencies, and the need to (b) strengthen the section in page 6 (“The Guardian and the OC”) to make it entirely clear that our political differences with the OC are primary. These are positive contributions and the amendment to follow later seeks to address itself to these constructive criticisms.
A few of the papers did not make such positive contributions but were useful just the same because they served to cast light upon differences that exist between Club members and on differences that exist between some Club members and the Guardian staff paper on party-building.
In particular, It is now clear that some Club members have disagreements with a section of the Guardian special supplement of June 1977 entitled “On Building the New Communist Party” (the 29 points) regarding our decision to build a limited organization around the Guardian trend or current within the antirevisionist, anti-dogmatist independent Marxist-Leninist party-building movement (the 4th tendency). It says on page S-7 of this paper that “the 29 principles offered by the Guardian... is an attempt both to codify such a set of principles and to advance a particular political trend within the party-building movement.... The Clubs would be an organizational vehicle for helping to develop a distinct political trend within the Marxist-Leninist movement, a trend based on the 29 principles of unity.”
In the present document under discussion this is summed up once again after nearly a year of experience with Guardian Clubs, in the (amended later) next-to-last paragraph of page 6: “We will proceed with our own organizational efforts–concretely, to build, expand and consolidate the Guardian trend on the basis of the political line summed up by the Guardian and as a means of giving that line a firm organizational expression, principally through the Guardian Clubs.”
In reaffirming its view that the Guardian’s political line represents a particular trend within the party-building movement and that this trend must be given concrete organizational expression, the Guardian staff was renewing its commitment to the conception that Guardian Clubs are an organization being built around the Guardian which would help to advance our trend within the 4th tendency, to fight right opportunism within the movement and principally to hasten the development of uniting Marxist-Leninists around political line in order to contribute toward the building of a new communist party. (The Clubs have other tasks as well, of course, including the exceptionally important responsibility of providing a serious base of support for the paper within the progressive movement, etc.)
During our discussion of the various Club papers last week it became apparent that two comrades on our staff now have disagreements with the decision–as expressed in the staff paper–that we should build, expand and consolidate the Guardian trend on the basis of the political line summed up by the Guardian and as a means of giving that line a firm organizational expression, even though these disagreements were not brought forward at the time of our staff meetings two months ago. They now feel that to implement our decision to give firm organizational expression to our political line within the 4th tendency would be “divisive” and virtually factionalism. These are very sharp words.
A number of other points emerged last week during our discussion that are worth noting before proposing some minor amendments to our original paper.
One such point was a new theory advanced by comrade Irwin for the first time within our ranks to defeat the idea that the Clubs should be an organizational vehicle for helping to develop distinct political trend within the 4th tendency. This theory is that “consolidated organizational forms are a mistake at this stage” and that such forms “freeze” the process of developing a party-building strategy and indeed “freeze” ideological struggle. It is not entirely clear what is meant by the term “consolidated,” but its usual definition means to strengthen or make solid, firm or coherent, as in “to build, expand and consolidate the Guardian trend.”
Precisely how this would be “a mistake at this stage” or impede the development of party-building strategy or ideological struggle is not revealed. Our view had been in the past, to my knowledge, that the strengthening of Guardian Clubs into a serious expression of the Guardian political line would advance party-building strategy (because one of the tasks of such a Club network would be to engage in theoretical study to help formulate a strategy) and would sharpen the ideological debate by demonstrating our ability to concretely win a number of Marxist-Leninists to our line in the form of an organizational commitment and also sharpen the debate by expanding it from the pages of our newspaper to the higher level of organizational form.
Far from fearing that a more mature Guardian Club system would “freeze” the development of a party-building strategy within the 4th tendency, I suspect comrade Irwin is cautiously advancing a party-building strategy in contradiction to the Guardian’s decision to “consolidate the Guardian trend.”
It was made evident to the Guardian staff for the first time last week that comrade Irwin has considerable unity with the party-building views of comrades Max and Melinda who note, as though discovering an oversight in our document, that “Nowhere is it mentioned that the essence of the actual process of forging the party involves creating a leading center which must transcend any existing organizational form. It is this leading center–which will certainly be made up of individual Marxist-Leninists who are now in a variety of organizations or trends within the genuine M-L tendency–which absolutely must be placed in the center of our vision of forging the party.”
Such an idea was “nowhere.. .mentioned” because (a) we had never heard it expressed before and because (b) had we heard it expressed we would have subjected it to criticism on many grounds, not the least being that it is untested, divorced from practical considerations, probably unworkable, elitist and removed from the concrete realities of political and organizational development within our tendency.
But it is a party-building strategy. It appears to be based on the novel idea that all existing political organizations and those to come (i.e., any group which has tried to provide organizational form for its political views or which has sought to one degree or another to engage in political practice or win working people to its line) are to be excluded from participating in such a “leading center.” Judging by comrade Irwin’s comments later the mere existence of political organizations constitutes a divisive and perhaps factionalist danger to be struggled against. This coincides with his statement last week that “Marxist-Leninists do not need an organization to defeat incorrect lines.”
To place such a unique strategy for building a party “absolutely.. .at the center of our vision of forging the party” is a mistake that stems from leaning almost entirely toward theory without reference to political practice. We can agree that there are periods in the development of revolutionary struggle when it is required to give principal emphasis to theoretical work. We can agree that an enormous amount of theoretical work must be done within our tendency. We can agree that rectifying the general line of the communist movement is an essential task.
But can we seriously agree with an untested line which posits that the way to build a party is to win Marxist intellectuals to a vague “leading center” which will presumably work out the strategy for building a party capable of taking power in the United States, a self-defined “leading center’’ which makes it a point of principle to ignore practical and organizational work so as not to disturb its deliberations? Who but a handful of people will ever subscribe to this?
The point I wish to make is that one of the key arguments against the development of an organization around the Guardian is that the existence of such an organization would “freeze” the development of a party-building strategy. The “leading center” of individuals perspective, however, already constitutes a party-building strategy. A Guardian organization would not prevent the development of a party-building strategy; it would obviously contradict an already developed strategy in the minds of some people.
The Guardian staff paper on the party-building movement does not put forward a developed strategy for building the party. This is a task that our Clubs will hopefully make some contribution toward as they continue to consolidate and conduct struggle within the 4th tendency.
There are several possible strategies. To rule out all but one from the very beginning truly “freezes” the development of party-building strategy, particularly when this one strategy eliminates contributions from Marxist organizations and indeed implies that organizations–from the limited political form indicated in our paper on party-building to developed preparty forms–constitute a barrier to building a party.
The world goes on, regardless at times of our will. Organizations will be formed in future as in past. Some will be of a limited political nature; some will become developed preparty forms. Workers are going to be won to organizations. This does not contradict the vital necessity of developing theory or the task of uniting Marxist-Leninists around a unified political line. It is a process that is conducted simultaneously. Through this process of developing both theory and organization-practice, of struggle and unity, a correct strategy for building a vanguard party will emerge from our tendency. I am not here arguing against the formation of a self-defined “leading center” of intellectuals if some people wish to do this. Such a center, if and when formed, may make some contributions to the creation of a strategy for building a party and hopefully other contributions as well in the area of helping rectify the general line of the communist movement. It is one of several legitimate forms. I am simply arguing against the idea evidently entertained by advocates of the “leading center” theory that organizations and practice are of no significance at this period or are a disservice (and that the Guardian and others should limit their organizational requirements because of this). This is head-in-the-clouds Marxism. It is predicated on the notion that the only alternative to the incorrect and opportunist idea of fusion (overemphasis on practice at the expense of theoretical development and the creation of a unifying general line) is the incorrect and elitist idea of a “leading center” of individuals (overemphasis on theory at the expense of practice and organisation)–and that any other is “divisive” or “factionalism” This is sectarian.
While neither the Guardian staff paper nor this amendment put forward an exclusive party-building strategy because our movement has yet to develop one of a serious nature, it is probable that any such strategy would have to be based on the correct balance of theory and practice, recognizing that theory is a primary task at this stage but likewise recognizing the important contributions of organization and practice in this process.
A number of other ideas were put forward during our discussion of the various papers last week by the two comrades who now argue against developing an organization around the Guardian which would advance our left trend within the party-building movement. I’ll try to reply to some of them here, not necessarily in the order of importance.
(1) It has been argued that no mention should be made in the party-building paper of the Guardian’s organizational role. On the contrary, an indication of the Guardian’s own political intentions is a responsibility if a critique of the party-building forces is to be principled and well rounded.
(2) It is said the decision to build a more mature organization to give concrete expression to the Guardian trend is too “momentous” to be taken casually. The Guardian staff is not taking it casually. We pledged ourselves in principle to accomplish this task in June 1977. For various reasons we have not fully discussed how to implement this decision until the present period. Our reference to this matter in the party-building paper is a restatement of the principle, not a definition of how we are to accomplish it. The discussion on how to put this principle into practice is about to be conducted by our staff in consultation with Guardian Clubs. We may well decide to take limited steps in this direction or perhaps bigger steps. The principle of the matter has been decided. How the principle is worked out has not been decided. In making this decision we will no doubt very concretely investigate the positive and negative factors to arrive at a conclusion.
(3) It is said that any decision must be placed in the context of an overall party-building strategy. Such a full blown strategy will take some time to work out. But the only factor which could contradict the principle of the matter is a party-building I strategy based on the extraordinary idea that organization per se is a bad thing at this stage. Since I have reason to believe this strategy will not weigh too heavily in our decision, what remains are the very practical questions of the degree of implementation possible at this point.
(4) It is said that consolidating a Guardian political organization on the basis of the Club system would be “divisive,” harmful to unity and would create unnecessary polarization. I disagree. Politics must be put into command. Our 4th tendency has a right and a left. This is not an antagonistic contradiction because it is a right and a left within Marxist-Leninist bounds. One trend in our tendency is organized around the struggle against what it terms the “lefts.” By blurring the distinction between the 3rd and 4th tendencies (the “new communist movement” and the “antirevisionist, anti-dogmatist movement”), this trend incorrectly maintains that the main danger to our party-building movement is left dogmatism. In some part this is a veiled attack on the Guardian, not the “new communist movement.” While the OC may not be the only force within the party-building movement, it is important at this stage. It is getting organized and it is making right errors. As the left force, it is the Guardian’s responsibility to try to get organised and fight these errors. It has been alleged that “fusion has been defeated” by virtue of our theoretical assaults, Unfortunately, however, it continues to exist in practice. And eyen if fusion were defeated in practice–a task that will require organizational at well as theoretical work–it is an illusion to think this meant right opportunism hit been defeated. Fusion it an outgrowth of right opportunism, not the other way around. What “unnecessary polarization” are we talking about? Polarization already exists. The way to overcome polarization is not to ignore it but to struggle against it organizationally and theoretically. Unless this struggle it conducted in a sectarian manner, it can result in a higher level of unity. “Divisive” of what? Divisive in the sense that the Guardian may elect to criticize the claim that a “leading center” of individuals “absolutely must be placed in the center of our vision of forging the party”? Maybe so–but that kind of “divisiveness” it not a bad thing.
(5) It is charged that the gradual development of a political organization around the Guardian would be viewed as “politically backward” by “serious Marxist-Leninists” and they may “even attack it.” I don’t think we will tremble over the prospect of being attacked. At for being “politically backward” in the opinion of “serious” communists, that’s another matter. I can understand the charge if the Guardian’s line and work were summed up at “backward.” But I do not believe it is summed up that way. If what it meant is that trying to form some kind of organization around a fairly good line is “backward” because organizations as such are “backward” at this stage, then I question just how “serious” those Marxist-Leninists are. To define “serious”; Marxist-Leninists at only those who hold that “consolidated organizational forms are a mistake at this stage” is sectarian.
(6) It has been stated the Guardian “endangers” itself by seeking to develop the organization of the left trend in the 4th tendency. On the contrary, the Guardian would strengthen itself were it able to transform the present Club network into a more serious political form. Our paper’s biggest problem over the years has not been the existence of an organization to help it survive and grow but the absence of an organization. Such an organization must be based upon political grounds. True, this implies the Guardian would have to evidence a considerably more competent attitude toward the work of the Clubs than it did during the first experimental year of formation and would have to provide genuine political and organizational leadership, but this is a circumstance we took into consideration in deciding to “build, expand, and consolidate the Guardian trend” on the basis of the Clubs. Precisely how this is to be done is a subject our Clubs Subcommittee is in the process of discussing. The extent to which we will be able to fulfill our intention will depend upon an assessment of our strengths and weaknesses and in consultation and collaboration with the Clubs. The Guardian has not maximized its resources in leading and directing the Clubs. And within the Club system itself there are untapped strengths which, if put in the service of trying to help us construct a political organization over the years, could push the process forward. Let us not forget that in further developing the Cub system we would also be further developing the support system for the paper. We do not intend to “endanger” the Guardian paper by overextending our limited resources, but if we correctly evaluate our strengths and weaknesses and take advantage of whatever skills we collectively possess (both in the Guardian and the Clubs and In the forces which may be won to join the Clubs), there Is no reason the Guardian paper should be jeopardized and there is good reason to think It would he strengthened. (As an aside but It may be a factor: if the “danger” is perceived to derive from the fact that the broad base of our readership may have qualms about supporting a paper that had ties to an organization, the inherent counterbalance is our single-minded devotion to the concept of continuing to serve the broad progressive forces. In fact, just as a probably unnecessary added corrective, I advocate that in proportion to the development of gradually building an organization, we should continue to broaden, deepen, diversify and further the appeal of our paper to the broad progressive forces in general.
(7) It has been alleged the Guardian newspaper does not have the ability to form a political organization. I disagree. The Guardian does not have the ability to build a party organization. At this stage the Guardian does not have the ability to build a preparty form. In any event, we are not talking about building a preparty form at this point–which is not to say that if we gradually, step-by-step, built a limited political form over the years which became strong enough in its theoretical and organizational capacities to transform into a preparty form, that the metamorphosis should be ruled out in principal now. It is not on the present agenda; it may never transpire; and is not called for in the paper under discussion. The Guardian has three choices today regarding the future of Guardian Clubs: (a) disband them as an experiment which failed; (b) keep them where they are; (c) build them. Our paper on party-building advocates building them. The experiment did not fall, although the Guardian Itself failed to provide the kind of leadership and guidance required to maximize Club potential even within the limited mandate of the first year. We do not believe the Clubs should remain where they are because It la doubtful they can survive as such, which is the same thing as disbanding them. What, then, does it mean to build Guardian Clubs?
First, of course, it is necessary to resolve the sudden differences which have surfaced within our staff over this question. Then, assuming we remain firm in our commitment to build an organization around the Guardian trend, we must investigate how it can be done and explore our resources. We have very limited organizational experience as a collective, although individuals within our staff and Club ranks have had some experience to one degree or another. On the other hand, we have a big advantage in the newspaper itself. While it is true that our work on the paper absorbs our time and energy, we do possess the most important instrument of political propaganda and agitation in the left-wing movement. By taking advantage of whatever resources we have on and off our staff and maximizing the built-in advantage of the paper itself, I think we can build a limited political organization. If successful, it would take years.
We have not yet entered full discussions on how this is to be accomplished. It is obvious that in the very beginning stages certain things are required. For instance: (a) naming a politically and organizationally experienced comrade from on or off our present staff to genuinely lead the national Club organization, a comrade who would work full-time at this task and who would be provided with all the assistance required to perform the job well; (b) eliminating the ceiling on Club membership and actively beginning to recruit people to the Clubs; (c) developing a higher form of democracy in the Club system and working out a better relationship between democracy and centralism; (d) devising a well-directed system of internal education, setting standards for political development and goals as to what should be achieved; (e) working together with the Clubs in refining and further developing the 29 principles and then, in common, seeing whether it is possible to graduate from our present 10 points of unity to a higher form of political unity which would characterize the Clubs and Guardian paper together, thus forming a political organization around the Guardian trend (further projecting, we might then continue our study, Clubs and Guardian together, to begin investigating those crucial areas of theoretical development required to make some contribution to rectifying the general line of the communist movement, sharing our advances in this area with the 4th tendency in general and learning from other Marxist-Leninists who will no doubt be engaging in the same process); (f) launching a systematic program to engage in closer relations with other M-L groups and Individuals within our tendency, with particular emphasis on those who are close to the Guardian (left) trend but excluding no one within the 4th tendency; (g) sharpen the struggle organizationally as well as theoretically against right opportunism in our movement while continuing to be on guard against “left” errors; (h) develop programs for the Clubs to enhance their practical work in a serious way–from participation in mass struggles to creating fraternal links with working-class and community organizations, recognizing that theoretical work conducted in isolation from practice and organization is one-sided work that would compromise our contributions to the movement in general; (i) reorganize our Clubs Subcommittee so it may become better equipped to fulfill Its new functions; (j) strengthening the Guardian itself by upgrading its own study and bringing on to our staff more developed Marxists who agree with the decision to build a political organization; (k) setting higher standards of achievement for the Clubs in their Guardian-building work (necessitating far better work on the part of the Guardian paper in providing national direction in this area); (l) upgrading the Club newsletter from a chatty house organ to a mechanism of political value, a means of communication within the Club system which would enhance education, provide for intra-Club political intercourse and which would publish party-building material not just from the Guardian paper to the Clubs but from the Clubs to the Guardian and from other sections of the 4th tendency to both the paper and the Clubs; (m) simultaneously we should make a number of improvements in the Guardian to broaden its base while upgrading its coverage of the left in general and the party-building movement.
This is just a beginning, but we are just beginning. I think the preliminary suggestions above are all possible if the Guardian devotes itself to the task and if a considerable number of people in the existing Clubs get behind it. Naturally, there are probably many Club people who oppose the idea of building an organization around our trend for one of several reasons. These good comrades may well decide to transfer their work to other areas. On the other hand, I’m sure other comrades not yet in the Club network may be attracted to such a political organization.
Exactly what we must do to form a Guardian organization of the type indicated here has not yet been fully discussed. I’ve gone into detail on some points because we are confronted with a rival amendment which would gut the paper under discussion of any hint the Guardian sought to develop an organizational form around the left current in our party-building tendency, thus reversing our position of June 1977 to “advance a particular political trend within the party-building movement.”
To sum up this introduction: The section of our paper, “The State of the Party-Building Movement” dealing with consolidating the Guardian trend must be kept intact and restructured to include criticism of the “leading center” idea. The alternative argument that the development of political organizations are a disservice to our movement at this stage must be defeated, along with the notion that a “leading center” of individuals will pave the way for building a party.
I propose the following amendments:
•Page 1. Eliminate paragraphs 12, 13, and 14, eliminating mention of possible 5th and 6th tendencies, and substitute the following:
“All of the first three tendencies are deviations from Marxism-Leninism in one form or another and have developed out of the historic two-line struggles that are well known to all communists and need not be elaborated here. Suffice it to say our independent Marxist-Leninist tendency (anti-dogmatist, anti-revisionist) is a direct outgrowth of these struggles, stemming principally from the battle against revisionism.
“The initial steps taken during the 1950s and part of the 1960s against the revisionism of the CPUSA were historic advances, unfortunately compromised beyond redemption when they became mired in consolidated “left” dogmatism. Our independent Marxist-Leninist tendency heralds a new era wherein have been born the revolutionary forces capable of carrying through the struggle against revisionism to the end by simultaneously waging political combat against the dogmatist deviations of the third tendency and the Trotskyism of the second. Only by sharpening the struggle against these deviations while upholding the correct Marxist-Leninist banner can a communist party be formed that is capable of leading the U.S. working class to victory over class exploitation and for socialism.”
•Page 1, column 3. Substitute for the last sentence of the first paragraph under the heading “Independent Marxist-Leninist Movement”:
“This tendency is based on the principles of scientific socialism as developed principally by Marx, Engels and Lenin, further developed in the modern era by Mao Tse-tung, amplified by the contributions of Stalin, Ho Chi Minh, Kim Il Sung, Enver Hoxha, Amilcar Cabral among others, and the concrete experience of the international working class movement.”
•Page 6. Substitute for the entire section under the subheading “The Guardian and the OC”:
“Why has the Guardian not joined the OC at this time? The reasons should be fairly obvious from the preceding critique.
“The principal reason is that the Guardian has important theoretical and political differences with the OC. At this stage, the Guardian trend constitutes the left-wing of the fourth tendency and the OC trend the right. (The definitions left and right used here do not indicate antagonistic contradictions within this framework and we are also aware of the differing political perspectives of the component groups within the OC, not all of which have fallen prey to any or all of the right opportunist errors that characterize the OC in general.)
“At this stage in the foreseeable future we maintain the Guardian must consolidate its own left trend external to the formation organized by the OC in order to better sharpen the principled struggle against right opportunism within our party building movement. For our Guardian trend to submerge itself into the OC would be to concede legitimacy to the OC’s incorrect theoretical and political lines and also weaken the Guardian trend’s ability to conduct an all-sided struggle.
“This does not mean the Guardian has forsaken the possibility of eventual unity at a higher stage with some OC groups or the OC itself. Indeed, it is our desire that through struggle this will one day be possible. Remaining outside the OC and trying to build the Guardian trend likewise does not mean that we are “turning our backs” on the OC by any means. We anticipate and will seek many opportunities to creatively work with as well as struggle against OC groups and the OC and look forward to cooperating in the struggle against revisionism and dogmatism and in the common struggle against capitalist exploitation and imperialism.
“The Guardian also has serious reservations regarding the organizational premises underlying the formation and structure of the OC. The OC’s outline for party building is schematic and offers few prospects for overcoming the federationism inherent when two dozen or so local M-L organizations – a number of them characterized by a relatively low level of political development – are coming together for the apparent purpose of eventually developing a pre-party and party form. The fact that PWOC is the leading force but denies this suggests a degree of political manipulation or the felt necessity to conciliate with strong ultra-democratic or anti-leadership tendencies within the OC.
“Many forces and quite possibly several trends or currents will develop within our tendency over the next several years – not just the Guardian and the OC – due to uneven political development. Unless the fourth tendency is to give birth to several “vanguard” parties, its approach must be to galvanize the entire movement – organizations of all kinds and individuals –toward the objective of forming one party expressing the highest level of unity possible in the tendency as a whole. The Guardian can play a better role in this outside the OC. of the purposes of the Guardian trend throughout this period will be to contribute to forging such a line by paying close attention to the vitally important theoretical tasks required to help rectify the general line of the communist movement while not ignoring the organizational and practical tasks necessary to guard against one-sided theoretical work.
“The consolidation of the various forces and trends within the independent Marxist-Leninist tendency will take some time and sharp struggle will precede the unity around line required to begin the building of a revolutionary party. That struggle includes not only debates and polemics; it also includes the entire process of organizing Marxist-Leninists around political line. The existence of struggle and organizing work is a positive, not a negative, factor. To ignore important theoretical and political differences or to suspend organization work would be a setback for our movement.
”In addition to our principled political differences with the OC, the Guardian has important organizational considerations of its own which it would ignore at its own and the movement’s peril if it were to join the OC. The Guardian is the most influential left-wing newspaper in the U.S., serving both the broad progressive forces and Marxist-Leninist movement. At this stage it can best continue to play this role while remaining organizationally independent. In this process it will become an even more useful vehicle for struggle and unity within the Marxist-Leninist movement and at the same time serve as a conduit to draw people from the broad progressive movement into the more advanced independent Marxist-Leninist tendency.
“Another consideration we cannot ignore is that the Guardian, with 30 years experience and a degree of credibility and influence in the broad movement, would be conferring a form of legitimacy upon an untested and organizationally and politically flawed OC were it to join. This would not be a service to our readers. The Guardian also recognizes that while it has certain theoretical and political contributions to make to the party-building movement, it must acquire additional organizational and practical experience before it could maximize its efforts within any such political alignment.
”Were the Guardian in unity with the OC in areas of theory, politics and organization, many of these problems could be solved; indeed, there would be no distinct OC and Guardian trends and our various organizations would work in greater harmony. But important differences do exist, necessitating two trends.
“At this stage, therefore, we do not envision any organizational ties between the Guardian and Guardian Clubs and the OC. Within the party-building movement we will engage in principled ideological struggle with the OC and its organizations and attempt to win them over to a more correct view on the key questions facing our movement.
“We will proceed with our own organizational efforts–concretely to build, expand and consolidate the Guardian trend on the basis of the political line summed up by the Guardian and as a means of giving that line an organized political expression, principally through the growth of Guardian Clubs.”
* * *
“The paper as published here differs in certain particulars from an original draft circulated this summer to Guardian Clubs and OC groups on the basis of discussions resulting from suggestions made by some Club members.”