First Published: Frontline, Vol. 7, No. 8, October 30, 1989.
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.
Concluding two years of “re-examination, re-direction and democratization,” Line of March held its first national delegated conference October 7-9. The meeting adopted a summation of the errors and shortcomings of the Line of March’s earlier perspective and practice, and approved a political statement for a national organization with a new outlook on the challenges facing left activists heading towards the 1990s. (The political perspective adopted by the conference, as well as the summation of the Line of March’s history, are available in the pamphlet “The Transformation of Line of March.”)
Serious problems of ultra-leftism were the fatal flaws in Line of March’s previous political foundations. But a critique of ultra-leftism took the organization only half the distance toward a new identity. At least as important was the examination of the broader realities of world and U.S. politics as we enter the 1990s: ferment and renewal in the socialist world, re-evaluation and debate in Marxist-Leninist theory, a new climate in international politics, new forms of activity in the U.S. progressive, movement, and flux in the U.S. left. Contemporary U.S. capitalism, faced with a new international equation, presents a different landscape for left activity than it did a decade ago.
These realities called for a major overhaul of the political perspective which had served the Line of March. The conference agreed that it would take extensive dialogue and cooperation among forces on the left to yield the fresh analysis and collective experience necessary to break the left’s current marginalization in U.S. politics. For Line of March, adopting such a view marks a major “opening outward,” a break from longstanding tendencies toward self-important, vanguardist politics.
In a concrete effort toward building more open relationships, a number of observers were invited to the conference. The 59 delegates were joined by representatives from the Communist Party USA, National Committee for Independent Political Action, the Guardian newspaper and the North Star Review/ North Star Network, as well as a number of Bay Area activists. A delegation from the FMLN joined the observers and offered a statement of solidarity.
Line of March originated as part of a political trend that broke away from the Maoist “New Communist Movement“ in the mid-1970s. While critical from the outset of Maoism’s collaboration with U.S. imperialism under the banner of opposing the Soviet Union, the Line of March was not nearly so alert to other negative features of ultra-leftism. In particular, Line of March adopted the Maoist proposition that the organization’s central task was to build itself into a new Marxist-Leninist vanguard party which would replace the supposedly “revisionist” CPUSA.
The Line of March made a number of analytic and practical contributions to the working class movement and the left – not least the development of this newspaper. But like all the other organizations which emerged from the 1960s flow based their identity on “party building” (in retrospect, sect-building), the organization was simultaneously beset with problems of sectarian and undemocratic practices, an inflated sense of its own significance and role, and an ultra-left estimate of the stage of the class struggle and how to advance it. The membership of Line of March ultimately recognized that despite the organization’s accomplishments, its trajectory was off course.
In fall 1987, Line of March began to confront its significant problems, and the membership voted overwhelmingly to take up a thoroughgoing and self-critical review of its line and practice. This review, which came to be called re-examination, re-direction and democratization, allowed the organization to assess its errors and review its history, and to grapple with how the ideas it adopted in revolutionary zeal had misdirected its efforts. The proposition that a small group of U.S. Marxist-Leninists could or should develop itself into a new “vanguard” party was discarded, while the organization’s commitment to socialism and its determination to participate in the broader process of revitalizing Marxist ideology was reaffirmed.
Line of March’s deliberations were encouraged by the process of self- criticism and renewal which has gathered momentum in the international communist movement, particularly in the Soviet Communist Party. This served to cast a spotlight on the new realities of the contemporary world and to foster a climate of openness and anti-sectarianism which was indispensable to Line of March’s own reevaluation. Of course, the ideas associated with perestroika and new thinking could not be directly translated into a solution for the problems of Line of March or the challenges facing the U.S. left in general. But the renewal underway in the CPSU certainly helped pry the Line of March away from dogmatism and prompted a rigorous critique of ultra-leftism.
In looking ahead, the conference attempted to make a forthright assessment of the challenges and uncertainties confronting all left activists in the U.S. today. Capitalism, utilizing the scientific and technological revolution to extend its lease on life, has proven to be substantially more resilient than could have been foreseen by Marx, Engels or Lenin. The timetable for building “a new order on the ruins of the old“ in the U.S. reaches far into the future. Meanwhile, the socialist world is uncovering problems of crisis proportions: serious economic stagnation, unfulfilled promises of popular democracy and volatile ethnic and nationality conflicts.
The progressive trend in U.S. politics is quite weak relative to conservatives and liberals, with revolutionaries and socialists exercising little distinct influence on a national scale. In the uphill fight to revitalize the left and buttress anti-capitalist politics, the collective effort to take full advantage of all potentialities becomes critical.
Jesse Jackson’s 1988 presidential campaign demonstrated that peace-and- justice politics and the appeal to find economic common ground can win broad support. Also evident was the continuing role of the Black community in anchoring a broader, progressive coalition. In the course of the Jackson motion, the left learned it could no longer afford ambivalence toward electoral politics.
Among today’s opportunities are fresh militancy in labor, an increase in campus activism and a flourishing environmental movement. The glaring social crisis – homelessness, drugs, AIDS, inadequate health care and education – has produced a wave of protest and organization. The social crisis, intertwined with persistent discrimination and racist violence, brings renewed militancy and urgency to the fightback in minority communities which remains right at the heart of popular motion. Faced with a tight-fisted federal fiscal policy, the U.S. military budget becomes a magnet for popular protest, linking the U.S. progressive movement with a worldwide call for disarmament and the resolution of regional conflicts.
Within the left, some of the ideological barriers to cooperation between different groups and tendencies are beginning to grow old and break down. The advent a of Soviet new thinking has contributed to a climate of greater flexibility and dialogue, while the milestone Jackson presidential campaigns served to corral a many sectors of the left into the same political ball park.
Most left organizations lack any immediate prospect of acquiring on their own the base necessary to become a substantial force in U.S. politics. There is every incentive to drop past policies and practices that repelled many serious activists from the organized left. An open and cooperative attitude also promotes an infusion of experiences from the generation of progressive activists that has taken up its posts without any illusions that revolution was just around the corner in the U.S.
With this perspective, the Line of March found good reason to abandon the notion of building its own political fortress, and to stress the need to strengthen the left overall and to search for broader forms of alliance and organization. Line of March will strive to work with others to build vehicles to encourage left dialogue and joint projects. Members of the Line of March will be active in the popular mass movements, and will contribute the lessons of their experience and their particular point of view to the task of strengthening the U.S. left.
The conference agreed that maintaining a publication that challenges the left to update its analysis of developments in U.S. society and in the worldwide struggle for peace, justice and socialism would be a positive use of its current limited resources. However, Frontline was urged to make a sustained effort to involve a wide range of contributors, look toward revamping its editorial committee, and actively work on securing Its financial basis. Making Frontline a publication marked by creative analytical perspectives that spark healthy debate was seen as the appropriate reflection of the organization’s new political outlook. (Our plans to change and improve Frontline to meet the challenges of the 1990s will be discussed in the next issue.)
The conference also marked another step in the democratization of Line of March. Its new structure emphasizes internal democracy and breadth of membership participation, while creating mechanisms to bring the collective energies of the organization to bear on agreed-upon national priorities. Elections were held for the leadership bodies of the organization. The six-member national executive committee is Linda Burnham, Max Elbaum, Sushawn Robb, Ann Schwartz, Bob Wing and Ethan Young. The new national board will consist of representatives to be elected by the chapters over the next two months, as well as eight at-large members elected by the conference. These were Cyrus Edwards, Loretta Harris, Ellen Kaiser, Marla Kamiya, Rachelle Kivanoski, Gerald Lenoir, Eileen Raphael and Irwin Silber.
A special vote of thanks was given to outgoing members of the national executive committee Arnoldo Garcia, Miriam Louie and Cathi Tactaquin who plan to help lead the organization in its reintegration into activist politics, and make special efforts to work among left activists in minority communities, a crucial sector to any overall left realignment.
Finally, the delegates selected a new name; the choice was Frontline Political Organization. In part, the decision represented a positive assessment of the broadening out process which has already taken place in Frontline over the last year, with publication of a greater range of contributors and more diversity of opinion. For most of the delegates, shedding the name Line of March meant unloading another piece of ultra-left baggage, and the sigh of relief was audible.
The strains and anxieties of an extended period of self-criticism and political reevaluation found their greatest respite at the conference’s conclusion. A group of dedicated activists had succeeded in dusting themselves off and renewing their commitment “to the fight against injustice and oppression and for socialism; to a forthright engagement with the problems of socialist theory and practice; and to a determined orientation to struggle for the unity and influence of the left.”