I find myself most in agreement with the comrade who wrote “Why we should remain an M-L organization,” and ask comrades to reject the proposal of the Secretariat majority at the upcoming Congress. Some points stated in the critique need to be emphasized:
1) Our basic politics will change if we adopt the proposal. To drop any of the revolutionary content of M-L has many far-reaching implications for how we view the world politically. M-L is the accumulated and analyzed experience of the oppressed people of the world struggling for liberation. It is a science with definite principles, and if the Secretariat majority wishes to negate selected portions of those principles, they will have to be held to a much higher standard of proof and to closer scrutiny than they have been so far. I particularly appreciated the critique’s analogy to changes in the science of physics, where because Einstein made profound changes in Newton’s concepts doesn’t mean you can jump out a ten-story window now.
2) Dictatorship of the Proletariat has always meant to me the state of the working class and its allies maintaining control over the capitalist class, particularly during the period of imperialism. As socialism develops and becomes more secure, a broader democracy can be struggled for and won. Just as bourgeois democracy changed through upheavals that lead to broader democracy (e.g. the end of slavery, women’s suffrage, etc.), so too will socialist democracy. China and the Soviet Union are better examples of those upheavals than eastern Europe (because of the undemocratic imposition of the Soviet model on the nations of E. Europe leading to the outright rejection of that variety of socialism by the masses). But these are changes in countries where socialism in some form has gained a foothold; we have yet to achiive their success in establishing socialism of any form. If we want to establish socialism here, we will definitely have to have a period of several decades of suppressing the capitalist class and system by the working class and its allies.
We have never equated the DoP with dictatorship of the Party, or of giving the Party the functions of the state. Does anyone believe that we did? Does it mean that we had a Trotskyist line because we criticized that practice and would choose not to implement it in this country? We have upheld China’s variety of DoP in the past when the CPP was more integral with the masses and hence more of a democratic expression of the aspirations of the working masses. The people’s struggle there will continue, with or without the Party. We want to make different decisions in the period of socialism in the U.S. It is not Trotskyist to learn from the experience of other nations’ revolutions.
3) Democratic centralism is not the set of standards of discipline (e.g. time, childcare shifts, etc.). It is the principle that allows a party to move together at some times and to contend and debate changing course at others. Guidelines and standards change, our principles should not. Neither should we confuse our standards for principles and toss out our principles when the standards are wrong. Collectively, we must be flexible but disciplined.
4) A certain amount of openness is needed, but we need to express what we stand for more openly as well. Unity cannot and should not be the vehicle for this, but the League needs a public voice. Some comrades believe we cannot openly proclaim support for communism, even to the point of distancing ourselves from the word because it is discredited. This is a very superficial view. If we state forthrightly what we demand of society and why, it won’t matter what label the enemy tries to pin on us. However, it would be extremely naive at best, and criminal at worst, to think that we will not be attacked by the state because we aren’t breaking any laws. Keep our secure structure, but greatly expand our open presence.
A word about revolution and the central task of Marxist-Leninists: The imperialist bourgeois class will not give up power without using every weapon in its arsenal. Right now, its power is maintained through the narrow political field, control of media and the legal system among other means. But if we succeed in even local and limited ways with our program, we will surely be attacked long before we could forge a “majority revolution.” We will be forced by political success to re-invent the wheel, like many Salvadoran mass organizations have, by resorting to armed struggle before the majority have been won over. That is the role of a vanguard.
As for the central task of Marxist-Leninists to build a communist party, we have always needed a center for leadership of the working class and oppressed nationalities’ struggle for power. The Leninist model is the best for the period leading to and after the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, I am sure of it. We also need broader and broader appeal from that center to the masses and allies through other political parties, unions and other mass organizations that stand on their own and represent something in the real world. That is why we form United Front links, and try to expand our influence beyond the League’s direct involvement. But if we abandon the central task, we abandon all hope of success. The statement that we “have not been carrying out Party building as the central task for some time” is an attempt to make a virtue of a vice. While there may have been inattention to it on the part of leadership, everything we have been doing in building the League, every United Front tie, every strike we have been in, every member we have recruited has been directed to building the Party. That is why I do anything for the LRS. Without party building as the central task, we completely lose our rudder. The League is not the Party, just as the seed is not the tree, but the Party will grow from what we do here. Without the goal of party building, our mass work becomes empty and pointless.
How did it come to pass that such an extreme departure from Marxism-Leninism could be proposed by the Secretariat? How could the membership not rise up and object loudly and in large numbers to this deviation? I believe we have been very weak in consolidating our cadre and in the promotion of M-L, and we have submerged our politics too long both within and outside the organization. I propose we immediately conduct political education in the science of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought, and other revolutionary ideas for the next few months. Comrades should know what the issues are that we are talking about, and why they are important.
Finally, a word about the effects of the changes so far. I have observed some formerly hard working comrades become disoriented and start to drift. I note a reduced level of collective functioning in the newspaper, at the center and in internal bodies. There is a degree of liberalism I have never seen tolerated before. The spirit of self-sacrifice and willingness to take up work is diminished. I believe these are the direct and immediate effects of the Secretariat’s proposal; it has given the signal to many comrades to not try so hard. Perhaps it is a temporary condition during the changeover to the “personal responsibility, collective accountability” scheme, but I don’t think so.
This is a most important time in the most significant political organization in our time. Now is not the time to surrender to liberalism, but to fight for what we believe in.
Note: Since this was written, significant developments have taken place:
1) the timetable for the congress has been changed twice-once back to the Fall
and then forward again to early September.
2) the second congress documents have been published and distributed.
I supported the change in the timetable to the later date and opposed the change to the earlier date because I believe that we need more time to discuss and debate these fundamental issues. We are being asked to dissolve the organization, for crying out loud! The second change was “decided” (for the Bay Area) at a plenary meeting composed largely of student cadre in Oakland, where a vote was taken overwhelmingly to make the change in schedule. The rationale for the decision was that the student work at Stanford and in California generally demanded the Congress’ implementation of the secretariat majority’s plan to save the work from attacks and major setbacks. While one might have criticisms about the makeup of that meeting and the democratic process it parodied, the political effect of that meeting and the second change will have been to cut debate short and to stampede the organization toward approval of the secretariat majority’s position. It is very instructive that the secretariat majority makes the mass work a higher priority than thorough discussion in a pre-congress period. I still wonder what that meeting (and vote) was for, except to politically bolster the majority position.
The second set of pre-congress documents had one clear statement of the majority position, a second re-statement of the majority position, the proposed dissolution statement, a critique of the minority position followed by the minority position, and a criticism of the actions of some cadres in Los Angeles. How strange to place the criticism of a paper before the paper being criticised. I have several criticisms of that critique, but must let them pass due to time constraints; at the current pace, my comments would be quickly outdated, anyway.
A word about the process. When I first voiced my criticisms about the proposal, I was instructed that in the interest of avoiding factionalism, I must restrict my comments to my unit and other district meetings set for the purpose of discussing the proposal. My unit was then dissolved, and I did not meet in another unit for a month; I was quite isolated during this period. While this has been very frustrating and a source of distrust between myself and other comrades, I abided by the rules (with the exception of two people who asked my opinion). When it became clear that this rule did not apply to others and that at district meetings many others were expressing doubts about the wisdom of the proposal, I have sought them out to discuss these matters. The concern that the process be an equitable one is legitimate, because the struggle of ideas is not being played on a level field-that’s a fact. In earlier times I got the impression from some leading comrades that opposition to the proposal is little more than an inconvenience, now I get the impression of a siege mentality: us versus them. To claim that the struggle is not a “two-line struggle” is absurd: the secretariat have defined it into “majority” and “minority” positions already, and the majority are acting as an advocacy group.
Discussions have focused on the need for a “unified” minority position-the advocates of the majority opinion have been demanding it, though we have been frustrated from meeting to formulate such a position until now. It seems an impossible task to do so in such short time, but we are now allowed to do so (in the presence of a representative of the majority–does the same apply to meetings of the majority? I think not). Nevertheless, we should do this as best we can and combat any tendencies to factionalism at the same time.