Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line

U.S. League of Revolutionary Struggle (Marxist-Leninist)

Congress Papers #3

TO: Entire Organization
FROM: Co-chairs (majority)
RE: Proposal

August 10, 1990

Over these past months as we have discussed our future direction, the CC majority has tried to address the question of how to do effective revolutionary work in this period. Our proposals have addressed why we need to move beyond Marxism-Leninism and change from being a M-L organization to an open, public organization of activists committed to fighting injustice and for a fundamental change in this society, and based on an indigenous theory and strategy which draws from broad revolutionary theories as well as our own struggle.

Our goal has been to preserve and stand on our history and our work, to involve everyone in a collective process to shape our future direction and organization, and to emerge intact, united and stronger. We have taken this approach because we feel this is the best path forward, but also because there have not been any concrete organizational alternatives offered.

As this process has unfolded it has become more apparent that there are differences which exist over theory and organization. There are some members who strongly disagree with discarding the M-L framework and who want to retain an M-L organization. We in the majority have not felt that the people with this position have had an actual concrete alternative. However, perhaps this is something which can be determined only in practice.

We have been extremely concerned that as this struggle has unfolded there is an increasingly hostile atmosphere. We have opposed a “two line struggle” approach which we feel will only lead to a destructive situation where one side feels it must “defeat” the other side and our ability to move into the future together is destroyed.

More than anything else we do not want to see the years of hard work and unity that we have built together lost. We in the majority do not want to see the organization destroyed; that serves neither the majority nor the minority. We also don’t want people who are in the minority to feel that they have “no choice” but to go along with the majority simply because it is the majority.

We would like to find a way to effect a compromise and avoid a destructive situation. In this spirit we offer the following proposal to those in the minority, for discussion and consideration:
1. We should take the approach of mutual respect, and that if differences cannot be resolved at this time, they will be resolved over time through practice.
2. The current process should be a full airing of views, so everyone can be clear on the different positions and options. As stated previously, there can be open meetings where the minority can discuss its views and organize itself.
3. Members who want to retain a M-L organization (including retaining the League and making any changes within its M-L framework) should be able to do so. We can work out details of what this would mean. For example, the majority could withdraw its proposal to dissolve the League; or people could form a new M-L organization. We will cooperate and assist in a transition as appropriate.
4. Those of us who want to build a new organization would go ahead and do so, as a new entity and not as a direct transformation or outgrowth of the League.
5. The two groups should have a friendly, non-antagonistic relationship.
6. People may choose to be members of either group or both. Membership in both presupposes constructive practice and abiding by the guidelines in each.
7. The Congress would discuss and decide on the above proposal as further developed after discussion with the minority. The Congress could then be followed by meetings of each group to organize their respective work and plans.