I believe that making the changes in the organization outlined in the majority paper will allow us to bring in many new people who should be a part of fighting for fundamental change in this country but who do not want to be a part of a clandestine Marxist-Leninist organization.
In my experience in the student work I have found that there are many people around us who unite with our politics and our approach, who stand for democracy, the empowerment of all students and for multi-national unity, and who are willing to fight for this stand. These stands are in conflict with the views of other forces in the student movement: some favor building a more radical, narrow student movement; others have nationalist politics and oppose working in coalitions, and others do not see the need for fundamental changes or for the empowerment of oppressed nationalities. We represent a critical force in the student movement, a force that can help lead the student movement in a direction that benefits all of society.
Every time that we fight for our approach in the student movement, we have strong allies who fight alongside us. In some arenas (where we are not as influential or dominant) these allies even lead the fight. They unite with our mass line and recognize the need to struggle for their ideas. These students also have a vision of fundamentally changing society and recognize that democracy and justice will never fully develop under the capitalist system. These people have been very attracted to the League because of the stand that they see us taking in the student movement. They support the role that we play and many of them have been’ interested in finding out more about the League.
Yet our form limits how much we are able to incorporate these students. First of all, many of these students do not want to join a Marxist-Leninist organization. The biggest problem is that they do not like our level of secrecy. They feel uncomfortable joining something they could not be public about and feel that it is not right for us to hide our organization from the masses. They also recognize that in most cases our keeping our membership secret leads to our not openly advocating for and fighting for our politics (mostly due to defensiveness, not due to any policy. but they don’t really see the difference). The level of secrecy makes them feel that we must be engaged in something that we have to hide and they therefore get freaked out and back away from joining. I have worked with a number of people who when they realized that they agreed with our program and politics they backed away due to discomfort over our secrecy. These students says that they agree with our line and that at some point in their lives they might join, but back away from any commitments and shy away when we continue to ask them to programs or to study groups or anything that smacks of recruitment.
There are other barriers to these students currently joining the League. They have seen the implementation of Marxism-Leninism around the world and while they recognize the strengths of socialist countries they also see the suppression of democracy and political expression that has taken place. Our explanations of events in places like China and Eastern Europe have not adequately persuaded these students that socialism will solve the problems of the United States in a democratic manner. They support many elements of socialism and many of the ideas of Marx and Lenin, but they do not want to fully identify with an ideology that hasn’t worked too well in practice. While they say that they can’t imagine the people they know in the League suppressing democracy, they Łear the implications of the dictatorship of the proletariat and sections in our program that indicate that only socialist parties would be allowed to function after the revolution. They also do not feel ready to fully commit themselves to a singular ideology or way of looking at the world and feel that to join would be to close themselves to alternative woridviews at a young age.
Moreover, our current form prevents us from truly incorporating the contributions of these students who have a strong political stand but who do not choose to join our organization. We develop our strategy and political line mainly in our units and our section. Even though we seek out the input of the masses, we view cadre as having the level of political unity needed in order to develop a unified plan. Yet many of these non-cadre employ the same methods, approach and line in analyzing the student movement. They could contribute as much as any cadre to an analysis of the conditions on campus and to forging a view of where the movement needs to go. There is absolutely no reason that they should not be a part of our discussions of where the student movement needs to go in order to contribute to fundamentally changing society and in order to meet the needs of the majority of students. I can think of so many unit discussions that we had about the future of our educational rights organization that would have been fuller and more productive if these students had been present. Instead of our cadre uniting on a line, taking it out and trying to win people over and then coming back to sum up our lessons, we could be developing our line with the participation and the voice of these students. We would be a much more effective force if we used this approach. We would also avoid the problem of making these students feel that they are locked out of the decision making process, because many of them sense that we are deciding things without their participation. This is especially a problem when our cadre are in leadership of mass organizations and this problem makes us vulnerable to anti-communist attacks.
This sector of students is not a small one. I think that in the past five years it has grown tremendously as many more students can see the fundamental contradictions in our society and want a larger perspective that can help build multi-national unity in the current period and can provide some direction for more fundamental change in the future. I have participated in some national conferences of student government leaders and student activists and have found so many students who would be open to joining the League if we did not define ourselves as a Marxist-Leninist organization. Those students who are not freaked out by the red-baiting that takes place in these national circles tell me that they really like what the League stands for and that they think we play an incredibly positive role in the student movement. They themselves struggle to figure out how the student movement can move forward in alliance with other social forces and they seek out our input in answering their questions. Yet they do not like the level of secrecy and they do not call themselves Marxist-Leninists and our organizational form makes some of the red-baiting that they hear have some credibility. I feel that with the changes we will see students from ail over the country stepping forward to participate in a process to form a new organization based on the principles that the majority outlines. When 1 have spoken with some of these students about the ideas that League members are rethinking and the direction that many of us want to go, they have been extremely excited and are very interested in hearing more. They immediately grasp the importance of the changes because they themselves recognize the level of unity they have with the League but have never understood the necessity of secrecy or of calling ourselves Marxist-Leninist.
In my view, our potential is tremendous. Many more, students will join the new organisation, and these students are the most committed and serious student activists in the country. Our political stand will gain much more influence and the entire student movement will be in better shape and better able to take on the challenges we face: overcoming racial polarization, bringing together a broad united front, building institutions that facilitate the empowerment of ail students and making progressive changes in a time of retrenchment and reaction in the U.S. government. People will appreciate the positive work that we do and even those who do not join will not be so paranoid about our level of influence accompanied by a high degree of secrecy.
And the situation facing us in the student movement is urgent. Racial divisions and racial violence are on the rise almost uniformly throughout the country. Educational access is becoming a distant hope for most and the likely upcoming recession will force even more students out of college. Whether students can see their interests as being united and fighting for more democracy in society, or whether students turn on and blame one another, will determine a lot about the future of our country. This generation is facing serious challenges and major questions. I hope that we can make changes that will allow us to play a larger role in this struggle and have some kind of impact on this generation, it a recent student government conference I spoke to a very progressive white student who was extremely saddened by the racial polarization that characterized the meeting; she was lamenting that she saw our country as being inevitably headed toward violent revolution–by this she meant race war. She did recognize that figures such as Nelson Mandela and Jesse Jackson have been able to speak to the majority’s best sentiments and unite people across class and race lines, but did not see any organized national force that would be able to accomplish this in time. I think that if we make these changes we will nationally be seen as the main force that has the potential to avoid this kind of race war and lead the country’s students in a positive, unified direction.
I want to emphasize that recruiting this large sector of students is not liquidating our organization or our basis of unity. I have talked to some cadre who fear that recruiting large numbers of new people will lead to a situation where our basis of unity is unclear and we are unable to function as a unified force. I think that there are so many students out there who fully are in unity with our approach and our political stands with a class analysis, with “from the masses, to the masses” methods, with respect for self-determination and the revolutionary nature of the national movements, and with a commitment to fight for democracy) and who are prevented from being a part of our organization by peripheral, unnecessary barriers. It’s not even broadening out our organization to include a variety of perspectives–it is opening up the doors to ail those who share our basic principles and stand. If we can do this I think the student movement has a future that looks very hopeful.