I am writing to endorse the main thrust of the Central Committee’s majority proposal. For me the primary question before us is: will we try to stick to strict ML politics and be confined to the fringe of what is happening in the U.S. and the world or will we boldly adjust and be relevant into the 90’s and beyond. To me, all the best of ML intentions and principles are useless if they isolate us from the main currents of mass political motion and inhibit us from having a real impact on social change. I am sure that we will continue to use much that we have learned from ML theorists, but we should take only what is useful as borne out in real life. A traditional Leninist structure is, I think, more of a limitation than an advantage at this point in history in the U.S.
I have felt for a long time that the League’s ML rhetoric was out of line with our practice. There seemed to be a strained nature to our claims to be ML in the face of our actual work. There has been an almost ironic aspect to claiming to be a communist and then defining “our” communism as an exception to most if not all other communisms. We have become increasingly different from every other ML organization, party and government that I know of. We have criticized the actions and views of Mi’s in the U.S. and elsewhere. With respect to the U.S. left we diverged from oppositional politics and even “the left” in general out of frustration at the way they did politics. It is time we acknowledge that part of the reason that we separated from such politics was that it was based more on strict, traditional ML view and not a divergence from the “correct” application of them.
Basically, at this time in history the legacy of communism is severely tarnished. ML parties elsewhere in the world have committed mass murder, driven their economies into the ground, denied basic democratic rights and created ecological disasters. I still believe that socialism is the alternative to capitalism, but I do not think that what I am fighting for has much resemblance to what self proclaimed MLs have created in other countries (or what the U.S. left embodies either). I am a revolutionary because nothing short of revolution will qualitatively alter the social and economic system that working people, oppressed nationalities and all oppressed people, so desperately need.
For me, joining the League had more to do with the objective work that it did and the possibility of being a part of that than any ML theory. The League has, for the most part, some of the most committed and relevant people that I know. I can’t imagine that most of us derive our commitment from any theory, instead of our basic honest desire to improve the lives of the masses of people.
I think that the changes are likely to be jolting for most cadre. But for those cadre who’s main attraction to the organization has been based on its work, the adjustment will be relatively easy (a majority I think). Others may find it more difficult. But I think it is important for everyone to ask themselves where is the evidence that the old ML structure will ever lead to the kind of broad social changes we all want.
I suspect some will argue that without d.c. and its discipline the organization will not be able to do much. I personally have a lot of faith in the members of the organization that I know and am confident that their political work will continue to be of the highest quality and quantity. I think that the loss of d.c. may be compensated for by the initiative and creativity released by a more open structure. To be perfectly honest, the proposed changes have suggested a resolution to what I have for a long time seen as a contradiction in the organization, The proposal reinforces my faith in the possibility for socialism precisely because it shows an ability to adapt and grow and recognize reality.