Issued: November 5, 1979.
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.
5 November 1979
To: Planning Committee of the National Minority M-L Conference
From: E.E.
Re: Criticism/Self-Criticism of the National Minority M-L Conference
Dear Planning Committee:
Now that it’s been over four months since the National Minority Marxist-Leninist Conference, I am self-critical for not writing and sending my criticisms to you earlier. Although I have been actively thinking and talking about the conference, I’ve had a difficult time synthesizing and concretizing my criticisms. This is attributable to my lack of self-confidence due to my relative newness to the movement, thus leading me to fear that my comments would not be taken seriously. These feelings have had some objective basis in my political experience, but some of my subjectivity was overcome at the conference where I was taken seriously.
In summing up the conference, evaluation is needed on several levels:
I. Did the conference fulfill its goals?
II. What were the particular strengths and weaknesses of the conference process and of the conference itself?
III. Did the individual participants benefit from the conference?
IV. What was the conference’s effect upon the movement, specifically the anti-revisionist, anti-ultra-”left” tendency? Did the conference serve to advance the movement?
These are the key areas that the conference should be evaluated by the participants, the FC, the OCIC, and the movement as a whole to determine its success and failures and its effects upon the movement.
Before raising my criticisms of the conference, I want to frame them in my relative closeness to the OCIC perspective. I raise my criticisms in hopes that future work stemming from this conference will not be plagued by the problems that beset this first one. I realize this is the first effort to hold a nm conference nationwide and I realize the difficulties of organizing a national conference. I recognize and appreciate the work the FC did to make this conference happen, however I have some serious criticisms which I hope are taken in the spirit of unity-struggle-unity.
The goals which were clarified by Sylvia at the second Bay Area sum-up meeting, were stated as:
1) winning over nm (advanced workers) to communism,
2) winning over nm communists to the primacy of pb during this period,
3) winning over nm M-Ls who view pb tasks as primary to the OCIC.
In regards to the first goal, the conference was not geared to advanced workers. The conference was titled as a nm M-L conference. The presentations and discussions focused on the particular tasks of nm M-Ls and addressed sexism among nm M-Ls. The conference addressed what M-Ls could learn from the mass movements and minimally raised how M-Ls could encourage nms to embrace communism, but did not address why %it is important for nms (advanced workers) to embrace communism.
In regards to the second goal, the underlying theme of the conference was pb and the conference did address the primacy of pb during this period. However, the pb presentation was weak and incomplete in its analysis of the present state of the pb movement. To try to win over nm communists to the primacy of pb without an all-sided analysis of the pb movement is unprincipled. To expect any Marxist to accept a particular perspective (in this case, the OCIC perspective) from a speech without a more objective picture of the present pb movement in which to frame it, would be to doubt them as Marxists.
In regards to the third goal, I believe the conference had the effect of alienating nm M-Ls from the OCIC process (who were not already close to or in the OCIC) rather than winning them over to the OCIC due to 1) the unclarity of the conference purpose and goals, 2) the sectarian nature of the conference, and 3) the lack of openness prior to the conference of the debate between the PC and the rectification forces.
As mentioned previously, the goals were clarified and redefined following the conference. Prior to the conference, the Bay Area delegation was told that almost half of the participants were not consolidated around M-Lism and a goal would be to win them over to M-Lism. We were also told by the PC that the conference was planned as the first step in a process to involve more nm M-Ls in the pb movement as most nm M-Ls stood outside the pb process due to racism, we realized following the conference that this was an incomplete and misleading formulation of the goals. Since the goals, (specifically the winning of nm M-Ls to the OCIC) were not stated clearly and fully at the beginning of the conference process, not documented, and not re-emphasized throughout the process, suspicion and distrust of the intentions of the PC and the OCIC developed. It was not the responsibility of the participants to deduce the goals; it was the responsibility of the PC to clearly state their intentions and goals of the conference from the outset. And a thorough political explanation should have been made by the PC when the goals changed along the way.
In the third and last Bay Area sum-up meeting, it was put forth by Sylvia in a self-criticism that the goal was not to bring nm M-Ls to the OCIC but to bring them closer to the single center idea. It would seem that this redefinition was in response to the conference being labeled sectarian by those people working to build a single ideological center but not through the OCIC. However, it was during this same sum-up meeting that it was also stated by Sylvia that rectification line adherents had been invited as participants, but had It been known that they held that perspective (most were invited before the NNMLC consolidated), they would not have been invited. Thus, those nm M-Ls that were invited and later refused their Invitations were not originally identified as rectification people and the PC would not have invited those with ideological differences if this was known at the outset. This revealed the sectarian nature of the conference.
Prior to this meeting it was maintained by the PC that they had intentionally invited rectification people, that the rectification people turned down their invitations, and that therefore the PC was not sectarian in their approach to the conference. This flip-flopping diminished my trust and confidence in the PC and OCIC.
Prior to the conference, the majority of the participants were unaware of the months-long debate between the PC and the rectification forces surrounding the planning of the conference. (This became clear at the conference itself.) However, at the conference and following the conference, letters between the PC and rectification forces were given to participants and disseminated throughout the movement. The reason given by the PC for not giving these letters to the participants prior to the conference was that the debate would detract from conference preparation and consequently, the participants would be more concerned with the process rather than the content of the conference itself. This was an incorrect assumption. That the information was denied the participants only served to put more emphasis on it. We were entitled to know the details of the debate as it directly concerned our participation in the conference by calling the conference goals into question. If in fact the PC felt that they were correct in their position (hew the conference was set up–goals, selection criteria, etc.), then there should have been no hesitation on their part to reveal this debate and trust the participants to come to conclusions independent of the PC. Shrouding this in mystery before the conference only served to raise doubts of the integrity and intentions of the PC and distrust of the OCIC.
An explanation of the relationship between the PC and OCIC is in order to clarify why I feel the OCIC should also be held responsible for the conference. PC members made it clear to the Bay Area group before the conference that 1) the SC of the OCIC mandated Tyree of the SC to choose PC members to plan the conference and 2) the PC was to be autonomous from the SC in planning the conference “due to the objective racism of the OCIC,” It later became clear to me that members of the PC were either in OCIC groups or were independents close to the OCIC and that the PC was consolidated around the OCIC perspective. I agree that there is some distinction between an OCIC-initiated conference (which this conference was) and an OCIC-sponsored conference in that an initiated conference is not planned by the SC or a commission of the OCIC and/or that the SC does not directly involve Itself around the conference. While I recognize that the PC determined the goals, selection criteria, and content of the conference, it cannot be denied that the OCIC gave political and financial support to the PC and to the conference. It is telling in the selection criteria of “no consolidated position against the 18 Points.” It is telling that only the OCIC was discussed in detail at the conference. It is telling that the resolutions recognized only local centers and the OCIC as the means to centralize debate on the “important questions facing our movement.”
Since the conference the PC has maintained that because not all PC members were formally in the OCIC that the OCIC should not be held accountable for the conference. This logic is false and a distinction between appearance and essence must be made. Whether or not some PC members were in the OCIC, all agreed with the 18 Points and the OCIC perspective guided their work.
The strengths and weaknesses will be discussed in context of the stages of the conference:
A) Pre-conference–purpose and goals, selection criteria and process including the debate between the PC, OCIC, and rectification forces, and preparation of the participants for the conference.
B) Conference–political content of presentations and quality of discussions including the chairing, drafting and content of the resolutions, and summation and c/sc process.
Since the conference, the PC has been self-critical of the process and has said this was the weakest aspect of the conference. The PC felt that inexperience and lack of accountability to each other led to sloppiness around deadlines. Papers did not get out on schedule or to all participants and the resolutions did not get out before the conference as originally planned. Also, PC members recognized that it was an error that they never distributed beforehand a written statement regarding the purpose and goals of the conference. While I acknowledge the PC’s self-criticism, I would like to elaborate on the ramifications of these errors and bring up other points as well.
The importance of being explicit and having clearly written purpose and goals relates to honesty and accountability. Those invited would have known the PC’s intent from the outset. Feelings of distrust and labeling the PC and the OCIC as opportunist might have been avoided. The PC could not continue to refine and redefine the goals to fit the criticisms lodged against it along the way, especially following the conference, which I feel was incorrect and unprincipled for the PC to have done.
I think that the three goals were impossible to accomplish in one conference in terms of targeting different levels of communist development. I think the goal of winning over and/or examining strategies of bringing more nm communists to the primacy of pb during this period was the correct goal of the conference. Consequently, I feel that the various pb lines of our tendency should have been introduced at the conference, not just the OCIC perspective. While I disagree that the conference should have been held as an OCIC-building conference, I recognize the right of organizations to do outreach. While I recognize the validity of outreach, I am critical of the process here of making this goal explicit after the conference but not before. In addition, a one-sided analysis was given in isolation of the other pb perspectives of our tendency. A stronger argument for the OCIC viewpoint would have been to point out the positive aspects which distinguish the OCIC from other perspectives.
I am critical of the selection criteria and process. I disagree with the use of the criteria of “no consolidated position against the 18 Points” for this conference. The PC’s position was not to invite every nm M-L in our tendency or all those in the OCIC. Even though I fit the criteria, I believe the conference should have been a broader call to nm M-Ls in or close to our tendency. I do not think that the participation of nm M-Ls of different pb perspectives would have caused discussions to degenerate to solely discussion of pb line if there was strong chairing and a clearly written purpose and goals, agenda, etc.
Instead, opening the conference to nm M-Ls of different pb perspectives would have generated more ideas on each topic at this first conference. I feel that to increase nm M-L involvement in the pb movement, discussion of why nm M-Ls stand outside the movement should be held by nm M-Ls representing the different perspectives in our tendency. I feel the criteria necessary for participation in this first conference could have been a commitment to M-L and to the need to increase nm M-L participation in the anti-revisionist, anti-ultra-“left” tendency.
The overall preparation of participants was poor and I see the burden of responsibility lying with the PC and minimal responsibility with the participants. There was not enough unity and collectivity established to warrant equal responsibility by the participants to make sure we had all the information straight and the papers beforehand. How were we to know that we didn’t have full explanations? I recognize that the Bay Area participants were the most prepared in terms of receiving readings, some papers, and some discussions. However, we experienced difficulty in setting up meeting times convenient for everyone, resulting in cramming in two meetings and the fundraiser within two weeks of the conference. Even though we had several preparation meetings, fundraising was the major topic. Before the conference, the purpose and goals were not made explicit; we did not receive the letters between the rectification forces and the PC; we received the papers on the particular tasks and on sexism, but not on pb which was the underlying theme; we did not receive the resolutions.
In general, I felt that the presentations were simplistic and the political content shallow. Their strength was that they stressed theoretical development and work on racism in the movement and sexism among nm M-Ls.
I felt that the quality of the discussions was fair. The chairing could have been stronger and could have better guided and deepened the discussions by clarifying points, summing up portions of the discussion, and determining which comments were inappropriate. Although I thought it was good to call first on people who had not spoken during a particular discussion before calling on those that had already spoken, this did not alleviate basic problems with the discussions. I feel that the discussions would not have been so disjointed and shallow if accompanying arguments, disagreements, and clarifications to particular points were entertained at the time the points were raised. Also, I feel the PC dominated too much of the discussion and although Michael recognized this at certain junctures and did not call on PC individuals, I think he should have done this more. I feel that the two rectification line adherents helped to sharpen discussions, especially those around the OCIC. I believe that the two chairs could have shared and accomplished the above responsibilities. Oscar has made a self-criticism for not participating more and helping with the chairing. However, responsibility for the discussion did not rest solely on the chairing. Fuller participation could have been encouraged with small group discussions instead of holding discussions solely in plenary sessions. And I feel the discussions could have been improved and deepened with discussion questions given to participants prior to the conference.
Of the three presentations, I felt that the pb presentation was the weakest. Not only was this due to the fact that the paper was not ready -for distribution before the conference, but also Tyree left out important points because he paraphrased and failed to read directly from the paper. I felt the most glaring error was that an overview/analysis of the present state of the pb movement was not given. Lack of emphasis on the present state of the pb movement weakened the discussion. The pb discussion was also weak due to the format (questions and answers), thus limiting contributions that participants could make. This was recognized and corrected for the remainder of the conference.
I felt that the presentation on particular tasks of nm M-Ls was the strongest presentation as it delineated the objective conditions that have impeded the development of multinational composition in the tendency. A more in-depth analysis of why the current class and racial composition of the tendency is largely petty-bourgeois and white would have strengthened the approach to and establishment of priorities of the particular tasks of nm M-Ls. I also felt that the particular tasks discussion was the strongest discussion, stimulating the most participation and generating the most ideas. Discussion focused on the centrality of theoretical tasks, linking racism with the class struggle, and how to bring nms into predominantly white communist organizations.
The historical context of women’s oppression, recognition of the untapped militancy of nm women, and the delineation of tasks were strong points of the sexism presentation. However, the presentation needed more substantiation as to why sexism is the principal contradiction among nm M-Ls in terms of other contradictions facing nm M-Ls and why these other contradictions are secondary ones. The formulation needed to be theoretically deepened and Its methodology shown. I felt that the sexism discussion was the weakest. Discussion went from personal revelations to a general discussion on the development of theory. These topics should have been briefer and not have taken up all the discussion time. The essence of the presentation, the formulation, should have been discussed in detail and deepened. I feel that the PC should have foreseen that this discussion would prove difficult as there has been little theoretical work and little discussion done on sexism among nm M-Ls. The PC could have tried to direct and stimulate discussion with questions and statements and to provide strong chairing.
I feel the resolutions were meaningless as we received them minutes before discussing them. First, there was minimal opportunity for participants to prepare amendments or to raise counter proposals. Second, the presentation introducing LCs was made that same morning. Third, written materials on LCs and other information on the OCIC were not given to all participants prior to the conference. Consequently, I feel that the resolutions were railroaded through and did not achieve the desired effect of winning people who were not already close to the LC conception and the OCIC perspective. I feel the resolution process was an unprincipled way to reach unity. What was achieved was a false unity and the future will tell whether or not those conference participants who were not in or very close to the OCIC will participate in LCs or the OCIC. In retrospect, I am self-critical that I did not abstain from voting for the resolutions precisely because the resolution process was unprincipled.
I am very critical that collective c/sc was not done at the conference. Lack of time for c/sc is no excuse and reflects poor planning and judgment by the PC in not anticipating late starts and long agenda items. Any claim to lack of experience is unacceptable here. Collective c/sc is critical to any process and future work stemming from it, and deferring it to individual summations is incorrect. Individual summation in conjunction with collective c/sc helps to deepen the c/sc process, but in itself Is no substitute for collective c/sc. Not having collective c/sc in effect stifled criticisms of the conference and the PC, and prevented participants from hearing each others’ impressions.
Despite my criticisms of the conference, I feel that most participants did benefit from the conference. It was Inspirational to meet nms from around the country and exchange experiences and ideas. It helped, to lessen the isolation and discouragement we sometimes feel in doing communist work in our localities. The conference did increase our OCIC contact and knowledge. For me individually, the conference helped to increase my self-confidence in terms of voicing my opinions in a coherent fashion. It also served to improve my abilities as a critical thinker.
I feel that the conference was divisive and mainly a setback for resolving the problems of increasing nm M-L involvement in the pb movement. In my opinion, it is too early to say that correct approaches and answers to questions concerning nm activity in our tendency lie exclusively with the OCIC and its supporters.
Even though the OCIC feels that the rectification people should not be outside the OCIC, these forces feel they do have differences of substance with the OCIC. The PC used these unresolved issues and differences over conference goals to disqualify those with different pb viewpoints, including the rectification people and El Comite-MINP, from participating in the conference (except as observers which they refused to do). The sectarian style of the PC and OCIC was, unfortunately, a negative example of how to begin to struggle with and unite the diverse forces in the anti-revisionist, anti-ultra-“left” tendency in a principled way. This is not to say that rectification people made no mistakes along the way, but rather that the responsibility for the strengths and weaknesses of the conference lies mainly with the initiators and planners.
The opportunism displayed in the unclarity of goals and in the denial by the PC that this was an OCIC-building conference (until Michael’s article in the October Organizer acknowledged that this conference was in part to “foster unity with the OCIC”), could not hide the sectarian nature of the conference and instead raised questions about the integrity of the OCIC. I feel that the conference had an overall negative effect upon further uniting our tendency and that the OCIC put its interests above those of the movement.