Issued: n.d. [July 1980].
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.
At the July 1980, Western Regional Conference of the OCIC, the summary expulsion of four members precipitated the mass resignation of close to half of the OC’s Western Region. This event is the latest occurrence of a wave of expulsions and resignations that is occurring nation-wide in the OCIC that is sure to continue.
The significance of this occurrence lies not simply in the numbers of people who have left and are leaving the OCIC. But from the tragic lessons of how what was once a seemingly sincere and unitary effort to forge a single leading center for our tendency, has so rapidly turned into its opposite. The significance lies in how an organization founded on a determination to fight the sectarian legacy of the anti-revisionist movement is degenerating into just another sect.
Our decision to leave the OCIC has not come lightly, nor has it occurred quickly. Since its founding we have analyzed, criticized and actively struggled in the OCIC to maintain it on a course that coincided with the interests of the party building movement as a whole. The latest campaigns in the OCIC with the accompanying purges and resignations demonstrate that the OCIC is no longer a center in our movement where principled struggle can occur.
This letter of resignation is an effort on the part of those who have left the Western Region to sum up the essential errors in the OCIC’s development that explain why the OCIC is no longer a viable center.
The formation of the OCIC and the process leading up to it led by the Committee of Five was a very positive and very promising development for our budding trend. Politically the OC’s formation played a strong role in contributing to the critique of and break with ultra-“leftism” of the New Communist Movement. Organizationally the formation of the OC had the effect of bringing together the various and scattered forms that constitute our tendency from around the country. And despite the frequent haziness and ambiguity of its founding documents, the tasks that the OC set out to accomplish, (1) promoting and centralizing the theoretical and ideological struggle, and (2) uniting our tendency behind a single, leading ideological center, provided a correct general orientation for the party building movement. What was particularly encouraging was the OC’s stated commitment to pursuing the interests of the entire tendency by promoting “broad, open, tendency-wide discussion”
However it wasn’t long after its founding that the actual practice of the OC began to contradict the goals it set out to accomplish. In short, the efforts of the OC to create a single leading center have degenerated into the narrow consolidation of a sect battling for organizational hegemony in the movement at the expense of political clarity and political unity. And the task of promoting the theoretical and ideological struggle was replaced in the OC by theoretical expediency and stagnation, and degeneration of ideological struggle.
The task of unifying our tendency, given its breadth, diversity, and uneven development, behind a single leading center, is a complex and protracted process, requiring skillful, patient and principled leadership. Leadership that will look out for the interests of the entire tendency. The actual theoretical and political questions holding back the unification of the tendency must be clarified an d resolved before genuine unity can be achieved.
The party building history of the New Communist Movement stands in sharp contrast to such a process of genuine unification. Ours is a legacy of successive organizations maneuvering for dominance in the movement, generally by unprincipled means. Unfortunately, the OC National Steering Committee has chosen to chart its course along the well worn path of the ultra-lefts.
A principled approach to leading the process of unifying our tendency under the leadership of a single ideological center would have to proceed from an analysis of the state of our tendency. Such an analysis would point to the existence of several distinct party building centers, distinguished by their interpretations of Marxism-Leninism in general and their positions on party-building in particular. The NSC has sidestepped such an analysis and has reduced the process of unification to the following scheme: first found a center and then demand that all forces in the tendency join and subordinate themselves to that center. The NSC bases this design on a rather shallow critique of the “circle spirit” in the New Communist Movement, concluding that “circle spirit” is the main obstacle toward unifying our tendency. The irony here is that by attempting to liquidate the existence of distinct centers in the tendency, the NSC has promoted its own brand of circle warfare. The essential feature of the NSC’s sectarianism has been their attempt to employ organizational measures to the problems of political unification.
That the OC leadership has been bent on pursuing its own, narrow interests at the expense of the interests of the entire tendency became apparent in its handling of the decision by the NNMLC to not join the OCIC.
It is not our intention here to evaluate the NNMLC’s party building line or its particular decision to remain outside the OCIC. However we will be clear on two salient facts. First, the Rectificationists are a part of our party building tendency with whom we must struggle for unity. Second, there exists real and substantial differences between the NNMLC and the OC leadership on the process of partly formation.
Therefore a correct handling of the decision of the NNMLC by the OC leadership would have involved a sincere effort at clarifying and struggling over the differences that actually exist. And if the OC leadership were to be true to its stated intentions of promoting a broad, open, tendency-wide discussion”, than the OC would strive to work with the Rectificationists at the highest level feasible.
Instead the NSC has clamoured to “isolate and oppose the Rectifiers”. Rather than struggle to clarify the political differences that actually exist between the NNMLC and the OC, the NSC brushed aside those differences using the unsubstantiated rationale that the struggle over party building line is “not key” at this time. The NNMLC’s motives became reduced to “circle spirit” and organizational opportunism. The NSC replaced principled political struggle with demogogic rhetoric. In calling for a “single center” the NSC sought to portray itself as the only genuine promoters of unity while it characterized the leading Rectificationists as a secretive, elite group bent on intrigue and splittism.
The sectarian stand of the NSC toward the Rectification proponents has quickly become the general policy of tone OC toward other forces in the tendency. The emptiness of the NSC’s “single center” slogan is shown by how forces once close to the OC have become increasingly alienated by it, and even hostile to it.
MINP-El Comite, once a participant in the Committee of Five, continues to be and influential force in the tendency. This important and principled organization has been thoroughly slighted by the OC leadership. The NSC smugly trumpets how MINP’s “rightist”, “localist”, and “federationist” perspective was “defeated” at the OC founding conference. Subsequently MINP was excluded from the OC sponsored Conference of National Minority Marxist-Leninists. Is this the NSC’s method of uniting the tendency?
The Southern California Local Center, a tiny handful of people residing in one of the nation’s largest industrial megalopolises has virtually insulated itself from the significant and active left community in the area. Communists in Los Angeles are perplexed by the “invisibility” of the OC. Does this “advanced experience” express the NSC’s notion of “broad, open, Movement-wide discussion”?
The “struggle Against Federationism” in the OC represents the culmination and consolidation of the NSC’s sectarian stand toward the movement generally turned inward on the membership of the OC.
The Leninist conception of a party is one where there exists a single party center and single party program under which all party organizations are subordinate. In contrast to this is the federationist conception of a party where independent organizations negotiate agreement and where there is no binding discipline on the part of those organizations. We are all in agreement on the need to construct a Marxist-Leninist party, one on a non-federationist basis. However given that there is no party center or party program, but rather there exist distinct centers with key differences on significant questions (such as the process of party formation) the problem of the struggle against federationism cannot be mechanically solved.
As long as we had no unity on the fundamental questions of programme and tactics, we bluntly admitted that we were living in a period of disunity and separate circles, we bluntly declared that before we could unite, lines of demarcation must be drawn... (LCW, #7, p. 397-38)
However, without a substantial theoretical justification based on an analysis of concrete conditions, the NSC asserts that the struggle against “federationism” is a key struggle at this time. The NSC links the struggle against “federationism” in the OC and the struggle against “circle spirit” outside the OC as being the struggles against “right” and “left” federationist deviations respectively.
We would agree with the NSC that there is a link. In both its struggle against “federationism” within the OC and against “circle spirit” outside the OC the NSC is attempting to impose organizational measures to problems which require the resolution of political differences.
The intention of the NSC in its campaign against “federationism” is simple and straightforward – to subordinate an atomized OC membership to a strong, centralized OC leadership by making their primary allegiance to the OC rather than to their circle. In this way the NSC can structure its line into the organization without having to conduct a rigorous struggle of political unity.
The fact that the OC leadership has been able to promote grass sectarian practice in the name of uniting the tendency and building a single center is a reflection of how it has seriously downplayed, in fact grossly distorted the role of theory.
Theory is a guide to action. But in order for communist theory to actually serve as a guide to action, it must be based on a genuine, Marxist analysis of concrete conditions. For a theory to be valid, it must be able to explain and anticipate a variety of phenomena over a range of conditions (e.g., it must stand the test of time). And it must be coherent and consistent.
The leadership of the OC has taken the role of theory and stood it on its head. The NSC has replaced a Marxist approach with an expedient approach to developing theory. Instead of theory serving as the guide to action, “theory” becomes the rationale for the momentary policies of the OC leadership. Instead of being based on a rigorous analysis of concrete conditions, the OC’s “theory” is based on poorly substantiated assertions and appeals to prejudice. And instead of being coherent and consistent, the body of theory produced by the OC leadership amounts to an assortment of formulations, each perhaps ii logical when taken by themselves, but when taken as a whole are illogical and self-contradictory. Let’s look at some examples.
On the question of the main danger in the party building movement, the initial Draft 18 principles maintained that “dogmatism” was the main danger. Shortly prior to the formation of the OC, this principle was “broadened” in the interests of unity to read that “ultra-leftism” in general constitutes the main danger. However it wasn’t long after the OC’s formation that the min main danger became narrowed again to a particular form of ultra-leftism – “the circle spirit”. Recently the OC leadership has injected a whole new twist into the main danger discussion by implying that “white chauvinism” in the ranks of the communists constitutes the main danger.
Positions on questions such as the main danger to party building will undergo change. There is nothing unhealthy about that. However what distinguishes the NSC’s expedient approach from a Marxist approach is that the NSC made no effort at summing up changes in conditions that would warrant a new position, or to identify the errors in previous positions. Instead, the NSC simply floats a new formulation, regardless of the relationship to past positions.
Another example is on the question of what line guides the OC’s development. Initially the OC leadership maintained that the OC was not guided by any particular line on party building and as such the OC came into no contradiction with existing party building lines. It was stated that the OC was open to all perspectives on party building and to all organizational forms in the tendency, and that party building line struggle was not currently on the agenda. Then, following the Labor Day Conference, as the NSC moved to consolidate the OC internally along the lines of its own designs, it rather abruptly announced that the OC did in fact have a party building line, after all, a “partial” line that is.
There are several problems with the NSC’s approach to the question of what line guides the OC’s development. Let us point to three.
First, the process through which this “partial” line was adopted. There has never been an organized discussion of party building line in the OC, whereby a party building line could be unified on through a process of discussion and struggle. Instead the “partial” line was adopted through the piecemeal implementation of the various policies of the OC leadership.
Secondly, there is no recognition of the change in going from having no line to having a partial line by the NSC, or of the significance of this change. That the change is significant can be shown by, among other things, that SOC was expelled for not upholding the OC’s “partial” line. But the NSC merely asserts the existence of this “partial” line as if the OC always held it.
Finally, we believe the manner in which this “partial” line has been adopted is reflective of opportunism on the part of the SC and the leadership of the PWOC in particular. It seems that the real significance of the partial line of the OC is that the OC is part of the broader party building design of the PWOC, which has unfolded over the last several years without any open and systematic movement-wide discussion.
The consequences of the NSC’s expedient and self-serving approach to developing theory are apparent in two respects: the failure of the OC to produce any leading theory for the tendency, and the stagnation and distorted development of cadre.
The OC was founded on the premise that a center was needed to bring together the most theoretically advanced cadre across the breadth of the tendency to begin to tackle the difficult theoretical problems posed by making a revolution in the U.S. And while the OC continued to promote itself as the principal arena for the tendency’s theoretical work, the actual practice of the OC has been quite different.
The OC has failed to organize tendency-wide theoretical work on any of the burning questions facing our movement. The reason is that the NSC has allowed its narrow goals to override the genuine needs of the movement as a whole. The NSC has restricted the OC’s theoretical work to “its agenda”, that is to the one or two narrowly conceived topics that promote the immediate interests of the NSC. And even within the confines of “its agenda” the NSC has failed to organize tendency wide discussion. For example, the summation of ultra-leftism is a major theoretical task of the OC at this time. But instead of promoting broad, tendency-wide discussion on the topic, discussion that will subject the NSC’s own formulations to a rigorous test, the NSC has selected its own hand-picked “task-force” to elaborate a position and then to “consolidate” the OC membership around it.
Perhaps even more significant than the failure of the OC to play a leading role in the development of theory for our movement has been the effect of the NSC’s approach to theory on the OC cadre.
The theoretical training of cadre is important in two respects. First, in order for the OC to be able to make any significant contributions to solving the problems of the U.S. revolution, those involved in that theoretical work must be well-versed in the science and method of Marxism-Leninism. Second, for the OC to be a democratic organization in substance, not just in form, the cadre must be capable of analyzing the various positions being debated so they will have the basis to make an independent and conscious choice.
In the two and one half years of its existence, the OC has failed to systematically attempt to elevate the theoretical capacity of its cadre. The OC has failed to provide any basic program of study of Marxist science and methodology. And even the 18 point study, a minimal study plan, has been endlessly delayed. The resulting stagnation in the theoretical development of OC cadre has meant that they are unable to fully and consciously participate in the theoretical struggle within the OC. Further, recently, explicitly anti-theoretical attitudes have been promoted by the leadership of the OC.
The OC has placed a great deal of emphasis on ideological struggle. We would agree on the importance of promoting the development and consolidation of proletarian ideology among the cadre of our movement. However ideological struggle must be seen in its proper relationship to theory and politics.
In the name of “sharp ideological struggle”, the NSC has promoted a sad caricature of genuine ideological struggle. The NSC has created a kind of artificial environment where ideological questions have become divorced from their actual basis in social practice and their political significance. In fact “ideological struggle” comes to replace the badly needed struggle to resolve political differences. Opposing political positions to those of the NSC are simplistically labeled “bourgeois”, “racist”, “elitist” in the absence of any genuine effort to explore the political content or theoretical underpinnings of those positions.
Perhaps the most revealing (and comical) illustrations of how the NSC has perverted the nature of genuine ideological struggle has been the utterly groundless assertion that its views are the very embodiment of proletarian ideology and that differing views have a bourgeois essence.
And we must polemicize – that is, draw out the proletarian content of our views while sharply contrasting them with the bourgeois essence of the opposing view. In particular, we must be prepared to strip the mask of Marxism-Leninism away from and ruthlessly expose ruling class ideas whenever they appear in our ranks. (NSC OVERVIEW emphasis added)
By acting as if differing views are a personification of the bourgeoisie, the NSC has treated contradictions among comrades as if they were contradictions with the enemy. The resulting atmosphere of hostility and repression (siege mentality) in the OC is one that rivals the intra-organizational features of the ultra-lefts.
The SC’s campaign against white chauvinism marks the extent to which ideological struggle in the OC has degenerated.
Several months ago, the SC launched an extensive and aggressive campaign against individual errors of white chauvinism in the OC. The basis of this campaign, the analysis underlying the campaign, the view of racism and white chauvinism characteristic of the campaign were not opened up for discussion within the OC. Rather, an abusive torrent of criticisms of racism were unleashed on individuals throughout the OC. This forces all members of the OC to interact with this campaign in one way or another and analyze its merits.
The immediate incident sparking our expulsion/resignation was our refusal to make a self-criticism in response to a criticism of racism. We insisted, rather, on discussing the correct approach to taking up criticism of errors of white chauvinism in the communist movement.
This stand needs to be justified before the movement, for it is clear that it is an integral and essential part of communist practice to pursue ideological struggle and combat individual errors of racism in our ranks.
We refused to respond to the criticism because the campaign of which it is a part runs counter to the interests of our movement in two important ways:
(l)The SC campaign against white chauvinism is a destructive caricature of the struggle against white chauvinism, one that does not advance the struggle against racism;
(2) the form of criticism in the campaign has grossly violated Marxist-Leninist standards of ideological struggle and criticism/self-criticism.
The SC campaign targets the real problem of lack of integration of minorities in the party building movement and the need for the communist movement to aggressively take up the struggle against racism.
However, the SC mis-targets the main contradiction, and therefore misdirects the main blow. The campaign takes the stand that the principal problem is white chauvinism of individual communists in the OC.
Certainly racist errors and attitudes of white communists have been one important basis for continual lack of multiracial unity ±n the movement. The struggle against these individual errors, and efforts to summarize the lessons of the communist movement in handling and mishandling race contradictions must go on. Yet, this cannot be the centerpiece of our movement’s struggle against racism.
The central contradiction we face is that the communist movement has not demonstrated its genuine commitment and capacity for leadership of the anti-racist struggle. Our central goal in this period must be the development of theory, political line and practice which can guide the working class struggle against racism and for full equality.
The Western OC leadership has claimed that we are calling for a moratorium on struggle against individual errors until we have our analysis and line on racism developed. This is a blatant falsehood. At the conference, we stated we were unwilling to discuss particular criticisms until the conference could unite mn a correct method and process for taking up these criticisms.
Ideological struggle cannot be carried out in a vacuum. For materialists, the struggle for a proletarian ideology and class stand necessarily occurs in a social and political context.
The SC is taking up the struggle against white chauvinism as a problem rooted in racist individuals, rather than in racist society. Individuals are ruthlessly exposed as racists, in a campaign which has taken on the atmosphere of a moral crusade. Racism is seen as a sin to be confessed and purged through ritualistic criticism/self-criticism.
Through these practices, the SC has abandoned any semblance of a materialist approach in this struggle, and has negated the need for an objective basis upon which to identify racist errors. Subjectivism is encouraged to run rampant.
Marxist-Leninists’ approach criticism/self-criticism in a very different manner from the SC. Criticism is used to educate cadre, not debilitate them. Criticism/self-criticism should be a constructive process, enabling comrades to overcome weaknesses, not an abusive process seeking to expose weaknesses. The collective carrying out the criticism takes responsibility for the comrade’s rectification, recognizing the common interest of all members in strengthening each other’s ideological stand and political practice.
The purpose of criticism/self-criticism is to understand the basis, roots and impact of errors, and in so doing, become able to change our practice. In combatting racist errors among communists, we must identify the social roots of individual racist errors, and the impact on our ability to carry out our tasks. Struggle against ideological errors must be taken up as they relate to our capacity to advance the theoretical and political tasks at hand. Remember, our goal is to cure the disease, to save the patient, to be able to advance the struggle.
The tragedy of the SC campaign against white chauvinism is 2-fold:
(1) the campaign has profoundly mishandled the struggle against white chauvinism and racism, which is of central importance to our entire movement
(2) the campaign has had a negative, sometimes devastating impact on many cadre, causing serious demoralization and debilitation.
We could not as Marxist-Leninists condone this campaign whatsoever by our participation in it.
We would also like to call attention to the unprincipled use of criticisms of racism by the SC to discredit and isolate comrades who raise political differences. In our case, as well as many others, “serious” criticisms of racism are raised to avoid struggling over the content of major political differences placed squarely at the center of the OC agenda.
It is our continued commitment to the goals that originally led us to join the OC which now compel us to resign.
We participated in the OC because at its inception it was the main force leading the unification of our tendency and calling for movement-wide theoretical work on the main questions facing our movement.
Yet the OC’s process of development has led to the negation of these goals. In their stead is: a highly sectarian stand toward all forces outside the OC; abandonment of responsibility for leadership of theoretical work of the movement and theoretical development of OC cadre; and a single-minded drive to “consolidate” the ranks of the OC behind whatever lines the SC advances.
Our recent experience has proven to us that principled political and ideological struggle is impossible in the OC. The SC ensures, by almost any means necessary, that opposing views are unable to contend with the SC line.
Therefore, we are resigning from the OC because it is no longer a leading center in our movement, and is no longer a formation in which principled struggle for unity can occur.