First Issued: May 17, 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.
1) The Clubs are a legitimate part of the developing anti-“left” tendency. They have the potential for playing a genuinely positive role in the process of consolidating and advancing the struggle against ultra-leftism, of making a positive contribution to the theoretical struggle for program and strategy for the U.S. revolution and of training communist cadre.
2) But the Clubs are currently being guided by a sectarian party-building line. This line finds its principal expression in an opportunist critique of the OC. This supposed critique is characterized by an attempt to play on real and embryonic political differences between the Club leadership and some leading elements in the OC. In particular, the Club leaders have attributed to the OC a level of unity beyond the l8 points and the call for a process conducive to the forging of a single center in the tendency, incorrectly implying that the OC has secret, disguised, but nonetheless consolidated, unity with the “fusion strategy” for party-building. The Club leaders have also incorrectly stated that the OC’s leadership vacillates on the question of whether the contradiction between Marxism-Leninism and revisionism is an antagonistic one. In addition to playing on real, or in the latter case supposed, political differences, the Club leadership attempts to buttress the case against the OC by exaggerating its faults while downplaying any weaknesses in the Clubs.
3) The critique of the OC is designed to justify the Clubs decision to remain outside the OC and to encourage others to do likewise. But instead of assessing the real political significance of its differences with leading forces in the OC, the Club leadership finds refuge in abstraction and generality to make its case. Instead of showing how its divergent perspective relates to the concrete and particular tasks facing the building of a genuine anti-“left” tendency in the U.S. at this time, the Club leaders only relate their differences to the tasks of rectifying the communist movement in general. Instead of demonstrating how its political disagreements with the leading forces in the OC prevent common work at this stage of the party-building process, the Club leaders speak only to the impact of these disagreements on party-building generally. And instead of explaining why it is necessary to fight for a separation in the tendency on the basis of its differences at this time, the Club leaders argue only that the differences must be resolved in order to unite in a single party.
4) The failure of the Clubs leadership to provide a principled explanation for its decision to oppose the OC is all the more profound given that the Clubs have no principled disagreements with the l8 points, and have, even if rather recently, committed themselves in principle to the struggle for a single center for the tendency. And they do not deny that participation in the OC places no unacceptable restrictions on the Clubs’ freedom of propaganda and organization.
5) Objectively, the position of the Clubs’ leadership amounts to fighting for a split in the anti-“left” tendency. To advocate unprincipled opposition to the only process which is designed to facilitate the principled unification of the whole tendency in the common pursuit of its most pressing tasks, and to set up the Clubs Network as a competing center means, regardless of intentions, to promote a split.
6) Underlying the sectarian attack on the OC and the decision to oppose it, is a narrow circle approach to party-building. The Club leadership is apparently of the opinion that its best interests will be served by building its own narrow following at the expense of the common interests of the tendency. Competition between circles will provide it the greatest opportunity to consolidate a piece of the anti-“lefts.” Circle competition will serve to advance the line of the Club leaders because it allows them to make maximum use of their advantage in means to disseminate their perspective while at the same time ensuring the isolation of their own following from the opposing point of view except in the distorted form that opposition views are reflected in the Clubs’ polemics. And the politics of circle warfare will provide the best atmosphere for preserving the ideological individuality and influence of the Club leaders whereas the OC threatens to strip them of all unwarranted influence in the name of the genuine ideological unity of the tendency as a whole.
7) The consolidation of a small circle approach to the anti-“left” tendency in the leadership of the Clubs Network, a prominent force in the struggle against ultra-leftism, is especially dangerous. The circle spirit can only lead to the regeneration of the competitive dynamic and unprincipled polarization that has plagued the anti-revisionist movement generally; where the Clubs leadership goes, other small circles are bound to follow, enhancing the liklihood of a splintering of the anti-“lefts.” Such a splintering will not only impede forward motion in our tendency, but will strengthen the hand of ultra-leftism. This is not just because unnecessary division will weaken us in the struggle against the “lefts.” Even more significantly, a small circle mentality will also strengthen the hand of “left” opportunist influences in our own ranks. In the face of the rising influence of Marxism-Leninism, those who cling to leftism will be forced to attempt to shield themselves from exposure by any means available, including the kind of confusion generated by the internecine competition between circles. Thus, while those who lead the fight for the hegemony of scientific socialism have the most to gain from the assertion of the party spirit in the tendency, those still infected by “leftism” have the greatest interest in the preservation of the circle mentality.
8) An explicit defense of the circle spirit is obviously not an option for the Club leadership. Instead they must erect a smokescreen for their splittist aims. This smokescreen is achieved by manipulating genuine political differences in order to create the impression of a deep gulf between the Clubs leadership and that of other circles in the tendency. In the present case, the Clubs leaders are attempting to drive the largest possible wedge between its circle and the OC. That is the significance of the Club leadership’s handling of its “rectification” slogan, its exaggeration in Irwin’s speaking tour of the import of differences around the Vietnamese invasion of Kampuchea, and its attempt to cover up its growing unity with the OC’s position on ultra-leftism by denying the appropriateness of the term dogmatism as a characterization of the “left” line.
9) Given the fact that the OC has adopted none of the PWOC’s positions on these questions and that disagreements over them do not prevent unity with the OC, it is tactically unwise for any OC group to allow these questions to assume primary place in their, discussion and debate with the Clubs, their members or supporters. Bather, what should be emphasized is the fundamental unity of the tendency, the fact that the Clubs have no principled basis for opposition to the OC, and that continued efforts of their leadership to foment a split in the tendency are as damaging to the genuine interests of Club members as they are to the OC. In no uncertain terms, the Club leadership should be vigorously pressed to abandon their sectarian course.
10) In order to prepare their members for these debates with the Clubs, the Steering Committee recommends that every OC member make a study of the history of the struggle between the OC and its predecessors on the one hand and the Guardian and its Clubs on the other, the two-line struggle within the Guardian staff, and the present position of the Clubs Network.
May 17, 1979