Written: August 10, 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.
Sharp conflict erupted at the OCIC’s Western Regional Conference over July 4th weekend resulting in the expulsion of four OC members and the resignation of several others. The two analyses of the circumstances events and implications are as different as night and day. The one unity that does exist is the necessity to synthesize a correct summation upon which further work will be based.
I was an individual observer at the conference as a non-OCIC member. I met the criteria for this category as having no consolidated opposition to the 18 Points and the single center concept. I was open to (though not strongly moving towards) joining the OCIC. I was present for nearly all conference proceedings, from Friday night through all day Saturday until 11 PM to Sunday until 11 AM.
The purpose of this essay is to comprehensively express my viewpoint on the experiences and issues related to the conference. My purpose is not to examine the OCIC more fully or to place the Campaign within that picture. I will not be analyzing why the OCIC has chosen this Campaign (in all its aspects) at this point in its history, or its relationship to the tendency and Marxist-Leninist movement.
Following extensive analysis, I conclude that the Campaign Against White Chauvinism (CAWC) is an overall negative program. The weaknesses of this particular program and its implementation at the Western Regional Conference lead me to conclude that those who were expelled and resigned took generally principled and correct positions in response to the Campaign.
How to best wage the struggle against racism and white chauvinism was the essential issue at the western Regional Conference (WRC). The OCIC’s current Campaign Against White Chauvinism was the specific focus.
The Campaign was an aspect of the preparation and proceedings of the conference from the very beginning. As events unfolded it became clear that the federationism debate, of which racism in the communist movement is a part, would not get the attention initially intended. The application of the CAWC’s basic approach, popularizing examples of individual errors, dominated the conference.
The advance outline of the majority speech on “Racist Errors of the OCIC Surrounding the NMM-LC Resolution Passed at the Second National OCIC Conference” began with more than a page of Terry’s self-criticisms about errors perpetuating white chauvinism. Her self-evaluation for the Regional Steering Committee election contained seven pages of self-criticism on the same subject. The majority’s speech Friday night on “OC Centers and Federationism” was interspersed with several self-criticisms by Dave concerning his white chauvinist errors. Criticisms of white chauvinism frequently arose in the Saturday morning workshops when discussing the Friday night presentations. And finally, the conference planners decided to alter the agenda Saturday afternoon to take up in the body a specific incident occurring late Friday night. Application of the substance of the Campaign was on the floor of the plenary until midnight on Saturday.
A Marxist approach requires that a general context be framed within which the particulars of the WRC events can be viewed. The OC leadership and its supporters maintain that the CAWC is simply a continuation of the OCIC’s effort to deepen the struggle against racism and white chauvinism.
“A Brief Statement on the Struggle Against Racism” (8-1-78 CN) addressed individual vs. organizational election to the OCIC National Steering Committee at the OCIC Founding Conference and effects on national minority communists. It analyzed weaknesses in the process of that struggle and identified some corrective measures.
At the 2nd National OCIC Conference, criticisms of white chauvinism and racism were discussed in the general body concerning the political content of one delegate’s procedural motion and COG’s characterization of the local neighborhood.
My understanding is that the Campaign Against White Chauvinism was developed by DW (of the Southern Calif. Local Center) in conjunction with the National Steering Committee’s Anti-Racist Task Force. The proposal was submitted in December, 1979. It was adopted for implementation by the NSC at its meeting in March, 1980.
The Campaign played a significant role at the OCIC Mid-West Regional Conference this past Memorial Day weekend. The struggle against white chauvinism was also taken up in depth at the PWOC Convention in May. At the PWOC meeting, much of the original agenda was deferred for this purpose even with the struggle pre-conceived as a major agenda item. The convention was extended two full days beyond the three originally scheduled.
On the basis of this history, the majority of people at the WRC considered the CAWC to be politically justified, sufficiently motivated, implemented following an adequate democratic process and applied in a principled manner by the OCIC. The majority downplayed or denied that the CAWC was modeled after the CPUSA’s 1949-53 Campaign. (But the connection is very clear upon examination of materials coming out of the Southern Calif. Local Center.)
My understandings of the key consolidated thoughts and viewpoints of the OCIC leadership in the Western Region are as follows. Leadership is specifically defined to include Western Region OCIC members of the WRC Planning Committee, National Steering Committee, interim Western Region Steering Committee, Planning Committee of the National Minority Marxist-Leninist Conference (current and former), and interim and/or regular Steering Committee members of Western Region Local Centers.
1) The expulsions were based solely on the repeated refusal of OCIC members to respond to a concrete criticism. This was a clear violation of OCIC rules and the general principles of Marxism-Leninism. The expulsions at the WRC were correct.
2) The failure to respond to a criticism of racism (whether specifically correct or not) was racist in itself.
3) Those who were expelled (and their supporters) essentially raised to a principle a moratorium around combatting white chauvinism at all until a thorough theoretical analysis of the question was developed and agreed upon by the whole OCIC.
4) The minority-viewpoint people’s ideas and actions manifested “left-federationist” errors by defending the “small circle” interests of their “bloc.”
5) The expulsions were not in any way based on the minority’s political differences over: party-building line, the main weakness in the OCIC at this time, federationism, the National Minority Marxist-Leninist Conference (NMM-LC), or the current OCIC Campaign Against White Chauvinism.
6) The Campaign Against White Chauvinism is the best program at this time with which to take up the struggle against racism and white chauvinism in the OCIC. The content of this struggle, as manifested in the approach of “popularizing examples” practiced at the WRC, is essentially a correct beginning. The CAWC has been taken up and conducted in a legitimate and principled way.
7) Correct methods of ideological struggle were applied and encouraged by the leadership in Saturday’s plenary discussion of the Friday night incident.
8) The ideological struggle at the WRC made positive contributions to the struggle against racism, white chauvinism, federationism and liberalism.
9) The National Minority Marxist-Leninist Conference of June 1979 was an overall success.
10) The Planning Committee of the NMM-LC was not sectarian by establishing the basis of participation as no consolidated opposition to the 18 Points and the single center concept. This was the correct level of unity for the purpose of the conference.
11) Tyree’s presentation at the 2nd National OCIC Conference established sufficient basis upon which to take a vote on the NMM-LC resolution. It was correct for the OCIC to strongly support the high level of unity reached by conference participants and to endorse the NMM-LC as a “real success.”
12) The main reason for thinking Tyree’s speech was NOT a sufficient basis for supporting the resolution was the clear failure of most white people in that Chicago audience to really listen to the content of his presentation. This was a white chauvinist error made at the 2nd Nat’1 OCIC Conference.
13) Further, it is a white chauvinist error or an error of accommodating white chauvinism for people to not acknowledge the above criticism as correct.
14) The motion Friday night to include Eileen and Nobuo (two NMM-LC participants) as individual observers and speakers in the NMM-LC discussion (if deferred to by a delegate) was opposed mainly because they didn’t meet the criteria of “open to and/or moving towards joining the OCIC.” This was the reason for them initially not being invited. The specific exclusion of these two (acknowledged as members of our tendency) was correct according to the rules and purposes of this WRC.
15) Nobuo and Eileen were not excluded by the WRC planners or the delegate body because of their explicit and rigorous evaluation of the NMM-LC summarizing it as an overall setback.
My knowledge of the CAWC and my analysis of the WRC experience lead me to conclude that the weaknesses of the Campaign overwhelmingly dominate its strengths. The program is seriously flawed throughout. Modification will not significantly improve it. It must be rejected outright and replaced with a program that is genuinely educational and not punitive.
I consider the Campaign’s adoption process to be unprincipled and opportunistic. It is positive that an NSC Anti-Racist Task Force was created and a proposal was generated. But I believe that the NSC should have taken the proposal OC-wide for debate and acceptance before implementation. I maintain that they downplayed the centrality of the struggle against racism and white chauvinism by failing to do so. On so central a subject dividing the working class and our movement, I think the NSC had a responsibility to generate discussion and support for its program, if it genuinely wanted the OC as a whole to embrace the best possible approach. To my knowledge there was not (and has been no) OC-wide debate on how to best struggle against racism and white chauvinism. Nor have there been ample opportunities to present alternatives to the thrust of the proposed Campaign before implementation. Raising disagreements with the program through Local Centers after implementation is an insufficient improvement in the democratic process here.
There was no political motivation for the project circulated and discussed throughout the OC nor was there written presentation of the basic goals, guidelines for implementation, strengths, weaknesses & limitations, or explicit plans for evaluation. Objectively the Campaign was imposed on the OCIC membership despite the NSC’s claim that the program has barely begun.
If this decision fell within the commonly understood decision-making perogatives of the NSC it would be legitimate in a formal sense to implement the program. But even if the NSC could point to a member-adopted rule or mandate for justification of its decision-making perogatives and limits, the centrality, complexity and our movement’s poor handling of the struggle against racism and white chauvinism demanded a more democratic approach. On this key issue, so far handled spontaneously in the OC, the NSC desired, expected and planned for the OC base to carry out an OC-wide campaign with little or no direct struggle on its merits.
This is an obvious reflection that the NSC doesn’t trust the OC membership to intelligently decide on the best possible program through principled struggle. The level of unity of the OCIC does not provide a principled political basis for the centralism without democracy demanded on this issue.
The absence of principled debate and struggle to unity over the Campaign make the questions now being raised legitimate for a Marxist-Leninist approach. The NSC has thoroughly failed to organize the struggle and provide open opportunities for this discussion. That a majority of the OC base apparently supports the Campaign is not a scientific indicator of a principled adoption process or the best possible program. Marxism-Leninism does not hold that a majority vote of a communist formation automatically determines the correctness of a position.
That the OCIC has in the past taken up the struggle against racism in its ranks is positive in general. I agree with the main points of the “Brief Statement on the Struggle Against Racism” and the criticisms of the COG at the 2nd Nat’l OCIC Conference (from the limited information I have on that situation). I disagree with the thrust of the criticisms made of Phil C. regarding his motion at the start of the NMM-LC discussion at the 2nd Nat’l OCIC Conference. I will deal more with this last point later in this paper as a very similar situation developed at this WRC.
This history of spontaneous attention to the issue has been presented by leadership as a basis for members to automatically and uncritically accept the CAWC. But mainly due to its conscious application, the program is in reality a qualitative change for the OCIC. Even if previous activities of the OCIC in its struggle against racism in its ranks have been thoroughly positive, each new planned program must be analyzed concretely in a Marxist fashion. This is especially appropriate for a campaign designed to systematically broaden and deepen this important struggle.
The OCIC leadership wonders aloud why there is such an uproar over questions and differences with the Campaign and a criticism/self-criticism process that involves specifically racism. Why do members of the minority-viewpoint and their supporters raise their strong concerns only in regard to the struggle against racism, and not against sexism for instance?
There are two important points that the audience is left to infer from the leadership’s line of questioning: 1) it is a racist error to challenge a program designed to combat racism and white chauvinism regardless of one’s view’s on the methodology and content, and 2) the individuals holding the minority-viewpoint would willingly participate in (hypothetical) OCIC campaigns against male supremacy or heterosexual domination developed along the same general lines as the CAWC.
The leadership has purposely obscured the relationship between the general and the particular to rally people’s subjectivity and moralism. Every communist is against racism. All white people manifest a learned racist ideology in different ways to different degrees. The CAWC is the OC’s program for struggling against this. How can OC members, and especially white members, challenge the program or refuse to participate without compromising their commitment to fighting racism? This can only be racist in itself. The leadership has taught the base that the CAWC is the struggle against racism and white chauvinism, and not simply one approach among many to be struggled over. The leadership has equated the particular program with the general struggle.
The leadership’s lingering questions seem to hold a good deal of fascination for those of the majority opinion. An objective materialist analysis should show a relatively clear and simple reason for why concerns are being raised only over fighting racism. As an improvement to a previously spontaneous approach, the OCIC leadership has placed a very specific “Campaign Against White Chauvinism” before the OC and has done this in a very specific way. Every OC member has the responsibility to analyze such a program in a thorough-going manner.
So why, the leadership asks, is all the noise and call for standards applied only to a program to fight racism? Clearly, the Campaign is about racist ideology, not sexism or gay people’s oppression. Only a campaign concerning racism has come forward. It is crass manipulation and wrongfully casting racist innuendoes for the leadership to put on the table a project for anti-racist struggle and then criticize members for NOT addressing what is NOT in front of them (i.e. sexism).
The leadership is diverting attention away from its particular program and trying to make it appear as if the fundamental commitment to anti-racism is at issue. If and when the OCIC initiates campaigns against male supremacy or gay oppression for instance, all members must insist on a democratic process and a rigorous examination so those campaigns have the best chance for success.
The strengths of the Campaign’s content are varied. The concept of a campaign signals a conscious attempt to deal with the issue in a systematic way. The CAWC directly raises the issue of white communists’ responsibility to struggle with their own and each other’s latent racist ideology. It indicates specific and sometimes subtle manifestations to be examined. It points to certain defenses and rationalizations. Generally, the Campaign has the potential to play a consciousness-raising function.
Based on my knowledge and observations, I consider the substance of the CAWC to be terribly shallow and an abuse of criticism/self-criticism. Individuals criticize themselves or are criticized by others for objectively racist and white chauvinist errors. Sometimes attempts are made to speculate on or reveal the subjective attitudes underlying the errors. There has been some good writing on the subject but in practice the Campaign is essentially a program of confessionals.
During my entire time at the WRC, I don’t recall hearing anything approaching a prescription for improvement after a criticism or self-criticism. I saw “knee-jerk” support for anyone making a self-criticism with no questioning as to whether or not the error and roots were in fact racist or that the dominant aspect was racist.
The fundamental weakness of the Campaign is the consistent elevation of racist implications above all other considerations in political struggle (of which the anti-racist struggle is a part). Discussion of individual errors at the WRC took precedence over what the leadership sees as the OC’s main weakness right now: federationism (within which anti-racism is an issue).
The struggle against racism and white chauvinism must be taken up as part of and also independent from the overall class struggle but the CAWC offers no motivation or guidelines to develop the relationship between the two. Sometimes the racial/national aspect of a struggle will be primary; sometimes it will be less significant. The analysis from which to draw a conclusion must be as objective as possible.
OC members at the WRC demonstrated a rather mechanical understanding of the notion of “grasping the centrality of the anti-racist struggle.” The CAWC itself is put forward to demonstrate the OCIC’s grasp of the centrality of the struggle against racism and white chauvinism. Those who disagree all or in part with the program are criticized for not grasping this centrality. The implication is that it is a racist error to oppose the CAWC. It is non-Marxist and incorrect at this point to conclude that acceptance of this one program, “hardly begun,” is the sole criteria for truly grasping the centrality of anti-racism.
A scientific examination of basic concepts is severely lacking in the CAWC. A type of criticism/self-criticism can proceed without this but it would not particularly advance our understanding or practice. Among the ideas that need to be seriously addressed are:
What is a racist error? What is a white chauvinist error? Are they always synonymous? What is accommodation? Can minority people be racist or make racist errors? What is the relationship between individual and institutional racism? What is the relationship between “centrality” and “primacy?” What is the relative significance of varying degrees and/or circumstances? How does the usage of the term “conspiracy” propel us toward or hold us back from our goals? What are the criteria for judgment? How do we choose and prioritize them?
Beyond all this, on what grounds does the leadership assume unity throughout the base on these questions? Can anyone point to the educational process through which this unity was struggle for? I think not. This does not need to be an indefinite discussion process which would objectively impede concrete activities. I certainly have ideas and conclusions on the questions above. They are raised to expose the only explicit unities of OC members on the issue: commitment to anti-racism and commitment to the OCIC (unity with the 18 Points and the single center idea). Clearly, the CAWC as a specific program is founded upon insufficient unity.
The WRC was not an overall positive example of constructive ideological struggle among comrades. The general goal of ideological struggle is to develop a proletarian class stand and world outlook. The principled struggle of opposing views to achieve this must necessarily be educational, clarifying and protracted. Leadership shoulders the main responsibility for organizing the struggle, i.e. recommending an agenda, ensuring maximum information dissemination, motivating guidelines for principled debate and refraining from using administrative measures to decisively influence the outcome.
It cannot be overstated that principled ideological struggle must proceed from a firm explicit basis of unity. It should be obvious that a level of unity sufficient for taking up some questions is not necessarily sufficient for taking up others. The purpose of struggling out differences is to achieve a more developed unity, one that is internalized and not parroted and that will foster concrete actions in the interests of party-building. People’s uneven development must be understood. Certain methods of struggle are more effective with some than with others.
When differences lead to struggle, groupings of like-minded members who hold particular views on a given discussion must be free and encouraged to organize themselves in order to pursue that discussion. This is an essential foundation for organizational democracy. Without it, the leadership would retain a monopoly on the collective presentation of views, and the debate of the clearest opposing ideas would be rendered virtually impossible.
The formation of principled groupings on the basis of clear political positions should therefore not merely be a right but an obligation of serious Marxist-Leninists. To refuse to organize around a disputed question amounts to either devaluing the significance of political discussion on the subject or to pursuing such questions in a cliquish, subjective fashion. The development of such a grouping cannot automatically and immediately be construed as negative. This development in and of itself does not objectively demonstrate that its members’ cannot stand on their own two feet in debate any better or worse than can the rest of the members or members of the leadership grouping. In fact, individuals’ analytical and persuasive abilities would tend to be enhanced by deeper collective discussion on a topic.
The majority at the WRC opposed the formation of these groupings as a part of the Marxist-Leninist method of ideological struggle. It sharply criticized the minority-viewpoint people at the WRC for being a “bloc,” of having a unity higher than that of the OCIC, implementing a discipline based on that unity, taking refuge from struggle and defending federationism in practice.
The main purpose of these criticisms can only be seen as an opportunistic attempt to isolate these people and their political views. The subjective attitude of the majority exposes its attitude towards these people as “enemies to be smashed.” A more objective analysis would show that various leadership groupings also operate as “blocs” in a similar fashion, and have a unity and discipline more developed than that of the OC as a whole. That these “blocs” are elected or appointed in no way diminishes the rights and responsibilities of others to also collectivize their ideas in what they see as the best interests of the OC and the tendency. The well-defined majority at the WRC also constituted a “bloc” along these lines, and so do groupings within Marxist-Leninist organizations.
Dogmatically linking principled political groupings (and just the minority-viewpoint grouping) to “left-federationist” errors reflects a rather subjective and unscientific understanding of federationist party-building mistakes. With federationism’s relationship to racism, the majority is making a weak attempt to connect “blocism” to some “further racism” of the minority-viewpoint.
Any grouping–whether it represents the majority or minority beliefs–can fall prey to opportunist errors and behavior. When this happens, though, no assessment that the minority grouping is primarily responsible can be automatically assumed correct simply because the majority has the votes to say so.
The leadership is responsible for leading the whole organization and must accept primary responsibility for avoiding the degeneration of internal debate, regardless of whether leadership is in the majority or minority on a specific issue. The majority’s position at the WRC on the existence of principled political groupings, engaged collectively in a specific struggle, objectively inhibits the development, of rigorous two-line struggle. This is contrary to a correct Marxist-Leninist conception of ideological struggle.
The discussion Saturday afternoon and night was certainly intense and polarizing if that is what is meant by ”sharp.” I support strong positions being argued vigorously and objectively. But Saturday’s debates were actually a drive for intimidation and unity of thought, not a process of patient persuasion and education.
The leadership initially changed the agenda (with no explicit vote of the body at the time) to apply the CAWC against people who had political differences with it and who never were able to present alternatives before its adoption. (A beginning alternative was integrated into the set of minority-position resolutions which were planned for later discussion.) These people were expelled because on principle they would not participate in the CAWC with its particular brand of criticism/self-criticism, not because they reject ideological struggle, criticism/self-criticism, the anti-racist struggle or organizational rules in general.
Discussion following the expulsions bared the true destructive nature of the Campaign’s type of ideological struggle. Individuals who were not in complete and immediate agreement with the leadership and majority viewpoint were severely criticized for such things as liberalism, racism, anti-communism and accommodating racism. The majority was of course objective and dissenters subjective. Disagreement invited more confrontation; the majority pursued unanimity. Much time was spent into the night criticizing people not just for their disagreements but for holding them at all. Paraphrasing a delegate from southern California, ’The struggle is really against white chauvinist ideology, not people. It becomes a struggle against people though when they continue to hold this ideology.’
The leaders of this dogmatic process misunderstand how people learn and change, and that they change in different ways and at different rates. Just as the OC leadership didn’t trust the cadre to support its program in open direct struggle, the majority at the WRC didn’t believe the tendency would agree with its practice of the CAWC if independent views of OCIC members present at the WRC were revealed. The OCIC leadership has, in essence, declared a moratorium on principled struggle over the Campaign Against White Chauvinism.
Without any agreed upon and understood limitations to the Campaign, its application is open to arbitrariness. The zealous attacks on minority-viewpoint people and the continued attention paid to “unconsolidated” members who remained at the WRC on Saturday were in sharp contrast to the casual but glaring omissions of criticism afforded some people holding the majority view.
a) Jay had been criticized for a racist error for not listening carefully enough to Tyree so as to correctly understand the impact of an important motion. Erica, Samantha and Lillie also expressed confusion about the passage of the motion really meaning summary expulsion. Jay did not favor expulsion; the other three did. Yet these three were not criticized for racism for not clearly hearing Tyree. In addition, how would one characterize Samantha’s error in relation to Tyree given that she is Asian?
b) At one point in the discussion, Rose was commenting on something Frank had said and she mentioned “narrow nationalism.” Frank interrupted that he hadn’t said narrow nationalism specifically. Rose said she had assumed that he meant that, apologized and continued. Based on criticisms in the Campaign that whites have not listened closely enough to minorities, Rose didn’t criticize herself for a racist error for not listening closely enough to Frank. No one else criticized her for it either or tried to draw out the roots of the error. Rose strongly supported the majority view. Frank had several differences (and some agreement) with the majority and drew harsh criticisms during the discussions.
Some further comments on these “listening/hearing failures” are appropriate here before raising other inconsistent applications of the CAWC. It is true that historically white people in general have ignored minority people and their verbal communication. This does continue to happen in society and in the communist movement.
But this “error of not listening carefully enough to national minority comrades” has been a thoroughly subjective weapon used in the Campaign to intimidate whites. Circumstantial arguments are woefully inadequate. No one reads minds and knows exactly what is affecting individuals in an audience, both minority and white. The expression of one’s misunderstanding is not an objective indication that they were not paying close attention. The speaker is also an aspect of the communication dialectic and cannot always be assumed adequate on every point. There is also no basis to assume that anything said by anyone can and must be immediately comprehended. The criticism must be argued objectively. If it is found to be correct then it should be accepted and rectified.
By pushing this criticism, the leadership is saying in effect that white people will comprehend every single thing a minority person says if white people only listen close enough. This denies that minorities are able to articulate thoughts and concepts beyond the comprehension of whites; it says that it is the white person’s listening abilities that are decisive and not their all-sided thinking abilities. This attitude also assumes that minority people who listen closely will always fully comprehend what other minorities say. Minorities will understand spoken thoughts primarily on the basis of skin color and not because of their overall thinking skills. These ideas are racist. There are certainly thoughts and feelings that minorities can express which some whites cannot even repeat much less synthesize and comprehend. This applies vice versa, also. This “not being heard” criticism is too simplistic and subjective. It is too easy to claim that a white person didn’t hear what a minority person said because their racist attitudes led them to feel it wasn’t important to listen closely.
The leadership implies that correction entails being very conscious to listen with maximum concentration to everything all minority comrades say. “This “affirmative-action listening” is uncalled for right now unless carefully applied to white individuals who have continued to objectively demonstrate the error or who admit to it. For example, it may be clearly determined that a white comrade usually leaves the room or reads or talks to someone else when minority comrades speak. I think this should get appropriate attention with educated change as the goal.
But this kind of attention in general will tend to feed another racist dynamic of expecting minorities to always make important and crystal clear statements. Subjectively, comrades may come to judge their comments in this way. There is the danger that skin color, not content, may dominate evaluation of minority people’s ideas.
c) At the first Bay Area Local Center sum-up meeting, no reference was made to the first business of the WRC concerning Nobuo and Eileen, two non-OCIC participants at the National Minority Marxist-Leninist Conference who have well-developed criticisms of that conference. The motion and essential debate was not reported in the presentation by the meeting’s planners even though the other business of the WRC was described. (I included this information at the end of the report.)
Why were there no criticisms for a racist error here by supporters of the Campaign? Why was a struggle around the NMM-LC downplayed to the point of omission in the report to non-conference-goers, especially when it was reminiscent of the 2nd Nat’l OCIC Conference? Has the significance of the NMM-LC diminished? Is the criticism of “racist error” for omission applied also to Lisa, a former NMM-LC Planning Committee member who helped prepare the Local Center presentation?
d) The logic of the leadership’s views (#11 and #12 on page 4) says that it is racist to NOT view the NMM-LC as a success. Eileen and Nobuo have concluded that the NMM-LC was an overall setback. On what objective basis can the label “racist” or “accommodationist” be attached to these two national minority Marxist-Leninist comrades? On what objective basis can the leadership attach the label “racist” to white comrades who dis-agree with Tyree but not to white comrades who disagree with Nobuo and Eileen on the evaluation of the NMM-LC? The curse of “racist” applied only to those who differ with leadership on content of the NMM-LC is an unprincipled and subjective attack designed to discourage members from making a concrete Marxist-Leninist analysis of the National Minority Marxist-Leninist Conference.
The leadership has brought the National Minority Marxist-Leninist Conference into the Campaign Against White Chauvinism. The significance of the conference requires more direct attention.
The OC’s approach to evaluating the NMM-LC has been exceedingly weak in comparison to the rigorous discussion of individual racist and white chauvinist errors. The NMM-LC Planning Committee and the Organizer have yet to publish and respond to clearly-formulated written criticisms by Eileen and Nobuo delivered last fall. The Planning Committee (PC) has failed to issue its political summation of the conference even though Michael Simmons (member of NMM-LC PC and PWOC Political Committee) has written a summary article for the Organizer (Oct. 79) and even though Tyree’s speech at the 2nd Nat’l OCIC Conference was overwhelmingly judged sufficient to vote endorsement. (I understand a partial reason for Kwazi’s NO vote on the 2nd Nat’l OCIC Conference NMM-LC resolution was lack of documentation upon which to be taking a vote. Kwazi is a NMM-LC PC member.) Any criticisms of these errors have shown no objective changes.
Nobuo and Eileen were excluded from the WRC by the majority because their criticisms of the NMM-LC and its Planning Committee could not be attacked as racist. The body would have had to deal with substance directly.
Nobuo and Eileen’s interest in joining the OCIC as one organizational form in the tendency is secondary to what should be the CC’s primary interest of principled and democratic struggle to advance the tendency’s understanding of party-building and national minorities. Upholding an interest in joining the OC as a prerequisite for their contribution in debate incorrectly holds the interests of the OC above those of the tendency. This only exposes the leadership’s belief that the NMM-LC Planning Committee’s position cannot stand on its own.
Some of these thoughts are the basis of my support for the content of Phil C.’s motion at the 2nd Nat’l OCIC Conference regarding the NMM-LC discussion. At this point in the development of our tendency, the exclusion of opposition views from debate on a specific supposed tendency-wide event (the NMM-LC) only serves to hold back a correct general position emerging from principled struggle. If the body fails to call upon these people who are present and available, and who have had direct involvement, an objective evaluation is stifled and bias guaranteed. This is unacceptable to Marxist-Leninists. When slack methods of evaluation are applied to a national conference of national minority Marxist-Leninists (planned by national minority M-L’s) to take up their relationship to party-building, this is racist paternalism. Acceptance of this slipshod approach compounds the error.
There is an objective basis for the inclusion of Eileen and Nobuo (at the WRC), and of Melinda and Victor (at the 2nd Nat’l OCIC Conf.) in discussions intended to draw conclusions about the NMM-LC: their first-hand involvement in various aspects of a tendency-wide event. They were not involved in the internal OCIC development of Local Centers, the Federationlsm or Point 18 issues, or the Draft Plan. They are members of the tendency but not the OCIC. They have no objective basis to discuss these other items at an OCIC conference. There is no objective explanation for people to think that exclusion from these debates inside the OCIC downplays their all-sided party-building abilities. To think or assume that they or other national minority Marxist-Leninists are not legitimately involved in broader aspects of party-building because they are not members of the OCIC is the height of arrogance. This is the attitude that is racist and actually belittles the overall party-building activities of national minority Marxist-Leninists.
These four should have been allowed to speak if deferred to by a delegate at the respective conferences. OC members would still have drawn the final conclusion with their vote.
By way of Eileen and Mobuo’s virtually thorough participation in the National Minority Marxist-Leninist Conference, the WRC should have welcomed their input. They would not be “imported” and “used” to strengthen the opposition view on the NMM-LC. The facts are quite the reverse. The fundamental views criticizing the NMM-LC are Nobuo and Eileen’s from direct experience. Some OC members came to independently agree with these ideas based on second-hand knowledge. Wouldn’t the best struggle be waged beginning with Tyree and Michael’s views vs. Eileen and Nobuo’s? The struggle should occur initially between first-hand participants, not leadership’s participants and second-hand opposition.
The absence of Eileen and Nobuo’s documents from the pre-conference preparation packets blatantly exposes the primacy of political differences with the NMM-LC PC as the underlying basis for their exclusion from the WRC. Letters exchanged with some oppositionists (Rectification forces) were included which discussed the participation basis for the NMM-LC before it took place. Nobuo and Eileen’s documents address the conference itself plus pre- and post-discussions. What rule does the leadership point to upon which to exclude even their written ideas when the WRC is to pass judgment on the NMM-LC’s content?
The initiative for the NMM-LC was positive. But even if the OCIC is now focussing on internal consolidation it must continue to accept responsibility for the NMM-LC as a tendency-wide activity.
Based on my knowledge of the NMM-LC, including prior and subsequent events, I consider it to have had an overall negative impact on our tendency. My judgments on the conference and its evaluation are based on a review of some conference documents, letters exchanged before and after the conference, Michael’s article, the transcript of Tyree’s speech, written critiques from four Bay Area participants, and discussions with three of them.
I believe the NMM-LC was sectarian as the Planning Committee placed building the OCIC above further developing the tendency as a whole. This was manifested in the participant selection process, the redefinition of goals after the conference, and the presentation of just the OCIC when describing the current party-building movement.
The notion that sexism is the main contradiction among national minority M-L’s in this period was not well substantiated. The paper did have some strengths, though, specifically a discussion of the historical context of women’s oppression and the recognition of the untapped militancy of national minority women.
I generally support the motivations and the four particular tasks of national minority M-L’s as discussed in the “Particular Tasks” paper:
1. “first and foremost, national minority Marxist-Leninists have a special responsibility to insure that the struggle against racism is taken up and advanced within the communist movement.”
2. “to win over advanced national minorities to communism.”
3. “to struggle for unity between national minority communities.”
4. “to struggle against narrow nationalism.”
At second glance, task #1 sounds contradictory to the OCIC perspective that white communists shoulder the main responsibility to pursue the struggle against racism and white chauvinism. I think further explanation is needed to correctly understand the OC’s view on the relationship between white comrades’ “main responsibility” and national minority comrades’ “special responsibility” in fighting racism. The view expressed on page seven of the “Particular Tasks” paper needs more elaboration: “White communists have a special responsibility to bring white workers into the anti-racist struggle. The special responsibility of national minority Marxist-Leninists is to insure, that this process takes place.”
The party-building speech at the NMM-LC has never been distributed to all participants. It is not clear that it has been published and distributed at all since the conference over a year ago. I don’t believe it would be principled to offer an opinion without first having read it myself or knowing a variety of views from those who heard the speech directly.
I think that the resolutions were adopted in an opportunistic fashion given my understanding that they were distributed to participants minutes before discussion and that the concept of Local Centers was not introduced before that morning. Adequate discussion could not occur upon which to decide to acknowledge the 18 Points as the starting place for theoretical debates on important questions facing our movement. In my opinion, there was an inadequate process within which to decide that Local Centers are the ideal forum for this.
I disagree with the implications of these conclusions that legitimate theoretical struggle can only proceed within the confines of the OCIC. In the absence of conclusions regarding the relationship of inner-OCIC theoretical development to tendency-wide theoretical struggle, the resolutions indicate OCIC movement towards seeing itself as the tendency.
It is positive that a conference of this type was conceived. But its sectarian and opportunistic character overrode its particular positive aspects.
Concerning individual errors, I think they should be handled through an educational and patient process built upon unity and trust. Unfortunately, the strong and subjective desires of the leadership at the WRC compromised the leadership’s responsibility to the OCIC and the tendency to build this process. The OC leadership should have published different views and conducted a nationally coordinated struggle over how to best wage the struggle against racism and white chauvinism.
Even with some refusing to participate in the Campaign at this early point in its development, expulsion was not required and I believe incorrect. The non-Marxist and undemocratic imposition of the Campaign Against White Chauvinism counters any general appeal to Marxist-Leninist principles by the leadership. The non-Marxist criticism/self-criticism program at the WRC relieves Marxist-Leninists from responsibility to participate in this specific Campaign.
I agree with the general intent of promoting principled democratic struggle embodied in the OC rule requiring viewpoints to be put out, and the democratic-centralist principles of majority and minority rights and responsibilities. But with the WRC and the CAWC, I believe the leadership and majority violated its responsibilities. They cannot then self-righteously expect adherence to a double-standard. Because the Campaign was undemocratically imposed, inconsistently applied, its substance shallow and its effects mainly punitive and not constructively educational, the particularities of the Campaign at this July 4th Western Regional Conference assume more significance than the general rule and principle.
The correct purposes of the rule and principle were in reality subverted by the application of the CAWC at this conference. They were dogmatically used to bludgeon opposition views into participation and acceptance. In reality it is the leadership and majority who are avoiding participation in struggle over content prior to its implementation.
The leadership’s assurances that people didn’t have to accept the criticisms were true in their own right, but the implication was clearly: nothing “bad” will happen to you if you do. The pleas of “just respond” reflected the majority’s blind faith in the correctness of the Campaign in the absence of systematic discussion of the program’s history, content, practice and implications of participation.
These statements were, in effect, a guise for entrapment into a process which the leadership and majority considered thoroughly correct. Since the minority-viewpoint adherents thought that the Campaign Against White Chauvinism was illegitimate, unprincipled and destructive, taking the first step through the door would have effectively compromised their principled stand. It is sheer fantasy to think that their mere acceptance or rejection of criticism (with explanation) for the Friday night incident would have satisfied the majority.
My perspective on the particularities of the Campaign and the Western Regional Conference does not justify individual racist behavior or attitudes. Rather, it sees at this stage the development of a sound program as primary to the most intensive analysis of any one specific incident. This program wouldn’t demand the most thoroughly developed theoretical knowledge but at least some fundamental scientific analysis with which to begin dealing with racism systematically. Practice must be guided by sufficient explicit theory.
The OCIC leadership stands for no unified theoretical view as necessary to begin the anti-racist struggle among the membership. This perspective contradicts what I see as a significant element of the “Particular Tasks” paper from the NMM-LC. White and minority cadre should carry out their special responsibilities in the anti-racist struggle. “Simultaneously, a clear line on the question of racism to guide the work of a communist organization and a program for the rectification of racist errors within the organizations must be created.” (page 7, “Particular Tasks” paper)
Without a broader view and guide, the struggle against racism and white chauvinism (including individual errors in the party-building and working class movements) will remain primarily spontaneous, subjective and quite limited. Individual errors and criticism can generally be dealt with between forces with certain political differences. But an objective analysis must be made to establish the explicit unities that will indicate the degree and depth of expected participation.
Saturday’s attention to the Friday night incident was overblown given the lack of pre-conference unity on the Campaign Against White Chauvinism. I cannot personally attest to one version of the Friday night story or another. But I do believe that the resolution of that specific conflict is secondary to the glaring need to struggle in a principled fashion for the best program to combat racism and white chauvinism.
The Campaign’s impact on the Mid-West Region and PWOC has unfortunately repeated itself in the West. In sum, I consider the OCIC leadership primarily responsible for creating the models, conditions and initiatives for these turn of events.
The Campaign Against White Chauvinism is a terrible blow to our movement. Its ultra-“left” practice is intensely subjective and tends to paralyze individuals’ independent thinking. It underestimates the quality and all-sided approach that must eventually be applied to weaken racist ideology and practice, both within society and the communist movement.
The program mis-assesses how people learn and change, and the protracted nature of ideological struggle. The drive for unanimous thinking reflects an ultra-“left” impatience towards consolidating cadre. The program also reflects that the leadership essentially blames the cadre at this point for the OCIC’s failure to significantly improve its multinational character. While it does provide certain explicit understandings with which to deepen our thinking, the Campaign is not on the whole a constructive educational tool. It should not be confused with a correct communist application of criticism/self-criticism or correct methods of ideological struggle among comrades.
The Campaign Against White Chauvinism is applied generally but more intensely focuses on individuals with political positions different from those of leadership. Inconsistent application has favored people supporting the leadership position.
Accusations of “racism” and “accommodating racism” and the fear of dealing with these criticisms are frequently used to discourage or isolate dissenting viewpoints. The base fears association with these ideas and learns to defeat “hostile” critics by any means. Direct objective analysis of substance is diverted. The overall effect of the Campaign points to eliminating disagreement, not racist ideas.