Issued: March 20, 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.
March 20, 1979
Comrades:
We are encouraged that you have taken the time to write to us concerning Clay Newlin’s article which appeared in the January 1979 Organizer. We also gladly accept your invitation to set up a meeting between us in order to have a well-prepared and thorough discussion of Newlin’s article, your letter and our response. We will leave it to you to propose a specific agenda and the time and place for the meeting.
Comrades, the matter before us is of no small import. The maturation of the contradiction between the Guardian and the OC has brought our embryonic Marxist-Leninist trend to a critical turning point. It is no exaggeration to assert that the future of the tendency depends on whether it thoroughly understands the essence of the Guardian’s sectarian line. A superficial, narrow and partial critique of that line can only lead to repetition of the events which – both you and ourselves agree – have already had a very detrimental impact. Our article was designed to make precisely this point, particularly in relation to the criticisms of the Guardian’s splittist mentality advanced by Irwin Silber.
But unfortunately you have chosen to skirt around the main question raised in our article: does Silber’s divergence with the rest of the Guardian staff represent a genuine break with the circle mentality?
As we understand it, Silber’s present position is this. On the one hand, he opposes the Guardian’s conjuring up of opposing ’trends’ – an OC “right trend” and a Guardian “left trend” – in the anti-revisionist, anti-dogmatist movement. And he also takes exception to the Staff’s decision to build a “Guardian Political Organization” based on the conception of a fundamental split in our tendency between opportunists and Marxist-Leninists. On the other hand, Silber, by his own admission, “strongly support(s) the general critique of the political line and organizational effort underlying the formation of the OC as expressed in the Guardian’s “State of the Party-Building Movement.” And he “also endorse(s) the decision by the Guardian not to affiliate with the OC...”
The first two points do represent a limited break with sectarianism – and on both we are in fundamental agreement with Silber. But, unfortunately, the second two compromise that break severely. Endorsement of the Guardian’s “general critique” of the OC and its decision not to affiliate with it can only mean that Silber, whether he likes it or not, “strongly support(s)” the circle mentality.
You comrades do not see this because you are unwilling to face up to the real substance of the nearly three year struggle between the OC and its predecessors on the one hand and the Guardian on the other. In particular, you avoid getting to the heart of the matter by probing the theoretical foundations of each side of this important conflict. Both Jack Smith and Irwin Silber are fundamentally united in their opposition to the OC and because you have not grasped the genuine political essence of the contradiction between the OC and the Guardian, you are unable to accurately assess the real significance of the struggle in the Guardian staff.
Underlying the whole dispute between the OC and the Guardian are two divergent approaches to uniting the anti-revisionist, anti-dogmatist tendency around a common plan for party-building. The forces grouped in the OC begin from the point of view that no single circle in the tendency (not the Guardian, its Clubs, the PWOC or any other narrow group), by itself, has the capacity to become the leading ideological center for our forces – a center that could actually lead the party-building process. Instead, that center will emerge from the common work of advanced comrades in a number of different circles and will be forged through a process of public, centralized, movement-wide ideological struggle. In order to facilitate the development of both the common work and the centralized struggle, it was necessary to create an organization which would be open to all the circles of genuine anti-dogmatists (including the Guardian) and which would not be tied to the political views of any particular circle in the tendency. The OC is such an organization.
The contrast with the Guardian’s approach could not be more sharp. From the very inception of the debate, the Guardian has stood for a procedure based on competing circles striving for organizational hegemony. In this scenario, each narrow circle tries to rally all the forces it can on the basis of its embryonic political line. It not only formulates its plans for party-building behind closed doors, but also consolidates its forces around those plans in complete isolation from the rest of the tendency. The circle then proceeds to wage a struggle to win over the remaining Marxist-Leninists; those who are not won over quickly are soon read out of the communist movement entirely.
In essence, the conflict between the Guardian and the OC is a contest between the circle spirit and the as yet immature party spirit struggling to assert itself. Where the OC fights for a single ideological center for the anti-dogmatist, anti-revisionist tendency, the Guardian fights for many competing centers. Where the OC fights for a single common plan for party-building, the Guardian fights for opposing plans. And where the OC tries to maximize the push for principled unity among all those in our tendency, the Guardian fosters the unprincipled polarization of our forces.
That this characterization is accurate can be seen from an examination of the actual practice of the OC and the Guardian in the tendency. In pursuit of its objectives, the OC developed l8 points of unity designed to serve as a basis of unity for the tendency, points which themselves evolved out of common work over a period in excess of one year. These points were framed in such a way as they exclude no genuine anti-dogmatist (including the Guardian). The OC has also attempted to draw in every important circle in the tendency – a fact which is, perhaps, best demonstrated by its approach to the Guardian. While the leading OC forces have some very sharp differences with the Guardian, differences which they feel must be subordinated in the interests of forging a process conducive to the growth of a single ideological center, they have nevertheless vigorously struggled for its inclusion. And they have even gone so far as to indicate that they are prepared to abandon the OC, itself, if such a move will facilitate the forging of a genuine ideological center.[1]
The Guardian’s efforts have been very different. In June of 1977 they advanced 29 “Principles of Unity for a New Party,” principles which were formulated not in “common” but by the Guardian staff alone, were never subjected to any process of debate, and which objectively excluded the bulk of the forces in the anti-revisionist, anti-dogmatist tendency. On the basis of these principles, the Guardian has constructed five Clubs which were totally under its central direction and which were duty bound to uphold its embryonic political line. As the June document (which incidentally was written by Silber himself) so clearly stated, the Clubs were to become “an organizational vehicle for helping to develop a distinct political trend within the Marxist-Leninist movement, a trend based on the 29 principles of unity” (emphasis added–PWOC). Thus, from the Guardian’s standpoint the only way to make a positive contribution to the party-building process was to join a Guardian Club.
Given this, it is hardly surprising that during the last three years the Guardian has made every effort to preserve narrow circle forms of struggle and to block, above all, any process conducive to the development of a single national center for our tendency. The Guardian fears such a process because it would allow for any individual to contend on an equal basis with even the most prominent circles and would force every claimant to genuine ideological leadership to subject himself/herself to public, centralized debate before the whole tendency. It would also tend to prevent the subordination of fundamental differences or other forms of intrigue between self-proclaimed “leading comrades” in the interests of striving for circle hegemony. In short, whereas circle warfare provides the best atmosphere for preserving the Ideological individuality and influence of small circles and their present leaders, a single process threatens to strip them of all unwarranted influence in the name of genuine ideological unity.
But recognizing that the circle mentality is indefensible from the standpoint of the genuine interests of the communist movement, the Guardian has sought an ideological smokescreen for its circle aims. This smokescreen is achieved primarily by playing on political differences. Taking embryonic line disagreements for mature divergences on questions of basic principle, it attempts to create the impression of an unbridgeable gulf between itself and its opponents. It raises secondary points of difference to the level of primary ones, appeals to backward thinking and is particular prone to relying on current opportunist views. Unfortunately, it is not even above caricaturing and distorting the positions of its opponents if that will achieve the desired result.
To buttress its smokescreen, the Guardian tries to play up its own role in the movement while belittling the contribution of others. Every struggle that it directly participates in is held to be of earth-shaking importance while the struggles of others are seen as minor squabbles. It constantly boasts of its own prominence, “leading role” and considerable influence – frankly, often verging on self-praise – only to downgrade the leadership that is provided by others. It almost never speaks of its own inadequacies but is always quick to point to the weaknesses of others. And finally, while avoiding self-criticism like the plague, it is quite bold in demanding criticism from others.
The “general critique of the political line and organizational effort underlying the formation” of the OC, which Silber is so quick to “strongly support,” is primarily designed as just such a smokescreen. As the response of the OC’s Steering Committee, “The Circle Game” (see OC Discussion Bulletin #2), clearly shows, the much vaunted political critique of the OC is characterized by exaggeration of genuine disagreements between the leading forces in the OC and the Guardian and the wholesale manufacturing of other differences. The Guardian even manipulates the legacy of the ’leftist’ impulse and stoops to demagogic appeals to the unquestioned prejudices of anti-revisionists. Organizationally, the Guardian attempts to play on every real and imagined weakness in the OC. Minor weaknesses become major ones, narrow thinking of a few groups or individuals becomes the dominant line of the entire OC, and decisions of the OC are carelessly distorted.
It is not just an examination of the main points of the “general critique” that show it to be a smokescreen for the circle spirit. Its smokescreen character is even more graphically illustrated by the fact that the Guardian has been unable to use its critique to elaborate a principle basis for its decision to remain outside the OC. As is also amply demonstrated in the OC’s response, while the Guardian argues that its political differences with the OC are primary, it has been at a total loss to assess the real political significance of those differences – particularly in relation to the pressing tasks facing the communist movement. It has failed to show how its divergence with the OC would prevent the common pursuit of those tasks, how any joint effort to address them would inevitably come up against those disagreements and how forward progress would be prevented until the differences were resolved. In short, the Guardian has been unable to show how its political differences bear on the most immediate tasks facing the anti-revisionist, anti-dogmatist tendency and how the OC’s divergent perspective would contradict a common and correct orientation.
Instead, the Guardian shuns basing its tactics on an actual assessment of the significance of its divergence with the OC and falls back on the legacy of sectarianism to justify its anti-OC course. It argues that it is necessary to retain organizational independence from the OC in order to sharpen the struggle against “right opportunism,” that to join the OC would “concede legitimacy” to its backward line and that being a member of the OC would tie its hands in the ideological struggle. Given that the OC places only the most minimal restrictions on its members’ freedom of propaganda (agreement with the 18 points and the need for a single center) and allows for a broad latitude of organizational forms (including national organizations like the Club Network), the ’leftist’ mentality behind all three reasons should be readily apparent.
Nor does Silber do any better than the rest of the Staff on this question. After acknowledging that it was precisely because his “vision (was) so much focused on the critique of the OC” that he failed to raise any opposition to the consolidation of Jack Smith’s line in the staff’s party-building document, Silber proceeds to repeat the same old deceptions that the OC has adopted the “fusion strategy” and its members “conciliate revisionism.” Beyond this, he barely even attempts to present a principled rationale for the decision not to affiliate with the OC. In fact, Silber’s position comes down to his inadvertent admission that, in effect, the “one crucial weakness of the OC is that is dominated by the leading line of the PWOC and most other groups are either too weak, underdeveloped or backward themselves to lead a struggle against it (Silber Letter to the Clubs, Guardian Clubs Newsletter, November 1978). In what way, comrades, does this type of thinking represent a departure from the politics of circle warfare?
Thus merely on the basis of his endorsement of the Guardian’s “general critique” and its decision to oppose the OC alone, Silber shows himself to be in fundamental unity with Jack Smith. He does not just limit himself to placing a stamp of approval on a critique of the OC (largely developed by Silber himself in the first place) which was designed solely to shield a narrow circle approach to party-building. He also endorses the Guardian’s decision to attempt to continue its opposition to any process conducive to the development of a single national center for our tendency.
Comrades, let us be perfectly clear. We do not deny that the struggles between Jack Smith and his supporters on the one hand and Silber and his following on the other were not sharp or antagonistic as the tone of your letter’s treatment of Smith so clearly reveals. Nor do we quarrel with your contention that Silber broke politically with the rest of the Staff. It is just that while Silber has abandoned his old circle he has nevertheless carried over the theoretical underpinnings of its party-building strategy – the circle spirit.
This same splittist mentality is clearly revealed in your own letter. Consider the following:
There are some very fundamental differences in party-building strategy between us....The very structure of the OC is an expression of party-building strategy. You must know through various conversations, study projects, articles by people like (Max) Elbaum and (Melinda) Paras, columns by Silber, that leading people in the Club Network are in the process of developing a significantly different view which is summarized in the formulation on ’rectification of the general line of the U.S. communist movement.’
Three things should be noted about these remarks. First, it is obvious that in your view the formulation and consolidation of a correct ’common’ party-building strategy for the anti-revisionist, anti-dogmatist tendency is a task for the “leading people in the Club Network” alone; everyone outside that network is clearly excluded. Second, it is also evident that, apart from the tinsel-like reformulation of the party-building slogan of the ultra-lefts (“rectify the general line/re-establish the Party”), you have no genuine strategy; on your own authority, you are just “in the process of developing” an alternative to what you perceive to be the OC’s line. Finally, and far and away most significantly, it is apparent that you see your embryonic party-building strategy as a principled basis for continued opposition to what you mockingly call an “organizational experiment.”
This last point bears some elaboration. During its entire history the “organizational experiment” which you find so unworthy of genuine respect has stood for one point and one point only in regard to party-building strategy. (In the context of the present discussion, it is impossible to reiterate this too often.) And that point is this: every single circle should unite in striving to build a single common ideological center for the anti-dogmatist, anti-revisionist Tendency. The question of what process will best facilitate the forging of such a center and what organizational structures will be most appropriate are an open for future debate. Moreover, and again we repeat, the leading forces in the OC have indicated that they are willing to consider abandoning “the very structure” of the OC, if this will facilitate the struggle for a common center. Given this, we think that it is correct to argue that one’s “attitude toward (the) OC is central.” For opposing the OC can only mean opposition to common work in forging a single ideological center; it essence it amounts to fighting to preserve the circle spirit.
One further point on Silber’s unity with a narrow circle approach to party-building. You make mention of several columns written by Silber on “rectification” subsequent to his split with the Guardian staff and assert that “these columns were published in time for their political spirit and essence to have been taken into account” before our article was written. The implication of your remarks is that these columns represent a genuine commitment to the interests of the tendency as a whole because they call, as you say, “for the development of a common party-building strategy in the movement as a whole.” Apparently, you see the making of such a call alone as a decisive break with the circle spirit.
Comrades, we assure you, we did indeed take note of “the political spirit and essence” of these columns by Silber. That “essence” is best demonstrated by Silber’s reply to questions raised by the Socialist Organizing Committee (SOC) concerning his rectification slogan. In a letter published in the January 3, 1979 Guardian, SOC criticized Silber’s slogan for its abstraction, ambiguity and utter inability to serve as a guide for action. In his response (Guardian, January 10, 1979) Silber only goes through the motions of attempting to defend his slogan – a slogan initially advanced with much pomp and circumstance as well as the request that it “be taken up, discussed and debated by all organizations and groupings concerned with the task of party-building.” Instead, he devotes his column to an attack on the OC, an attack which once again trots out the worn out Guardian slanders of OC forces. From this it is quite clear that the “political spirit and essence” of Silber’s “new” proposals on rectification amount to an attempt to elaborate a “new” ideological smokescreen for splittist ambitions.
Given the abundant evidence, it is clear that Silber is desperately striving to preserve at all costs circle forms of struggle. Why, then, comrades, should you wring your hands at our determination that in essence Silber is fundamentally united with Jack Smith – who you, yourselves, characterize as “the leading figure of the opportunist headquarters?” Is it not precisely because you fear that the political exposure of Jack Smith in our tendency will be extended to those who once were, and unfortunately continue to be, his comrades-in-arms in the struggle for the circle spirit?
A few secondary points before we close our reply to your letter. Concerning our version of the history of the Guardian Clubs, you state that we “seem more concerned with trying to demonstrate that Silber had a mysterious change of heart in midsummer 1978 than in trying to develop a coherent and systematic political analysis.” Comrades, were do you get this idea? The entire thrust of our article is designed to show that in reality Silber has had no fundamental “change of heart” at all – that Jack Smith and Irwin Silber’s party-building lines are bound together by a thousand threads. This was the reason for pointing out the relationship between Silber’s attack on “fusion” as well as his refusal to devote any attention to the “left” danger on party-building line and the maturation of Jack Smith’s sectarianism. It was also the reason for criticizing Silber’s shallow critique of the Guardian staff party-building document. And finally, it was precisely the reason for asserting that Silber’s self-serving self-criticism, his use of base flattery of Club members and his demagogic exploitation of legitimate democratic grievances of the Clubs were designed to forestall any unearthing of his basic unity with Jack Smith.
You also argue that it would be “opportunist” to draw out the connections between Smith’s opportunism and Silber’s party-building line. You are wrong, comrades; it would be opportunist not too – for the simple reason that it would allow a narrow, partial break with the circle spirit to be put over as a genuine one. Those connections exist and we are convinced that if you continue to cloak your basic unity with Jack Smith you are doomed to repeat his errors. In our view it would be irresponsible for us not to demand that you make a real break with a narrow circle approach to party-building.
Nor is it correct for you to imply that we have all of a sudden found an opportunity to advance our party-building strategy at the expense of the crisis in the Guardian’s following. Comrades, as you know quite well, our struggle against the circle spirit centered in the Guardian staff is nearly three years old. At the time the Guardian left the Committee of Five (the OC’s predecessor), we argued that its decision to do so was narrow and sectarian. When it originally published its supplement on party-building in June of 1977, we pointed out that the essence of that document was a narrow circle attempt to counterpose the Guardian Clubs to the movement-wide process beginning to take shape around the Committee of Five. And when Comrade Silber wrote an article defending the building of the Clubs and arguing that they were really quite innocent of any sectarian overtones, we exposed the narrow circle mentality contained in that article. After three years of struggling against the splittist tactics of the Guardian, on what basis do you expect that we should not now point out that the chickens have come home to roost?
One final point. You are of the opinion that we raise the question of Silber’s position as chairperson of the Clubs committee as “the clinching argument” for our perspective that Silber has fundamental unity with Jack Smith. If you will reread the article, you will see that we did nothing of the kind. What we pointed out was the considerable irony of Silber’s attacks on the “commandism” of the Guardian Club’s committee given his position on it. To us these attacks when taken together with four long paragraphs of flattery raise serious questions about Silber’s political integrity and, as we have already pointed out, seem calculated to discourage any questions about the real depth of his break with the circle spirit.
To sum up. Comrades, you cannot grasp the real character of Silber’s differences with Jack Smith unless you set the conflict in the Guardian staff in the context of the more fundamental contradiction between the Guardian and the OC. By avoiding your responsibility to face up to the essence of this latter, you cannot help but exaggerate the significance of the struggle in the Guardian staff as your letter so clearly does. You cannot help but overplay the divergence between Jack Smith and Irwin Silber. And finally, you cannot help but foster illusions about the depth of Silber’s break with a circle point of view.
Given this, instead of rushing headlong to Silber’s defense, we think you ought to re-examine his position and try to get to the heart of the matter. To fail to do so, will only mean that you will take up where Jack Smith left off – that is, resume the practice of driving a “deep sectarian wedge” into the emerging Marxist-Leninist trend. To fail to do so, will only mean that you will end up in the same position that Jack Smith now finds himself, exposed and isolated, a modern emperor without any clothes. Why?
For the simple reason that the party spirit grows daily in our tendency, gathering an ever larger army of supporters, and developing considerable momentum. Believe us, comrades, no narrow circle – not yourselves nor the PWOC – will be able to stand in its path.
The Political Committee PWOC
P.S. We see no need to limit the circulation of your letter or our response since in our view the questions discussed really belong to the movement and will be best resolved not in secret but openly before the tendency as a whole. However, we will restrict the circulation of both documents to the present members of the OC – at least until after our joint meeting. As a condition for this agreement, we request that you immediately distribute a copy of our response to all those who received your original letter.
[1] See for example, “Build a Unitary Spirit” (Organizer, March 1978) where the PWOC argues that the Guardian can prove its dedication to the interests of the tendency as a whole “by forthrightly asserting its commitment in principle to the development of a single center and, in addition, its willingness to join in a common effort to develop one”; PWOC did not demand Guardian support for the proposal it and three other organizations advanced which led to the formation of the OC. Or reread “The Guardian’s New Course” (Organizer, December 1978) which argues that in order to break with the circle spirit the Guardian should “assert its willingness to enter into a common effort (not necessarily within the OC) with other forces in the trend” to create a genuine ideological center (emphasis added– PWOC).