Published: Guardian Clubs Newsletter, September-October 1978.
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.
Sept. 28, 1978
The various criticisms of the original document which the Clubs have sent in and the subsequent discussions of those criticisms at the special staff meeting Sept. 26 make it clear that there is one fundamental difference within the staff on the general line of the document. All other points of contention are either secondary or subsidiary to the principal one.
That difference has to do with the question of whether or not the Guardian should now proceed to build a political organization around itself, an organization which would be qualitatively different from and more politically advanced than the Guardian Clubs as they presently exist.
In the course of discussion in the staff it became clear that those who advocate this step see the purpose of this Guardian Political Organization (GPO) as follows: 1) to give the Guardian a stronger organizational voice in the present party-building movement and laying the foundation for the GPO at some time in the future possibly to become a national preparty organization; 2) to engage in mass political activity as a means of testing the Guardian’s line in practice and thereby demonstrating its correctness; 3) to help build a material base of support for the Guardian.
The political foundation for that proposal is expressed in the next-to-the-last paragraph of the Trend Document, beginning “We will proceed...”
Here I must be self-critical for not having spoken up on this point previously, particularly when the document itself was being considered by the Guardian staff. I can only explain that the full significance of that paragraph did not become apparent to me until it was pointed out in several of the papers that came in from the Clubs and after the Clubs Subcommittee began its discussion on the future of Guardian Clubs. I admit to having some qualms about the formulation at the time, but since I was unable to articulate them even to myself and since I felt that the main purpose of the Trend Document was to summarize our critique of the OC and explain our reasons for not joining it, 1 did not pursue these doubts. This was an error.
One other matter before getting into the amendment and my reasons for submitting it. I believe that the decision to send the Trend Document out to the OC and its members at the same time that we sent it out to the Guardian Clubs was a mistake. Since I joined in that decision, I must of course be self-critical for this bad lapse in political judgment. The decision was particularly bad since we invited the Clubs to submit their criticisms and any proposed amendments with a view to making changes in the final document prior to publication in the pages of the Guardian. The fact that we invited criticisms from the Clubs for this purpose clearly shows that we ourselves did not view the document as necessarily a final one; all the more reason not to have sent it out to the OC at that time.
1. The Trend Document, as originally mandated by the CC, was for the purpose of making a political evaluation of the OC and summarizing our reasons for the decision not to join that formation. 4n one form or another, the staff political discussion leading up to that decision took place over the course of two years. Much of the discussion– through public debates, Trend forums, articles in the Guardian–took place before the party-building movement as a whole. It has always been my view that the political critique of the OC has been the heart of the Trend Document. That was my reason in voting for it. But to link that critique up with another, equally important purpose–the creation of a Guardian political organization–is wrong because a) it will divert attention from our political critique and lessen its influence on the OC and the movement as a whole; and b) it does not treat the proposal to establish a GPO in a thoroughgoing, all-sided fashion. Two separate documents are required because the decision to establish a GPO does not necessarily flow from our critique of the OC.
2. The decision to go ahead with the creation of a political organization to express a “Guardian Trend” is a momentous one. It should not be taken casually. It involves a sober political judgment and a commitment of cadre and resources which must be weighed very carefully. While there has been some general discussion in the staff on this matter, and some comrades strongly believe that we should pursue this course, it has not been adequately discussed in the staff and not discussed at all among the Clubs where; presumably, the mainstays of the GPO will be found. Such a decision requires a full political assessment of the party-building movement as it actually is, not just one grouping within it–the OC. Since the GPO would be an organization designed to play a role in party-building, it should be placed in the context of an overall party-building strategy. Since the GPO would obviously replace the Guardian Clubs as they exist, some general evaluation of one year’s experience with the Clubs would appear to be a necessary precondition for making such a momentous change. Such an evaluation must include assessments by and from the Clubs themselves. Further, we must make a sober evaluation of our own capacities for developing such an organization and guiding it–in terms of the quality of leadership we can offer and a frank appraisal of our ability to undertake such a task given the enormous responsibilities of producing a weekly newspaper. We cannot honestly say that the Guardian staff has held such a discussion.
3. I think the general proposal to establish a GPO is politically incorrect and organizationally unsound for reasons I put forth at some length at the last staff meeting. In terms of party-building, I believe it is a divisive proposal, one which will have the actual consequence of delaying the unity of Marxist-Leninists and promoting a harmful and unnecessary polarization among them at this time. Any organization must have an express political purpose. What is the purpose of the GPO? Saying that its purpose is to give the political line of the Guardian “a firm organizational expression” is meaningless. We cannot be interested in this “firm organizational expression” as an end in itself. In the course of the staff discussion, a number of ideas were put forward as to what the GPO might do–including “fighting for our line” in the party-building movement, backing up our political line “with troops,” and proving (or disproving) any aspects of our political line by testing the line in practice in mass political activity. The comrades who make these arguments are obviously unaware of how closely their views resemble those on the one hand who pursue a completely factionalist and opportunist approach to the party-building movement (my organization above all) and, on the other, a fusionist approach which reduces the process of verifying political line to the extremely limited practice which is of necessity characteristic of a preparty period.
Not everyone will agree with this argument of mine. But surely we cannot say that the Guardian staff has explored this question sufficiently so that it can be satisfied that the decision incorporated in the first sentence of the next-to-the-last paragraph of the Trend Document is a correct one.
4. I believe it would be a bad thing for the Guardian to attempt to establish a GPO. In my opinion, it would not succeed. Serious Marxist-Leninists will understand that it is a politically backward move and will stay away from the organisation. They may even attack it. The Guardian Itself does not have politically experienced cadre capable of leading this organization. It does not have the time to guide the affairs of such an organization properly. Because it is politically unsound, the GPO would even jeopardize the material base that presently is provided by the Clubs and Bureaus.
5. I believe that the Guardian’s contribution to the party-building movement should be primarily In the area of theoretical work, development of political line, theoretical training of cadre, etc–In short, with the task of rectifying the general line of the U.S. communist movement. Even if the time were ripe for more advanced organisational expression in the party-building movement–and I do not believe it is–the Guardian is poorly equipped for such a task, Our principal work in this period, in my opinion, should be in the publication of our newspaper–with particular emphasis on deepening its Marxist-Leninist content so that it win become in even more effective theoretical tool for our movement–and in the further development of Guardian Clubs basically along the lines laid out in the document “Guardian Clubs and Party-Building” written and distributed in November 1977. Let me repeat here what was said at that time:
Guardian Clubs can be a significant contribution to our movement’s party-building efforts if they accomplish two principal objectives: 1) they become a national support network for the Guardian, thereby strengthening a leading force in our movement in the struggle for a revolutionary political line, for the taking up of theoretical work as a key task before Marxist-Leninists and for helping to develop a “party spirit” in our movement; 2) they help to train a corps of Marxist-Leninist cadre who will have the theoretical equipment and will have overcome the localist and small circle outlook characterizing our movement at present, so that they can play a leading and exemplary role, along with others, in future organizational tasks before the party-building forces. In addition, we hope that the Clubs will become a force in local political activity, helping to build mass support for liberation struggles, struggles for democratic rights, etc.
The immediate purpose of my amendment–which must be considered as a unity–is to remove from the Trend Document all sections, paragraphs, phrases and words which lay the foundation for a proposal to establish the Guardian’s own political organization. Comrades who want to develop such a proposal should do so with a complete presentation of their views–including the theoretical foundations for the plan and a general delineation of how such an organization would function. In my opinion, this is the only correct way for us to consider a proposal of such import.
• Page 1: First column, delete phrase “The state of the U.S. communist movement” (first bullet). Delete the entire section under the heading “State of the U.S. Communist Movement” with the exception of the second paragraph. Likewise, delete the last three paragraphs of the third column.
(There are three reasons for deleting these sections. 1) As formulated they ire politically static and fail to locate the present party-building movement in the historic line of development between Marxism-Leninism and all of its struggles against incorrect lines; this cannot simply be changed with the addition of an explanatory paragraph but would have to be rewritten from beginning to end. 2) Its schematic view of the different tendencies lays the theoretical foundation for the proposal to establish a GPO. 3) While interesting, a brief political description of other left groupings outside the present party-building movement is really extraneous to our principal political purpose of offering a critique of the OC.)
• Page 1: Third column, first paragraph under heading “Independent Marxist-Leninist Movement.” Last sentence of this paragraph should be changed to read as follows: ”This tendency is based on the principles of scientific socialism as developed principally by Marx, Engels and Lenin, further developed in the modern era by Mao Tsetung, amplified by the contributions of Stalin, Ho Chi Minh, Kim Il Sung, Enver Hoxha and Amilcar Cabral among others, and the concrete experiences of the international working-class movement.”
(The above language is taken directly from our party-building supplement and, 1 believe, is a better political formulation of this same question than presently appears in the document.)
• Page 1: Immediately after the above paragraph as amended, add the following: “There have been two major developments within this tendency during the past year:
“1. The publication of the Guardian’s party-building supplement and the establishment of the Guardian Clubs.
“2. The formal coalescing of some 20 local M-L organizations and collectives into an Organizing Committee for a National Ideological Center at a conference held in Detroit in February 1978,”
• Page 2: First column. Delete the first paragraph; in the first line of the second paragraph, change the word “currents” to “centers” and place the word in quotation marks; delete the balance of this paragraph beginning with the words “As time goes on....”
• Page 2: Second column, next to last paragraph. Delete the phrase between the dashes “–especially heretofore when we were not developing our own organizational expression of political line–”.
• Page 6: First column, Under the heading “The Guardian and the OC,” delete the following;
1st reason; Delete entire paragraph except for the first two lines.
2nd reason: Delete completely.
Paragraph beginning “We will not undertake....” Delete completely.
5th reason: Delete the second sentence from the paragraph and replace with: “We do not have confidence in their ability to develop a sound party-building strategy or to give effective leadership to the party building movement.”
• Page 6: Second column. In the paragraph beginning “Not At all,” delete the last two sentences.
• Page 6: Third column. Delete the last two paragraphs.
• Page 6: Third column. Add the following:
“(Note: An earlier version of this document was sent out to the Guardian Clubs for their advice, criticism and suggestions. The earlier version was also sent out at the same time to the OC and its constituent organizations. This latter action was a mistake on our part since we had not yet had the benefit of criticism from the Guardian Clubs. As a result of that criticism and subsequent discussion within the Guardian staff, a number of changes have been made from the earlier version, With the publication of this document, the earlier version has been withdrawn.)”