For over a year, our organization has united with DMLO, PSO, SUB and PWOC in a joint effort to further the ideological and political unity among Marxist-Leninists–particularly those that identify themselves by their politics and practice as anti-revisionist and anti-dogmatist. This task was undertaken by ourselves and the other organizations in the face of the ideological and political bankruptcy of such formations as the RCP, (the then) OL and the CLP who had consolidated politically and organizationally as obstacles to the development of Marxist-Leninist unity by their narrow group spirit and unscientific analyses.
As a result of discussion, we and the other four organizations considered that unity among Marxists-Leninists could be fostered by a national conference to consolidate the existence and development of an anti-revisionist/anti–dogmatist Marxist-Leninist trend. On that basis, the five organizations then constituted themselves as a steering committee and undertook the initial steps to organize such a conference. Once having made that decision, other Marxist-Leninist formations were informed about the projection of the steering committee and their points of unity.
As a form of building for the national conference (but primarily for internal consolidation), the steering committee organized a series of conferences and forums to discuss political perspectives and social practice as well as to establish the areas of common agreement and differences.
Concurrently, the work for the national conference was furthered with the development of principles of unity which demarcated the trend from all other formations that proclaim themselves as Marxists-Leninists. These points of unity were shared with many groups and collectives who expressed their unity, criticisms, comments and amendments.
For us, El Comité-MINP, the experience in the steering committee and its conferences and forums have been politically challenging and rewarding. It has furthered our own ideological and political growth–particularly our cadre development–as we attempted to have representatives of the different levels of membership in our organization participate in these enriching experiences.
Most recently, in preparation for this first planning meeting for the national conference, PWOC took the initiative of preparing a resolution for discussion. The draft resolution before you today is a product of the ideological struggle waged within the steering committee over the contents and political perspective of the original version. As is clear to all those present, we, of El Comité-MINP, do not indorse this document, though this final version incorporates substantially the criticisms we had for the original draft, (unfortunately you did not receive our original statement on the matter nor the steering committee’s response to that statement.)
Our differences are with the political perspectives reflected in this draft, as well as in the original. Our differences are not over interpretation but are of an ideological and political nature; therefore, restructuring paragraphs or substituting initial political errors for others is not adequate from our perspective.
Our disagreement with the political thrust of the draft resolution is what has led us to develop the presentation that follows. Although hastily drawn, this presentation was discussed by our leadership and membership, in keeping with our efforts to implement the principles of democratic centralism and cadre development that guide our organization.
The discussion among our membership was based on the first version of the draft resolution presented by PWOC. In our written criticism to that first version, we ended our statement by stating:
Finally, we would like to express that the draft resolution prepared by you served as an important document of discussion for our organization. Therefore, we want to recognize your efforts and the merits that the document has despite our fundamental differences with its perspective. However, since it is an important document and we have differences with its perspective, we cannot endorse it. To do so would be irresponsible on our part. Nevertheless, we would like to take the opportunity to point out aspects of the resolution which raise further questions and concerns and which we will discuss with the base and militants of our organization. Some of these elements we think were not perceived by the Steering Committee in its May 14th meeting. Namely, if we were to be in agreement with its analysis and objectives:
1. Are we as an organization prepared to implement the necessary restructuring of our organization which in our view is implied by the “ideological center”?
2. What has been the level of unity, based on common social practice, among the different organizations presently composing the Steering Committee?
3. What has been the level of ideological unity achieved among these organizations since we began to meet within the Steering Committee?
4. What is the understanding among all the organizations within the trend as to the fundamental causes for its described weaknesses?
5. If the described weakness correctly represents the present reality of the trend, is a national pre-party formation the most fundamental need in these historical moments?. . .Would not such national pre-party formation be but a sum of local organizations that will become the basis for the party?. . . . How does this correspond with the Leninist conception of the Party?
These questions, which in our view are relevant not only to our organization but to others within the trend as well, led to a rich discussion among our militants and affiliates, and in consequence to the document before you. Although written with the objective of differentiating our perspective from that reflected in the draft resolution, and that of the PWOC its leading proponent, it also directs its attention at the Guardian and its perspective. We did this because the Guardian is a formation that claims identification with the trend. Yet the Guardian saw fit to issue its own perspective on how to unite Marxists-Leninists, without exhausting ideological struggle within the trend and without expressing its differences with the efforts initiated by the steering committee. We, therefore, think it appropriate to also direct our attention to our differences with the Guardian as well as with PWOC.
We do not expect this document to be fully discussed today, nor is it intended to delay the work of this meeting. Quite the contrary, we offer it as a contribution to the discussion. It is not a blueprint for uniting Marxists-Leninists or for party building. Rather it represents a perspective that should guide us in the light of the objective conditions we face today, together with limited practical proposals that we hope may be amplified and translated into actions should they be accepted by the forces here as well as others not here. It is our earnest hope that proceeding in this manner we will all gain in advancing to the goals we share.
POLITICAL COMMISSION
El Comité-MINP