Issued: September 11, 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.
The OCIC is off track-and not in a minor way. The present direction and reality of the OCIC is at odds with the Founding statement and the spirit of the Draft Plan. As much as supporters of the ’leading line’ say that its only that different parts of the Draft Plan and Founding Statement are being emphasized, it negates reality. The two documents mentioned earlier spoke to the need to unite the tendency, promote principled ideological struggle, develop theory to address the key questions facing us and set a framework so a true ideological center can develop in our drive to form a revolutionary party in this country. In reality what we are witnessing is: (l) an unprincipled method of implementing line, (2) an incorrect line on the struggle against white chauvinism and racism and (3) left sectarianism and organizational chauvinism leading the OC in general.
While Clay Newlin – for the National Steering Committee – states that ”the immediate future for Marxism-Leninism in the United States depends largely on the success or failure of the OCIC.” (NSC Bulletin #2 Sept. 1980), it might be better put at this time to say, the future of the OC as an important part of the party building movement hangs in the balance dependent on a correct resolution of the above struggle.
Much of the criticism and struggle within the OC over the last six months has centered around ’method’-particularly around implementation of the campaign against white chauvinism. In fact, this was this writer’s frame of reference for a long time. At first the key complaint/criticism was that the campaign was being implemented without discussion. But while we can start with this question we cannot end with it. The campaign has been implemented and the questioners have increased while the questions have sharpened. In fact, those questioning the ’how’ of the implementation have come to see and disagree with it. It is impossible then to discuss the democratic question without the content of the line. Just as with the Point 18 struggle (with which the present struggle has little in common) two questions were addressed: why it should be a line of demarcation and the content to the characterization of the Soviet Union on which the first assertion was made.
But the third point addressed here-that of left sectarianism and organizational chauvinism leading the OC in general-has come to the fore very quickly and must be addressed. It is tied directly to how the line is being implemented and the actual line itself. The whole patchwork must be seen and addressed.
This paper is meant to contribute and promote ideological struggle addressing method, stand and viewpoint. There is a two line struggle raging and the future of the OC as an important force in the party building movement sits in the balance. Members of the OC must use all of their analytical tools–particularly a materialist approach–to decide the correct course. Hopefully this paper will be a contribution.
The campaign against white chauvinism is based on four points: (l) white chauvinism is keeping minorities out of the OC, (2) we must break with white chauvinism to move forward, (3) the way we will break with these racist attitudes is through criticism, self criticism and acknowledging our underlying attitudes, and (4) we cannot develop theory until we have successfully waged the ideological struggle and broken with the chauvinist ideas.
What is wrong with this view? Two errors stand out: left idealism and empiricism. To think that we can break with white chauvinist attitudes while racism rages around us is wishful thinking. It ignores the relationship between the material base–in this case racism–and the attitudes or thought–white chauvinism. Just as the ideology reinforces the system, the system reinforces the ideology. We have learned from Cuba that even after a revolutionary transformation and the eradication of the institution and system of racism, the ideological hold lingers. Does all of this mean we don’t attempt to change our views? Of course not.
The present view, though, tells us that we change these racist views in our head by contradicting these views, by putting anti-racist views in our head. We fight a bad idea in our head with a good idea. It conjures up the cartoon of good and bad fighting it out on each side of someone’s head. Where is the materialism in this analysis?
What is the plan for rectification? This campaign does not include a plan for rectification other than the discussion and self acknowledgement being the rectification and the reiteration that the OC doesn’t lead practice (beyond ideological). (It has been suggested-after much struggle–that some rectification can take place in outreach, etc.) The dominant aspect of the campaign, though, has been on the acknowledgement of the racism we feel/are hiding. This method, though, does not attack the actual racist system nor insure our attitudes really changing.
Another error is empiricism. From the unofficial beginning of the campaign to the guidelines for consolidation sent to regional and local steering committees for the actual official campaign, there has been no theoretical analysis to lead the process. There has been no historical justification or summation of past experience in the U.S., there has been no theory on how people change, or on the relationship of ideology to the material base-white chauvinism to racism. Our practice must be lead by some theory (however untested) and one would hope that the theory was based on the refinement of earlier tested theory or some rational thought. This has not been the case and in fact, has resulted in serious errors. These errors have been explained away by supporters of the ’leading line’ as ’to be expected because we’re involved in something new.’ This does not make it. There must always be a theory behind it to insure few errors and deviations. The base and local steering committees have been shown nothing and blind faith has been expected. People cannot go on indefinitely and call minor mistakes quantitative. Just as quantity becomes quality so it is that minor mistakes can be recognized as a system of errors.
Not having a theory to guide this campaign has led many people to turn Marxism-Leninism upside down. Examples are many but they give meaning to the errors:
1. A comrade in the midwest saying the campaign has led her to see that liberals and the Klan are the same (liberals have the same racist thoughts).
2. A comment from a national SC person that “white comrades understand that their racism is no less than other white people in the class...”
3. The continued attempt to get people to acknowledge that black people are: animals, no better than slaves, etc.
4. After waging the struggle in the midwest region against white chauvinism (patronizing attitudes, etc.) selecting a regional leadership based on racism and which was later overturned because of racism-including one of those elected having been in for a couple of months before her election and dropping out within a month after her election.
5. Numerous comrades saying, “you can’t move on in the struggle and develop line and theory until you’ve broken with white chauvinism.
6. Having no criteria to judge when progress is being made in the break with white chauvinism. One month criticizing others is positive and shows leadership in waging the struggle and the next month the same action is seen as posturing. Being quiet one month is not understanding what is going on but being quiet the next is ’hiding out’.
7. Attempting to raise political differences is called ’a cover for white chauvinism’ cutting off any ideological struggle and creating a Catch-22.
There are numerous errors to point to but OC members probably have seem very vivid examples in their own locales. This campaign has not pointed out that white Marxists-Leninists, in fact, do have white chauvinist attitudes and developed a plan to work on that but rather has led people to see the Klan and liberals as the same, OC members as equally racist as all white working people (all white people), and that the stand you take against racism with your feet has no relevance. It leads to the analysis that white workers and other progressives who participated in the civil rights movement were worthless or worse, held back the struggle and that the CPUSA was wrong in developing a line on the National Question in 1928 and 1930 and having their white chauvinism campaigns afterwards. The campaign ignores the role of theory–hence the empiricism–and replaces a materialist approach with wishful thinking.
What did the OCIC as a democratic body decide to do and what is the present reality? The first year resolution included tasks for the coming year, one was “strengthen the OC’s grasp of the centrality of racism, particularly in relation to the forms in which racism expresses itself in the communist movement.” (this was passed at the national conference). In the Steering Comm. Overview one of the four areas under ’Rraising the level of the OC ideologically’ is “secure a generalized understanding of both the history of racism in the U.S. society and of its modern forms-particular attention must be payed to combatting white chauvinism within the communist movement.” (Feb. 1980). In the April SC Bulletin the chair of the Anti-Racist Task Force reports that the “ARTF is focusing on producing a major study and discussion document on white chauvinism within the OC.(my italics). Finally a resolution on a campaign is adopted and printed in the same bulletin ending with, ”Be it therefore resolved that the SC and its Anti-Racist Task Force unite and promote an ideological campaign against white chauvinism which draws upon this “thoroughgoing Marxist-Leninist analysis” in order to lay bare the roots and manifestations of white chauvinism and methods for combating it...”
It is obvious that the few sentences decided on at the national conference were not enough to give direction to a campaign. So it is correct for it to be developed by another body (NSC, ARTF, etc.). Yet even from the aforementioned resolution it appears that any outline or proposal or introduction to a campaign would include analysis and methods for combatting the chauvinism. Then, as the chair of the ARTF said, there would be study and discussion.
But, again, the reality is very different. The campaign is based on two points: (l) there will be no discussion of how it is to be carried out and (2) the main aspect of the campaign will be on criticism/self criticism/ and acknowledgement of certain attitudes. From a vote on a few sentences at a national conference we have come to a situation where the majority of many local center’s time is spent on acknowledgements that people view black people as animals or stupid.
Two recent postscripts show the further consolidation behind this incorrect approach. In the NSC Bulletin #2 Sept. 1980 the resolution on the campaign (developed by DW) and quoted above is criticized for weaknesses, “b. The focus of the campaign against white chauvinism as conceived of by DW (and adopted by the NSC–my addition) is study as opposed to ideological struggle. While study is certainly important and DW has some important contributions to make in developing study materials for the OC, it is an error to fail to stress the ideological struggle aspect of the campaign. The needs of the current period are not primarily education (in the sense of study) but rooting out bourgeois ideology.” The document of last April 1980 which was used as an outline of the campaign and adopted by the NSC is now turned on its head!
Finally guidelines were sent out in Sept. 1980 to local and regional steering committees so they could consolidate around the campaign before it begins on Nov. l. The guidelines consist of 11 pages on how best to lead in criticism/self criticism around chauvinism, spot defenses-including be sharp and concrete. There is not one paragraph of theoretical analysis. And, in fact, we are to consolidate before we even see the bulletin!
The facts are obvious in regard how the OCIC has consolidated around this campaign. But it begs another question. Why is it being done this way? A new line of demarcation is being added to the OCIC which calls into being a new set of rules. A new agenda has been adopted and the struggle has been raised to a higher(?) level. Whereas when two members of TMLC left the national OCIC conference early-unwilling to struggle–the membership was critical and angry but took no action. In the summer of 1980 when people from the same organization were not willing to participate in a campaign that had not yet been decided on they were expelled from the OCIC. (Further, the expulsion–at first, did not even originate with the full OCIC or the full NSC!). Presently the question of “are you willing to carry out the work plan” is being asked with great fervor in light of the beginning campaign. This is being asked with the knowledge that if people don’t follow the work plan, they will be removed from local or regional leadership. People are being expelled or forced out in the course of unprincipled struggle around the campaign. A strong, quick consolidation is occurring where people are being told (by actions) that this is how its going to be, you can stay or go. It has been said by some, “if people won’t take up the struggle against white chauvinism (as its supposed to be done) they should be thrown out.”
Rather than uniting the tendency the OCIC is going in the other direction. It is raising the unity beyond what was agreed on and narrowing the OCIC. It is taking a left sectarian turn-in clear contradiction to the spirit of the Founding Statement and the Draft Plan. Principled ideological struggle based on democratic forms are being pushed aside through the use of organizational opportunism to implement a line.
The current NSC bulletin while having a section on the state of the OCIC, regional reports and new membership does not mention that members were expelled and that a significant number have resigned. By not mentioning these facts the NSC does not have to take up why people are leaving and the narrowing base. The question should be on the agenda but it is not. The NSC is not prepared for the charge of sectarianism because the actions around the campaign (its content and implementation) confirm it. More and more people in the OCIC are not satisfied with supporters of the ’leading line’ responding to criticisms and concerns of the opposition with, “you’re just trying to hold on to your white chauvinism”. This will not do. They realize that we aren’t having real ideological struggle.
There are increasing parallels between the OL some years back and our present process. The lines are coming from the top in a commandist fashion–short circuiting democratic discussion; there is a downplaying of theory and the beginnings of a sectarian approach to party-building.
Finally the left sectarianism is cropping up in regard to the rectificationists. They are being called the seat of opportunism of the tendency because of not joining the OC. Further, there is an outright hostility towards them. Yet there seems to be some hypocrisy towards the position the rectificationists are taking and that position taken by the Planning Committee of the National Minority Marxist-Leninist Conference. In the current NSC Bulletin #2 Sept. ’80 the PC puts out an overview on work with minority M-Lers who are outside of the OC. While speaking to a particular situation-chauvinism in the OC and why minorities need not join-the PC raises a very relevant political point. “The OCIC is an organizing committee for an ideological center, and not a single leading ideological center for our movement. Some of the most advanced contributions to forging an IC may very well come from outside the ranks of the OCIC. The important thing is that the IC is forged. The IC will not be forged by a particular circle or organization, but from struggle around the draft plan.” While the PC is not the NSC, two members (I believe) are on the NSC and all others are members of the OC. The political perspective of the OC–in particular, the NSC–towards the Rectificationists does not reflect anything close to the perspective cited above. In fact, the Rectificationist’s have responded to the draft plan and debates are beginning with some local centers.
If the NSC agrees with the statement that the “important thing is that the IC is forged” than the relations and organizational perspective towards them does not reflect it and speaks to further sectarian attitudes.
The spirit of the draft plan and the founding statement are not forgotten. I feel they can be regained inside the OCIC. Discussion and struggle still exists and the leading line is not fully consolidated. It is time for the base–the OCIC members–to put it back on course.
1. Stop the current campaign against white chauvinism. Reform/redirect the task force to put together an analysis and perspective: on white chauvinism and its relation to racism, analysis of past experience in fighting white chauvinism how best to struggle against both racism and white chauvinism. When it is completed it will be submitted-along with readings – for study and discussion by the membership before implementation.
2. Limited criticism/self criticism will occur in the OCIC as errors occur. These will not dominate the meetings and people will not be forced to acknowledge their incorrect attitudes. The c/sc will be voluntary (as all c/sc has been in the OC).
3. More emphasis and resources will be put to the ultra left task force to come up with a theoretical piece and a study plan.
4. Work will start immediately on the party-building task force.
5. A critique of the recent errors in the OCIC will be developed, followed by discussion throughout the OCIC.