Issued as unpublished letter: January 1982.
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.
To Planning Committee of Tendency-wide Summation:
To party building movement:
Dear comrades,
I am resigning from the planning committee, designed to hold conferences summing up the OCIC. When I left the OCIC I decided to participate on the planning committee for the conferences because I felt that a tendency wide discussion of the OC experience would be important. It would be an opportunity to share our experiences and to have other forces put forward their assessments. This effort, I had hoped, would help in the reconsolidation of the tendency in the aftermath of the OCIC’s degeneration. I still remain committed to an exchange of views between different tendency forces around the OCIC, but I know longer feel that the planning committee and the conferences as they are proceeding, are really going to result in tendency wide struggle.
It is my view that the main obstacle to realizing a truly tendency wide planning committee and process is the result primarily of the sectarianism of the present Line Of March. The rectification forces have alienated themselves from a number of important tendency forces due to their presently incorrect conception of the tendency and view of theoretical struggle in this period. This became most clear to me at the recent Bay Area Report Back conference on Racism and National Oppression held in November. Comrades from BASOC, Inkworks, and a study group associated with the TMLC [Tucson Marxist-Leninist Collective–EROL] developed a fairly in depth critique of the conference’s working papers, and yet were not allowed to attend the conference. Essentially the planning committee for the conference put so many preconditions for participation on these forces that they effectively excluded their contribution. Without going through all the details I refer comrades to a statement from these comrades that includes a chronology that I essentially agree with.
The important point of this experience for me was that while three of us with differences did participate in the conference, the other important forces from the Bay Area tendency (TMLC study group, BASOC, and Inkwords) did not. In addition, the planning committee rejected my request that the CWP be allowed to participate. The result of all these various exclusions was that theoretical struggle was really narrowed and constricted as the major opposition lines were excluded. This occurred in the context of the Line of March, and the conference planning committee, stating that these conferences were tendency wide and were willing to take on the different lines. For me this was far too reminiscent of the sectarian stand that many of us in the OCIC took toward other forces in the tendency. Under the guise of saying we wanted tendency wide theoretical struggle (single center) we continually excluded forces from the OC, and took a sectarian stand toward other tendency forces. Unfortunately the editorial board of the Line of March is similarly following a sectarian course in excluding forces from tendency wide conferences, and writing some people out of the tendency.
This sectarian party-building line has already influenced substantially the work of the planning committee thus far. In our first meetings the Line of March opposed the TMLC being on the planning committee despite the fact that they were in the OCIC and constitute one of the main theoretical forces in our movement. The Line of March comrades used a number of sectarian arguments that TMLC was ’anti-trend’, would be a ’disruptive force’ etc. They only begrudgingly conceded this point after it was made clear that their exclusion was totally unacceptable to me. More recently Line of March members have told me that they see TMLC as objectively outside the demarcation of the trend, due to their adherence to Althusserian Marxism, but won’t demarcate until this struggle is completed. A more sectarian stand to toward making demarcations could not be imagined.
The planning committee also did not receive favorable response from other tendency forces. TMLC while not formally responded, make it clear to me that they were interested in pursuing future summations discussions but would not participate on a planning committee with LOM given their sectarianism.
Comrades from El Comite declined participation on the planning committee because they did not feel that such a conference was a priority to them given that it was more important that ex-OC people meet to sum up their experience. The question of the CWP was also never resolved given that LOM does not view them in the tendency, the obviously opposed any participation in the conference. On the other hand, I argued that they should be allowed to participate in the conferences given their break on international line.
Given this situation there seems to be no possibility for a truly tendency wide summation of the OCIC, as the planning committee is presently constituted. In my opinion this is caused primarily by the Line of March, although not entirely as we can see from some of the responses. It was this underlying situation which caused me to reevaluate my commitment, since I did not want to take leadership responsibility in conferences that were billed as tendency wide and yet really only organized LOM and a number of ex-OC forces. Nor did I want to be on a leadership that excluded important tendency forces, or made it difficult for them to participate.
My final decision was made due to another immediate factor as well. Upon stating my differences and reservations about the process to Max on the Planning Committee, I suggested that for me to proceed two conditions would have to be met. First, a better composition to the leadership bodies which were truly tendency wide. Secondly, the conferences would have to wait for various summations of ex-OC members that were happening. I explained that I was involved in organizing summations of ex-OC comrades who felt that ultra-leftism was the primary cause of the OC degeneration, and also that other comrades from LA and the Bay Area were planning a conference of all ex-OC members from the west coast.
Max explained that he would not gear the schedule to the tendency wide meetings to after our meetings, particularly the one I was involved in organizing. He said that he felt that our meetings, whatever the intentions, were really sectarian and the only basis of unity was opposition to LOM. I disagreed that it was sectarian, and explained that while forces who came would certainly disagree with LOM analysis, that we were interested in struggling over our experience and also discussing our own views of party-building and future tasks. I said that it was not sectarian for us to be trying to develop our party-building line, aid to put emphasis on doing this. I also explained that tactically it would very difficult to get many ex-OC members to tendency wide conferences prior to meetings of ex-OC people.
At this point I was basically asked to decide which was a priority since the LOM comrades would not wait for out meetings. In this context, of underlying criticisms of sectarian practices of LOM, fears that the conferences weren’t shaping up at all to be tendency wide, and a refusal to put the tendency wide conferences after the ex-OC meetings, I decided to resign.
Since that time I understand that the LOM has decided to abandon the idea of tendency wide conferences, and instead has proposed holding conferences to discuss their particular perspective on the state of the party-building movement and tasks. My own attitude is that we will not have tendency wide conferences but that comrades should use various conferences and forums that are lead by different organizations and groupings, in order to take up the theoretical struggle. In his way we may not have as centralized debate as we might of but nonetheless we can learn from other comrades, and sharpen our own lines for future party-building work.
Comradely,
Dave F.