* * *
We need to make a change. In order for us to build an effective political alternative in this country and be able to meet the challenges posed by the worsening conditions for the people in the period ahead, we need to make a change. There is widespread agreement that the current way we are organized cannot and should not be maintained.
Change is difficult. The known may be problematic, but the unknown may engender both excitement and apprehension. While we remain committed to working for justice and equality in American society, we have also come to a point, shaped by our own experiences and conditions in this country as well as by world events, where we realize that there are aspects of Marxism-Leninism that are unsuitable, inappropriate, and even antithetical to the vision we hold of a democratic and just society. (This means that we need to discard the Marxist-Leninist framework, as we take some bold, new and creative approaches to our work in order to move forward in the 1990s.
At the same time, we do not want to throw out the baby with the bathwater – we want to preserve what has been most positive about our history and our work as a foundation for the future. Our aim in making these changes is to create an open, public organization of activists committed to bringing about fundamental change in America, and to improving the lives of working people and the oppressed.
Some of the main questions that have arisen regarding the Central Committee majority’s proposal include: What are we discarding in our theoretical framework, and why? What would this new organization be united around, and what would its mass work be like? Can we still have an effective organization that can get work done and have an impact on the mass movements? How can we retain our optimistic and committed spirit, our multinational unity, and our attitude of respect for working people? How can we preserve what was most precious and positive about the League? In this paper, we will try to address these questions, as well as provide a concrete vision for the new organization we are proposing to form.
We are going through a complicated time and we believe that out of this period a stronger and more vibrant political force will develop if we continue to uphold what has always been the strength and core of the League: the importance of ties to the masses and placing practice – our mass work and giving concrete leadership to the day-to-day struggles of the people – primary. Our goal remains the same – a more just and equal world, achieved through the actual empowerment of the masses of people.
What we need to do in this period is to uphold our proud history and the work we have done, take responsibility for the movements and people we lead, and attempt to define and sharpen our beliefs, goals, and tactics in the new conditions we face. We are, in fact, reaffirming our history of struggle and contributions as we go through the changes necessary to take on the new challenges facing us in the ’90s.
We have some special responsibilities. The League today is in the leadership of many struggles, and what we do has an actual impact on the futures of many movements and people – our first responsibility is to them. This past year, in precisely those areas where we have made the most advances, we have been the object of concerted and harsh attacks. In areas like the student work, Watsonville and Oakland, the attacks on us have the potential of not only damaging individuals, but also of setting back entire movements that have been built over many years of hard work.
So the starting point for recognizing the need for a major reassessment and change was that we faced certain problems and contradictions in our mass work areas which, if left unsolved, would have rendered the people unable to make further gains, or in some cases would have forced the people to retreat. What have been some of these concrete problems:
* Our Leninist organizational form has become an obstacle to being able to do political work broadly and openly. The communist organizational model is aimed at enabling the working class and masses of people to become empowered through the intervention of a tight, disciplined organization in the mass movement for the purpose of seizing state power. We do not believe in a seizure of state power in the Leninist sense, i.e., through armed insurrection regardless of any democratic process. Moreover, we do not believe that a secret organizational apparatus is necessary, as we are not doing anything illegal. What is needed is an organization capable of rallying the broad majority in an open and public way, and winning this majority to our program and vision of a new society.
Theoretically, we had already adopted a view (at least since 1984) that fundamental change in the U.S. will have to come about when the majority of people want it, expressed through some kind of verifiable electoral mandate, as well as through broad activity in many spheres of the mass movements, including self-defense against any violence by those who would oppose and deny power to the majority. We therefore felt an urgency to contend for the hearts and minds of the people in an open and public way – a bold and logical step, but one that is impossible within the Marxist-Leninist organizational form and framework that we presently have.
* Unsustainable gains. Especially in some relatively developed areas of our work, we have reached a point where the gains we have made and the level of work and institutionalized leadership we have achieved are not sustainable over a long period of time. For example, the very high level of sacrifice on the part of many cadres who made the MEChA war and the Watsonville struggle successful are not possible to maintain. The level of struggle was raised very high due to our intervention as a tight-knit, disciplined force within the mass movement, which we and the movement itself could not sustain more than a few years. We saw the need to take a new approach based on what people feel they can contribute to the struggle for a new society over a longer period of time. Given the present requirements of the mass movement, we did not feel it is possible or correct to sustain the level of discipline and sacrifice needed to implement our past level of intervention in the mass movement. Out of this recognition, we developed ideas for new, more flexible policies regarding time, dues, jobs/careers, where people live, etc.
* Inability to reap the full gains from the work we have already done. This can be seen on many levels:
1) The more we get out there and provide leadership to different struggles, the more our members (especially in recent years) have had to “close UP,” in efforts to avoid accusations that these movements are “controlled” or “manipulated” by a communist organization with a “secret agenda,” etc. We continue to do the best mass work around, yet we cannot claim credit for that work as an organization. Most every district has examples of this phenomenon.
2) There are many friends who would join the organization based on what we stand for and our good mass work, but they do not want to be in a communist and/or “secret” organization.
3) Our work in different areas had reached a point where the logical extension was to run for local office. However, red-baiting attacks prevent us from running openly or for claiming credit as a fighting people’s organization for the movements we have helped to lead and build, and which in essence the masses are endorsing with their votes. In the student work (and in some other areas), red-baiting in the current environment has the potential of paralyzing or severely damaging our exemplary work among the younger generation.
Alongside these practical problems that we have faced in our work and the need for practical solutions, we have also been struck by the great potential that exists for organizing the masses of people. Due to the worsening conditions for the vast majority of people in this country, more and more people are seeking alternatives to this system that places profits before human needs, and to this society that is increasingly polarized along racial and national lines. The enormous mass response to Nelson Mandela’s recent visit and to Jesse Jackson’s presidential campaigns demonstrate the strength and beauty of the human spirit – the profound sentiment among the people of this country for justice and democracy, and their deep hopes for a better life. But new approaches and broader, more flexible organizational forms are needed to organize that popular sentiment and to tap the potential that exists for greatly expanding and strengthening the people’s movements and winning a majority to support self-determination, equality, democracy, and a new social and economic order that: puts human needs before profit.
We need to discard the Marxist-Leninist framework and clearly reject those tenets of Marxism-Leninism with which we do not agree, while developing an indigenous theoretical framework and approach that is in conformity with do believe in, and with the kind of organization and politics we feel we need to represent as we enter the 1990s.
First some background. Our organization has its roots in the 1960s and early ’70s, in the movements of oppressed nationalities in this country. We did not begin as Marxist-Leninists – we were motivated by our love for our people and a commitment to fight injustice, and what we increasingly understood to be a system of oppression. We looked toward Marxism-Leninism in the mid-to-late-’70s because at that time the leading anti-imperialist struggles of the third world were led by Marxist-Leninist parties. Socialist countries like Cuba, China and Mozambique were also an inspiration. As we studied Marxism-Leninism, we found its analysis of capitalism, imperialism, class society and history illuminating. We also identified with the need for revolutionary organization, leadership and discipline.
Over time, we have built a viable and effective organization that has been able to have a real impact on the mass movement. We have been able to do this work for several reasons: our consistent commitment to practice and mass work and our down-to-earth approach to building the mass-movement; our political line, which has probably been the most innovative in the U.S. left, our line on the national question, the lower strata of the working class, sunbelt strategy, electoral politics, united front, etc.); and the hard discipline and sacrifice of our members. We have built an organization is truly multi-national and that struggles to practice multi-national unity and respect for workers and oppressed nationality people and for each other in general. These essential characteristics comprise much of what is unique and precious about the League, and what we wish to preserve as we go through different changes.
Flowing from our long-held belief that the people make history, we have adopted the view that fundamental change in the U.S. will have to come about with the support of the majority of the people, expressed through some kind of verifiable electoral means. We have formulated the view that through the strategic alliance of the oppressed nationality movements and the multi-national working class, along with progressive whites, the basis exists for an electoral majority. Our work in the Jackson campaign and the recruitment of most of our new members have been on this basis.
With our adoption of majority support for fundamental change as a strategic goal, we have objectively moved away from parts of Leninism. Especially given our history and tradition of coming out of the national movements, we have had the view for some time that Marx and Lenin, like Mao, Che, Fidel, Malcolm, Cabral, Mandela and the ANC, the Sandinistas, etc., are revolutionaries who synthesized the experience of their time and carried out revolutions, and that some of their views are correct, others incorrect.
We are proposing that we change our theoretical framework and focus on developing an indigenous theory, strategy and tactics for fundamental change. We should not be wedded to any particular “isms.”
Our new framework would utilize some aspects of Marx’s and Lenin’s views that are useful and applicable to our conditions. For example, the Marxist approach and method (dialectical materialism), Marx’s and Engels’ analysis of classes in society, and the understanding and critique of capitalist economics (how profits are derived through the exploitation of workers), Lenin’s analysis of the national question, Mao’s writings on united front and on the “mass line” (from the people, to the people), to name a few.
But our theoretical framework would also be based on the views of other leaders of the people’s movements from this country and from around the world who have something to offer that is useful and applicable to our struggle, as well as based on summing up lessons and analysis from our own experience and practice. For example, Malcolm X’s analysis of the fundamentally racist nature of U.S. society and the need for a thorough-going transformation based on self-determination, self-respect and self-defense, or W.E.B. DuBois’ analysis of the era of Reconstruction as a historical and essentially revolutionary model for democracy in the old plantation South, could be studied and would be placed on an equal level to the contributions of Marx, Lenin, or Mao. And, as Amilcar Cabral of the African Party for the Independence of Guinea and the Cape Verde Islands once said, in order for a people’s organization to thoroughly integrate with the masses, it is necessary to “return to the source” – to obtain familiarity with the culture and the popular perceptions of society held by the masses of our own country.
At the same time, in reviewing developments in the world, we have come to realize that there are aspects of Marxism-Leninism that are inappropriate, unsuitable, and even antithetical to the vision we hold of a democratic and just society. Specifically, we reject the following principles of Marxism-Leninism:
1) The actual practice of many different social movements in many different countries has shown that a wide variety of beliefs and theoretical systems have contributed to advancing the interests of working people and society in a forward direction. We do not believe that Marxism-Leninism is the sole and leading ideology for social change. Nor do we believe that Marxism-Leninism or any other ideology should have hegemony and should, by definition, have a special leading role in the mass movements, nor do we see this ideology as intrinsically superior to any other theory or ideological frame.
2) We reject Lenin’s view of the vanguard communist party. We do not believe that a single party can or should determine the direction, strategy and tactics of the struggle for fundamental change. We reject the idea that fundamental change can or should come about through a seizure of power by a vanguard party claiming to act in the interests of the working class and the majority of society.
3) We reject the goal of the “dictatorship of the proletariat.” We reject the view that a single party can use its claim to represent the working class as a substitute for multi-party democracy and free elections. We are opposed to dictatorship in any and all forms and we recognize that the application of this principle has in every case meant that a minority acts for and defines the interests of the majority of society. Such a view is antithetical to the belief in genuine democracy and we believe that movements for justice must practice and embody the values and principles that they strive to achieve in society.
We want to change our theoretical framework, and we no longer want to be placed within a theoretical framework with which we have long had many differences in practice and which are clearly indefensible.
For example, the one-party state and state-run centralized economies have led to suppression of democracy and economic stagnation. And while we have never associated ourselves or identified with the practice of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, even countries we have seen as more positive role models, such as China or Cuba, currently face serious problems in areas of democracy and the economy. Moreover, mass persecution, invasions of sovereign nations, forced annexation of nations, and other atrocities have been carried out in the name of defending socialism and working class power.
There is also a contradiction in saying the practice is rotten, but the theory is sound. We believe practice is the criterion of truth. While Marxism-Leninism has been successful in leading revolutionary struggles, it has had tremendous limitations in building new societies, despite gains and achievements in areas such as reducing poverty, achieving industrialization in underdeveloped countries, and meeting certain human needs such as jobs, housing, health care, literacy and education, child care, etc.
This does not mean that “socialism has failed,” or, by any means, that “capitalism is better.” There is much we can learn from the positive and negative examples of efforts to build socialism, as we struggle for a new America which nuts human needs before private profit. All of us who are battling the oppression of the current society must be able to offer an alternative vision that is both inspiring and viable in today’s world.
(It is worth noting that these are also the specific areas of Marxism-Leninism that are presently being rejected by most communist and socialist parties, from the South African Communist Party to the M-19 in Colombia, to parties in Democratic Yemen, Benin, and Guinea Bissau. Also, in Mozambique, Frelimo (the ruling party that led the liberation war against 500 years of Portuguese colonialism) recently eliminated Marxism-Leninism from its proclaimed ideology because there was a sense that it was contributing to a growing separation between the masses and the party, at a time when the revolution was under attack from the counter-revolutionary, South African-backed MNR. In Europe, the trend has been for communist parties to declare themselves social democratic (Hungary, East Germany). Even the Italian Communist Party, a “Eurocommunist” party that has been considered one of the most successful in a Western capitalist country, has changed its name in light of its poor showing in recent elections and dwindling base of support among the population.)
In summary, we do not want to be a “communist” or “Marxist-Leninist” organization. We are not saving we reject everything Marx and Lenin ever said. There are useful ideas in their writings, but as we stated earlier, we do not see the need to associate ourselves or burden ourselves with what the world has experienced as “communism” and “Marxism-Leninism,” and which we ourselves do not believe in.
In many ways, there is no one phrase or label that can accurately capture who and what we are as an organization. We do not see including “socialist” or “revolutionary socialist” as part of our name or formal identity and goal. This is not because we are anti-socialist. But it is problematic to describe our organizational goal as socialism, given that there are so many versions of socialism around the world, and the confusion and unclarity over what socialism is. It is also unclear how socialism might look in the U.S. (i.e., the degree of state control of major industries and the economy, the role of the private market, taxation policies, incentives for workers, joint forms of ownership, etc.).
Rather than adopting a certain label for our organization or for the kind of society we are trying to achieve, it would be more appropriate and understandable to simply explain what we do stand for in concrete terms. In this sense, we take an approach similar to Nelson Mandela and the ANC. On the Ted Koppel special, Mandela concretely described the ANC’s vision of a post-apartheid South Africa – a new South African society based on democracy (one person, one vote, etc.), a mixed economy, etc. He rejected any labels of “capitalist” or “socialist” – he said the ANC’s goal was to better the people’s lives, and that they would leave it to others to nut a label on it if they so desire.
We want to develop an organization that can unite a very broad spectrum of progressive and revolutionary activists – from workers to union leaders, from freedom fighters to elected officials, from grassroots community activists to artists and professionals. The needs of the movement call for as broad an organization as possible, and one in which the contributions of people from all sectors of society can be utilized for the overall progress of society. What would attract people from all these backgrounds and walks of life to join the new organization would be the same thing that has attracted people in the past – our mass work and our politics, and our unwavering commitment to organizing and empowering the people in the struggle for a just and democratic America. At the same time, there would be room for people who individually describe themselves as Marxist, Marxist-Leninist, socialist or revolutionary, as well as people who call themselves progressives, Rainbow Democrats, etc.
We see the new organization as a public organization with open members, and with politics and activities that should enable anyone who agrees with our program to join and be openly affiliated. We think it is untenable in real life to try to become a public organization while having some members whose affiliation is confidential. So long as some members must remain confidential, then everyone has to keep the secret for these individuals’ protection. In essence, this would be little different from what we have now.
Of course, being an open, public organization will not eliminate red-baiting, repression, and other attacks, because we will continue to be effective. The government and right wing historically use these attacks against any mass leaders who pose any kind of a threat. But we do think that much of the “sting” of the charge of “secret organization” and “secret agenda” would be eliminated (since it would be simply untrue). So the attacks would focus more on our politics, and we would be able to fight the right wing based on our actual practice and politics. Moreover, our past form of organization has not actually protected us from surveillance, red-baiting, etc. The best defense is still a popular public defense, and we feel an open presence and public accountability can better rally people to our cause.
What would unite us politically? Our proposed political program has yet to be drafted, but it will contain much of our present political views on the role of the oppressed nationality movements and the strategic alliance of the working class movement and the movements of people of color, on the struggle for democracy and grassroots empowerment, on the struggle for dignity and justice for all working people, etc. We also stand on our years of practice in fighting for equality, self-determination, democracy, and justice. We want to develop a draft program that unites us as an organization, and provides the basis for new members to join. We generally see the organization’s politics along the lines of what is projected by the newspaper – rooted in the struggles of the masses, standing for peace, justice, and equality for all people. In addition, we believe our organization must continue to stand for the following principles:
* Our commitment to fighting injustice and desire for fundamental change. We are fighting for a more just and humane society in which human needs take priority over private profit, in which the masses of working people and people of color are empowered to control their own destinies, in which there is political and religious freedom for all, and in which the culture and values of society reflect the respect and creativity of all humanity; we are fighting for a democratic, non-racial, non-sexist society. In order to bring about fundamental change, it will take the support of the majority of people who will demonstrate in some verifiable way (including through voting) that they want change, and democratically designate who or what type of system they would like to see in its place.
* Our commitment to mass work and building a mass base. We must continue to strive to take on the major issues facing oppressed and working people in the U.S. (such as housing, education, jobs, health care, drugs, political empowerment, etc.). We help provide leadership and organize the people to fight for these basic rights and demands, with the goal of bettering the lives of the people.
* Our commitment to the right of self-determination for the African American nation in the south and the Chicano nation in the Southwest, and full equality for national minorities; and our commitment to building multinational, unity based on equality.
* Our identity with and respect for working people, rooted in the view that the people make history, and that working people create the wealth, of society.
* Our approach to building, the people’s movement based on relying on the people and the united front – uniting all who can be united for a common goal. In our fight to end all forms of oppression, exploitation and human suffering, we must seek to unite with the broadest possible array of people and social forces. We must build coalitions and generally encourage various forces to unite and find common ground wherever possible.
* Our accountability to each other and to the people. To be an effective organization, we will strive for unity in action based on democratic decision-making and political unity on our perspective and approach. We will function on the basis of individual responsibility and collective accountability to each other, to the mass movements, and to the people.
* Our spirit of internationalism. We support people, movements and nations throughout the world that are fighting against foreign intervention, and for self-determination, peace, democracy, and a more equitable world order.
Most of our members will be active in the mass movement, and we will continue to organize the people around many different issues. In our work, we will strive to represent the interests of the majority, with emphasis on workers and people of color, and will work to implement a collective strategy to improve the conditions of the people and advance the struggle for fundamental change.
We will function based on individual responsibility and collective accountability. This means that each individual is free to make, as well as responsible for, one’s own life choices, including job, schooling, place of residence, family, what kind of political work one wants to do, and how much time one can commit. At the same time, each person is accountable to the organization (and to the movements one works in) to carry out the work he/she volunteers for in a responsible way.
Within the organization, we would discuss and debate differences regarding our perspective and plans, and make decisions based on majority vote. We also think it is important to provide mechanisms for individual and collective study, training people in organizing skills, and encouraging an atmosphere of mutual respect.
Our Structure: We envision an organization based on local (city-based) chapters. Each chapter would have committees based on ongoing areas of work (such as labor, community, cultural work, students/youth, ongoing issues such as education, fund raising, public programs, etc.). There could also be short-term committees based on specific projects or campaigns (such as electoral campaigns, hosting sneaking tours, etc.)
Each committee would have elected leadership. The leadership of the committees would comprise the chapter leadership, along with some leadership elected at-large.
Committees and chapter leadership would meet as often as needed. Chapter-wide general meetings could be held less frequently (perhaps quarterly) for chapter-wide education and discussion on national and local issues, strategy, etc.
The national organization would have elected leadership. We propose starting with a national leadership based on representatives from local chapters, plus national office staff. This would ground our national discussions in the actual experience of building the new organization. We would see moving towards a national organization where national conventions of elected delegates are held periodically, to set strategy and priorities and elect at-large national leadership.
The national staff will facilitate communications, soliciting and circulating chanter reports on our work, etc. However, for the foreseeable future, the emphasis of our work will local, not national.
Our program will be the basis for membership. Most members will be actively involved in some form of organizing work, although there may be some who want to join but cannot be in an ongoing committee. Others may want to work with us on specific projects, but may not be interested in joining right away. We should allow for some flexibility in membership, as this will enable us to grow and to work with a broad range of people in an open, creative way.
Given the nature of the new organization and its politics, it would be possible to openly promote its views in the newspaper. At the same time, we do not see having an “official newspaper” of the new organization. The paper would still have its own independent editorial board and a very broad network of contributors, though more of its editors and staff may be affiliated with the new organization.
Our strength has always been our practice. We have been able to be effective by combining grassroots work with a united front strategy, and by standing for multi-national unity and the empowerment of workers and minorities. These characteristics of our work would continue.
In our work, we seek to realign the political forces in this country and win the support of the majority for a society that puts human needs before profit, and practices democracy and justice. We seek to do this by empowering working and oppressed people to fight for a better life, and by winning all justice-minded people to support issues that benefit workers and minorities, and by building broad support for issues that affect people from various backgrounds and nationalities (like free South Africa or racist violence).
At times, there may be conflicts within the mass movements among people with different points of view. We should judge these based on what benefits the building and sustaining of the progressive movement and making fundamental changes in society.
The deteriorating conditions in this country will figure prominently in this period. Many areas of the country are already experiencing economic recession. People are in motion around issues like the continued right wing attacks (on civil rights, women’s rights, the arts, etc.); in defense of living standards and the right of workers to organize; the intensification of racism and national oppression; the crises in education, health care, housing, drugs, etc. The demand is immense for solutions, leadership, and organizing methods that can broadly unite people for change.
In the context of the concrete conditions that exist for the masses of people, we will begin to develop an indigenous theoretical framework to guide us in the years ahead, as we continue to carry out our mass work. We will study ideas and lessons from others here and abroad, and sum UP experiences from the people’s movements and from our own practice.
We are but one force among many, but we think we have a unique contribution to make. Our work may be modest in some areas, and we should organize our work realistically, especially at the beginning. But we should keep an eye on the potential for dynamic growth.
We believe we can play a leadership role in the struggle to transform society if we can capture the aspirations of the masses. In areas where we have led mass struggles, our members have been able to win elections, which in a very real sense represents a victory for the people. But the electoral arena will not be the only place the organization will strive to have an impact. At the workplace, within trade unions, in student government, and elsewhere, we will work not only to win positions of leadership, but to put forward an analysis that inspires others to take up the struggle. With our public presence, each victory will contribute to our growth and strength.
Some immediate goals of our mass work should be:
* to provide services and direct resources to alleviate the suffering of the people;
* to provide a broader analysis for people to see their issues in relationship to reordering the economic and political priorities in this country. We provide this analysis through our day-to-day work in which people learn through their own experience, and through writing articles for the paper, political forums, etc.;
* to emphasize the need for collective action;
* to emphasize the need for a united front approach;
* to build grassroots structures through which the masses have an organized collective vehicle to struggle;
* to empower the grassroots and progressives to win leadership, and to train the people to lead and reform institutions (unions, school boards, student government, etc.) for the benefit of the people.
Much of the direction of our organizing work since 1985 still holds. We want to professionalize and seek institutional support for mass work, so that the people have access and funding sources, etc. for their issues. We want an integrated strategy that combines electoral work with grassroots base building around concrete issues. Running for office should be a logical extension of a local strategy in dealing with key issues affecting people’s lives, in providing opportunities to build mass forms (like parent councils, neighborhood advisory groups, etc.), and in providing local or national standing for our members as leaders (especially in the oppressed nationality and labor movements).
An example of a local area where we are building an integrated local strategy along these lines is Watsonville, where we are combining grassroots work among cannery workers and the homeless, with electoral and united front work. People are going through a process now of making personal plans and commitments – what kind of jobs make sense, how can they integrate with their neighborhoods, etc. The main aspects of the work are: 1) institutionalizing a cannery workers base – working with and training workers, providing services; 2) extending influence in the city and policy-making, which affects the lives of the people, through working with progressive elected officials and the formation of support groups such as block associations; 3) being active in the regional and statewide Chicano movement.
As we gradually open people up, everyone should have a public explanation for what they do politically. They should not have to make up stories.
There should be flexibility based on local conditions regarding whether work should be national-in-form or multi-national. If the work is national-in-form, members of other nationalities who work in that area need a clear external relationship to that area.
The relationship of our mass work to the new organization needs to be worked out over time. As a general guideline, these points should apply:
* After the transition period (6 months-1 year), everyone should be able to say they are members, though not necessarily as the main thing they do.
* Members would do mass work as individuals, not as “representatives” of the organization. The organization would be formally represented in coalitions (such as Free South Africa), and not in local mass work, mass organizations, trade unions, or electoral campaigns.
* Local chapters and perhaps committees (such as on a particular campus or community) would sponsor public educational and cultural programs.
At the Congress, we are proposing to dissolve the organization as a Marxist-Leninist form. We want to immediately establish an organizing committee that will be united on a general vision, draft program, and organizational proposal for the new organization. A draft of a public dissolution statement is contained in these documents, which strongly reaffirms our history, tradition and practice, while explaining the reasons for dissolving as a Marxist-Leninist form.
In different areas, the transition can take different forms, some more connected to “Friends of Unity,” others as an Organizing Committee for the new organization.
The purpose of the transitional forms is to keep our ranks intact, to give continuity to our work, to involve new people who agree with our basic politics and the need for a broad activist organization that we are proposing, and to give us all time to work out the specifics of how the new organization will function. It provides a vehicle during this transition period in which we will be sharpening local strategies, and getting ready for the new organization.
When and how the Organizing Committee and/or “Friends of Unity” local chapters take shape, and who will call or be invited to the first meetings, will depend on conditions in each local area, and will be worked out by each city and area of work. We envision the first such meetings taking place in mid-November or so. The transitional forms will be membership based, and people will be invited to participate.
Sometime in early 1991, we see holding a conference to launch the new organization and give it a name.