TO: The Organization
FROM: Sacramento District
RE: Central Committee proposal
DATE: July 18, 1990
The following is only an outline of our agreements, disagreements, and our ideas for developing a plan and achieving sufficient unity in the organization to take positive steps forward in the immediate future.
1. We agree that revolution is not on the near term agenda in the US.
2. We agree that legal work will definitely dominate our activities, probably for many years to come.
3. We agree that, our structure, internal procedures, policies, (including the question of secrecy) should be analysed and modified to suit the current conditions and with a goal of making the vast majority of members content with those aspects of our organization.
4. We agree that we must have a much more open presence in the political arenas.
5. We agree that our mass work should be more in line with the conditions and where people are at...This means that different movements will develop according to what the conditions allow.
1. We find ourselves in serious disagreement with most conclusions of the Central Committee majority and with many particular arguments. However, we will only deal with those we believe to be most fundamental. Also, rather than stating our position in the negative, we prefer to put it in the positive.
We uphold the following:
1. That dialectical and historical materialism (Marxism-Leninism) are the most effective forms of analysis the working class has in its struggle for liberation.
2. That class struggle is the basic motive force of human historical deve1opment.
3. That history has thus far shown that any change in class rule has been accompanied by large scale violence, usually initiated by the ruling class. In our times, it is violence against the wording class, oppressed nationalities, and their political organisations.
4. That US society is ultimately a dictatorship of the monopoly capitalist class.
Furthermore we hold:
1. That we (LRS) were and should remain organised in the interest of the multi-national working class for the purpose of empowering that class.
2. That national liberation and socialism are our strategic goals, i.e., the end of US imperialism.
3. That the strategic alliance between the multi-national working class and the oppressed nationalities is the strategic key.
4. That the program of the LRS is fundamentally sound in its po1itics.
For the sake of brevity we will only mention some particularly disturbing aspects of the Central committee’s proposal:
1. Overall we found no mention of the working class nor a specific plan for how the proposed “organisaiton of activists ...” will assist in empowering the multi-national working class.
2. Abandoning dialectical and historical materialism and putting the major exponents (Marx, Engels, Lenin) on the same theoretical plane as Frantz Fanon, Che Guevara, and even Malcolm X will leave working class people without the theoretical tools they need to build their own power. It will also leave the organization without the most effective tools of analysis to develop our program and make tactical decision, etc., in the future.
3. Abandoning the theoretical tools of M-L and the goal of socialism as the Central Committee majority’s plan does, will lead very shortly to a reformist organization dominated by people with higher education, with relatively more time and money than other members, i.e. a petty bourgeois organization.
4. The concept of the “majority revolution” is a false issue. The Central Committee majority states “theoretically we have already adopted the view that, fundamental change in the US will have to come about through a majority revolution, expressed through some kind of verifiable electoral means.”
First, We do not recall any adoption of such a theoretical position by our Congress.
But more importantly, the concept of “majority revolution” seems to be a “straw man” which is being used to attack Lenin and Leninism, the theory of the Party, democratic centra1ism etc.
In addition, the counterposing of the “majority revolution” versus the “seizure of power” is both vague and misleading as put forward by the CC. They say “fundamental change can only take place in America when the majority of people want it. This is what we mean by majority revolution.”
We are unaware of any revolution in which the majority of the people did not want fundamental change. Also, Lenin is always clear that the working class makes revolution and seizes power, but not without an organization capable of leading that violent struggle.
Finally, since the CC along, with the rest of the organization, admits to not knowing how “fundamental change” (and we mean the political rule of the multi-national working class) will come about, how can it resume there will be the opportunity for such an electoral demonstration of support? The repression from the ruling class may come prior to such a demonstration and pre-empt it.
In any case, the entire argument by the CC on this issue is an unwarranted attack on the theory of the Party, the need for secrecy, democratic-centralism, etc. without which no modern ruling class has ever been overthrown.
5. In the Central Committee’s paper (page 2) they slip from “we too have moved beyond some of Lenin’s formulations, about the dictatorship of the proletariat” to “we certainly do not agree with most of the practice carried out in Lenin’s name in the years since his death.” They go on to say “we have moved away already in real life from much of what is commonly perceived to be communism and M-L”
First, we believe the CC should be precise about which of Lenin’s “formulations” they have “moved beyond”.
Second, we do not agree that our organization has moved away from the common perception of M-L: or communism because we never accepted nor were we close to it ourselves. We have always been critical of the lack of democracy in the USSR and Eastern Europe, and we voiced our opposition immediate1y to the repression of the people in China.
1. We must come to whatever degree of unity possible on the fundamentals. What will be the outlook, view, and stand of the organization. This should be debated in papers prior to the Congress and discussed in districts, allowing members from different work areas to hear each other’s views.
2. The practical problems of our short term (1-2 years) medium term (2-3 years) goals, activities, structures and policies should be more carefully considered.
3. If our organisation maintains its basis in Marxism—Leninism with the goal of socialism, we must develop a more effective internal education and training process both on the analytical viewpoint of our organization arid how it is to function internally (elections, etc.)
4. We must improve our internal political life, including our internal decision making processes emphasizing greater discussion at lower levels.
We should develop district plans based on the general decisions of the congress.
There should be minimum standards of the organization, which would include dues (which we think could be adjusted lower), attending one internal meeting a week, and adhering to the line of the organization.
The question of how to open up more members while also holding public offices is a complicated one. and one in which there needs to be more investigation because there probab1y are many solutions.
Finally, this is just a preliminary statement. We intend to submit papers for discussion on the process used in bringing discussion of the Majority’s opinion to the rest of the organization and the history of the LRS.