To: LA District Committee. CNM/CSC, Section Head
Fr: Dissenting Members of the CNM/CSC
Re: Response of CNM/CSC criticism of the LADC
The LADC recently received a memo on behalf of the CNM/CSC criticizing the memo that was written by the LADC. As members of the CNM/CSC we wish to indicate that we did not unite with that response as it did not reflect a true picture of the current atmosphere within the CNM/CSC.
At a section committee meeting held on July 10, we as a whole section committee agreed that we were going to start anew, with a fresh attitude and with no bad feelings. We also agreed to look at situations objectively, to put aside comments that had been stated in the past said out of anger, to put aside procedural errors made and proceed to follow the organizational process. At that same meeting we agreed not to view the current proposal as an “us vs. them” situation, for it would not create an atmosphere by which the section could discuss the proposals objectively in a way that would move our section and the organization forward during this pre-Congress period.
The spirit of this unity was violated by the actions of the current SH as well as the appointed assistant SH. We agree that the recommendation made by the section head at the July 22nd district wide should have been raised to the LADO and to the CNM/CSC prior to the meeting. Yet it must be noted that the section head did consult his appointed assistant section head and instead of struggling with the section head regarding his recommendation. the assistant section head violated the spirit of the Jury 10 meeting, said that he saw nothing wrong with the recommendation and advised the section head to consult other members of the section. The section head consulted with other members of the section, but failed to consult with the UH of his unit or members of the section committee that may not have agreed with his recommendation and would have struggled against this. Therefore, we cannot agree that the section head acted on his own behalf. Although his recommendation may have been his sincere desire to promote a democratic process, his action is a reflection of an atmosphere of suspicion, distrust, and paranoia, that has been created by certain members in our section who hold the minority view. What is unfortunate is the fact that these members of the section do not see or perhaps do not want to acknowledge the fact that supporting such a recommendation does bring about the “ugly specter of factionalism” into what is already a “trying Pre-Congress period.”
After the district wide meeting the section head failed to address the criticism at the DC meeting prior to the circulation of the memo and the assistant section head, who usually goes or sends a rep. failed to do so and should have known that this criticism would be raised at that DC meeting.
The members of the CNM/CSC fail to address the issue of whether the current discussion is a class war/struggle. None of the members of the CNM/CSC holding the minority view has denied that they hold this characterization of the current debate.
We cannot agree with this characterization of the current discussion as a class war/struggle. We also cannot agree with the characterization of the majority proposal or any of its adherents as “selling out.” The current discussion is one of how to contribute to building democracy and equality within U.S. society, of how to end the source of oppression of the oppressed nationalities, working class and other sectors of society and ultimately empower them to fight against this capitalist oppression. This discussion needs to be applied to building democracy and equality within our own organization and empowering all cadre. The majority proposal offers that empowerment democracy and hope not only in the.US., but for ourselves as well. In waging debate as a war, the minority has failed to see the shortcomings of their practice and view which stifles initiative and democracy. The minority view has failed to see that their practice does not rely on the masses for change and ideas and is condescending to those they seek to help. They need to realize that the way they function inhibits growth and initiative among cadre and promotes a “wait and see” attitude for the answers from the top. Characterizing this discussion as a class war will not move the organization forward.
We also cannot agree with the statement that the LADC was “confused” about meetings that were held prior to the 2 that took place in July. It is a well known fact that meetings did take place to discuss and develop the minority viewpoint and these meetings were approved by the LADC. It is a tragedy that members of the section committee deny that these meetings took place and imply that people are either naive to what has taken place or that people are fabricating the fact that these meetings have occurred. It is precisely due to this atmosphere that has been created that cadre were very subjective towards each other and were not addressing each other in a positive manner prior to the district-wide of Aug. 8.
In conclusion, we wish to reiterate that we do not agree with the memo sent out by the section committee and that there was a vote of 4 to 2 in favor of the memo. We also feel that it is very easy to say that we “must struggle to maintain a constructive, productive, and inclusive atmosphere of struggle.” In writing this response, we want to clarify events that have occurred and stress that only through our practice will we be able to have a “constructive, productive, and inclusive atmosphere of struggle”; only through our practice will we be able to reach the unity necessary to move our organization forward so that we can have a positive impact on the mass movement, and only through our practice will we be able to ultimately empower the masses to achieve a more just and equitable society for all people.