First Issued: n.d. [Fall 1979]
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.
COG would like to raise a number of criticisms, both positive and negative, of the political process that took place at the national conference of the OCIC.
The struggle over resolution B of point 18 represented the most positive aspect of the conference – demonstrating that on this point the SC took a broad view of opening the OC to forces who agree with he point but do not see it as a line of demarcation for party building. It recognizes that the OCIC has a general plan, for the formation of a single national ideological center, but not an elaborated strategy for party building. In the future we will be taking up the question of party building: “What is the essence of party building, what are the primary and related secondary tasks, what are the pre-requisites for a party and how do we best organize the struggle for it.” (Draft Plan, p. 13). It justifies the thesis that the development of the OCIC would be a process open to the entire tendency, one in which new forces that join can be involved in a continuing discussion of political questions,, and one in which past decisions will not be taken for ^ranted, but will be continually applied and re-confirmed in practice. This is particularly true in the context of local centers in which we will be in the process of winning people over to a consolidated agreement with the 18 points, not starting with that agreement. We believe that the considerable opposition to the passing of this point was cased on a narrow conception of OCIC memberships any minority view, even if it accepts the 18 points as they now stand, should be eliminated rather than struggled with. Of course we should not be liberal and tolerate views that oppose point 18 to conciliate ultra-leftism, but neither should we be sectarian in demanding a higher level of unity than the existing points. Unfortunately, an intolerant view towards minority viewpoints was more common than not in the conference. But in terms of this point, the SC correctly understood that the passing of the resolution helps to assure the growth and openness of the OCIC to new members, and helps us to struggle with comrades within the OCIC who agree with the point, but are not clear whether or not it is a line of demarcation.
Despite the positive achievement in passing this point, there were a number of negative aspects to the conference that we want to put forward. They include: 1) the lack of preparation; 2) the lack of respect for minority viewpoints; 3) the inclusion of substantial political points in conference documents without proper opportunity for study and discussion: 4) the fact that a number of discussions were confined to organisational rather than political criteria; and 5) the lack of clarity on the relationship of theory to practice.
The lack of preparation for the conference has already been accepted by the SC as a criticism. However, we feel that this lack of preparation was not just a question of time, but reflected political priorities totally at odds with a correct process for the OCIC. This resulted in serious problems in the political process of the conference. The following are errors we see in preparation for the conference: there was no clear idea ahead of time as to the purpose or goals of the conference; there was a lack of clarity as to the main items of the agenda until very late; the documents to be considered were sent out late; the resolutions to be addressed were not available till the day of the conference; there was no exchange of views ahead of time (such as took place before the founding conference of the OCIC). All of these points made it difficult or impossible for many conference participants to organize or clarify their views or to get together and talk with others who might share their perspectives. In addition, we know that there was no call from the SC for input on agenda items or for documents or resolutions to be circulated prior to the conference. There was no call from the SC for suggestions or nominations for new SC members prior to the conference (although we did know that a new election would take place). One last point about preparation is that despite the distribution of several documents from the Southern California local center we were never informed about the serious political struggle that was being waged within that center about its very nature. This is true although we now know that the SC was well aware of the existence of that struggle.
In fact, at the conference in general there was no process to draw out differences and present them systematically before the body. The process that took place was one in which the SC put forward its view, and then differences with that view were usually seen as unfriendly or as something to be struggled against. Views opposing that of the SC were not fully drawn out and examined, and a process of open ideological debate which could have forged deeper political understanding and unity became impossible. In fact, there was a general impatience with almost any minority view, which meant that these views did not get a real hearing or examination on the basis of their political merit. This was particularly true in the discussion of how to characterize the Club Network, the question of a single anti-revisionist tendency, and the question of the consolidation of revisionism in the CPUSA. Overall, there was a quashing of the spirit of open discussion, which fostered a fear of raising opposing viewpoints. This appeared to be one reason for the reluctance of those holding a minority view in the Southern California local center to put their position forward.
If such points as the date of consolidation of revisionism in the CPUSA, the need to reexamine Mao Tse-tung Thought, and the identification of China as the international center of ultra-leftism were important enough to be placed in conference documents, then an opportunity for study or at least an exchange of views prior to the conference should have been provided. Since this was not done and since there was opposition to their appearance, they should have been struck from the documents, especially since their presence was not central to the documents in which they appeared.
At this point, a diversity of views in the OCIC on questions before our movement should be welcomed and encouraged. Differences should not be seen as problems blocking further progress, but as points to be brought up for debate and discussion. The full examination and careful consideration of all views should be fostered around those main questions facing the OC now: the nature of ultra-leftism, party building strategy, the struggle against racism, and all other questions. Otherwise, a top-down relationship between leadership and base could be consolidated.
The discussion of the SC nominations was based purely on organizational considerations, and the political questions were not adequately addressed. A thorough criticism/self-criticism in terms of past organizational work was carried out very well, but we did not get to address questions of steering committee candidates’ views on the important political questions facing the OC. We also did not have the opportunity of evaluating the political history of candidates in the mass movement, or in their own organizations. This was a weakness in our leadership selection process.
We are not clear from the conference about the relation of theory to practice in the OCIC. Despite oft-repeated phrases about bringing the OCIC process to workers and national minority people in our mass practice, attempts to criticise OCIC documents as inappropriate for advanced workers due to language, rhetoric and polemics were brushed aside lightly. CN explained to us all that “Marxism is polemical.” Since we hold that much of our theory comes from the sum-up of our practice, in which Marxist-Leninist principles have been brought to bear on concrete struggles, we have questions as to how that process will take place in the OCIC. For example, how will new organizations be aided by the OCIC? Why was there no discussion of the significance of the development of national fractions to the OCIC process? What would be the significance of the formation of national pre-party organizations and how would they relate to the OCIC? How will the sum-up of the Southern California local center, including minority views, take place? Will the ongoing mass practice of local organizations and local centers be summed up periodically and presented to the SC, and what will the relation be between this and the ideological work of the center? We are concerned that if these questions are not taken up, a gulf might develop between national and local work.
Another area of concern to us is the way in which the issue of racism is being dealt with by the OCIC. We support entirely the assertion of the principle of the centrality of the struggle against racism. Our only concern is with how that struggle is being carried out.
We see the primary reason for the predominantly all white character of the OCIC as being a failure as yet of most OCIC organizations and individuals to integrate themselves into the day-to-day life and struggles of the multi-national working class. The failure to do this in a way which earns the respect and trust of national minority people and attracts them into the party building process is evident. Further, it is clearly impossible to win national minority comrades without fighting racism militantly. The OCIC and many of its parts are new and young and perhaps this newness is itself a partial explanation of our shortcomings. However, these lacks are the ones that we feel must be examined and spoken to primarily in our task of taking up the struggle against racism both within the peoples movement and against our class enemies.
At the Labor Day conference there was much discussion of racism but almost none about this failure to really take up the struggle in a mass way. Instead there was self-examination about errors of racism within ourselves, and some talk of the need for theoretical study (with no definite plans being made). We see the importance and relevance of self-criticism and theoretical study. We hope that the theoretical study would be based on an intensive investigation of the realities of the conditions of white and national minority people in the U.S. today and the nature of the problems and relationships between them. We would also hope that such a study would be directed toward developing a program of action for us that would be concrete, practical, and would aid us in the tasks of effectively and correctly carrying out the struggle against racism. Such study must be organized and planned and we are sorry that the Labor Day conference did not lay sufficient groundwork in beginning that work.
There is another danger to be avoided if we are to carry out this work. This is the danger of substituting moralizing and emotion for reason and analysis. It is all too easy in our movement to create an atmosphere of guilt baiting in which each tries to outdo the other in finding examples of racism in themselves and others. This opens the door to several serious problems. For example, the overwhelming vote of support for the national minority conference, about which most delegates knew nothing at all, can only be understood by assuming that many white delegates were afraid to raise objections for fear of being branded racist. Further, this atmosphere can allow folks to use racism as a club or moral brand in order to achieve political ends. Still another result of moralizing and emotionalism is that it makes it extremely difficult to have any objective discussion or study of issues touching on racism and the national question. Controversies cannot be decided on their merits if the fear of appearing racist drives participants into ultra-left positions. Lastly, emotion, rhetoric and self-examination can be used as a substitute for actually taking up the struggle in the people’s movement. Leftists before us have often been self-congratulatory in rooting out racism in their own hearts and minds while remaining largely irrelevant to the reality of racism in the U.S. We must avoid this error.
We do not exempt ourselves from the above criticisms, and we hope that any discussion that these comments stimulate will be of help to us all.