Issued: July 2, 1980.
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.
July 2, 1980
We are two individuals who attended the National Minority Marxist-Leninist Conference (NMM-LC) held in June, 1979. We were denied individual observer status by the local Planning Committee (PC) of the Western Regional Conference (WRC) because we did not fit the criteria of being “interested in joining the OCIC.” We believe there are underlying political reasons for our exclusion due to our evaluation of the NMM-LC as a setback for the party-building movement.
We were not invited as individual observers by the local PC despite the fact the NMM-LC would be discussed and minority viewpoints presented. The local minority position adherents recommended to and struggled with the local PC to include us as individual observers as we were participants in the NMM-LC. The local PC decided that we would not be observers as we were not interested in joining the OCIC.
Given our criticisms and direct knowledge of the NMM-LC, our participation would enhance the discussion at the WRC. Instead of encouraging the most all-sided discussion of the NMM-LC, the PC has taken a sectarian and unprincipled stance in order to isolate and defeat the minority viewpoint on the NMM-LC question.
Without our participation it will be much easier for the majority position adherents to race bait the minority position adherents on the NMM-LC. The majority viewpoint on the NMM-LC is focusing on the “Racist Errors of the OCIC Surrounding the NMM-LC Resolution Passed at the Second National OCIC Conference” and still not focusing discussion on the actual content and process of the NMM-LC itself. The minority viewpoint correctly focuses their discussion on their criticisms of the NMM-LC content and process. The process that the majority viewpoint takes in evaluating the NMM-LC lacks Marxist-Leninist analysis and is paternalistic by lowering the evaluation standards of an event planned by and for national minorities.
While we developed our criticisms of the NMM-LC independent from the minority position adherents, we are in strong agreement with them in our common assessment of sectarian process and weak theoretical content plaguing the NMM-LC. We strongly support the basic thrust of their criticisms of the NMM-LC and encourage the passage of their resolution around the NMM-LC.
In unity and struggle,
EE and NN