Issued: August 14, 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.
The New England Regional Steering Committee Sum-Up: Federationism and Racism in the New England Regional Center was completed in its present form on July 1, 1980. Since that time the OC’s campaign against white chauvinism (and secondarily anti-working class bias) has continued to develop and deepen. Through the campaign the RSC’s understanding of its own white chauvinism has developed.
Recently, the RSC discussed the Federationism and Racism paper in an effort to deepen its self-criticism. In this addendum we address a number of serious weaknesses in the Sum-Up. These weaknesses and racist errors reflect the continuing white chauvinism in the RSC and our failure to fully break with it.
(1) The paper asserts the need to unite the tendency and describes our failure to do so as racist. Yet it fails to address why building multi-national unity is so crucial. Instead, it says we must bring a certain quantity of national minority individuals in, because they’ve been excluded in the past. Essentially this is a racist tokenist view. We looked at uniting with national minority M-Lists in an “affirmative action” way, as an attempt to “right past wrongs,” rather than as an absolute necessity for the success of the communist movement. In this way we failed to make a real break with the white chauvinism that underlied our failure to build multi-national unity.
The fact is that an organization that is overwhelmingly composed of white petit bourgeois intellectuals and is mired in white chauvinism is incapable of developing the program, strategy and tactics for the U.S. revolution. Correct theory can only be developed with the participation and leadership of national minority and working class comrades. That is why we are taking up the struggle against white chauvinism in the OC and attempting to unite the tendency.
While the contributions of national minority comrades are not limited to this area, the development of anti-racist politics in particular is clearly dependent on building multi-national unity. And a solid anti-racist stand is vital to every political question facing the movement. Similarly, white comrades themselves cannot play a role in developing anti-racist politics unless they make progress in overcoming their white chauvinism.
Our critique of the Discussion Group (DG) plan[1] on p. 2 is an example of this racist error. We criticize the plan for its effect on excluding national minority comrades from the process. We don’t, however, criticize the plan for its effect on restricting the contributions and leadership of national minority comrades within the regional center. Splintering the ideological struggle up into DGs would clearly undercut the struggle against white chauvinism. It would restrict the contribution of national minority comrades by limiting their influence to particular small groups. And by liquidating the development of local leadership (through local center SCs), it would restrict the ability of national minority comrades to come forward and take leadership.
The omission of these points from the original Sum-Up clearly shows the white chauvinism of the RSC. We were only concerned with bringing national minority individuals in, not with bringing in their contributions and leadership.
(2) Throughout the paper we fail to confront head-on our white chauvinism. We never clearly and directly state that the root of our racist errors was our white chauvinism. We constantly refer to “the problem,” “our racist errors,” etc. without sharply getting to our white chauvinism.
In particular, the discussion of outreach in the RSC paper fails to target the white chauvinism of the RSC itself as the root of its failure to unite with national minority comrades. However, the white chauvinism of white OC members is referred to often as the root of the failure to unite the tendency. The RSC’s errors are referred to as “racist blindspots,” “rooted in racism,” etc.– not as manifestations of deep-rooted white chauvinist attitudes on the part of the RSC.
Similarly, the criticism put forward of the RSC chair on p.13 is very superficial. It includes the statement “The chair basically didn’t think OC members ’would have anything to say about the RSC’s errors. This is an elitist attitude ...”
This statement isn’t true. It undercuts and diverts the criticism of posturing. In fact, the chair was refusing to break with his own white chauvinism. If he truly believed that OC members would have nothing to say, he wouldn’t have been fearful of making a deeper self-criticism. He was in actuality trying to hide his white chauvinism and depending on the conspiracy of white chauvinism within the OC to protect him.
Another example of our failure to confront our white chauvinism directly is in our discussion of our conciliation of GH. On p. 12 we target the roots of our placing a priority on the struggle with GH as being primarily ultra-democracy and not white chauvinism. The fact is, though, that we saw the struggle with the Theoretical Review forces as more important than the struggle against white chauvinism in the OC. We totally failed to see the centrality of the struggle against racism and the need to build multi-national unity. The root of our error therefore lies mainly in white chauvinism, not ultra-democracy.
(3) In criticising our error of developing an outreach plan without tailing up the struggle against white chauvinism, we make the opposite error of implying that we should hold off on developing a plan until after that struggle has been waged. This is clearly incorrect. A plan is needed. To hold off on developing and implementing an outreach plan is to say, in effect, that for the time being we can settle for the present composition of the OC. It’s to say that a group of predominantly white petit bourgeois intellectuals can begin to build the OC in New England without national minority participation and leadership. Of course, any plan developed now will reflect the fact that we are only in the beginning stages of the struggle against white chauvinism. Such a plan must be put before the tendency for criticism and must of necessity change as our understanding of white chauvinism and its manifestations deepens.
(4) The RSC’s white chauvinism and its failure to break with it is reflected in the statement at the top of p.5. In arguing against the view that national minority comrades need to be recruited to cadre organizations first as a stepping stone to the OC, we stated “But once attracted (to M-Lism), national minority comrades and advanced white workers are not inferior to white petit bourgeois M-Lists (and can therefore be won directly to the OC).” This statement is racist; it’s condescending and implies that these comrades are in fact inferior prior to being attracted to M-Lism. And it still holds onto the view that practice is more important to national minority and working class comrades than petit bourgeois forces. And nowhere in this section is the vital contributions of these comrades to the party-building process and the absolute necessity of their leadership to the movement mentioned.
The error is compounded later in the same paragraph by the following statements: “... the OC has a much lower level of unity and doesn’t require its members to accept discipline as cadre organizations do. So it should be easier for comrades to join it.” These statements put forward the racist, condescending viewpoint that national minority and working class comrades should be drawn first into the OC because it is easier. In reality, cadre organizations have attempted to draw national minority and working class comrades into their circles first by uniting with them on the basis of practice. The “more advanced” theoretical work taken up in the OC has been seen as above the capabilities of these comrades to comprehend. It is for this reason that it has been looked upon as easier to unite with national minority and working class comrades on the basis of practice.
The RSC turns around and repeats the white chauvinist and anti-working class error by pointing out that it should in fact be harder to bring comrades into the OC. This can lead to the racist error of not trying to win national minority comrades to joining cadre organizations because it’s “too hard” for them (requires discipline, higher unity). What is easier is not the point. What is important is the fact that uniting with national minority and working class comrades in the formation of a single ideological center is necessary to the growth, development, and future success of that center.
There is a point to be made, however, that the OC is a broader formation than cadre organizations. It can encompass the whole tendency, unlike cadre organization at this point. And it is playing a leading role in the struggle against white chauvinism and anti-working class bias in the tendency. For these reasons the OC will encompass broader forces of national minority and working class comrades than cadre organizations – which is the exact opposite of the view of those who see cadre organisations as a “stepping stone.”
(5) One concept not developed in the RSC paper is that of the conspiracy of white chauvinism – “I won’t expose your white chauvinism if you don’t expose mine.” It places the unity of white people over the unity of the tendency as a whole. This conspiracy takes many forms, the most common being: hiding out, softening criticisms raised by other comrades, making no attempt to deepen superficial self-criticisms, putting forward criticisms of other comrades in a weak manner, etc. It also takes the form of “learning the rules” and the “correct” things to say and using this as a cover for not dealing with one’s own white chauvinism. Also, not challenging others who use these same tactics.
Other forms of the conspiracy not mentioned by the RSC which serve to protect white chauvinism have also been exposed in the course of the campaign. These include: scapegoating the most backward forces so as not to have to deal with one’s own white chauvinism; posturing – attacking someone else’s white chauvinism white being unwilling to be self-critical of one’s own; and out and out lying.
The conspiracy of white chauvinism has had a grip on the white members of the N.E. regional center and the RSC and still does – to a large extent. Our failure to even mention its existence in the Sum-Up is an example of the conspiracy in action and shows the depth of white chauvinism on the RSC.
Another example of the RSC’s participation in the conspiracy is the posturing we did in the Sum-Up (described in #1 above). We targetted the white chauvinism of white center members for the failure to do outreach, but didn’t confront our own white chauvinism. Similarly, the RSC chairperson’s posturing at the first Boston local center meeting and the shallow and inaccurate criticism of it in the Sum-Up are further examples of the conspiracy of white chauvinism on the RSC which serves to holdback the struggle against white chauvinism in the regional center.
Within the regional center as a whole, a clear example of the conspiracy occurred in the period immediately after the campaign against white chauvinism was launched. Many white OC members were quick to agree that we had failed to unite with national minority comrades. Yet at that tine few could point concretely to these national minority comrades. Rather than be honest and ask who we were talking about, many comrades (including in leadership) wanted to hide their racism and pretend to know already. This conspiracy only served to protect the white chauvinism and block real progress in outreach, since many didn’t know who to do outreach to.
(6) A serious racist error the RSC made that wasn’t in the Sum-Up was in its appointment of local center steering committees. We appointed SCs for the 3 local centers without any specific regard for the comrades’ anti-racist stand. As a result, the SCs have had real weaknesses in leading the campaign against white chauvinism and anti-working class bias in the local centers. A number of members and one chair have had to be replaced (and also one member of the RSC has been replaced). This error demonstrates the depth of white chauvinism on the RSC. We didn’t even consider anti-racism in our appointments.
(7) In the criticism of Mark W. and other New Bedford comrades, we made a serious and unfortunately fairly common racist error. We stated that one national minority comrade (unnamed in the Sum-Up) had not shown interest in M-Lism and the error was assuming he wasn’t interested (p. 8-9). In reality, however, the comrade had shown interest in M-Lism, but he was ignored by the OC comrades. Our original discussion softened the criticism of the white OC comrades by essentially blaming the national minority comrade for never expressing his interest. It showed our white chauvinism in failing to understand that in the vast majority of cases national minority comrades have expressed interest, and it’s the white chauvinism of white OC members that have rendered them invisible.
In addition, our racism comes out in our statement that the comrade’s comments on M-Lism were “intelligent” as if it is unusual that they would be so.
(8) In discussing the consequences of the RSC’s federationism, we didn’t elaborate how it served to maintain the circle spirit among OC forces in N.E. A good example of this is our neglect of New Unity comrades’ federationism in their position (put forward in Sept, ’79) that all members of their organization shouldn’t necessarily participate in the local center. While we disagreed with them, we did nothing to struggle with them over their incorrect view until march of 1980 (when we issued the N.E.R.C. plan calling for all to participate). We clearly did not see it as very important that the New Unity comrades would continue to hold a federationist view.
(9) The RSC Sum-Up fails to address anti-working class bias at all. We ignored it. However, as the campaign against white chauvinism has developed both here and around the country, the close relationship between white chauvinism and anti-working class attitudes has been increasingly drawn out. The struggle to root out white chauvinism in the OC has also exposed the depth of anti-working class attitudes among OC forces. These attitudes have served to keep working class comrades outside of the OC process. While racism is the primary force dividing the tendency, anti-working class attitudes clearly play a major, secondary role. A solid working class stand and the participation and leadership of working class comrades is essential to the success of our theoretical work. The RSC needs to begin to break with its anti-working class bias and take up the struggle against class bias in the regional center as a whole.
– New England RSC
– 8/14/80
[1] The DG plan (never actually implemented) called for dividing up N.E. OC members in DGs of 12-15 members that would substitute for local centers.