Issued as an unpublished document: February 1981.
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.
February 16, 1981
Greetings from Atlanta!
A number of us who recently left the OCIC have drafted a summary of our experience in the organization. We’re enclosing a copy in the belief that other members of “The Trend” will want to share and compare our observations.
If you know anyone else who might like a copy we would be happy to send another. Your comments and criticisms will be appreciated. Send to:
Postal Patron
646 Brookline St., S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30310
* * *
In July, 1980, ten persons in Atlanta joined with three previous members of the Organising Committee for an Ideological Center (OCIC) to form what we considered the beginning of an Atlanta Local Center (ALC). Our intent was to participate in the national, party-building discussions being initiated in the anti-revisionist, anti-“left” Trend. We saw in the OCIC through its Draft Plan, Forging the Party Spirit, and other documents, the “most open” of the various trend formations and the only one whose expressed purpose was to unite the Trend through the development of the ideology and theory necessary for the formation of a meaningful and effective Marxist/Leninist party in the US.
A scant five months later and following our first formal participation in an OCIC event, the ALC is shattered and divided. Five Atlantans have resigned outright from the OCIC, five others have expressed serious concerns with the direction the OCIC has taken and are taking “wait, see, and struggle” attitudes toward the organisation; three express full agreement with OCIC positions and intend to “forge ahead.” Far from “higher unity,” we see instead organizational collapse and the ripping apart of long-term personal and political relationships.
This phenomenon is not unique to the ALC; according to Clay Newlin, approximately 100 people–or about one-third of the 0C membership nationwide–have resigned from the OCIC (Organizer, 12/80). This division is clearly serious and must be analysed, both by those remaining within the OC and those of us who have left. It is the larger political tendency of anti-revisionists anti-“left” Marxism/Leninism which is of primary importance. The organizational degeneration of the OCIC must be countered by tendency-wide political growth through analysis and understanding if the debilitating and demoralizing effects of organizational splits are not to become the primary aspects of the experience.
This summary of our short but stormy membership in the OCIC is offered to further this understanding. It is directed particularly to our comrades who remain in the Atlanta Local Center. The differences which now divide us appear to be organizational in character, including concerns about leadership style and the top-downward dissemination of poorly developed positions. The National Steering Committee’s headlong rush to consolidate around a posture on white chauvinism has broken up the process promised in the Draft Plan. Time and careful analysis will reveal the extent of other underlying political differences if such do indeed exist. We continue to see ourselves as part of an emerging Trend which defies the self-serving exclusionary boundaries devised for it by the NSC of the OCIC. In the text below we describe recent events in Atlanta and consider our future course.
The precipitating event of the split in the ALC was the Southern Regional Conference held, on 11/22-23, 1980, a “showdown” between forces supporting and those opposing the NSC-initiated “Campaign Against White Chauvinism.” This event was preceded, however, by five months of steadily degenerating relationships with and news about national and regional steering committee perspectives on the “Campaign” and the methodology of waging it. We were challenged to participate in “Sharp Ideological Struggle” over racism, but were blocked on crucial questions of party building line, democratic centralism, the role of leadership, pre-party formations, the history of ultra-leftism, the relationship of sexism to racism and others which arose in the course of the struggle, Much of our experience came second-hand, primarily from the struggle being waged in the Washington-Baltimore Local Center (DC/B LC), but also from documents produced in the West, Mid-west and. Northeast Regions. The written material emerging from these places vastly influenced the debate and the struggle in the ALC, moving it along much faster and more thoroughly than we would have done left to ourselves. This fact is definitely a “plus” for the “OC Process,” demonstrating clearly the worth of such a national “center” for the dissemination and struggle over various perspectives of the individuals and organizations which make up the Trend.
The struggle was not just readings from afar, however. Precisely coinciding with the formation of the ALC, Toni V., the NSC person in charge of the Southern Region, distributed a paper entitled Racism in the Southern OC Region. In it, “the Atlanta local center (or pre-local center as they call it)” was criticised for its racist paternalism, its opportunism and its anti-working class bias in the conduct of a study program in April and May, 1980 around Point 18 of the OC Principles of Unity. We had not participated in the original national Point 18 debates, but we recognized that a positive individual response to the point was a condition for admission to the OCIC. Prior to initiating study around the point, the “pre-local center” conducted methodical outreach, with special emphasis on national minority and female Marxists/Leninists. We recruited? and we did so with a definite eye on the composition of the group. That there may be racist implications in this fact, or that racist errors were probably made in the course of our outreach, was denied by no one in the group. No one sought to avoid discussion and clarification of these implications and errors. Clearly, if we were, to expand in the way we envisioned, as a unifying force among anti-revisionist anti-“left” people in Atlanta and the region, such errors could not go unchecked. Despite serious reservations about the facts alleged in Toni’s paper, we acknowledged from the beginning her paper’s positive effect of raising the issue of racism in the communist movement and placing it on the national agenda.
Toni’s paper, however, had some rather glaring shortcomings. Not only was it subjective and idealist in its approach, it was also disturbingly simple-minded in its analysis. A political process, be it the organizing of a union or the creation of a collective or the founding of a party is a complex phenomenon, deserving of all-sided understanding if we seek to move forward consciously and deliberately. It is not enough to fit interpretations of events, motives, etc., into a pre-conceived model and proclaim Marxist Truth. Yet this is precisely –and clearly –what Toni’s paper purported to do. A line had been developed in the NSC (or perhaps was being developed, for its expression was not heard explicitly until later) that the ideology of white chauvinism underlies all racist errors in the party-building movement. This pat and unexamined assumption was insisted upon as the well-spring of truth, guiding the believer in the search for revolutionary rightness! Root out white chauvinist ideas and sweep racism from our ranks.
Objections to this paper, both verbal and written, surfaced immediately, for the paper simply did not describe reality. It would be impossible to forge group unity and understanding on the basis of such a document. These objections, be they of political style or political content, fact or interpretation, were dismissed by Toni and her three local, supporters. “Facts and interpretations aside...” they said, “the most important thing is the essence of the criticism. Racist errors have been made–if not these, then others. Underlying all racist errors is white chauvinism. Therefore it is your white chauvinism which is keeping national minorities out of the local center and the OCIC. It is only your racist defensiveness which prevents you from seeing this.”
Like other predominantly white groupings in the American left, we recognized the pervasive character of racism in the white majority populations as well as our own capitulation to and participation in it and in its myriad of manifestations. So the “essence” argument was at least partially accepted. No one objected to a hard and self-critical exposure of our racist errors and racist beliefs. The need for multi-national unity in the progressive movement in this country is too painfully apparent for us not to be willing to address the question once it was raised–and certainly it was now raised. Our awareness of the predominantly liberal character of the group’s practice and of our need and desire for collective transformation also tended to help us perceive the campaign in its most potentially positive aspects. From lower unity to higher unity through struggle–that’s the name of the old Marxist game, is it not? From a few there was apparently wholehearted support for the campaign; from others there was at least a willing suspension of disbelief in the form the campaign was taking, and a willingness to struggle with the forms while pursuing the campaign.
A staunch supporter of the campaign then pushed forward the struggle by introducing four “Resolutions on Racism in the Atlanta L.C.”. Gone from these resolutions, however, was any hint of the “essence” argument; rather, we were again instructed to affirm the facts and interpretations made by Toni. The resolutions read:
1. The purpose of the struggle against racism is to see and understand what the racist errors are. We must struggle with each individual to weed out the white chauvinist ideas behind those errors,
2. Serious racist errors of paternalism and liberalism were made in both the Organisational Proposal of 4/5/80 and in its implementation. These errors took the form of lowering our standards and holding up the OC process for the question of skin not political line.
3. Racist errors of paternalism and liberalism were made by both the people who suggested [a specific black M/L] be on the preparations committee (leadership) and everyone else who sat quietly by, this affirming it,
4. The large amount of defensiveness at the initial criticism of racism added with our lack of seriously discussing the struggle against racism in our self-criticism is another serious racist error.
Again, three people were totally supportive of the resolutions; the other ten of us expressed varying degrees of disunity. Papers were written, the most, comprehensive of which stated:
The resolutions are premature and shallow. They rush to be a conclusive statement of our understanding of our racism before our racism has been analysed, criticism deepened and before we sifted out from T.V.’s criticism the correct evaluation of us from the incorrect. The resolutions do not cover the critique of our rendering Telele [a black member of the ALC] invisible, the clapping incident, our acceptance of this proposal for a wider anti-left forum, our ’fear of ideological struggle’, or the related criticism of our ’anti-working class bias’. All are a part of the total, critique. The resolutions do not pose or answer the questions of who is responsible for what and why we made these errors. Since T.V. raised these questions so we can correct our thinking and actions, we must examine our racism and understand the roots of it much better than we do now. Our self-criticisms are a good indication that on this question we have hardly scratched the surface.
The positive side of the ’resolutions’ is that they will help us to focus and make concrete a critique of our racism. They are the starting point. They must be expanded, clarified and deepened.
The “struggle against white chauvinism” became a key aspect of the Local Center life. Our bi-weekly meeting schedule was replaced with weekly meetings of longer duration, with every other meeting devoted to the campaign. The self-criticisms and the Sharp Ideological Struggle envisioned by the staunch supporters of the campaign did not flower, however, as a veritable blizzard of paper descended upon us, largely the polemics of the two sides in the DC/B LC as well as such documents as An Open Letter to the Party Building Movement the “Minority” Speech Presented at the OCIC Western Regional Conference, July 4, 1980, and Crisis in the OC. Many of us perceived a ray of hope from these papers – the “OC Process” as we understood it from the Draft Plan and elsewhere was perhaps working. The Campaign Against White Chauvinism had inadvertently drawn out serious political debate in spite of, if not at the behest of, the NSC and its supporters.
The papers we read in opposition to the campaign raised serious political concerns with the process and the direction of the Campaign, concerns which we too were feeling and attempting to express. These concerns were responded to by campaign supporters who pooh-poohed assertions of bureaucratic centralism or organisational opportunism as racist nonsense and castigated their authors for their white chauvinism and ultra-democratic tendencies. Clear and sharp lines did indeed emerge–but they did not quite face each other: The NSC had made a pronouncement – ”White Chauvinism is the Root of All Racist Errors in the Party Building Movement,” and had determined that Sharp Ideological Struggle was the tool to root out the Root. Obviously then, for anyone to question the political roots of the Root formulation itself was a clear sign of white chauvinism (or capitulation to white chauvinism if the detractor were not white) which must be rooted out in S.I.S. Through this exorcism, “white chauvinism would be swept from our ranks,” and the political correctness of the original NSC formulation would be apparent to all...What? You still don’t understand? Clearly, it is only your white chauvinist defensiveness which .... Such circular and self-fulfilling reasoning in a movement proclaiming itself Marxist could only be met with increasing concern and additional questions, leading to a new round of recriminations and accusations of racism. Rather than genuine ideological struggle and growth as a means to higher unity, a “mountain-stronghold” mentality held sway, perceiving NSC pronouncements as True-In-Themselves, above any questions or criticisms of underlying political line.
Despite the mounting opposition to the campaign and the increasingly cogent reasoning of that opposition, campaign supporters remained firm in the One True Way position of the NSC. They presented a RSC resolution repeating the NSC premises and calling on the region to “fully endorse the campaign against white chauvinism and call on all its members to take up sharp ideological struggle against all manifestations of white chauvinism within the OC.” This resolution counterposed itself to an earlier Draft Resolution from the DC/B LC opposition, calling for a halt in the campaign, a self-criticism from the NSC, the development of guidelines for meaningful criticism/self-criticism, an invitation to return extended to all who had been expelled or who had resigned in the course of the campaign, the convening of a national conference for a critique of the campaign, and the development of a plan of action for the OC to develop its theoretical work in the spirit of the Draft Plan.
These two resolutions were defined as polar opposites around which delegate selection was to be made for the November regional conference. It was agreed at a LC steering committee meeting that presentations would be made defending each of these positions, then a vote taken to decide representation. At the meeting held to make the presentations and vote, however, the Regional SC representative Jack stated that each member’s view should be heard, including support for other resolutions we had received from other areas, most notably a “minority” resolution from the NE region entitled “Carry Forward the Campaign Against White Chauvinism Correctly,” which had been distributed earlier. In the discussion that followed, three persons supported the RSC resolutions without reservation, one supported them with reservations. Of the eight expressing opposition to the RSC resolution, two expressed support for the DC/B opposition resolution, six preferred aspects of the NE resolution. On the basis of this vote, the LSC chose a slate of two in support of and three in opposition to the RSC resolution. This slate was to be presented to the LC for discussion, change or confirmation.
At the next LC meeting, however, Telele, speaking for the RSC, announced that there would have to be a change in the slate offered to the ALC. Only those in “clear” opposition to the RSC resolution, i.e., those who had voted for the DC/B draft, would be eligible to count in the delegate selection, that the “middle ground” defined by the NE resolution was illegitimate and had “no standing” in the southern region. This position, with all its manipulative overtones, was vigorously challenged and defeated in the LC meeting on the basis that the LC was in reality split along lines of total acceptance vs. questioning rejection of the NSC/RSC position, and that our delegate selection should reflect our positions. The delegates suggested by the steering committee were then elected to represent the ALC at the conference.
In the final meeting of the ALC before the conference, an Atlanta Local Center Majority Resolution on the CAWC was approved as an expression of the common opinion of the opposition in the ALC. The resolution was as follows:
WHEREAS we recognise that the ideology of white chauvinism is dominant in this society, affecting each of us in the ways a we think and act, manifesting itself in varied racist thoughts, words and actions, conscious and unconscious;
WHEREAS white chauvinist ideology and its manifestations within the Marxist/Leninist party-building movement seriously undercuts and retards attempts to forge multi-national unity within the movement, unity which is essential if a viable communist party is to be formed;
WHEREAS a campaign against white chauvinist attitudes and actions using the method of criticism/self-criticism is appropriate for exposing and clarifying white chauvinist errors and initiating deeper understanding and rectification;
WHEREAS the campaign against white chauvinism initiated and led by the CCIC NSC is seriously flawed in both methodology and political line, resulting in serious charges of organizational opportunism, bureaucratic centralism, bourgeois moralism, subjectivism and idealism he big leveled against the leadership;
WHEREAS the NSC has responded to increasingly well-developed critiques of line and method by contemptuous stonewalling, name-calling and sloganeering, calling into question the non-sectarian open process outlined in the Draft Plan and threatening to divide and destroy the Tendency;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE ATLANTA LOCAL CENTER
(1) Continue, intensify and deepen the process of criticism/self-criticism of white chauvinist errors made in outreach efforts and interpersonal relations within the center, concentrating on the exposure of attitudes and actions, progressively deepened through theoretical study and development in conscious search for and creation of a correct political line on and effective method for rectification;
(2) call on the NSC to prepare an in-depth response in a serious and comradely manner to the charges being levied against it, detailing in particular the tenets of the political line and guiding theory underlying the campaign against white chauvinism as led by the NSC.
It was with this modest document that the Atlanta “opposition” of three delegates entered the conference fray. No delegate was bound to this position however, for it was agreed that we entered the conference as individuals, not a bloc.
It is no longer completely clear just what our expectations of the Conference were prior to November 22 – a clearing of the air, perhaps, an airing of grievances, response to the grievances, struggle over interpretation and political line expression, a give-and-take search for mutually shared ground and coupon understanding, Perhaps. If so, it was both wishful thinking and an expression of our own naivete. For we had been informed, by RSC member Jack, that the NSC position “has the votes.” Thus in retrospect it is understood that the outcome of the conference was a foregone conclusion: NSC positions would receive overwhelming endorsement, their perspectives would be completely vindicated. All that was lacking was the playing out.
And a play it was, often times, replete with stars (Toni, Clay and Tyree), a large and vocal supporting chorus (from Baltimore, Louisville, New Orleans and Miami), and a thoroughly unorganized group of villains (described by Tyree as the “Gang of Five” from the DC/B LC, along with a couple minor fellow travelers from the ALC.) For two days we entertained ourselves and the audience of observers with what has been described by one Atlanta observer as must resembling a marathon treatment session for drug addicts – done, badly. If the conference characterized the OC Process, said he, “the OCIC couldn’t find its ass with both hands.”
Most of the first day of the conference was spent on the various resolutions on the CAWC–from 9 am to 8 pm, with a brief lunch break. A strong Chair system prevailed from the beginning, with the Chair–Toni–outlining the process to be followed, confident at all times that any vote would carry in the Chair’s favor. The opposition resolution from DC/B would be considered first, not as a whole, but as responses to six areas of concern expressed in that document: (1) opposition to the formulation that white chauvinism underlies all racist errors; (2) opposition to the idea that white chauvinism is the main obstacle to building multi-national unity within the party-building movement; (3) the call for political line determination on racism and the national question; (4) the charge that the campaign is “idealist”; (5) the charge that the campaign liquidates the struggle against sexism; (6) the charge that there is a “hidden line” in the campaign which is expressive of organizational opportunism. Supporters of the resolution objected to the mechanical approach taken to isolated elements of an interrelated critique, but the objection was overruled by the chair. Tine “Gang of Five” shrugged their shoulders, and the battle was joined.
In retrospect, it was not really much of a battle. A fairly typical scenario would feature a 3-minute rationale for one or another of the “areas of concern” by a DC/B opposition delegate, at times amplified by another opposition delegate. Then the Chair would comment on the white chauvinism implicit and apparent in the arguments, and call on others to struggle against these racist manifestations. Immediate five hands would raise–the other half of the DC/B split–and a catalog of criticisms of white chauvinism would ensue, usually beginning with “It is clear that the only reason for your saying that is....” Responses to the charges would receive the same attention from the same people. Usually the sum-up statement and the authoritative critique would be accorded to Clay Newlin, though occasionally Tyree S. or Toni V. would do the honors. Often also we were treated to a leftist version of the Bad Cop/Good Cop interrogation routine, with the twist that here it would be Terrible Tyree chastizing the honkies, followed by Cool Clay with the over-simplified politics to explain it all. It was a Road Show to be sure – and at times (precious few times) effective in nudging consciousness higher. Much of the time, however, the whole process carried the aura of shadow boxing, of consolidating the convinced and isolating the opposition. “Higher unity” was neither sought nor obtained; in its place was the refrain, “there can be no conciliation with racism in the OCIC.” When the vote on the resolution was finally called, it was defeated by a substantial, and, in retrospect, predictable margin.
The Atlanta delegates were for the most part silent during this initial discussion, partly out of intimidation arising from the newness of the “Sharp Ideological Struggle” being played out. For those of us in the opposition, in addition, we were somewhat silenced by the seeming inability of the DC/B LC opposition to counter the attacks. From our perspective, we looked to the DC/B opposition for leadership in the struggle. It had seemed to us that their positions and understanding were clearly more developed than were our own. From their perspective, however, the regional meeting was a rehash of recent DC/B LC marathon struggles. Knowing the inevitable vote spread, and hampered by the mechanical rules imposed on the game, the DC/B opposition became voices crying in the wilderness, making a stand but not in wholehearted struggle to win, for that possibility had been precluded. Nevertheless, our disappointment in them was more than matched by their–and our own–disappointment in the weakness and vacillation that we displayed.
Our turn came, though, when our “majority resolution” was placed on the agenda. Atlanta’s Horace and George both spoke of their concerns for the handling of the campaign, neither, however, with great force or vigor. Some “Sharp Struggle” was carried out against them in similar manner as was done with the DC/B opposition, but it was mild and muted–undeniably so–compared to the attack which ensued when it was Marya’s turn to defend the Resolution. For Marya, in a low and shaking voice, said that though she had voted for the resolution, she had not drafted it nor did she fully agree with it...
Time stood still for a moment, and there was an almost palpable sense of buzzards circling. “What did you say? Speak up, comrade! I can’t hear you! Now you are trying to duck responsibility for your racism and white chauvinism! You think that we should go easy on you because you are a woman, but no! That would be a racist capitulation to sexism! It is only white chauvinism that would make you vote for this resolution, and you must face up to it!” For an hour she was battered from all sides with accusations until she was, quite literally, reduced to tears. Experienced observers likened this process to an EST conditioning experience. This incident was for many of us the low point–and the turning point in terms of our clarity of the process we were viewing of the conference. For finally, the constant thrust of the campaign supporters to batter the opposition into speechlessness did indeed bear fruit, bitter, rotten fruit. The bad taste occasioned by this incident remains even now, two months later.
On the second day of the conference the dynamic became oven more clear. Whereas the “Sharp Struggle” of hurled epithets was disturbing on the first day, it was carried on with a certain rationale behind it, since the topic at hand was the campaign against white chauvinism itself. The next day, however, the agenda topic was the Resolution on the National Minority M/L Conference. Several people, notably from the DC/B opposition, had some very specific questions to be asked of the NSC and particularly of Tyree and Clay concerning incidents which occurred at the 2nd National OCIC Conference. These questions, which were spelled out very concretely and involved charges of lying and manipulation, were met with a repeat of the “Sharp Struggle” of the day before, if anything even more shrill. If the stonewalling “mountain-stronghold mentality” of the NSC and its supporters had not been clear the day before, one would have to be willfully blind not to see it on this day. By the time the Regional Steering Committee proposed by the leadership received its rubber-stamp approval by the body, it was apparent to those of us who have since resigned that the OC promise spelled out in the Draft Plan was but a vain hope. The OC’s slide into idealism, romanticism and ultra-leftism was becoming its dominant feature. While we wish it were, otherwise, we fully expect the OCIC to suffer the fate of political isolation and ultimate oblivion which has been characteristic of ultra-left dogmatist formations in the recent history of this country.
Though we are disappointed in and disgusted with the OCIC we intend to remain active in the anti-“left”, anti-revisionist party-building movement. The need for a party remains pressing. In the immediate future we will probably constitute ourselves once again as a study group and reacquaint ourselves once again with the rest of the Trend. We will read material from the much-maligned Rectificationists, which the OC has constantly threatened to expose as the “headquarters of Opportunism” in the party-building movement–and has just as constantly postponed doing so, apparently content with name-calling and vituperation. We will look at the Primacy of Theory viewpoints being developed with increasing succinctness in Tucson and Boston, and we will consider such formations as MINP/El Comite, in order to try to develop an overall picture of where the party building movement stands today and where it needs to go. We will also spend some considerable time on the “Fusion” theory of the PWOC and other OC groups in order to understand our experience with the OC better. The effects of racism and white chauvinism on the party building movement also remain on our agenda. Although its solution to the problem is absurd, the OC has correctly identified a major problem confronting Marxist/Leninists in this country. We recognise its urgency, but we will seek to go further and deeper than the idealistic notions of consciousness which underly the OC’s campaign against white chauvinism. The issue of racism both within and out of our movement deserves the full analytical power of dialectical materialism. Marxist/Leninists should be satisfied with nothing less.
Our group will also attempt to counter the romanticisation of workers (“workerism”) which has become a characteristic of OC leadership. Proletarians in the party-building movement should be no less committed to Marxism/Leninism than comrades with other class origins. Regrettably, for example, the NSC recently urged the ALC to recruit a worker who, though demonstrably militant, is not a Marxist/Leninist and has expressed anti-communist feelings. In another example of romantic myopia, a NSC member made the assumption that one of the ALC members was working class – until she learned that he had actually spent 3 and a half years in college. With no analysis of class background, class stand or class position, the simple fact of college attendance seemingly disqualifies this individual from the working class and makes him less desirable for membership in and leadership of the movement. We feel it necessary to attempt a more profound Marxist understanding of class structure in the contemporary US. We will also consider seriously Lenin’s warnings against yielding to worker spontaneity. Our goal, after all, is to develop conscious Marxist/Leninist leadership in the movement.
Finally, our group will continue to analyse what went wrong in the OC process and attempt to learn from cur mistakes. Perhaps the OC will help us understand the American ultra-left either by publishing a historical critique, or making an unfortunate example of itself. We do hope to tie into a national network of party builders sharing the same concerns, in order that we may move forward most rapidly and with the least isolation from like-minded people.
(This summary was agreed upon by seven members and ex-members of the Atlanta Local Center, OCIC, 2/12/81.)