This is a collectively written critique by several participants of the National Conference on Racism and National Oppression (NCRNO) held in the S.F. Bay Area on May 22-25, 1981. Signers include delegates who attended from the Bay Area Socialist Organizing Committee (BASOC), Independent Study Project on the History of the International Communist Movement, Inkworks Printing Collective, and independents.
In issuing this critique of the NCRNO, we want to emphasize the importance of the race/national question to us as communists. Racial and national inequality and oppression are mainstays of U.S. imperialism and pervade the economic, political, and ideological levels of U.S. society. Although racism and national chauvinism primarily serve the interests of the bourgeoisie, they permeate all classes and are major divisions within the working class. The task of unifying the working class will require an uncompromising struggle against racism given its pervasive influence within the working class. We also believe the struggle against racism is central for forging the revolutionary vanguard in this country. However, historically, communists in the U.S. have failed to take the lead in the struggle against racism. This has been a major weakness of the U.S. communist movement due to the lack of rigorous Marxist theoretical analyses and political strategies for these questions.
This has also been true of our young and fragmented trend thus far. The Organizing Committee for an Ideological Center (OCIC)-initiated National Minority Marxist-Leninist Conference of June 1979 was characterized by theoretical shallowness, sectarianism, and opportunism. The OCIC’s Campaign Against White Chauvinism, originally conceived to fight racism and anti-working class bias within its ranks, resulted in its degeneration and the loss of over half of its members. Its attempt to combat white chauvinism with minimal theoretical grounding, incorrect use of criticism/self-criticism, and demagoguery, laid the incorrect basis for the struggle against racism in the communist movement. Line of March (LOM) initiated the NCRNO in August, 1980 in response to the OCIC’s mishandling of the struggle against racism among communists.
Conference Committees were formed to plan the Conference in the Bay Area, L.A., Seattle, New York, and Washington, D.C. Although efforts were made to include non-rectification forces on the committees, they remained either LOM-dominated or entirely LOM forces. The call for the Conference was issued in December, 1980, and meetings were initiated by the Conference Committees with various trend organizations and independents.
Two papers were written by the Conference Committee: “Racial Oppression and National Oppression: Their Particularities and Their Interconnection in the U.S.” and “The Communist Movement’s Relationship to the Struggle Against Racism.” (Working Papers on the NCRNO pamphlets are available through Line of March Publications, P.O. Box 2729, Oakland, California 94602.) Discussion groups were held prior to the Conference to “familiarize” participants with the positions put forward in these working papers.
Our grouping formed during this time (April, 1981) when we read the papers and found we had questions and differences with some of the working papers’ positions. We informed the Conference Committee of our intentions to meet separately as a group to exchange our views on the papers, before we met as a group. We also told them at that time which organizations/groups we represented.
Our grouping met twice before the Conference and we did not come into the Conference with a united position on process or line. We did not constitute ourselves as a caucus or a faction and refute the label “Critical Caucus” which some LOM people have chosen to label us. We did not constitute ourselves solely on party-building line differences which we do have with LOM. We have substantial criticisms of the political process and the line put forward at the NCRNO. But neither are we drawing a line of demarcation with LOM on the race/national question.
Our purpose in developing the following critique on the Conference is to continue the theoretical and political line struggle on the question of racism and national oppression. We feel the work by the Conference Committee is important and the line needs to be analyzed, evaluated, and refined.
When we first took this task on of a written critique of the Conference, most of our criticisms focused on the political process of the Conference rather than on the political positions/line put forward in the working papers. However, following the Conference we had more time to examine the content of the papers and have expanded and deepened our critique of the Conference working papers. Although we feel important lessons need to be drawn from the process of the NCRNO, we feel furthering the line struggle on the race/national question is more important and thus we focused on the content of the political line. Given the political diversity within our grouping and the complexity of the issue(s), it has taken us several months to develop a comprehensive political critique.
Our overall assessment of the NCRNO is based on the Conference Committee’s stated goals: 1) to move forward the theoretical and political line struggle on the race/national question and on the struggle against racism in the communist movement, and 2) to struggle to unite the trend. We do feel the Conference has moved forward the theoretical and political line struggle on this question. However, we feel this was limited to the extent that 1) proponents of the different lines/framework that the Conference Committee was polemicizing against were not all present at the Conference, and 2) we question the theoretical and political approach on the struggle over the line on racism and national oppression used by the Conference Committee and LOM.
In terms of building more trend-wide unity, we would say that the Conference did not. We believe the Conference served to principally consolidate forces close to or in LOM.
Our critique is divided into two sections. The first part contains our criticisms of the political process and organization of the Conference. The second part focuses on our major questions and disagreements with the positions in the Conference working papers and a partial alternative framework is put forward.
It should be noted that we don’t see ending the line struggle on this question with the issuance of this paper. We welcome comments, questions, and criticisms. We can be contacted at:
Boxholder P.O. Box 3112 Oakland, CA 94609
Not all signers agree with every point contained in the following critique, but agree overall with the substance of the critique.
In unity and struggle,
Erica B.
Eileen E.
Hilary G.
Steve H.
Charlie K.
Kim M.
Joan M.
Polly P.
Sola S.
Rita S.
October 31, 1981