Questions were answered by the Central Committee of the Motor City Labor League.
Q: WHY DO WE USE THE TERM NEGRO AND WHAT IS THE NEGRO NATION?
A: You will note that in the Political Line of the Motor City Labor League we unite with the position that there is a Negro Nation in this country representing that area in the so called south which can generally be called the Black Belt... that area where the plantations were predominant which through a historical development of slavery and reconstruction developed as a nation. That is uniting with the definition of Stalin that territory, culture, language and economic life(that a historical analysis of that area)indicates that a nation has developed constituting a majority of Negro people. Now the entire explanation of this is given in the Negro National Colonial Question which is put out by the Communist League and it is essentially that which we united with in our convention. In that there are principles – once you establish and understand that there is a negro nation then there are principles that come forward from that, one of which is that you have to as communist absolutely support the right of succession of the Negro Nation which we do. Those are the principles that the communist movement have developed over the last 140 years and we unite with those principles.
I might add that the important thing is to distinguish between a scientific analysis of what objective conditions are and the kind of analysis that operates in popular bourgeois ideology. Now there was a civil rights movement which lead to Black Power, Pan Africanism and a whole range of other phenomena, which we read about in Time, Newsweek and Ebony but those are not scientific Marxist-Leninist analyses of the oppression of a national minority and we don’t necessarily accept either the terminology of the analysis of the bourgeois press. That doesn’t mean that we don’t do constant re-examination and analysis of the data of the objective conditions as it emerges but we do that according to Marxist-Leninist principles and not taking the leadership of Time magazine, heaven forbid!
Q: WHY DO WE USE THE TERM UNITED STATES OF NORTH AMERICA?
A: It is simply to designate a difference between say United States that would be in Latin America, Mexico, Canada, or whatever. It is to more clearly define where we are and what we are. If you read in the Bolshevik Short Course, Russia prior to 1917 was described as a prison of nations. That is within Russia there were a number of nations that were literally held as prisoners and they were divided up so that everyone was fighting everyone but the Czar. That was a conscious program and planned by the Czars in Russia. It is our position that is a conscious plan by the United States of North America. It holds nations in imprisonment whether it is the Negro Nation or the Puerto Rico nation; the necessity for autonomy for the Southwest, those principles are the ones that we’re talking about in terms for the necessity to describe specifically – that’s the reason we use the USNA at one level to begin to indicate that we do not unite with the United States of America as if this was a freely entered into bunch of states which have had a democratic choice of the nature of the government under which they now suffer.
Q: WE WOULD LIKE MORE CLARITY AS TO WHY WE USE THE TERM NEGRO.
A: Reading from the Negro National Colonial Question, “The word Negro is used in different context and means different concepts depending on history and place. Shortly after the discovery of America, the Portuguese and Spanish probing down the coast of Africa became involved in the already slave trade in Africa, At that time the word negro meant only black which is the literal translation from Spanish. Centuries later as slavery became a major industry in the United States of North America the word negro began to have a different meaning in fact. The slaves of the USNA had been drawn from the variety of peoples in Africa. Injected into and amongst the African slaves were a number of Indian peoples and of course tens of thousands of slaves of partial African and partial Anglo-European descent. However, the slavers’ lash soon did away with any distinction between the descendant of the Congo and the light skinned illegitimate son of the driver man. Based upon the specific conditions of slavery in the USNA, there arose the Negro people. A historically evolved people socially and culturally developed from the framework of slavery.” That is about the best we can do tonight even though there is more. The book Negro National Colonial Question is available at China Albania Books.
Q: WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE PARTY PROGRAM TO PARTY BUILDING? IS THERE A MINIMUM PROGRAM AND WHAT IS IT IN THE PARTY PROGRAM? WHAT IS THE MOTOR CITY LABOR LEAGUE’S POSITION ON COLONIALISM AND NEO-COLONIALISM?
A: The first question–the relationship of party program to party building? Within the content of the continuations committee which is the struggle for the building of the new multi-national anti-revisionist communist party, there is a struggle for clarification and polemics over what the program should be. That involves an analysis of the material conditions within the USNA. The struggle over what the component parts of a party program are, the relationship of a minimum and a maximum program, given that we live in a bourgeois democracy, what role does a minimum program play and various questions. What are the various class forces at work? Who are the allies? Who are the enemies of the proletariat? The struggle to form a party is also the struggle to build a program. The program is part of the life base party. To know how to move, to give leadership, guidance, and direction to the proletariat, the Party must have the correct program which is the application of Marxism-Leninism to the concrete reality of the specific country in which we live. The Motor City Labor League is internally struggling around questions of the program and within the continuations committee, it is bringing its input and discussing the various questions of other organizations who are present in the continuations committee so that we can come together with unity around those major areas we believe are necessary for unity to form a party.
In terms of the question of the minimum and maximum program, I can’t speak to that at any great length. There is currently discussion going on within the Motor City Labor League as to the applicability of a minimum program, given that we are living in a bourgeois democracy. The minimum program originally created for the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party, the Bolsheviks, had to do with the autocracy which at that time was the main enemy so that the proletariat could have sufficient democratic rights to continue the struggle. So the question of a minimum program and its relationship to the maximum program is still under discussion within the Motor City Labor League.
Our position is quite clear on colonialism and neocolonialism. We are absolutely opposed to them. We are opposed to hegemony by the imperialists and put forward the right of secession and the right of self-determination by oppressed nations and we stand by that in word and in deed. In particular, within the USNA as our political line states: we stand absolutely for the right of secession of the Negro Nation and the Puerto Rican Nation; that is the internationalists’ duty of communists within an oppressor nation.
A: In terms of the colonial and neo-colonial question, it’s our understanding that the responsibility of the working class and the party of the working class in the oppressor nation to call for, to unite with the right of the oppressed nation to secede from the oppressor nation. We also understand that the right to self-determination as a slogan of communists was corrupted by the Second International and the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie uses the term right to self-determination when it wages war in Viet Nam. The bourgeoisie uses the term right of self-determination in many wars such as in Korea. Stalin is quite clear in stating that the call for secession means the political and economic independence of the nation that is being oppressed.
A: I just want to add something that just happened a week ago concerning the military activities in Portugal. The head of the new government in Portugal called for the right of self-determination of the Portuguese colonies but not their independence. So just to be clear on how self-determination must be used-–it means the right to secession.
Q: UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE IS A DIALECTICAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THEORY AND PRACTICE, HOW CAN YOU SAY ANYONE CALLING FOR PRACTICE IS AN OPPORTUNIST? ISN’T CALLING OPPORTUNISTS “SNAKES IN THE GRASS” PRETTY HARSH CRITICISM?
A: We don’t believe “snakes in the grass” is strong enough. The opportunists are always going to be out there until after the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat–really until we have monolithic world communism. They are the ones who attempt to divert us from the class struggle; to soften the force of our politics. Because, we are Marxist-Leninists, we don’t believe that anyone who diverts us from the class struggle has any kind of principle. As Ron pointed out the Motor City Labor League has been through a four year struggle, the sharp end of which was finished in the last few months. It’s not that we never read anything and its not that we are never going to do anything–that dichotomy is not real. We believe that history is developed by the class struggle and we don’t have any choice about it. If we are going to have a class struggle instead of economic struggle then we are going to have to have a party. But we want to be sure about one thing–because of history that we have, we do not want to make the errors of our past again and those errors are bowing to spontaneity, to diverting ourselves away from the conscious struggle for the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat and giving in to the pressures of the moment. We are out here to work for the dictatorship of the proletariat for future generations in socialism and to lead the class struggle and we want to be sure, we want to unite with the science of the proletariat. There is nothing in there for the capitalist you know. Unless you work with the science, you won’t be able to lead your practice in the proper direction in order to create the dictatorship of the proletariat.
A: When I talked about snakes in the grass that was a direct quote from “One Step Forward, Two Steps Back” Vol. 7 Page 404 in which Lenin says; “opportunists will always wriggle like a snake between two mutually exclusive points of view and try to agree with both and reduce his differences of opinion to petty amendments, doubts, innocent and pious suggestions and so on and so forth.” We unite with that analysis of the opportunist. One person at our table said that he began to feel like a snake. That’s precisely the struggle that we must carry on–to identify every aspect of opportunism. Often we have taken opportunist positions without even realizing it. Uniting with the science means the use of the science of Marxism-Leninism, applying it to the struggle in this country for the purposes of proletarian revolution. The refusal to use the science in this way is stone opportunism.
I just want to add that we don’t accept the dichotomy between theory and practice. We understand that study and the bringing of the science to other advanced workers is also a part of our practice. Just as the refusal to provide the science to the class or one’s cadre is also a part of that organization’s practice which engages in that kind of activity.
Q: WHEN PUTTING THEORY INTO PRATICE ARE WE GOING RIGHT TO THE FACTORY? WHAT ARE ALL THESE OTHER PEOPLE GOING TO DO?
A: We believe that that is part of the tactical question. The first task of the new party is build a strong base within the industrial proletariat and once we solidify that base within the industrial proletariat it is clearly the role of the party to go among all classes in society and to point out all forms of oppression wherever they occur–the oppression of students, of workers, of farming people, etc.; that is, to unite all working and oppressed people with the cause of socialism.
Q: DO YOU HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE NEW PARTY WILL HAVE TO BEGIN AS AN ILLEGAL APPARATUS OR BE UNDERGROUND AND NOT A PUBLIC IDENTITY? CAN YOU IDENTIFY FASCISM IN A FEW WELL CHOSEN WORDS?
A: It is absolutely necessary for a party of a new type to combine illegal and legal work. To have an illegal apparatus which can carry out work in times of repression, suppression, the advent of a fascist dictatorship, etc. At the same time, the party cannot draw back from doing legal work whether it is being in the most reactionary trade union, or any other kind of work. It is the understanding of the dialectics of the combination of the illegal and the legal which means that the class struggle is carried on on all fronts. We understand of course that the overthrow of the bourgeoisie will be illegal and in that we unite that the party is illegal.
A: I want to speak to fascism. The following is quote from Dimitrov and it is the most concise definition that we have found: “Fascism is not a form of state power ‘standing above both classes, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie’ as Otto Bauer has asserted. It is not the ’revolt of the petty bourgeoisie that has captured the machinery of the state’ as the British socialist Brailsford declares. No fascism is not super class government, nor government of the petty bourgeoisie or the lumpen proletariat over finance capital. Fascism is the power of finance capital itself. It is the organization of terrorist vengeance against the working class and the revolutionary section of the petty intelligencia. In foreign policy fascism is chauvinism in its crudest form fomenting the bestiality of other nations. Fascism is the most ferocious attack by capital on the toiling masses. Fascism is undaunted chauvinism and annexationist war. Fascism is rabid reaction and counter revolution. Fascism is the most vicious enemy of the working class and of all the toilers.
Q: WHEN YOU CALL FOR THE RIGHT OF THE NATION IN THE BLACK BELT FOR SELF DETERMINATION AND YOU DEFEND THAT RIGHT, WHEN YOU SAY “FREE THE NEGRO NATION”, IS THAT A CALL FOR SUCCESSION? IS THERE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN “FREE THE NEGRO NATION” AND THE RIGHT OF SELF DETERMINATION?
A: There is no dichotomy in that. The Negro Nation being free is their right to make the determination as to whether they are going to succeed or when the new socialist country comes about whether there will be the unification of nations in one state of equality and freedom for all nationalities. There is no dichotomy, we stand for “Free the Negro Nation” and the right of succession for the Negro Nation and view “Free the Negro Nation” as the application for the right to succession.
Q: DO YOU AGREE WITH THE PART IN THE SPEECH BY CHOU EN LAI TO THE TENTH PARTY C0NGLESS ABOUT THE PROGRESSIVE NATURE OF THE STRUGGLES IN THE THIRD WORLD?
A: We believe that there are only two ideologies; we believe that there is bourgeois and proletarian ideology; and we believe that all struggle is coming about as a result of the class struggle; we believe that there are national bourgeoisies in “developing” countries who have contradictions with the imperialists and social-imperialists and it is of tactical importance for the proletariat to exacerbate those contradictions, which aid in the revolutionary struggles of oppressed people and working people throughout the world. But we stand by the belief that there are only two camps; the camp of the proletariat and the camp of the bourgeoisie.
Q: THAT DID NOT ANSWER MY OUESTION BUT I WON’T HOLD THE MIKE UP. BUT DO YOU AGREE THAT THERE IS A THIRD WORLD THAT HAS A PROGRESSIVE AND REVOLUTIONARY NATURE IN THE PRESENT DAY ANTI-IMPERIALIST STRUGGLE?
A: Within the tactical considerations, we believe that certain nations which are now under the domination of their own national bourgeoisie are progressive in that they struggle against the imperialists. But we do not believe that these national bourgeoisies are progressive in comparison with the role of the proletariat. So that yes, within the tactical considerations, these particular national bourgeoisies are progressive when they struggle against the imperialists and therefore these struggles are important and we aid these struggles to the extent that they exacerbate the contradictions between the imperialists and these particular national bourgeoisies. But we must understand that the primary support goes to independent proletarian national liberation struggles within those countries.
Q: I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW ABOUT OUR UNITY AND THE BOURGEOISIE POWER SOURCES IF WE ARE PLANNING TO DESTROY THIS?
A: I am sorry, I did not understand the question.
Q: OUR UNITY AS A PARTY AND THE POWER SOURCES TO ELIMIATE THE BOURGEOISIE – HOW ARE WE ACTUALLY GOING TO ELIMINATE THEIR SOURCE OP POWER?
A: The question of unity has two levels. One is the unity of the proletariat; that is, the class which must lead the revolution. It is the most revolutionary class by reason of the way it is organized around the means of production. The proletariat understands its exploitation and that their cooperation can produce products. The proletariat in this country is very large and it has many contradictions within it. The bourgeoisie exploits these contradictions. The bourgeois attempts to propose that there is an upper, upper middle and a lower middle to create class differences. When the class understands its fundamental unity it has power. It has the power to withhold its production; on the other hand it has the power to create something new. It also has the power to form alliances with people who will not within the proletariat support its struggles. Now that is the theoretical basis. Then there are strategic and tactical questions. The party carries out the unity of the proletariat. The party is the way in which the class understands and organizes itself. The tactics are determined by the party. The party articulates all the demands of the proletariat and the classes with which it unites using the science of Marxism-Leninism to build specific tactics. We do not have a blueprint for revolutionary struggle but we can use the science to build blueprints for specific struggles.
A: People should read State and Revolution where Lenin is quite clear about the necessity for the Smashing of the state apparatus, and the creation of the state machinery of the proletariat. That means the police, army, health, education and welfare–the various ways in which the state keeps control of the proletariat. The proletariat by necessity through violent revolution destroys that state machinery and creates its own state machinery. The purpose the dictatorship of the proletariat is to create worker’s democracy and destroy the bourgeoisie. The tactics cannot be outlined but the general law is that the state machinery must be smashed and the proletariat must create its own state machinery. The best example is what happened in Chile where the state machinery was taken in hand through “peaceful transition”–this simply does not work. The armed forces in Chile overthrew that state and slaughtered the workers.
Q: I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS. AROUND THE FOURTH POINT AND THE UNITY THHT MCLL UNITED ON. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW HOW COULD YOU UNITE ON THE FOURTH POINT WHERE YOU HAVE TWO OPPOSITIONS WITHIN A SINGLE ENTITY? HOW DID YOU ALL RESOLVE THAT THEORETICALLY? COULD YOU EXPLAIN THAT AND THEN I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION.
A: Are you referring to the majority position on racism and the national question?
Q: AND YOU ALL UNITED WITH THAT AND I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW HOW YOU UNITED WITH THAT THEORETICALLY?
A: The first point is that we unite with the resolutions in Marxist-Leninists Unite which is this newspaper (copy shown). Now a person or organization can unite with these resolutions for the purposes of polemics, in order to build the program. The resolutions in this paper are two fold: one is the national question–the supporting of the right of secession of the Negro Nation; the other is an analysis of racism as a subjective aspect in this country as the basis for the party program. At the time of the Congress, it will be necessary to make a decision as to which will be included in the program. We, at this point, unite with the principle of the right of secession of the Negro Nation. And we will carry out polemics as it becomes necessary to clarify the party program.
Q: SO YOU ARE SAYING THAT YOU UNITED ON IT ORGANIZATIONALLY?
A: Certainly.
Q: YOU DID NOT UNITE ON IT THEORETICALLY OR IDEOLOGICALLY?
A: I don’t understand your question because that would be impossible to have one without the other.
Q: IN OTHER WORDS, IF I ASKED YOU IF YOU COULD UNITE WITH TWO BUCKING HORSES IN THE SAME ARENA, THAT IS WHAT I MEAN THEORETICALLY?
A: I still don’t understand what you are talking about and I think we have answered the question as well as we can. What is your second question?
Q: IS THERE DEMOCRATIC CENTRALISM IN THIS PRE-PARTY PERIOD IN THE MARXIST-LENINIST UNITE CONTINUATIONS COMMITTEE? BECAUSE I AM AN EX-MEMBER OP THAT COMMITTEE AND WE WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN PURGED FROM THAT COMMITTEE BECAUSE OF VIOLATING THAT DEMOCRATIC CENTRALISM? IS DEMOCRATIC CENTRALISM IN OPERATION AT THIS PRE-PARTY PERIOD?
A: As I understand the reason for the purge of members from the local continuations committee was the refusal to unite on the fourth point. We do unite with the fourth point. We do not unite with the refusal to unite with the fourth point. Democratic centralism that is found in the continuations committee is not identical with that found in the party. But there is democratic centralism to the extent that lower bodies are subordinate to higher bodies and there is the absolute necessity to unite with all the points in Marxist-Leninist Unite.
SPECIAL STATEMENT AND QUESTION BY REVOLUTIONARY UNION
My name is Barbara. I am from the RU. The reason that I want to say something is that I think that there was some slanders of the RU line made in the presentation. I don’t want to take a lot of time but as you know we say that it is necessary to build a united front against imperialism, a worker’s movement and we also said that it was necessary to build a party. These are the three main tasks of communists. We still say that but we also say that at this particular time for some of the reasons that you ran down, the key link is to build a new communist party. At this time, the important thing is to read and study all the different lines that are being developed to see which is correct. I don’t think anyone can deny that that the key link to building a party is to develop a concrete correct program that will lead the working masses to overthrow imperialism and make the proletarian revolution in this country. I think that no one can claim to have done that at the present time. The only way to do that is to study and sum up our practice and analyze all the lines that are being put forward. I think that the main thing that separates us at the present time–you say; “Groups are calling for a united front against imperialism while it is necessary to build a party.” See the question is not that; it is also not true that because we go out and join in the people’s struggles that we bow to spontaneity. That is what came out when you said that it is easier to put out a leaflet than to require study. The question is not whether you go to a demonstration or study. The question is can you understand what the correct line is. Can we develop the correct line for making revolution in this country. When we put out a leaflet or call a demonstration are we putting forth the correct line? The differences that I would have with what I have heard (which are not real sharp because they are not read clear) revolve around the question of the relationship between theory and practice. It is not a, question of theory or practice, it is a question of putting the correct line into practice.
A: All right. I want to speak briefly to that comment. The Revolutionary Union called for a party in the “next brief period” and that call occurred for the first time in May of 1974. Prior to that it called for the building of a “worker’s movement”. It had refused to carry out the specific activities that were necessary for the building of a party. Those activities: ideological struggle, the grounding of Marxist-Leninists in the classics (that is the teaching and studying of Marxism-Leninism) which is required to build the foundation of the party. That failure of RU has lasted for the last three years. The Motor City Labor League speaks specifically to the practice of the RU, as we have observed it, over the last three to four years. And we have criticized it. RU failed to put forward a correct political line such that it can lead anyone, let alone the proletariat to victory. More concretely, it fails to put forward Marxism-Leninism. We criticized RU because in criticising RU we criticize ourselves as we understand the refusal of RU to use Marxism-Leninism, the refusal of RU to infuse it into the class. And to some extent that was our refusal. Certainly it is opportunist following the practice that we have described, to then call for a party without admitting the failure of their political line and joining the continuations committee, RU then says now is the time to call the party. That call should have been heard years ago as it was from the Communist League.
There was then a speech from Barbara of RU from the floor but away from the mike which could not be heard except to say that mistakes were made and people should read Revolution.
A: I want to unite with the idea that people should read Revolution, People’s Tribune, the Political Line of MCLL, Marxist-Leninist Unite....and people will have to make some tough choices.
A: Two comments: Concerning the question of theory and practice. One of the things that we learned in the MCLL was that you can’t do everything. Part of the question of decisions getting made, and decisions of how communists move and how they give leadership and guidance to the class is the understanding of the necessity for prioritization. I’ve read Revolution’s most recent issue – I understand that there is still a united front against imperialism, and I understand that there is still the merging with the mass movement and the leaping into the fray and also now the call for the party. Given an understanding of spontaneity, given an understanding of the natural and correct struggles of the working class which leads only however to trade union consciousness, we have to understand that the role of communists is to divert the spontaneous trade unionists struggles to class consciousness, to socialist consciousness. That means the necessity to infuse socialism, the science of Marxism-Leninism, into the working class. The fusion among advanced elements of the class with class consciousness so that in fact when the party is formed that it can provide the leadership to understand the relationship between reform work and revolutionary work. You cannot do everything at the same time; you have to make decisions so that you are giving leadership and not tailing behind the class.
Comment: I don’t really have a question but is it okay if I make a statement? I’m from the Communist League and I want to say that the Communist League is unequivocally for the separation of the Negro Nation from this imperialist state. We are for the separation of all oppressed nations from this imperialist state. We are not just talking about the right of separation, we are for the separation of all oppressed nationalities from all imperialists states.