Written: December 18, 1979.
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.
EROL Note: This letter was submitted to the Organizer, which declined to publish it.
* * *
December 18, 1979
Dear Organizer:
As participants of the National Minority Marxist-Leninist Conference, we read with great interest Michael Simmons’ article in the October Organizer on the conference. We agree with Michael that the conference had “important implications for the future development of the anti-’left’ tendency.” But to fully understand what those implications are, we must accurately sum up the conference. We believe that the article gives a one-sided analysis of the conference and incorrectly sums it up as a success. Our view is that an objective assessment of the conference would indicate that the negative aspects outweighed the positive and that it would be more accurately described as a setback.
In order to clarify our differences with the view presented in the article, we would like to comment on certain distortions that appeared in the article as well as significant omissions of fact.
The significance of the relationship between the Planning Committee (PC) of the conference and the OCIC was underplayed by Michael in his article and also by the PC and the OCIC. While the PC was “organizationally distinct” from the OCIC and all PC members were not formally in the OCIC, PC members had political unity with the OCIC and the OCIC perspective guided their work. The OCIC, in addition to the PC, should be held accountable for the conference in that it was OCIC-initiated, the OCIC gave political and financial support to the PC and to the conference, and a goal of the conference was to win national minority Marxist-Leninists (nm M-Ls) to the OCIC.
In Michael’s description of the conference goals, he failed to mention that the conference’s purpose and goals were not made clear to participants (or to most comrades in our tendency) before the conference. The goals, specifically of winning nm M-Ls to the OCIC, were not stated clearly and fully at the beginning of the conference process, not documented, and not emphasized throughout the process. Instead the goals were clarified and redefined following the conference. This caused confusion and distrust of the OCIC by some comrades in our tendency. The PC was self-critical for not clarifying and documenting the goals at the outset, but Michael made no mention of this.
Michael made brief reference to the discussions and did not correctly portray them. The failure to break down into small groups for discussions was a criticism by some of the participants before and after the conference. Discussions were held solely in plenary sessions, not also in workshops as Michael states. Michael’s article also failed to raise important points in the discussions. This hid some of the weaknesses of the conference and different perspectives some participants held. For example, the sexism discussion went from personal revelations to a broad discussion of how theory is developed, with little discussion and debate on the formulation of sexism being the principal contradiction among nm M-Ls. Opposing viewpoints were raised during this discussion, including whether or not it could be considered a theoretical formulation.
According to Michael, the resolutions which were passed “reflected a high degree of unity among the conference participants.” We “believe this is a false unity, for participants were not adequately prepared to vote as we received copies of the resolutions only minutes before discussion of them. Given the complexity and the seriousness of the resolutions, the process that led to the passage of the resolutions must be criticized. Participants were unable to raise alternative proposals and major amendments due to the limited amount of time for preparation. We also feel that the passage of the resolutions was an example of unprincipled unity. The first resolution called for endorsement of the OCIC process. This was without a thorough discussion of the process, what Implications that holds, what criticisms have been raised about the process, etc. To have comrades rally behind the OCIC banner without an understanding of what that means in terms of the present party-building struggle in our movement reflects an opportunistic approach.
The sectarianism of the article is most blatant in describing the struggle with the rectification forces. We recognize that the rectification forces made some sectarian errors. However, none of the criticisms raised by the rectification forces is seriously addressed. Instead they are pictured as unscrupulous opportunists. For example, the article criticizes the rectification forces for “boycotting” the conference when they could not get their way on how the conference should be run. However, a PC member told us that the PC did not intend to invite any comrades from the rectification view since they did not fit the selection criteria of “no consolidated position against the 18 Points.” Some rectification comrades were invited because the PC did not know these comrades upheld the rectification line when they were invited. we feel the PC was sectarian in their use of selection criteria which discouraged participation by rectification forces and others, including El Comite-MINP. The point we want to stress here is that unprincipled and sectarian methods of struggle have re-emerged in our tendency.
We are in general agreement with the OCIC’s attempts to provide an approach to party-building that is a positive alternative to the sectarian maneuverings of left opportunists. Instead of each group struggling for organizational hegemony over the rest of the movement as the ultra-leftists have done, the OCIC would have individuals and organizations struggling together in a common effort to engage in the immense theoretical tasks that will lay the basis for a true vanguard party.
The struggle over this conference poses a serious question for our movement. How do we struggle over differences in a principled way so that we may unify our tendency on a positive program? We can learn a great deal from the experience of the conference, but we must first frankly admit that they are primarily lessons from negative example.
In struggle,
N.N. & E.E.
SF Bay Area