First Issued: August 22, 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 Local Center Steering Committee(LCSC) received a paper on Tuesday, August 19 from Comrades Elliot B., Leah R., John W., Jim C., and Rodrigo B. (to be referred to as Comrade B. et al), and two other comrades who are not members of the Local Center. This paper was titled “Our Disagreements with the present methods of “Sharp Ideological Struggle””.
Before getting into our response to the paper, we would like criticize Comrade B. et al for the lateness or their paper. In the paper they wrote that it came in later ’than originally planned’. What they fail to say is that it is two weeks past the deadline set for them by the Local Center membership at its last Local Center meeting. They didn’t even have their first meeting to plan out the paper until after the deadline had past! This reflects a very disrespectful attitude towards the members of the Local Center, especially since the paper is 20 pages long. In fact the length of the paper itself shows their mentality: rather than getting out a shorter paper in time for adequate consideration and respond to advance the struggle, they want to get all their ideas down perfectly.
In trying to excuse their lateness, Comrade B. et al make a number of assertions. First, they say their position is ’new’ and is based on ’much thinking and discussing among ourselves’ so it took along time. But in fact their position is not new – it is old. They advocate a return to the old ways of doing things before the current campaign against white chauvinism was initiated. Clearly, they want to go back to the ’old ways’ to protect their white chauvinism in the way that the old ’no struggle’ practice did. It took them so long not to develop a new position, but to construct an elaborate defense for the same ’old’ white chauvinism.
And secondly, these comrades refer to the leadership of the Local Center as having ’ready made theories and analyses from somewhere else.’ While we wouldn’t characterize our theory as ’ready made’, in fact the basic analysis does come from outside. It comes from the leadership in the OC, particularly that of national minority comrades. We think it is entirely correct to be taking their leadership. And comrades should bear in mind that the campaign against white chauvinism in the OC was initiated because of persistent problems in the OC’s practice, mainly the failure to build multi-national unity due to white chauvinism.
In their paper, Comrade B. et al concentrate much of their attention on the way the campaign against white chauvinism in the OCIC has been carried over into the mass movement by OC members. They cite ultra-left errors in the mass movement to discredit the OC’s campaign ultra-left.
We recognize that there have been errors in the way ideological struggle has been carried out in the mass movement in this area. Serious “left” errors have been made by many LC comrades. Essentially, comrades have tried to conduct ideological struggle in the mass movement in the same way as the party building movement. For instance comrades have made a point of criticizing every racist error made in front of the masses. And at times comrades have criticized white chauvinist attitudes underlying the errors. In doing this, comrades have ignored the fact that unity in practice, not ideology is the main focus of the mass movement. The root of these comrades’ errors has been white chauvinism in the form of posturing and breast-beating. These errors have been very serious and have led to some amount of isolation of Local Center comrades in the mass movement. LC comrades have already begun to rectify these errors. But in fact the key tool for rectifying the posturing will be ideological struggle over white chauvinism within the communist movement.
The comrades who’ve made these errors have done so out of concern for taking the struggle against racism to the mass movement. In contrast, Comrade B. et al have shown no such initiative at all. They have hardly raised the struggle against racism at all in the mass movement, even when it was being raised by other comrades. Their practice has shown that they would be happy to completely liquidate the struggle against racism in the mass movement. And Comrades B. et al have refused to correct their errors, whereas the posturing comrades have already begun to change.
But the real question here is how do the errors in taking up ideological struggle in the mass movement relate to taking it up within the party building movement. Comrade B. et al claim that since waging the campaign in the mass movement is ultra-left and incorrect then waging it in the OC is ultra-left too. But this charge is clearly false. The OC is a forum for ideological struggle. So sharp struggle against white chauvinism is appropriate and necessary.
There are many correct things that are done in the communist movement that would be ultra-left if done in the same way in the mass movement. For example, an analogy can be made with the struggle over Point 18. Within the tendency, the struggle was carried out in a sharp way, drawing out the ideological roots of opposition to Point 18 and demanding unity with Point 18. This process was correct and necessary. However, it would have been an ultra-left error to take the same ideological struggle to the mass anti-imperialist movement and conduct it in the same way. But this error would not affect the importance or correctness of the ideological struggle within the communist movement. The same can be said for the current campaign against white chauvinism.
Yes, we must be concerned with ultra-left errors made in the mass movement. But we’re concerned with them for the purpose of deepening the struggle against white chauvinism in the OC and to be able to correctly take up the struggle against racism in the mass movement. Comrade Burns et al are ’concerned’ with the errors for the purpose of liquidating the struggle against white chauvinism.
1. Stalinism
So if the errors in the mass movement don’t invalidate the campaign against white chauvinism, what about the rest of the criticisms that Comrades B. et al raise?
We think their analysis is plagued by distortions, half-truths, and unsubstantiated charges. For instance, the campaign is criticized for being ’Stalinist’. According to these comrades, we stifle dissent, demand ’conformity’, etc. So why are we permitting comrades in opposition to write a 20 page paper on their views and why are we circulating it not only to the whole LC, but to OC members all over New England?
It’s not enough to leave the struggle at the level of political and practical differences, as Comrade B. et al imply. To thoroughly root out racist practice and political line (for example, federationism, the line that national minority comrades must join cadre organizations first as a stepping stone to the OC, etc.), the ideological roots of their position in white chauvinism must be drawn out and struggled over.
Contrary to Comrade B. et al, we don’t demand conformity. We demand a willingness to struggle over white chauvinism and to change. And that is precisely what the comrades are unwilling to do. They want to hold onto their white chauvinism.
In order to cover their white chauvinism, the authors play on the fear of Stalinism of OC members by raising the spectre of mass expulsions and executions. But this has nothing to do with the LC’s practice. We haven’t expelled people. And we’re certainly not about to shoot people!
The authors also imply that criticizing a comrade for racism will make the comrade defensive and afraid to raise their views. The logical conclusion is that comrades shouldn’t criticize other comrades for racism so as to inhibit such defensiveness, Perhaps it is better for white chauvinism to continue!
2. ’Reductionism’
Comrades B. et al also criticize the LC leadership for ’reductionism’– reducing all errors to white chauvinism. Again, this charge does not stand up. Certainly, there are examples where incorrect criticisms of racism have been made. But far and away, the main thing going on has been correct criticism of racism (and nowhere near enough either!). So what’s really behind these comrades’ charge is that they want to hide from correct criticisms of whit chauvinism.
For instance, Comrade B. et al point to lack of commitment as an example of an error that isn’t based on white chauvinism. But in a situation where the main struggle going on in the movement is the struggle against white chauvinism, a pronounced lack of commitment to the movement is clearly rooted in white chauvinism.
In general, what lies behind lack of commitment is pessimism about the possibility of revolution. If you don’t think the working class will make a revolution (or be won to party building), why commit yourself to the revolutionary movement? This lack of faith in the working class and national minority people is rooted in racism and anti-working class bias – the view that national minority and white workers are too stupid to see their own class interest in the revolution.
Another example of a ’reductionist’ criticism of racism that Comrade B. et al refer to (“not completing a task”) is a criticism that was raised of a white OC comrade for not finishing a newspaper article on time that concerned an anti-racist mass organization. Some comrades thought the criticism was off the wall. But upon probing further it became clear that the criticism was correct: the comrade had been paralyzed by fear of making a racist error in the article. And underlying his fear of making a racist error was wanting to protect his white chauvinism from exposure.
A final example occurred at the first Local Center meeting, where comrade Melanie R. got very ’confused’, ’defensive’ and ’shut down’ when criticized for a racist statement. She and other comrades raised all kinds of excuses in her defense, especially that she was a victim of sexism. But in fact, wanting to protect her white chauvinism was what underlied her confusion; she was scurrying around trying to prevent her racism from coming out and compounding her racist error. As she now knows, her inability to defend her racist statement without revealing her white chauvinism led to her ’shutting down’.
We need more and sharper criticism of racism, and penetrating analysis exposing the white chauvinism underlying various errors– not less! So why do Comrade B. et al raise the charge of reductionism? Again, it is a cover for their white chauvinisms rather than really look at their own or other comrades* white chauvinism, they would prefer to raise false charges aimed at disorienting the current campaign.
3. Distortions of the campaign
At other points in their paper, the authors sink to caricaturing the campaign in order to discredit it. For instance they imply that ’honest compliments’ are not in order in the campaign. That is ridiculous! People should and will get support for really making progress in struggling with their own and other comrades white chauvinism. But they won’t get support for playing a bad role at a meeting or for refusing to deal with their own white chauvinism. In other words, white comrades won’t get support for racism!
Comrade B. et al also describe the campaign as forcing white comrades to make a ’complete change overnight’. Again, that is incorrect. What the LC leadership requires is not that white comrades root out their racism ’overnight’, but that comrades seriously take up the struggle with their own and others’ white chauvinism, and make real progress in rooting it out. It is true that there is no place in the OC for comrades who refuse to struggle or change. But to say we demand a complete change –’overnight’ is simply an attempt to be able to change at your own pace – in your own sweet time. That is, not change at all!
Finally, Comrade B. et al also describe ideological struggle as being based on ’pre-conceived formulas and pre-determined conclusions’, (p.l) Here again, the posturing of some comrades has given the authors a few straws to grasp at. But in fact that hasn’t generally been the character of the campaign. When comrades answer a criticism with a tape-recorded response, this response is generally not accepted and the comrade is asked to probe deeper, say what was really behind their action, and to really elaborate a self-criticism to show they really agree. For example, at the second Local Center meeting, Comrade Melanie R. was criticized for automatically agreeing with everything she was criticized for. After this criticism she participated more actively in getting to the real roots of her errors.
4. ’No connection to practice’
Another charge the authors made is that the campaign against white chauvinism is not connected, to practice. By practice, they are referring to practice in the mass movement. But the campaign is focussed on practice, the practice of the OC: uniting the tendency, ideological struggle, etc. We’ve discussed concretely errors made in outreach work, in conducting ideological struggle at Local Center meetings, etc. We’ve exposed the ideological roots of these errors (including white chauvinist attitudes towards national minority people) in order to thoroughly rout them. In making self-criticisms, comrades are asked how their racist attitudes have come out in practice, how their practice has changed as a result of an earlier self-criticism, etc. One of the main goals of the campaign against white chauvinism is so that white comrades start to take up outreach to national minority comrades about the OC – it is not the idle parlor game that B. et al try to make it out to be.
In fact, what clearly exposes the opportunism and white chauvinism of Comrade B. et al is that in their practice they are not willing to deal with their own white chauvinism. From the very beginning of the campaign none of them has really participated in the campaign. At local center meetings they have not struggled with other comrades around white chauvinism. Most of them have not raised criticisms around white chauvinism outside of meetings either. And when they are criticized themselves, they get very defensive and rarely deal with the criticism at all.
If these comrades were principled, if they were really concerned about white chauvinism, they would raise their ’process’ criticisms and deal with the content of criticisms of racism made. But they make no effort at all to deal with their own or others’ white chauvinism. And these comrades have certainly not been in the vanguard of doing outreach to national minority comrades about the OC – in fact as of this date only one of them has even turned in their outreach questionnaire that was due two weeks ago! This is the sorry racist practice that these comrades are trying to cover up by hiding behind ’differences with the process.’
What is particularly revealed by the authors discussion of practice is that they don’t even consider the practice of party-building to be important. They can only conceive of a discussion of practice meaning practice in the mass movement. They don’t describe the effect of the campaign on developing ideological unity and uniting the tendency. The idea that outreach for the OC is a relevant question in evaluating the campaign apparently escapes them!
These comrades perspective is fundamentally rooted in racism and anti-working class bias. To them, national minority and working class comrades aren’t interested in party building. So the only way the campaign would have an influence on them is in relation to the mass movement. Therefore, their twenty page paper includes absolutely no discussion of taking up party building with national minority and working class comrades.
In fact, the white chauvinism and anti-working class bias of these comrades comes across throughout the paper. One flagrant example is on page 6 where they say ’in one mass work campaign, white cadre were debating whether to present self-criticisms of their work to the masses.’(emphasis ours). But, in fact, a national minority comrade participated in that discussion. What about her? They render her completely invisible!
In another place they present a caricature of what we demand of members (“model communist” pp. 12-l4). And they claim that national minority and working class people can’t meet these requirements. But what we are advocating is treating people with respect, and struggling with them as equals, not expecting that they will be ’instant communists’.
Comrade B. et al claim working class and national minority comrades aren’t able to make a full commitment to party building, that they can only be part time. They can’t put politics above family commitments. In fact, these comrades really don’t think working class and national minority people are capable of becoming communists. This is the anti-working class and racist view which has dominated OC forces in this area for years. And it’s the reason the OC is composed primarily of white petty bourgeois intellectuals. We’d like to ask Comrades B. and friends, in whose class interest is a revolution anyway?
These comrades also say that it is racist and anti-working class to think that workers and national minorities are more into ideological struggle than other approaches. But why do we say that the working class and national minority people are the vanguard of the class struggle? Or is the ideological struggle a ’special’ part of the class struggle that the working class and national minority people can’t be the vanguard of?
Just take a look at the way people are lining up in our Local Center. Which side are the majority of working class and national minority comrades on? Clearly, they’re on the side of ideological struggle. These are some of the people who B. et al would like to characterize as ’rigid robots’, who are participating in ’group intimidation.’ Now where is the real white chauvinism and anti-working class bias? To say nothing of anti-communism!
These comrades also make the racist assertion that the campaign is turning off national minority people. In fact, what is turning off local national minority activists is not the campaign, but the history of white chauvinism among white OC forces in the area and some of the recent posturing (also due to white chauvinism). The answer is to carry through with the campaign. But the assertion has a more fundamental racism: it renders invisible the national minority OC comrades across the country and in this area who are providing leadership to the campaign.
These must be the national minority and working class people that Comrade B. et al find to be ’tougher, more aggressive, more angry, and more impatient’!(p.14) It is in this section of the paper (top of page 14) that the gross white chauvinism (and anti-working class bias) of the authors comes out openly in full force. To quote the paper:
The assumption that Third World and working class people will have more respect for sharp struggle and reject other approaches reflects racist and anti-working class bias. It characterizes people as being tougher than the rest, more struggle oriented, more aggressive, more angry, more impatient.
This characterisation stereotypes these people. The characterization is partly true, but by itself reprsents a one-sided and idealist view. Third World and Working Class people can be passive, cynical, have personal problems that hold them back, etc. Unless we have an all-sided view of people it is easy to develop an impatient attitude.
In the eyes of Comrade B. and friends, national minority people can fit one of two racist stereotypes: the tough and angry (and we should add uncontrollable, emotional, animalistic) stereotype or the passive ’poor creatures’ who have so many personal problems...!
While Comrade B. et al try to claim that working class and national minority people can’t handle sharp struggle, it is, in reality, the white petit bourgeoisie that opposes it. These comrades treat ideological struggle (especially against white chauvinism) as if it were the plague.
They say on page 6 “People are subject to struggle over long periods of time. Meetings now run up to six hours. There is also a lot of struggle going on on an ad hoc basis while eating dinner, etc.” Oh, poor comrades! It sounds like they are describing a new form of torture! They clearly think ideological struggle is a terrible thing.
We think it is no coincidence that the majority of the authors of this paper are white petit bourgeois intellectuals – and in fact three of them are college professors. They see the campaign against white chauvinism and anti-working class bias as an attack on their class position. But comrades, the campaign is attacking the class stand of the white petit bourgeoisie. It is a struggle for a proletarian class stand. You have no interest in holding onto your class outlook. All that is required (like that which is required of all white OC members including the authors of this response) is a willingness to openly confront your white chauvinism.
Virtually all white OC members have, in practice, resisted being really open and honest (notice the widespread defensiveness and conspiracy of white chauvinism). But Comrade B. and friends won’t even take the first step. They place themselves in total opposition to the campaign.
After “critiquing” the OC’s campaign, Comrade B. et al offer their alternatives to sharp ideological struggle. In this section we are treated to a 6-page plea for sympathy. We are told about the difficulty, the complexity, and the painfulness of white people rooting out white chauvinism. We are told not to be impatient with how long it takes.
We are warned that people are at different levels of commitment calling for different approaches. What this amounts to is saying that some people are committed to rooting out their white chauvinism and some people aren’t – so the ones that aren’t should be left alone!
The alternatives involve everything but struggle. According to these comrades, we need: “good listening,” “good information,” “honest compliments,” “personal empathy,” dealing with “feelings,” etc. Their alternative to struggle can be summed up in their phrase on p. 20 “we don’t need a new formula for rooting out racist ideology. We need to sharpen up our old tools.”
One of these “old tools” is the old style of criticism/self-criticism that OC forces in this area used to practice. In this style criticisms were given with a lot of support and a lot of “recognition” of the difficulty of changing and with no sharp struggle. To us now, that is exactly what was wrong with the old way of doing criticism. What these comrades are asking for is support for bourgeois ideology, specifically white chauvinism, rather than really taking responsibility for rooting it out. This style of criticism only perpetuates the conspiracy of white chauvinism by protecting comrades from really having to change. “Old style” criticism/self-criticism is “conspiratorial criticism/self-criticism.” This approach liquidates the struggle against racism in favor of the feelings of white people.
The second “old tool” is re-evaluation co-counselling. At first, the authors describe co-counselling as a complement to ideological struggle (p.19). But later on, their real view comes out. On p. 19 they basically say it is a better way of dealing with white chauvinism than ideological struggle when they say it “goes deeper” to the roots. But, in essence, the role of co-counselling is to provide a haven where white people can feel “safe” being racist, that won’t be “blamed” for holding onto their white chauvinism. How can this not encourage white comrades to hold onto it?
In fact, co-counselling’s whole theory on getting rid of white chauvinism is seriously flawed and serves to reinforce racism. First of all, while B. et al criticize the LCSC for “psychologistic” methods of struggle, in fact the LCSC’s whole emphasis is not on psychology, but ideology. In contrast, counselling’s emphasis is on “feelings” as the root of white chauvinism – so who’s taking a “psychologistic” approach.
Secondly, co-counselling holds that the reason white people develop racist thinking is in response to the “hurts” and oppression they face. So counsellors are encouraged to counsel on their own “hurts” and oppression as the way to overcome white chauvinism. This is clearly a racist and bankrupt way to conduct the struggle against racism.
This is not the place to fully critique co-counselling’s approach to the struggle against white chauvinism. What is clear, however, is that the authors advocate continuing the method of “struggling” against white chauvinism that was used for years by OC comrades in this area prior to the campaign: that is, “supportive” criticism/self-criticism and co-counseling. In their paper, they just spend 6 pages putting window dressing on it!
But look where that old method got us. There was a solid conspiracy of white chauvinism among white comrades in this area prior to the campaign. There was hardly any talk of white chauvinism, even less struggle and virtually no progress in overcoming it.
Through the campaign, however, modest but real progress is being made. For the first time white comrades are starting to confront their white chauvinism and starting to change in some real ways. The only way to advance this progress is through continuing and deepening the campaign.
Comrade B. et al, however, oppose the campaign. They favor a return to the old bankrupt ways. In essence, they don’t want to see any change at all.
The fortress of white chauvinism is beginning (just beginning) to crumble in this Local Center. And comrade B. and friends are scrambling around trying to shore it up.
– N.B./F.R./Providence LCSC
8/22/80