Issued: February 17, 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.
Feb. 17, 1979
Political Commission
Philadelphia Workers Organizing Committee
Dear Comrades:
Clay Newlin’s article in the Jan. 1979 issue of the Organizer concerning Irwin Silber’s resignation as Executive Editor of the Guardian makes us conclude that sectarianism and the circle mentality are not confined to Jack Smith and the Guardian staff majority.
Our biggest concern is that you have not grasped the political essence of the struggle at the Guardian and the resulting splits that have taken place. Rather, the article comes off as an attempt to take advantage of the Guardian struggle in order to discredit all who disagree with your party-building line.
Just consider the bare facts of the situation. In midsummer, the Guardian leadership launched a campaign which, if it had succeeded, would have driven a deep sectarian wedge in the movement. It proposed to establish an organization around itself that would have disrupted all attempts at unity in the party-building movement, exaggerated political differences, misrepresented positions, exacerbated tensions and established a solid base for a group of opportunists without the slightest concern for the interests of the movement as a whole – except in so far as these were of direct benefit to itself. It was a move aimed at establishing hegemonism in the party-building movement.
Not only did the Guardian propose to establish such an organization, it already had its makings in the existing Guardian Clubs. In short, it had the prestige accruing to its role as a leading organ in the movement, a leader in the struggle against dogmatism (whatever your own judgment may be on this), an established force with considerable influence in the movement by virtue of its coverage and ability to reach the entire movement quickly and thoroughly, and some considerable respect (again whether you agree or not) for the theoretical contributions it had made on party-building questions.
Further, there were many Marxist-Leninists who, for a variety of reasons – disagreements with forces such as yourselves, their own backwardness, other kinds of opportunism or simply by virtue of being fooled by the cover placed on the whole scheme – could well have lined up behind the Guardian and made its scheme a reality. You may think that the Guardian’s postulation of itself as a “trend” – and a “left” trend to boot – is inherently absurd. But it would not necessarily have been seen as such by others in the movement unless those closest to the Guardian had led the struggle to expose their political underpinnings.
But this scheme was stopped! Not only was it defeated theoretically in a full debate within the Guardian Club network – it was defeated politically and organizationally. (At the time that your article was being written and certainly before it was published, the author had every reason to know the extent of the criticism and rebellion within the Guardian Club network against the Guardian staff position.)
How was it stopped? And by whom? Within the Guardian staff, the struggle against the document was led by the two of us. True, we did not gain much support internally in the Guardian staff – although there was more opposition than the final vote showed. But who are these two people? Both at the time were members of the Guardian Coordinating Committee. One was the Executive Editor, the person who represented the Guardian to the public and more than any other individual had become identified with party-building questions and questions of theoretical work in the present period. The other had been the Guardian’s General Manager until early last year when she was driven out of that post in one of the first expressions of the factional struggle which was already under way. She is a comrade with considerable standing in the movement by virtue of her work in Black and women’s organizations.
Outside the Guardian staff, the struggle against the Guardian’s line was initiated and organized primarily by leading members of the Bay Area Club – especially comrades Melinda Paras and Max Elbaum. Their role is particularly significant since these are well-respected Marxist-Leninists who consciously joined the Guardian Clubs when they were established because they saw them as an important development in the communist movement. They disagreed with your judgment that the Clubs were inherently sectarian and when the Guardian leadership moved to make them such, they led the fight against it.
What have been the objective consequences of this struggle? Silber’s resignation was a signal both to the Clubs and the movement as a whole that a fundamental question of political line was involved in this struggle, so basic that a leading comrade in the movement would resign from a position with significant authority and prestige in order to disassociate himself from the line. That resignation, in itself, guaranteed that at the least, the Guardian line would inevitably be neutralized.
When, despite the criticisms emanating from the Clubs, the Guardian staff made its final document even more sectarian than the earlier version, the Clubs escalated their struggle. When the Guardian tried to force its position on the Clubs, when it lied to its readers (in the 30th anniversary issue) and announced that the Guardian and the Clubs were moving ahead to implement this line – the Clubs resisted and organized against the Guardian staff. The entire Club network was caught up in the process. Every Club held intense discussions on the questions involved and developed position papers. The Clubs by-passed and broke all the rules and regulations established by the Guardian because it became necessary to do so as the Guardian staff stonewalled on the criticism. The Clubs, on their own, called regional conferences to discuss the political crisis. By mid-December, when these conferences were held, the political tally of the Club membership told its own story. Aside from a few Guardian staff members who were in the New York Club, the Club membership lined up 70-5 against the line put forward by the Guardian. They registered their opposition not only with votes but on an advanced theoretical and political basis – through their respective documents – which addressed many of the outstanding theoretical questions before the entire party-building movement.
This struggle was led by Paras, Elbaum and Silber and leading comrades in every single Guardian Club.
The Clubs next attempted a “reconciliation” with the Guardian. The condition for this “reconciliation” was that the Guardian abandon – or at least re-open for discussion – its line as expressed in the State of the Party-Building Movement document. The Guardian staff refused and instead “dissolved” the Clubs. Actually, all they could do was to dissolve the relationship between the Guardian and the Clubs. The Clubs themselves are continuing in existence and will be holding a national leadership conference at the end of March. You will shortly receive (if you have not already) a formal invitation to send an observer to this conference.
In dismissing the Clubs, the Guardian staff acknowledged that there was no way in which it could put its party-building line into practice and that the plan for establishing a “limited political organization” around itself had been abandoned, at least for the foreseeable future. In short – the Guardian’s party-building line was defeated, not by votes, but in practice.
This is what has happened in the real world. We do not expect that you could have known all this before your article was in print, but in broad outline the political struggle and balance of forces involved had been made known to Clay Newlin by leading people in the process.
Now let us examine some of the ways in which you have summed up this struggle. “Silber’s divergence from the Guardian line should not be overplayed.” Incredible! One line, that of the Guardian leadership, objectively represented an attempt to split the party-building movement, establish the Guardian as a hegemonistic force in the movement, engage in open political warfare with your own organization on an organization-to-organization basis (Smith’s line is a call to “sharpen the struggle organizationally as well as theoretically against right opportunism” and if you don’t think he means you or if you can’t figure out what “organizationally” means, then you are hopelessly naive) and establish a consolidated force under commandist direction that would, if it could, wreak political havoc in the party-building movement. It Is a line put forward by forces who have never demonstrated a grasp of Marxism-Leninism.
The other line, advanced by us in the Guardian staff and the leading political forces in the Clubs objectively opposed a dangerous sectarian move, demolished its theoretical underpinnings and, in contrast, calls for the development of a common party-building strategy in the movement as a whole. This line was advanced by people intimately associated with the Guardian leadership, thus giving its content and its explicit expose of the Guardian leadership’s motivations more credence. Since then, Silber’s proposals on “rectification” were put forward. These columns were published in time for their political spirit and essence to have been taken into account when your commentary was written.
And yet you do not think that the differences should be “overplayed.” You even go so far as to repeat out-of-context quotations put forward by the leading figure of the opportunist headquarters in order to discredit Silber’s standing. Why?
We cannot help but feel that you have been blinded by narrow sectarian considerations to the point where you have completely misread the political issues involved. This is a serious error, particularly for the leading body of one of the most important political organizations in our entire trend.
This same sectarian spirit prevails in your distorted view of the history of the Guardian Clubs. You seem more concerned with trying to demonstrate that Silber had a mysterious change of heart in midsummer 1978 than in trying to develop a coherent and systematic political analysis. Now there is no doubt that you can go back through the various documents put out by the Guardian from June 1977 on and trace the thread which ultimately emerged as a consolidated sectarian and opportunist expression. It is there and we do not deny it. But as is made clear in a lengthy exposition to the Clubs by Silber (a copy of which is in your possession), the struggle against this tendency within the Guardian is as old as its emergence.
As with any two-line struggle, it requires a considerable amount of time and demonstrable practice for the underlying issues to emerge from what at first seem to be differences in tactics or emphasis. But from June 1977 to October 1978, on every major issue – the nature of Guardian Clubs, attitude to be taken toward the OC, content of our differences with PWOC, purpose of study and theoretical work in the present period – you will find a struggle against the emerging opportunist line. You offer what you think is the clinching argument: “Silber himself was the chairperson of the Clubs Committee.” It is unfortunate that you did not take up the rest of Jack Smith’s argument, namely that it was because of Silber’s role in the Clubs Subcommittee that the Guardian staff scheme to set up its sectarian grouping was “subverted.” Let us quote to you from the statement delivered by the Guardian Coordinating Committee to the representatives of the Guardian Clubs when the “dissolution” was announced Jan. 19: “Guardian Clubs developed in a way contrary to the Guardian’s original intentions. . . . In general, we believe that our original intentions regarding Guardian Clubs were subverted in the process of execution.” (Obviously the Guardian’s “original intentions” in this context mean nothing but Jack Smith’s never fully revealed intentions.)
Naturally, we do not expect you to have known of this precise statement. But the political essence of that statement – namely that the Clubs under Silber’s leadership were developed in opposition to a sectarian view of them – was already obvious. Doesn’t the actual outcome of this struggle demonstrate this to be the case?
Your statement says that “the most telling Indication of Silber’s basic unity with the Guardian’s sectarianism” is his vote for the earlier version of the document. “Most telling?” Is this a materialist point of view? You would consider a vote for a draft document “more telling” than leading a struggle against the final version and all of the other events previously mentioned?
Comrades, you had every reason to know on the basis of certain confidential conversations and the actual role played by Silber at the founding conference of the OC in Detroit (a role which was severely criticized by Smith and other leading members of the Guardian staff) that he struggled for a considerable period of time to keep open the lines of communication and common activity between the Guardian and yourselves and other OC forces.
Now we must note another aspect of this situation, one which you should consider in a frank way. Silber was the person on the Guardian staff – and no one else – who took up the ideological struggle against your line on party-building. But this struggle is one of great theoretical and practical importance and was conducted in the best traditions of internal party line struggle. Jack Smith and his allies have never been able to develop a theoretical critique of your party-building line and, in fact, do not have one. In other words, no matter how tempting it may be, it would be political unsound for you to try to use Smith’s opportunism as a means of defeating the views that Silber put forward. In fact, given the very political essence of the Guardian struggle, it would be opportunist on your part to do so.
What does all this mean? We believe it is summed up in a sub-head appearing early on in Newlin’s article: “Attitude Toward OC Is Central. Have you become so wrapped up in this organizational experiment that you will now lump together all political forces who oppose this form – whether on principle or for opportunist reasons – and judge the entire movement by whether it supports the OC and is willing to join it? This is indefensible. There are some very fundamental differences on party-building strategy between us. (Let us leave the Guardian staff out of it, since it has no party-building strategy, will not develop one and has no real interest in the party-building movement unless it can subordinate it to its own Immediate concerns.) The very structure of the OC is an expression of party-building strategy. You must know through various conversations, study projects, articles by people like Elbaum and Paras, columns by Silber, that leading people in the Club Network are in the process of developing a significantly different view which Is summarized In the formulation on “rectification of the general line of the U.S. communist movement.”
You cannot make a fetish of the organizational form you have played a leading role In developing, or making association with It a precondition for unity In the communist movement. If you do, all of your words about the unity of Marxist-Leninists and the attempts to develop a common party-building strategy are a mockery.
The article on Silber’s resignation – taken in conjunction with other events – suggests that you may already be on a sectarian path. If not corrected, this would be a real setback to the party-building movement, particularly in light of the leading role played by the PWOC in the movement so far. And we are convinced that you will never succeed in building genuine Marx1st-Lenin1st unity or in resolving the principal political/theoretical questions before our movement if such sectarianism continues to characterize your efforts at party-building.
We would like to discuss the points raised in this letter – and any others you may wish to raise – in a direct meeting with you. We are also prepared to discuss with you in the frankest fashion the content of the political struggle between the Guardian and the Clubs and to inform you of the future plans of the Club Network. We would like to know more about developments within the OC.
We think such a meeting should be of some length – a full day – and should proceed on the basis of a mutually agreed upon agenda. Some advance preparation should be made for discussion of various points. We are prepared to meet with you either In Philadelphia or New York. We would appreciate a prompt response.
Comradely yours,
Irwin Silber
Frances M. Beal
P.S. – This letter is not for publication. We have no objection to your sharing it with the political leadership of other groups in the OC. We are planning to send copies to several groups and individuals ourselves.