1. To begin, let us put to rest a myth: that comrade W’s struggle against his accommodation to his wife’s racist views has little or nothing to do with moving forward the tendency. If failure to take up this struggle, and its consequent leading to W’s being torn between “political” and “family” matters, both time and energy-wise is not a political question, then we don’t know what is.
Let’s look at the struggle that did go on. Comrade W. broke with the view that it was his sexism in his relationship that was hampering his ability to move forward politically. This break was made only after some intense struggle around W’s view, in which comrade F. played the leading role.
The struggle against W’s accommodation began by focusing on his view of himself as a Black person in the context of being a father and how his view of himself was in turn nurtured by his wife’s racist views of him. This struggle at no time was separated from W’s other accommodationist practices. For example, the struggle around W’s accommodation at the Dec. forum was taken up in a sharp and fruitful way by both comrades F. and R. in the evaluation meeting held the night after.
For the LSC to see racist paternalism behind this struggle is a serious departure from reality. Only our super-revolutionary comrades could fail to see the productive nature of the struggle waged but this is characteristic of their phoney war against white chauvinism. It is important to note that in the description of the struggle with DW and the 4 white comrades many falsehoods are stated. At no point did the LSC go to any of the 5 comrades involved to seek information about the content of the discussions. The stories they tell are based on bits of information and their own imaginations.
Before leaving this context, it must also be noted that the LSC failed to mention even once that comrades had, and continue to have responsibility for building unity with LW’s wife, a white, working class woman.
2. Comrade W. did not speak to H’s not putting forth his position on the Main Danger. W. took note that H. held a minority position on this question and questioned whether it was proper for H. to be a majority delegate.
Comrade F’s response to W’s remarks was to state that because H. held a minority view on one issue, it did not necessarily follow that he was inappropriate for representing the majority members of the delegation on the other issues, with which he had unity. Where is the “beating back” of DW? Comrade F. honestly felt that DW was incorrect in his formulation and stated so. Can white and petty-bourgeois comrades expect only charges of “chauvinism” every time they raise a point of disagreement? Even when the disagreements are correct? Further, what was the role of the chair of the BLC meeting when all this took place? If comrade C. now thinks that comrade F. was acting in a racist manner, then she owes an explanation as to why she was an accomplice to all this. Otherwise, C. puts herself in an awkward position; she invites charges toward her of scapegoating F.
3. The LSC’s interpretation of the exchange concerning R’s remarks (p.2),is at bottom an attempt to scapegoat comrade F. What was there in W’s comment that would have made it clear (to F.) that he was criticizing R? (Remember, the LSC has criticized W. for not being direct in his criticism of R.) If F. was in need of clarification, she had a right, in fact, a responsibility, to seek a clear understanding. Again, to characterize this as “beating back” W. is a posture on the part of the LSC. It is also racist paternalism to comrade W.
4. Concerning the bus drivers remarks (p.2-3), the reason that the six comrades thought the bus drivers were white was because that’s what the transcript of the National Conf. read.
5. Re the “buying/selling” remarks made by comrade W. On p.3, DW is cited as “denying the existence of capitulation”. Aside from misquoting W. (he really said something along the lines of: if comrade C. has been buying into this view of himself, what have white comrades been selling?), it should be noted that his remarks were borne out by the NE Regional Conf. in February. This is admitted to, further on (p.6) in another reference to: “the important lesson learned at the NERC – that white comrades cannot take up the struggle against capitulation without looking at and contradicting their own white chauvinism”. The comrades who wrote this paper need to square accounts concerning this quotation and the views put forward about W’s “capitulation” on the “buy/sell” question, p.3. They also need to explain why words were put in DW’s mouth which he never spoke.
6. Concerning W’s remarks to R. In his paper on accommodationism, submitted to the NERC, he makes reference to his view of R. being “halfway between God and John Brown”. In that context, W’s struggle with R. was a step forward. What we have to do here is to clarify what DW really said - again. First of all, C. did not congratulate DW for being the only man to speak up during this section of the January BLC meeting; she simply pointed out that fact. (C., like many other comrades, have to address their church/confessional mode of self-criticism, where they blame themselves for things never done.) Second, W. did not attribute R’s errors to the non-existence of a communist party. W. stated that in the absence of a party, there could be no control tasks to measure in what ways R. rectified his errors, etc. and moves forward. Third, W. didn’t assure R. that he was still a comrade: W. affirmed – reminded – the members of the BLC that R. was still a comrade and that the BLC had a right to know what R. was going to do to mend his ways – even in the absence of a party. Finally, W. did all of this for a political reason: the need not to have principled struggle degenerate into a lynch-mob, scape-goating affair; a fear which W. held, and which has been borne out by the internal life of the BLC in the past few weeks.