We think, the LRS, and each or its members, have reached the “moment of truth.”
Two months or so ago many of us were shocked and even outraged. How could the CC propose discarding elements of our core ideology? How could we change from a pre-party, cadre, Marxist-Leninist, revolutionary and socialist organization we had been building for more than a decade into something else? Why should we?
After a while, knowing the commitment and integrity of the leadership of the LRS, our feelings of shock and outrage moved on to struggling to come to terms with the majority proposal. What were the politics of this new direction? What would be the structure and functioning of the new organization? Was this a viable proposal for moving forward and carrying out our struggle to lead and develop the struggle of the masses for fundamental change, or some sort of trojan horse for social democracy? And again, less belligerent this time, why should we?
Now, with this latest proposal from the CC, we believe that the basic politics of the organization have been reaffirmed and the picture of what the new organization will look like is beginning to come into focus. More importantly, it is now crystal clear that the original proposal was no “trojan horse,” but a timely and courageous challenge to all of us to overcome the problems and difficulties of continuing our struggle into the 1990’s. Moreover, there is no one sitting in the background with some soon to be revealed blue-print of what our future should look like.
Although we continue to consider ourselves Marxist-Leninists, and have some agreement with the political thrust of the minority opinion, we support the formation of a new organization as proposed by the majority. With the masses of people facing severe attacks, our main task is to build the movements of the masses to fight. We do not think the majority is abandoning the working class, it is attempting to empower the masses based on reality. As ML’s, we can contribute through our analysis and stand to the building of a much needed organization.
It is clear that the LRS is no longer – and could not be – an organization based on M-L. (Certainly, confronting that fact has been painful, sad, confusing – to some extent we feel the way a Catholic might feel if he heard that the Pope had decided to make a pilgrimage to Mecca – very disoriented.) This raises some very important questions. How do we define ML? What specific things are we criticizing and discarding? What general conclusion about the role of theory and ideology do we reach? What process of internal development and external events disintegrated our stated ideological unity around ML?
Finding answers to most of these questions will require rigorous and lengthy study, thought, and debate. They are not frivolous, and we cannot hope to see fundamental change in this society without rising to the challenge of developing and grasping revolutionary theory, no matter how good work we do in any number of struggles and movements.
But the urgent task before us is to preserve the politics and organization that will continue to fight in the interests of the masses (as well as support serious theoretical work). In our opinion, the key responsibilities of every leader and member of the LRS in this period are (1) to preserve the organization so that its present work, membership, political line, newspaper, etc are not destroyed or seriously weakened; (2) to establish the political basis of the new/continuing organization that will emerge from the Congress; and (3) to put in place the necessary and appropriate organizational measures to enable us to continue to work toward fundamental social change in the future.
We will not have “ideological unity” in this new organization. However, there is no reason why we cannot continue to function based on a clear political unity, even as we do now.
We think the authors of the minority position should take a more realistic and constructive approach to helping us move forward through a very difficult and complicated transition. They should contribute to resolving the political and practical questions that will be the basis for our continuing unity and progress, and help to put in place the process where constructive struggle over important theoretical questions can be carried out. The first is urgently needed, the second could not be carried out in the three months that they propose.
The old theoretical and ideological unity on ML no longer exists and it cannot be imposed or proclaimed. A new theoretical framework or vision of social change has not yet been articulated by anyone on the scene, and it can’t be developed overnight. We need to put more into meeting our responsibility to develop theory, but we can’t jeopardize all our work and organizing to do that. We all have to share in the responsibility to preserve the political unity and organizational strength that we have built, even over a fairly protracted period of theoretical investigation and debate.
Sustaining a mass movement and a progressive, democratic, multinational organization for the working class and other “disenfranchised” people in this society is something that we can only hope to accomplish if the vast pool of energy, organizing skill, agit-prop capabilities, commitment, experience, dedication, political savvy, talent, anger, love and creativity that is embodied in the LRS and its members is preserved and directed toward this new challenge. We do not want to see all the political and organizational strength that we have built over the years flushed down the toilet in a split, or in an antagonistic debate that can’t resolve the key issues facing us (and many other revolutionaries in the world).