Having read the Proposal from the Central committee, and the adjoining minority position papers, I have come to the conclusion that we must move ahead with the Majority Proposal as outline. I have reached this position after evaluating not only the papers themselves, but more importantly, my own views and practice.
I am a founding member of the LRS. I have dedicated my life to human liberation. And I mean this quite sincerely. I grew up Chicano and poor near downtown Los Angeles. By the time I was 6 years old I knew what a transvestite was; I knew that violence was common and I knew that my mother was a victim of her surroundings–men and booze. I saw my sisters become mothers before they reached 16. Police would bring my brother home after finding him sniffing glue. I became acutely aware of my surroundings; I saw the contradictions between my life and the stories I heard in school–the myths and lies of happy Jane and Dick and Spot I’m not that different from many members of the LRS who’s motivation is rooted in very deep felt experiences of exploitation–the exploitation of whole peoples, the exploitation of women, and the degradation of capitalism experienced in the inner cities.
I am from the seventy generation of activists. I benefitted from the experiences of revolutionaries from the 60’s. I saw the sectarian wars of the left in the 70’s and was drawn to activists associated with the future LRS because they sought to rise above the posturing and proclamations of being the vanguard and instead focused on how people’s lives were being affected now, not just after the “revolution.” I identified with the down to earth and grassroots approach of the people I met and the strong commitment to national liberation of oppressed nationalities. I identified with the theoretical framework of dialectical historical materialism and the scientific evaluation of practice as a measure of our success. And it has been this practical materialist approach that has help the LRS develop as an organization that is both respected and feared.
My experience in the LRS has been in the area of Chicano student work, building and developing the MEChA’s in particular. I grew the most politically during the Bakke struggle, along with many in the future LRS. At that time, as well as today, I considered myself a revolutionary. What that meant to me was that I looked for the best leadership for the most people in the context of organizing Chicanos and other oppressed people against the conditions we found ourselves. During the Bakke struggle I united with the politics not with the ideology of people I knew from ATM and IWK. [Interestingly, the Communist Labor Party at that time had more M-L to them then did ATM or IWK. but it was clear that they lacked a concrete sense of the masses and how to communicate and organize people. The fact that we have been able to communicate in a direct way to people and aide the organization of people has been what has stood us apart from other groups.]
We learned important lessons in organising and leadership that were based on our ability to learn from the masses, listen and respect the culture and values of people. At that time we called it M-L. But the fact was that we were in direct contrast to other forces who also called themselves M-L. So what was it that made us more M-L then them? Just the fact that we said so. That’s all.
Today we are examining our practice and the demands of the people’s movement and are putting forward what we know to be the best possible alternative for today’s conditions. For some time now we have not practiced a strictly M-L line–organizational or politically. It is time we come to terms with this contradiction and change our organizational and political structure. As way of explanation let me say a little about why this change makes sense.
Our success in the MEChA, as well as our weaknesses, help to illuminate the need for the proposal. I would have to say some of our most developed theoretical and political work has been in the MEChA’s. Our leadership has help the Chicano student movement survive when without our leadership it would have withered. And on many occasions we prevented the MEChA’s from becoming a narrow nationalist sect. We did this through practical political leadership not organizational intervention or abstract ideological debate. The organizational resources that were put into the MEChA work allowed Chicano student cadre provide the sharpest political leadership in the contest of fighting the attacks Chicano students faced. We helped MEChA establish a formal constitution that allows for broad participation. We help establish an Educational Task Force that took on organising with the other Third World student networks the Marches on Sacramento. The statewide MEChA is a democratic mass movement that seeks to unite the broad spectrum of Chicano and Latino students in the struggle for their self-determination in a very concrete and direct way.
We have recruited many Chicano/Latino students on the basis of our line, not on an ideological adherence to Marxism Leninism. Most of our cadre are not that familiar with the tenants of M-L, but are committed to struggle and fighting exploitation–building the broadest unity possible, organizing against our oppression, enriching the cultural life of Chicanos and Latinos, analyzing the concrete conditions and provided leadership to the movement today–these, in addition to multinational/multicultural unity and democratic change. Has been the basis of unity for our cadre and people in the movement who support us. When we are confronted with redbaiting and opportunist raise that we want to control the movement we have responded that we want democracy and unity.
I have been an open member of the LRS in the MEChA’s for quite some time now. There are very few people today who can identify themselves as open communist. It is a major commitment for any individual to put themselves in the position of being isolated in the forms that I have experienced. It take a very strong psychological constitution and a deep sense of righteousness to not fold under the type of pressure one feels. What is worst is that few can understand the politics of what we represent because of the label attached to M-L; things that we don’t want or believe in–DOP, violence, vanguardism, and secrecy. While many people may even like you as an individual, they cannot bring themselves to get too close for fear of isolation and attack. We can not expand because people cannot relate (nor can we) to M-L.
We cannot deny that the objective of M-L is to bring the united front under the political leadership of the proletariat–this includes the MEChA’s. But our line on the MEChA’s is that it is an autonomous democratic institution of, by and for Chicane students. MEChA is not and cannot become a “wing” or “arm” of the LRS, or any other organization. We oppose this view, but yet this is the understanding of what the tenant of M-L is in relation to mass organizations–that Communist must control the leadership of the mass organizations. Our view is that we should help develop it as a democratic organization and promote our politics, to articulate what we want to build in the contest of ending systems of exploitation here in the US. If MEChistas unite with our politics then we will be elected to positions of leadership, and if they don’t we will not In ether case we up hold the independence and autonomy of MEChA–as activist within in we will continue to fight for this principle–mass accountability.
What has enable us to continue to have influence in the MEChA is our ability to provide concrete direction to the practical needs of students today and the importance of uniting with other people on common issues. We up hold and fight for the organization of oppressed nationality peoples and actively seek, unity among all peoples and movements for equality and justice because this is the strongest weapon against oppression and exploitation. But the fact remains that what is commonly understood to be M-L is not what we want or are now. We need to move ahead and meet the challenge of taking on a new character that more accurately reflects our identity and objectives.
Our theoretical framework should continue to be based on what we have learned to be true for the conditions of the struggles we are confronting here in the U.S. We should continue to study the experience of revolutionaries around the world, both Marxist and others who don’t call themselves Marxist. We should actively investigate various strategies that may help our struggle without an air of superiority or condescension in relationship to our own views or assumed level of theoretical development. There are too many people struggling to improve their lives and there are too many questions for the movement for us to take an exclusive approach to understanding reality. While there are a number of important concepts to draw from the writings of Marx and Lenin and other “Marxist” there are also many who do not fix themselves on the “Marxist” plain who we should learn from and unite with–liberation theology, Paulo Frerie, Amilcar Cabrai, Malcom X, the Sandinistas, the Cardenas forces in Mexico, and others.
Practice is the criteria of truth. We should proceed from a concrete assessment of current conditions and objective analysis. It is clear from our experience and analysis that what our politics are and what the perception of what our politics are by the masses, are two different things. We must end this now. We need a direct relationship to the mass movements and we want to be able to continue our tradition of promoting the best politics we can and drawing in as many individuals into active participation in the movement as possible. We want to provide leadership to the people’s struggle, we want an end to exploitation, we want the empowerment of the masses, we want self-determination, we want what the majority of people in the US want–but we must stand with them not apart from them to have any impact on real events. And as we enter this new phase in our development I’m sure we will.