5/31/78
Dear Friend,
Enclosed is an article which, in our opinion, makes a significant contribution to current labor and partybuilding strategy discussion. We are making this article available now after discussing it several times with PWOC (Philadelphia Workers Organizing Committee) leadership and rank and file.
Our discussions shed new light on some important theoretical questions we hope to address in the future. Our discussions also resulted in several changes from our original draft and some qualifications included in the “Discussion Summary” [not included here – EROL]. This summary also describes those criticisms which PWOC acknowledged (partially or fully) as valid.
In fact, PWOC admitted that some errors were made in most of the practical examples we criticized in discussion with them. Also, PWOC acknowledged the validity of several of the positive theoretical formulations our paper puts forward. But PWOC leaders argued that the paper as a whole does not represent a theoretical contribution and they felt our criticism was not significant for broader movement discussion. We disagree.
First, PWOC argued that many of the errors we discussed were errors made in applying the theory, not errors in their theory itself. But our paper clearly demonstrates the theoretical origins of the errors we discuss. Unfortunately, PWOC’s theory, as it is written, is quite abstract and therefore rank and file cadre are bound to interpret it in different ways when they attempt to apply it. We feel our movement strongly needs a labor theory which is concrete and precise and can be consistently applied. We hope our criticism can improve on PWOC’s theory.
Secondly, PWOC argued that the areas we criticized were only secondarily important and that their correctness remained unchallenged on important questions. Our differences with PWOC are not basic ideological differences. On the other hand, we have not criticized every minor flaw in PWOC’s theory. Rather, we differ over strategic questions that can deeply alter our effectiveness at fusing communism with the workers movement. While PWOC does correctly grasp some important questions, we argue that on some specific questions PWOC’s theory is inadequate, confused or misleading and, as a result, their approach to labor work and fusion is ineffective. Again, we hope debate will lead to more effective theory.
Lastly, PWOC argued our article was not a significant theoretical contribution because we lacked a full-blown alternative. While we are far from a comprehensive alternative, we feel we have clarified some matters and raised other questions in a sharp manner. As PWOC often points out, a small isolated group cannot develop full strategies by itself. We hope our efforts may be of some significance in developing a broad, concrete debate on these matters. We welcome all responses and will help distribute them, if desired.
Philadelphia Study Group