First Published: The Communist, Vol. IV, No. 20, September 11, 1978.
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.
It is our understanding that the National Office of the ABDC [Anti-Bakke Decision Coalition – EROL] has directed every local chapter of the coalition to immediately place on its agenda a discussion of our article “Response to AIM & IWK” which appeared in the last issue of THE (COMMUNIST, v. IV, #19, August 28, 1978.
According to the principles which should guide mass work, this directive is certainly incorrect.
Therefore, by letter on September 11, we have requested that the ABDC National Office withdraw the instruction and urging local chapters to join with us in opposing it.
Our basic reason for opposing a discussion of this article is that it is a Marxist-Leninist polemic with two fraternal communist organizations. In our view, polemics among communist organizations have no place being discussed on the floor of a mass organization. It is inconceivable that this would happen on the floor of a trade union, for example. People come to ABDC meetings in order to deal with affirmative action, not “economism” or “right vs. ’left’ opportunism within the communist movement”.
Of course we encourage every local chapter as well as the National Office to take up the shortcomings in ABDC work which were identified in the article. However, this should be done in an orderly way in relation to actual work and not for the reason that they appear in our newspaper article.
The differences that we have with the ATM and IWK and with other Marxist-Leninists active in the ABDC should be reflected in our competing views of the concrete issues before the coalition rather than in the context of a polemic among our organizations.
For example, we have raised openly since the National Founding Conference of the ABDC that we do not believe that the present principles of unity are adequate to expand the work of the coalition. If the ATM and IWK believe these principles should be defended as is, they should say so in open discussion of the matter in the chapters of the ABDC where the membership as a whole can decide. But the fact that we have polemicized against them on the point in the pages of our newspaper is not in itself a suitable agenda topic. To make it one is to confuse the ABDC with a communist organization.
The principles of unity which should guide our work are a matter of concern to every member of the ABDC, regardless of his or her political views. What the WC(M-L) thinks of the role ATM and IWK have played as communists giving leadership to the ABDC is not. Local chapter meetings of the ABDC should not be a substitute for bilateral or trilateral meetings to resolve differences among communist organizations. The ATM and IWK obviously can use the pages of their newspaper to respond, or, if they choose, of our own.
Of course, if our organization has made errors in ABDC work, this is a suitable topic for agenda discussion. However, there is no basis whatsoever for saying that the newspaper article proposed for discussion in itself represents such an error. The shortcomings of ABDC work which we identify in the article have been spoken to openly by us before. Our criticisms of the principles of unity were presented to the National Founding Conference of the ABDC and published in our newspaper over six months ago (see THE COMMUNIST, v. IV, #9, March 8, 1978). The only thing new is the analysis, from a Marxist-Leninist perspective, of the economist and right opportunist errors of the ATM and IWK. It would be incorrect for the chapters of a mass organization to take a position on the correctness or the incorrectness of this analysis.
It goes without saying that differences over work are legitimate and commonplace in a mass organization. In this connection, it is important to emphasize that any forward motion of the ABDC now, since the Bakke case itself is a settled matter, requires that the principles of unity be changed to some degree. Obviously the work of the coalition will be strengthened most to the extent that the discussion over the modification of these principles is full and free.
Of course we hope every comrade and friend concerned with the Anti-Bakke movement will study our views as presented in the last issue. Also, we will discuss these views anytime, anywhere with anyone interested. What we are concerned with in opposing local chapter discussion is a matter of principle in the conduct of mass work.
If despite our opposition, discussion of the article is carried out, our comrades are certainly eager to see that it is carried out fully. In order to do so, we hope every local chapter where we have not taken up work will make arrangements for a member of our organization to present our point of view.