New Communist Party (Liaison Committee)

Preliminary Statement of the NCP(LC) Regarding The Split With The NCP(OC)

This an official statement of the New Communist Party (Liaison Committee). We will publish more statements in the coming days.

On February 17th, our faction resigned its membership in the New Communist Party (Organizing Committee). Our resignations came with the sharpening of the line struggle in the OC to its sharpest point, in an attempt to resolve contradictions which we believe will not allow for the NCP(OC) to become a party. While we share unity on many matters and questions with the NCP(OC), the areas of our demarcation from them are fundamental and warrant a critical summation.

There is an inability on the part of the leadership of the NCP(OC) to handle contradictions

Feminism: petty-bourgeois patriarchal women's emancipation or proletarian feminism?

Feminism: petty-bourgeois patriarchal women’s emancipation or proletarian feminism?

First, an ex-member of the OC harassed several Maoists in the US, for which the OC only issued apologies to the victims they were favorable to, neglecting to take responsibility and apologize to those they personally disliked.

Secondly, emergency meetings were held and the OC was in a panic when it came to handling an antagonism with another ex-member, after a plan action had been already been agreed to. The OC failed to handle these contradictions and turned the non antagonistic contradictions antagonistic. If the NCP(OC) is unable to handle qualitatively low level contradictions of a personal nature, then it will be ill equipped to handle contradictions among the people, as well as contradictions between the people and the enemy.

The OC did not orient itself to the masses

For the bulk of its existence it acted as a clandestine organization and objectively set on the path of building a militarized party. Clandestinity of such caliber is incorrect, as communists must nor orient ourselves to state repression but principally to the masses. The support of the masses is the surest line of defense for revolutionaries. The other part of this objective process of militarization is the practice of an undemocratic relationship of the OC to the mass organizations under it. For example, the RSCC had provisions for proletarian feminist work to be done this semester, yet the OC chose to generate a whole new proletarian feminist committee altogether. An OC member sat in on and participated in an entire RSCC meeting without being a member with democratic rights in the organization. The mass organizations, while correctly under the leadership of the party, still have a right to their own democratic processes. In Ignite, members were expected to sit through study after study without an orientation towards doing actual mass work, effectively separating theory from practice. The issues here are militarization of the party and its mass organization, and an inward focus instead of an outward orientation to the masses. This is the error of neglecting to practice the mass line.

While comrades in the OC are making these errors which led to our faction’s resignation, we have been careful to identify the principal contradiction so as to avoid making these mistakes in the future. The issue is that the mass leaders, all of proletarian background, were subjected to the incorrect line of the formal leadership, who are of petit-bourgeois backgrounds. While we all constitute the vanguard of the proletariat, our social classes will inform our political lines. Thus, the leadership put into command the politics of a Gonzaloite deviation (which failed in Peru).

The polarization of the contradiction between the formal leadership and the mass leaders

Mass work requires mass leadership.

Mass work requires mass leadership.

The line struggle between the Gonzaloites and our faction, is reflective of the gap between mental and manual labor that exists in the OC. However, when our faction raised these criticisms of the class contradiction being the principal contradiction we were ignored and made out to be apologetic for male chauvinism (which was held by leadership as being the principal contradiction). This is the error of petit-bourgeois chauvinism.

As our faction sharpened the line struggle of which it was a product, we understood that action had to be taken to steer the NCP(OC) back onto the course of constructing a communist party. We could not, without being opportunists, submit ourselves to democratic centralism under an erroneous political line, so we raised a proposal:

That the OC revert to the form of a Liaison Committee that would integrate other Maoists in our locality as well as around the country, to begin struggling to set an ideological line that would be the basis of a new OC in which errors had been rectified. This implied a liquidation of leadership as it was, as well as opening up line struggle.

While our proposal called for the rectification of those comrades making the errors outlined in this document, we made sure to be self critical of our own errors too. However, this proposal was rejected (not unanimously) in the OC.

The rejection by the Virginia branch was left opportunism, as they were not intending to rectify their incorrect line, and the rejection by the NYC branch was right opportunism, as they sought to protect their relationship to Virginia. The general leadership rejected the proposal as it meant the loss of their positions in the OC. Thus we have resigned and initiated our own process of building a Liaison Committee for the New Communist Party in the US.

OC members in our mass organization, the Revolutionary Student Coordinating Committee, have resigned their membership and have been attempting to recruit some of our members and from the periphery of our mass work. In the weeks since the split, we have begun establishing branches of the Liaison Committee in several cities, as well as had a proletarian feminist orientation to cultivating non-tokenistic leadership of oppressed nationality, proletarian women, both in the Liaison Committee and in our mass organization, the Revolutionary Student Coordinating Committee.

We have dared to struggle, and we will continue to dare to win.

The New Communist Party (Liaison Committee)

Standard

3 thoughts on “Preliminary Statement of the NCP(LC) Regarding The Split With The NCP(OC)

  1. Pingback: Maosoleum is now an organ of the NCP(LC) | maosoleum

  2. Luis says:

    What exactly do you mean by gonzaloite deviation? I myself hold the struggle back then in Peru in high regards and wonder what you think are the deviations they represent. It was PCP who first put forward Maoism as a higher stage of marxism, and were struggling for a decade for the RIM and later others to take that position.

    • We have described Gonzaloism thus:

      1) Commandism – “Jefatura” line

      2) Armed Monolithic Party – Party argued as clandestine by nature under all conditions and the armed struggle as the primary organizational goal of the revolutionary party – no separation between army and party, and no separation between politics and gun, but a unified command. This is opposed to Mao’s “politics in command” perspective, and Lenin’s criticism of Blanquism, which is the origin of the idea of the unification of the military and political.

      3) Unified People’s War – the Hoxhaist perspective, counterpoised to protracted people’s war – we touch upon this in our article “What is Protracted People’s War?”

      4) Third period revivalism without the actual social force – a form of left opportunism. Most clear in the declaration of governments like Venezuela’s as social-fascist.

      Interestingly, Chairman Gonzalo rejected the universality of Pensamiento Gonzalo making it clear it was an application of M-L-M to Peruvian conditions and nothing more, and indeed Gonzaloism is more identified with the Proseguir line in the PCP, the line that Gonzalo and Asumir rejected.

      While the internal matters of the PCP are their and only theirs, we do feel that the application of these principles as universals is an error. Of course, some of the Gonzaloites deny they are Gonzaloites, but for us it shorthand for that set of politics which we consider not to be a correct application of M-L-M to the conditions of the USA today.

      Gonzalo and the PCP stand in our history as shining examples of struggle, but ultimately, as we point out, defined principally by historical failure. While even in historical failure there are successful and positive experiences, it is dogmato-revisionism to embrace without summation and criticism those experiences. A full summation of the Peruvian experience has not been made, but we have made a partial summation of its application to our conditions, and identified Gonzaloism as a left opportunist deviation, and we would be liberal if we didn’t combat it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s