To: All Units and Sections in the L.A. District
From: L.A. District Committee
Date: July 26, 1990
The L.A.D.C. recognizes that this is a difficult period for our district. We are somewhat unique at this point in that there is a distinct, we11-organized minority grouping in L.A. The L.A.D.C. wants to ensure that there will be opportunities for everyone to be heard and for everyone to have input into the pre-Congress process. At the same time, the L.A.D.C. is concerned that we are able to maintain our unity and discipline, uphold the integrity of the organization, uphold democratic norms, and most of all, to continue to develop our mass work in the real world. In this context we want to address some specific occurrences that have disturbed us in the L.A.D.C. and which we believe have no place in a democratic organization.
At the district-wide meeting on July 22, the L.A.D.O. (who was chairing the district-wide meeting) and the entire meeting itself were the object of a pre-planned maneuver by a handful of people which created a tone of suspicion and distrust. The process and the conduct of the district-wide meeting had been thoroughly discussed at a previous D.C. meeting during which no objection or alternative suggestion was made. However, at the district-wide meeting itself, without warning, a representative of the minority insisted that only by having a “co-chair” from the minority could there be “fairness and democracy.” This process whereby the district is objectively factionalized and where different “factions” have their “representative” as chairs was instituted. We feel that this is a divisive and destructive behavior which is wrong.
Also at that meeting, a “draft minority” paper was distributed and a call was issued for an open meeting to discuss this paper. Everyone was encouraged to attend. The L.A.D.C. has no problems with having meetings to develop the minority view. However, meetings should be called within the context of the district structure and in consultation with the D.C.
The problem with the actions of the L.A. minority is that the paper was passed out to the L.A. district, contrary to the process agreed upon by the entire Central Committee and even before other members of the CC minority had an opportunity to read the paper. During this period, it is important that actions take place within some organized and responsible context.
There have been no other minority meetings anywhere else in the country. Until a unified proposal is published by the CC minority, other districts have felt that there is no clear basis for people to determine whether their views and questions fall within the majority or minority. For meetings to be called before such a view is put forward leads objectively toward the formation of an “anti-majority” faction. Furthermore, the other districts believe that conducting the debate within the existing unit, section and district structure, as opposed to dividing the district along the lines of majority and minority positions, ensures that all points of view will be aired fairly and democratically. This is the view adopted unanimously by the 6 co-chairs of the League and by the L.A.D.C. Those individuals in L.A. who called for such a minority meeting knew that what they were doing was contrary to the explicitly stated views of the national co-chairs and of the L.A.D.C.
The L.A.D.C. is also concerned about the way the positions and differences are being posed. Throughout the country, people are discussing or planning to discuss the direction of the organization within the context of how best to move our cause forward. Disagreements are based upon different points of view and what we all think is better, or right or wrong. Everywhere there is a commitment to move forward together, to preserve what is precious about the League and to ultimately let the best path forward be determined in practice. However, here in L.A., an atmosphere of a “two line struggle” (i.e. one view representing the working class and the other representing “the betrayal of the working class”) is being created. Posed this way, the debate takes the form of class war in which the other side becomes the enemy. With this view, almost any tactic can be justified because one side must “defeat or be defeated” by the other side. The L.A.D.C. is extremely disturbed about some people saying that unless their side wins, “there is going to be a split.” This kind of atmosphere, at this stage of discussions, is extremely destructive.
An organization cannot stay unified if it is completely factionalized and people consider themselves “loyal” to a faction first and to the entire organisation second. We have democratically elected a leadership, we should respect that and function in accordance with the regular structure and procedures of the League.