Corresponder: Vol. 8 No. 3 June/August, 1999
Toward the Third National Convention
As this issue of the Corresponder goes to press, meetings are underway in several areas of the country discussing the issues that will figure prominently at the 3rd National Convention, August 13-15 in Raleigh, North Carolina. You will read the results of some of the discussions in this issue. Resolutions that were adopted by vote of membership meetings or task forces and forwarded to the Convention Resolutions Committee by press deadline appear in these pages. Also, written responses to the Draft Convention Discussion Document received thus far are herein included. While the Convention Discussion document has provided an important focus of discussion in several meetings, there have been few written responses submitted for publication to date. It is hoped that the discussions planned for the remaining weeks before the national convention convenes in mid August will provoke additional response. Given the time constraints of the deadline for this special pre-convention issue of the Corresponder, the National Executive Committee voted and the National Coordinating Committee approved a decision to delay a redraft of the Convention Discussion Document. (At its March 1999 meeting, the NCC voted to redraft the Document taking into account all written responses and send to the membership before the convention.) The NEC proposes that the next redraft take into account the discussion and decisions reached by the national convention delegates. It is also proposed that the National Coordinating Committee ask the convention to adopt a specific method for discussing and resolving the various points of view reflected in the document. If you wish to submit a written response, copies should be made available for distribution at the convention.
Local and Regional Meetings Discussing the Tasks and Role of the CofC
In local and regional meetings members and friends of the Committees of Correspondence have been discussing the state of the left and social movements with an eye to the future of the organization. At a mid May regional meeting hosted by the Massachusetts CofC, participants discussed the Draft Convention Discussion Document and congratulated the committee that drafted it for its frank assessments of the state of the organization and its presentation of important differences. Some 25 people attended, mostly from the Boston area, but with representation from Philadelphia, Washington, D.C, and New York City as well. A Southwest regional meeting was held in Los Angeles at the end of June. A successful phone banking mobilization by members resulted in a turnout of 31 members and friends and the recruitment of several new members. The discussion was animated and resulted in a resolution that will be forwarded to the convention on the role of the CofC. Another regional meeting in the Midwest was held July 10 in Lafayette, IN. Several recommendations were discussed and adopted for consideration by the National Convention. A series of local meetings have been underway in New York City and San Francisco. The New York chapter elected 30 delegates to represent the local CofC. Three resolutions were adopted that will be discussed at the convention (see inside this issue of the Corresponder). In San Francisco, the Northern California CofC held a daylong strategy conference May 22, "Forging a New Bay Area Agenda for the Left." Intended to help unify and build a progressive movement in the San Francisco area and beyond, the meeting was attended by representatives of many organizations of the left and progressive movement. Workshops on the military industrial complex, housing, economic justice and the living wage, labor organizing, public education, and environmental justice discussed the state of the social movements, how issues are linked, and ways in which greater unity of action can be forged in the coming period. A membership meeting of the CofC June 26th followed the conference, attended by 30 members. Members discussed possible content of a plan of work for the CofC locally. It was noted that while there were no major differences of opinion on where the organization should be going, there was little agreement on how to get there. It was decided to hold another meeting in September that will focus on the role and vision of the CofC and will take into account the outcome of the national convention. The Delaware Valley CofC in Philadelphia will host a meeting of CofC activists and friends on July 18. Some 60 invitations have been sent and national organizers Pat Fry, Mael Apollon and Anne Mitchell will participate at the invitation of the local chapter. NEC member Harry Targ will travel to Louisville, KY and Chicago, IL in July to speak on "Cuba Today: A Challenge to the Global Neo-Liberal Model?" in the aftermath of his recent participation at an international conference in Havana. He will also help to mobilize for the national convention in Raleigh. In the Raleigh and Durham area, the local CofC held a forum on police brutality and the death penalty in May. Speakers were National Co-Chair Charlene Mitchell and Ajamu Dillahunt of the Black Workers for Justice. Several members of the CofC and friends participated in a stimulating discussion of the issues followed by a membership meeting that discussed the objectives of the national convention. The local membership decided on a letter of invitation to the convention that would be sent to an outreach mailing list of the North Carolina CofC. At a meeting July 11th members planned for a September post convention public CofC forum on the notorious anti-union "Right to Work" laws in North Carolina.
RESOLUTIONS
ADDING AN OPEN DIALOGUE SECTION TO THE COFC WEB SITE It is proposed that the Committees of Correspondence Web site encourage its full potential use by members and others and further support its political purposes by these two actions; 1. Adding an open dialogue section. Whereas, it was agreed at past NCC meetings and in discussions of the Web Page committee that there be a publicly accessible dialogue or discussion page, this has not yet been allowed. Several years have passed and much opportunity has been lost. We feel that the fear of criticism of the leadership and other critical submissions should not be used to block this powerful resource. Such an open discussion page would dramatically facilitate "Correspondence" and dialogue among members and others. It would also dramatically promote the use of the Web Site by providing people with a place to submit and retrieve personally relevant political information in an open and immediate way, without censorship or delay. The primary attractions that draw people to the most popular web sites are finding personally useful information and having some way to be personally involved. Delay and censorship will defeat this purpose and potential. Therefore a workable discussion section would have the following characteristics: Description: * The link to the page should be prominently displayed on the opening page of the CofC web site and be further linked throughout the site. * The page itself would be open and immediate. That means anyone could read the recent posts and responses and when motivated, could submit a their own posting or reply which would immediately show up on the page. This means there could be no prior censorship (however, abusers could be blocked from future postings). It could be in the form of any one of the many Web bulletin board or "visitor sign-in" forms. * The posting could be archived monthly, or as often as needed, and links for past months listed. Only the assigned web masters would be able to delete or block abusers, but anyone could add their comments. Advantages and uses of an open discussion section: * Promotes free and open discussion about issues which members and others are concerned. * Immediate and free postings will encourage members and others to repeatedly come to and use the web site. * The more postings and users and the more the web site is publicized, further spreads the political messages and reaches new, potentially interested people. *Allows for quick exchange of political news, ideas and organizing information. * Promotes in-depth exchange, examination and involvement of political ideas and concerns, providing Correspondence and Dialogue in the best and largest forms. Allows for quick, free posting and exchange of CofC and related documents to members, chapters and friends. *Would save labor and costs for the national office and staff and organization as a whole. Leaflets and other documents could be easily posted, exchanged and reprinted as needed. Official documents posted to the web page could be referenced from here also. * More easily and effectively promote members input as to the content and usefulness of the web site. (Many other sites have been taking full advantage of this and their organization benefits. However, this works only if open and uncensored.) * An open and immediately accessible page helps the web master and staff avoid having an out-of-date site. Mistakes, corrections and additions can be suggested by the increasing numbers of users that care about the and use the site. 2. Post all official CofC documents (national, regional, state and local) on the site. This would promote and speed the organization and its work. It would save time and money. Members and chapter could read, disseminate and print out documents as needed. They could easily use the text in their own leaflets, newsletters, etc. The national staff would not have to wait for printing and the time for mailings before getting the word out. It would be easier for members and others to retrieve past documents and political resources. They would only have to mail to those without e-mail or access to the web. (Nowadays, these functions are almost always synonymous and so there will be a declining number of people dependent on snail mail. Further, those members who have faxes but no email should receive their mail by fax, which is cheaper and faster.) The Metro DC Chapter of the Committees of Correspondence
RESOLUTION TO REORGANIZE THE COFC Whereas, the founding articles and bylaws of the Committees of Correspondence clearly state the freedom and autonomy of the state, regional and local Committees of Correspondence; and Whereas, we are in a period of political development, nationally, internationally, and historically, which demands the freedom of experimentation, expression, research, observation and contemplation; and Whereas, top-down authoritarianism within progressive organization, once called "democratic centralism," has been sharply and comprehensively discredited by the exposure of the errors and crimes and Whereas, top-down authoritarianism within progressive organization, once called "democratic centralism," has been exposed in it weaknesses and errors by the long irrelevance of the Communist Party, USA, and other Left organizations in the United States, and by their inability to respond to historical events, to which it was fundamentally necessary to respond; and Whereas, the original Committees of Correspondence first formed in 1763 and blossomed in Massachusetts in 1772 with over 80 committees by the end of 1773 and for which we are named, which became the revolutionary committees of the 13 original British colonies in the Americas, were independent of each other, related loosely through a common goal, the liberty of these colonies from British oppression, and which had no central authority (prior to the formation of additional revolutionary activities); and Whereas, modern communications, including the Internet and E-mail, telephones, facsimiles, and surface and air mail, make a central command center unnecessary for relationships and communication between the individual Committees of Correspondence; Whereas the Committees of Correspondence has been losing members in recent years; and Whereas, the Committees of Correspondence has been losing members and local Committees in recent years, without any evidence of reversal; and Whereas, the economic burden of supporting a national staff and officers which are not capable of reversing losses nor are essential to defining effective directions is unacceptable to an organization such as the Committees of Correspondence, and Whereas, the present national staff and national officers of the Committees of Correspondence have not provided leadership to the organization and its members sufficient to overcome these discrepancies and take the organization forward after eight years of existence, and Whereas, some of the national staff and officers of the Committees of Correspondence have wasted time and effort over these years in sectarian in-fighting with other Left organizations, in spite of repeated calls from the national body to work together with them and even to unite with some; and Whereas, the national staff and some national officers of the Committees of Correspondence have favored development of some Committees and have neglected others, and Whereas, the national staff and some national officers of the Committees of Correspondence have clung to old ideas and terms which alienate us from the mainstream of Americans; and Whereas, the national staff and some national officers of the Committees of Correspondence have attacked state, regional and local Committees of Correspondence, in an effort to limit the thinking, actions and representations of those Committees; Therefore, be it resolved that the Committees of Correspondence reorganize themselves into individual local, state and regional Committees of Correspondence (under whatever names) with no central officers or staff; and Therefore, be it resolved that the individual Committees of Correspondence use the various contemporary means of communication to form continuing relationships, bearing themselves the costs of that communication; and Therefore, be it resolved that a majority of those Committees of Correspondence can call a national convention when they decide, organizing it according to their wisdom and assessing themselves for the costs of such convention; and Therefore, be it resolved that these Committees of Correspondence, together, singly, or in groups, may establish whatever task forces or working groups it may wish, by democratic decision making, using the communications systems available or by meeting; and Therefore, be it resolved that any moneys, property, funds or foundations presently owned by the central body of the Committees of Correspondence be reestablished and governed or distributed in a manner to be determined by a vote of the individual Committees of Correspondence. Jack Zylman, NCC representative at large and member of the Metro DC Committees of Correspondence
Whereas, the founding conference of the Committees of Correspondence, held in Berkeley in 1992 amidst a deep crisis of existing socialist societies and of social democratic and communist organizations, issued a call for a critical reappraisal of the socialist heritage and the development of new socialist approaches, consistent with the changed and rapidly changing conditions of life and work, in our country and globally, and Whereas, we identified the core of this perspective as an inseparable commitment to democracy and to socialism, and a rejection of exploitation and oppression in whatever form and of capitalist society, which is founded on exploitation and inequality; and Whereas, we asserted that this project could not be the exclusive work or possession of any single organization, but would emerge from wide discussion, debate and common experiences in struggle of progressives and socialists, and Whereas, this call met with a resounding response from significant sections of the socialist left who attended the Berkeley conference, and from more than 2,000 activists who joined the ranks of the CofC, an organization committed to building a new pluralist, non-sectarian, socialist movement, that would draw upon the experiences of members from diverse political backgrounds; and Whereas, we believe now, as then, that the continuing crisis of the organized socialist movement in the United States can only be addressed and overcome by the development of a democratic and socialist movement, flexible and non-sectarian in its outlook, inclusive in its organizational forms, and invigorated by the participation, ideas and experiences of wide sections of left activists; and Whereas any attempt to build such a movement or organization simply or primarily by merging existing socialist organizations would likely result in an organization, which would be less, rather than more, than the sum of its parts; and Whereas there are today hundreds of thousands or more activists in the most varied kinds of movements and organizations, among labor, students and intellectuals; in the African American, Latino and Asian communities; in the peace, religious, environmental and many other movements, who are socialist, and who do not belong to any of the various democratic socialist organizations; Therefore, be it resolved, *That the Third National Convention of the Committees of Correspondence recommits itself and its members to exploring and to organizing the joint exploration with our sisters and brothers in the movement, fundamental strategic questions whose answers, in the words of the Draft Discussion Document, provide a "long-term view of the dynamics of the major social classes and groups in the evolution of a socio-economic system, and in the transition from one such system to another ... an overall notion which affects all of our activities, since it rests on a comprehensive assessment of the balance of political, social and class forces ... these are questions which need to be rethought from the ground up, and that experience is likely to force continual and substantial rethinking for a considerable period. It is better to accept this uncertainty than to substitute for it certainties which will prove wrong and unwarranted." * We intend that "conducting this discussion is a contribution for our organization, for other socialists, and for the left and progressive movement in general." * We reiterate our belief, as we asserted at our founding convention, Òthat what is needed is a comprehensive approach linking progressive currents into a broad, on-going democratic force. We advocate a powerful, democratic political realignment, based on a new progressive social contract, which empowers the masses of American working, people. Such an ongoing coalition would strengthen the mutual support among movements, provide a framework for working out a common agenda, and greatly enhance the prestige and political influence of all of the coalition's constituent parts. It would allow the democratic forces to play a proactive, not only a reactive, role in national, state and local affairs." * We reaffirm our view that "it is likely and desirable that, in addition to this broad democratic realignment, there should be a coalescence of the new left and socialist forces which have arisen, and who are today mainly not in any organized form" and we commit ourselves to working toward "a much larger progressive and socialist organization, one more reflective of the working class and oppressed communities and the radical democratic movement than any existing organization ..., which would make the democratic, and socialist left into a much more influential force." *We recognize the need to reinvigorate the critical discussion of socialism, the active exploration of the current and future foundations on which a new kind of nonexploitative society might be built. This is a task of socialists the world over in which the CofC must participate. It will also necessarily involve a sober evaluation of the legacy, both positive and negative, of the socialist societies of the twentieth century. *The CofC views it as a major and ongoing project to explore with other socialists and left activists, both those in existing socialist organizations and the vast majority who belong to no socialist organization, ways of working together, common projects of struggle, forms for continuing discussion and dialogue, common efforts which would contribute to greater understanding and clarity, including but not limited to possible joint publications, Web sites, conferences, and common participation in struggle. Jay Schaffner, delegate, Metro New York CofC; and Barry Cohen, delegate, Metro New York CofC
The Committees of Correspondence, meeting in convention, resolves that in struggles against the predatory conduct of the United States on the world scene we must: 1) Shift emphasis from direct support of individual national liberation movements to pressure on the U.S. government, restraining its sabotage of Third World independence; 2) Take up issues not already addressed by the mass peace movement, and 3) Raise issues in a way that brings out the relationship between peace and international solidarity and illuminates the underlying operation of capitalism in the U.S. 4) priority issues might include: a) The indebtedness of Third World countries to Western banks and U.S. dominated multinational institutions (the International Monetary Fund and World Bank); b) The international arms trade, in particular massive sales by U.S. manufacturers of conventional arms, especially small arms, to repressive Third World regimes, fueling numerous ongoing wars responsible for catastrophic loss of life around the world; c) The responsibility of the U.S. in setting the conditions and tone for Pakistani and Indian nuclear testing. The role of domestic political pork barrel politics in driving U.S. nuclear weapons projects. Mort Frank, Philadelphia
Whereas: A goal of the American socialist movement, at least since the turn of the century has been the creation of an independent progressive political party in opposition to the two main capitalist parties. The separation of the masses of people from the Democratic Party is a necessary condition for political emancipation; and Whereas, there is presently no perceived threat of fascist rule in the U. S.; and Whereas, the low voter turnout and public distrust of politicians prove that increasing numbers believe the current electoral system to be undemocratic, unresponsive, corrupt and prejudiced; and Whereas, more voters have become willing to support alternative parties or candidates on specific issues or occasions, viz. Bernie Sanders, Jessie Ventura, the growing support for campaign finance reform legislation; and Whereas, new independent political formations, based on various constituencies, have appeared and have elected a few local officials, and on occasion, have achieved a balance of power position; and Whereas, there are differences in politics, composition and strategy among these diverse groups: Labor Party, Greens, Peace and Freedom Party and Unity Party all favor a complete break with the capitalist parties while the New Party, Working Families Party and other groups opt for a fusion strategy, running the same candidate as the Democratic Party, but on their own separate line; Whereas, some independent political formations see building their own party through grass roots activity and recruitment as their most pressing immediate goal; others believe it is still necessary to maintain ties with and support progressive Democratic Party candidates who reflect, or can be pressured to support, the will, needs and aspirations of working people, people of color, women, gays and lesbians and youth, until larger and more stable independent political and electoral formations can prove their viability, effectiveness and principled conduct; Whereas, each of these groups wishes to maintain its identity, principles, agenda, membership base and short and long term strategy, a situation which presently prevents the coalescing of a united anti-capitalist political party; Therefore be it resolved that the 3rd National Convention of CofC: 1. reaffirms its position of supporting all current independent, progressive political formations and new ones which may be organized; 2. prioritizes the Labor Party and the Greens as the only two national formations that advocate the need to break with the two party system; 3. encourages discussion and networking among the independent groups aimed at building coalitions that can lead to unity of independent progressive political forces around specific actions, campaigns or candidates; 4. will continue to support progressive Democrats where the politics and the relationship of forces justify this step; 5. pledges to support steps to democratize the electoral process: i.e. ending winner-take-all elections, proportional representation and similar electoral systems, progressive campaign reform legislation, etc. 6-sees no conflict or contradiction between activist struggle (street heat) and independent progressive electoral action. Both are necessary to win reforms and concessions and are part of a strategy that lays the basis for more fundamental future changes. NYCofC Coordinating Committee
DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW SOCIALIST PARTY
1. Whereas, we the working people of the United States and our sisters and brothers world wide face the growing consolidation of Global finance capital led by the United States; and 2. Whereas, due to this growing consolidation of finance capital, the resulting growing economic schism and the role of neoliberal policies nationally and internationally, working people through out the world are suffering major losses politically, economically and socially; and 3. Whereas, people and communities of color have been most effected by the neoliberal assault, including the dismantling of social reforms such as welfare, health care, and education, as well as the expansion of a prison industrial complex to control, incarcerate, and execute oppressed people and the relentless attacks of immigrant workers; and 4. Whereas, we reaffirm our commitment to Marxism, we recognize the urgent need to critically reappraise and evaluate socialist theory and practice. At the same time we recognize that the loss of socialism has reversed history and created misery for the people of Eastern Europe, Africa and the former Soviet Union; and 5. Whereas, the U.S. aggressive, militaristic, foreign policy has sharpened our differences with social- democrats whose definition of left is limited to supporting reforms in the market economy, and are therefore incapable of taking revolutionary action against capitalism; and 6. Whereas, the left is broader than existing socialist organizations and consists today of thousands of activists involved in various social and workers movements, e.g., African American, Latina/o, Asian(s), gender, sexual orientation, environmental, educational, etc.; and 7. Whereas, there exists a generation gap between older Marxists and the progressives and radicals of the 90s; and 8. Whereas, leftist reality today is largely defined by single issue and identity politics with no particular strategy or unifying concept of class; and 9. Whereas, while growing imperialist consolidation and the implementation of neoliberal capitalist policies are forcing down the living standards of the world's working class, it is also creating greater contradictions in the U.S. and the world; and 10. Whereas, there is an absence of a socialist organization that can strategically stitch together a mission, a vision and action plans that create revolutionary intersections and confluence between national movements, women's movements, workers movements, electoral formations, environmental movements, sexual orientation movements, etc. and help to map a path to a socialist society. Such an organization is not envisioned as a substitute for any of these groupings. A new socialist party will help lead us to a society that is democratic and puts the needs and dreams of people ahead of profit for the few; and 11. Whereas, today's party must be based upon a need and an assessment of present reality, it must be democratic, inclusive, nonsectarian and based on a set of principles developed by a broad collective of groups and individuals; 12. Therefore, be it resolved, that the Committees of Correspondence recognizes the need to help build a new party; and 13. Be it further resolved that in order to do so it must consciously develop a plan, along with other socialist and leftist organizations and individuals, to create a party that helps to develop a strategic confluence of leftist social movements and aggressively fights on every level (locally, nationally and internationally) to build a socialist world of societies that are democratic and put the needs and dreams of people ahead of profit for the few; and 14. Be it further resolved that the plan to build this future party must embody the revolutionary dynamism of oppressed nationalities in the U.S.; and 15. Be it finally resolved that the national Committees of Correspondence form a task force charged with developing such a plan. The Los Angeles Committee of Correspondence
A JOURNAL ADDRESSED TO THE BROAD LEFT
Whereas, the most important contribution we have to make to rebuilding the socialist movement is our ideas. We have a body of thinking, an ideology, which is in some ways unique and which it is our obligation to bring to the attention of the progressive community. Yet we sell ourselves short. Our publications, in their content and limited distribution, hardly speak to that community. They look like, and effectively are, house organs, not designed to address the general left public. It is difficult to imagine how CofC can maintain itself and grow without a respected periodical that many readers in that community will look to for information, clarification and perhaps guidance. Moreover, it can help anchor and inform the work of chapters and members in mass organizations and contribute to building a more coherent and united body. We have not put enough energy and resources into making our publications our best public face. In consideration that, CofC would be best served by issuing a journal addressed to a broad left audience which reflects our political direction and views. It should be informative, interesting, well designed and attractive. It should be a CofC publication, but others should be invited to write for as well as read it. (It could be supplemented by an organizational newsletter.) Furthermore, there is a special niche we may be best qualified to fill and which is desperately needed, an area not adequately covered by any existing publication: reportage, analysis, discussion and controversy about the work and politics of the movements of popular struggle. Over time we should be able to establish an inviting presence for left activists and play a role in bringing into cooperation many of the disparate movements which now dot the political landscape. Additionally, we should be following the U.S. economy and politics, as well as international developments, especially Cuba and South Africa, while paying attention to the left governments in Europe, third world struggles and the historic outcome in the Soviet Union and the former "socialist" countries. We could bring news of what left intellectual centers like EPI, IPS and African American study institutes in universities are doing and carry timely information about the Labor Party, The Congressional Progressive Caucus and Black Caucus and more. Therefore, this convention looks favorably on the above concept and establishes a committee to explore avenues to the creation of such a publication, including all questions of politics, finances, personnel, means and method of operation and to report its recommendations to the CofC National Coordinating Committee in a timely manner. NYCofC Coordinating Committee
ON PEACE AND INTERNATIONAL SOLIDARITY
Whereas, the experience of the first decade of the post cold-war world proves that modern capitalism remains predatory, militarist and imperialist; and Whereas, the U.S. government's build up, use and global trade in nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, its refusal to sign the international treaty prohibiting landmines, its environmental destruction from nuclear waste poses grave dangers to the entire globe; and Whereas, U.S. policy is oriented toward seeking politically cost-free ways to translate its military supremacy into greater economic and political power, especially by the conduct of air wars and the "projection of power" in limited, small-scale engagements, using its domestic racist and sexist tactics to fan ethnic rivalries that pit peoples of other countries against each other for political and economic control; and Whereas, the U.S. military budget which feeds the huge military industrial complex continues to grow to unprecedented levels with current spending superceding the next 10 countries combined; and Whereas, the dangerous expansion of NATO which could create a total weapons market of $35 billion over the next decade will further undermine world peace; and Whereas, the U.S. military budget must be drastically cut in order to fund badly needed social services such as education, health care, child care, recreation centers, youth programs, drug/alcohol/nicotine rehabilitation, senior services, and housing; and Whereas, the greatest contribution to international solidarity and peace today is the fight for nuclear disarmament, the destruction of all weapons of mass destruction, an end to the arms trade, and the drastic reduction of the U.S. military budget; Be it resolved, that the Committees of Correspondence focus its international solidarity and peace efforts on campaigns for nuclear disarmament and all weapons of mass destruction including participation in Abolition 2000; Be it further resolved, that the CofC target significant reductions in the military budget and link it to the struggle to fund social programs including defense of Affirmative Action and the fight for living wages with health care and child care; And finally be it resolved, that the CofC call for the dissolution of NATO, and work to demand U.S. financial support of the United Nations as well as political support for the strengthening of the role of the United Nations in resolving conflicts around the world.
Metro New York CofC
Whereas, there is general agreement that we need to develop "an organization with a vision of socialism," and Whereas, the CofC needs to discuss the "political issues of the day, the forces involved, and to put forward a socialist analysis" and in fact, this can be the glue to hold our organization together and arm our membership to make contributions in the diverse struggles of the period; and Whereas, this will enable socialists to understand the relationship of struggling for concessions and mounting a real challenge to the power of corporate capital; and Whereas, capitalism proclaims that "there is no alternative" (TNA), socialists must advance challenges, learning from the achievements and failings of the old socialist models and emphasize the democratic processes and involvement of people. We must also study the effects of the explosion of new technology and scientific methods; and Whereas, ideological and educational development must be shaped in conjunction with those on the left who are seeking the same goals; and Whereas, a socialist organization is by its very nature ideological and educational, Therefore Be It Resolved: That we encourage the continued production on a regular basis of study outlines reflecting diverse and broad socialist views; That we initiate and work in conjunction with others for forums and debates; That we develop discussion and exchange of opinions on the organization's web site; That Dialogue & Initiative reflect controversies on ideological, political and educational issues and review books, films and other popular cultural expressions. The NYCofC Forum Committee
Whereas, one of the founding purposes of the CofC was advancing socialist unity by socialist networking, and; Whereas, the American Revolution owes much of its success to the work of the original CofC, and; Whereas, no other socialist organization has made this a major goal, and; Whereas, we need a project that is uniquely CofC, and; Whereas, the current technology based on computers and the internet makes this project very doable, and; Whereas, the CofC already has a web page; Therefore, be it resolved, that the CofC explore the possibility of establishing a socialist/left webpage to share political and ideological positions, tactics, strategies, activities and information of as many socialist/left organizations as possible. Bill Hagel, Queens, NYCofC
Whereas, Guatemala's progressive movement has united in a left coalition, the ANN (New Nation Alliance); and Whereas, the first election since the signing of the peace accords will be held on November 7, 1999; Be It resolved, that the CofC: 1) Send a letter of support to the ANN; 2) Urge people to go to Guatemala as election observers; 3) Send a donation for the ANN campaign; 4) Hold a forum after the elections. The New York CofC
Whereas, leadership in the CofC can be improved; Be it resolved that in the CofC, leadership should be encouraged to promote the work and growth of the organization. The guidelines for this should be based on the promotion of democracy, respect, and dialogue, and the avoidance of sectarianism, disrespect of members and personally hostile criticism. Such an approach should more often begin with a "yes, let's talk" than a "no, you are wrong!" DC/MD/VA CofC
Proposal to change the name of the organization to "Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism." Submitted by the National Coordinating Committee
Be it resolved that the Committees of Correspondence should change its name to The Alliance for Socialism and Ecology for the following reasons: Whereas, 99 percent of people who hear our name don't know what it means and the other 1 percent are not sure; and Whereas, an organization's name needs to state what the organization stands for if it wants to attract the public's interest rather than the interest of a select group of activists; and Whereas, we have already agreed that we are for "socialism" (although our definitions may differ); and Whereas, the concept of "ecology" is the best compliment to our idea of socialism in terms of the type of organization we should aspire to be. Ecology encompasses the way human beings relate both to each other and to the planet to further the survival and development of the Earth and its inhabitants, and Whereas, the first contradiction of capitalism, between capital and labor, is accompanied, according to ecological socialist theory, by the second contradiction of capitalism, that between capital and the ecology of the planet, and the second contradiction is closer to the conscious awareness of masses of people; and Whereas, often when we think of changing our name we tend to want to use the term "democratic" to supplement the term "socialism" to take the opportunity to separate ourselves from people's concepts of previous socialist societies, but such use of the term "democracy" inevitably falls into the trap woven by the unfortunate fact that "democracy" has been deliberately associated in people's minds with "capitalism." Therefore be it resolved, that the scientifically correct name we should adopt to make the link between "socialism" and the growing awareness of the need to save our planet is The Alliance for Socialism and Ecology. Alan Weinerman, Member, CofC, San Francisco
We propose that local chapters not be told what to name themselves. They can and should refer to themselves as chapters of the CofC, but as had been recognized on many occasions, local organizers do use various names for their local work and can add to or follow "CofC" with relevant and beneficial descriptions of their group which aid in their local efforts. Just as local groups freely name a newsletter or title a leaflet or local project as they think best, so too they can and should use titles that help them better organize. If they use a name that somehow can be shown to harm the work of other chapters, that would be an offense worthy of corrective action. Currently, chapters add to or precede CofC with descriptive names such as: Lower East Side Chapter, NY Committees of Correspondence, Metro DC Committees of Correspondence (We have not used CofC of DC/MD/VA as too cumbersome). As examples, such names might be: People for Economic, Social and Political Justice, CofC PESPJ-CofC Metro DC for Justice, CofC MDCJ-CofC For Progress and Justice in Washington, CofC FPJW-CofC Metro DC for a Democratic and Socialist Future, CofC MDCDSF-CofC Progress and Justice in Metro DC, CofC PJMDC-CofC Social, Economic and Political Justice in Metro DC, CofC SEPJMDC-CofC Justice for All in Metro DC, CofC JAMDC-CofC The Metro DC Chapter of the CofC
REPORT AND CONVENTION RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE COFC MIDWEST REGIONAL MEETING At the Midwest Regional meeting held in West Lafayette, IN on July 10th, 11 members attended from Chicago, IL, Gary, IN, Louisville, KY, and West Lafayette. A spirited and serious discussion of the need for a CofC, its functions, its weaknesses, and the changes that should be made in its organization and policies in the short-run were addressed during the five hour meeting. The following recommendations were adopted for consideration by the 3rd National Convention: 1) We recommend the establishment of a Socialist Theory and Research Task Force. This Task Force would encourage and stimulate research, writing, and debate about the array of theoretical issues that must inform our practice. This includes issues such as what we mean by socialism, the role of markets in a socialist society, the role of the state in the era of capitalist globalization, the relative import of finance vs. manufacturing capital, the role of classes in the new century, reconfiguring class, race, and gender etc. Over the long run, such an effort could lead to a socialist "think tank." (Carl Davidson and Harry Targ would be willing to convene such a Task Force in the post-convention period and Carl Davidson would be willing to organize a meeting of such a group of interested persons at the summer, 1999 national convention). 2) We recommend that CofC continue its commitment to activism and struggle and over time we find ways to better integrate the development of theory with such activism. 3) We recommend that priorities be given to coalition work around the struggles against racism, domestic violence, violence against sectors of the U.S. people, and for radical change in the criminal "justice" system. 4) We recommend the development of coalition work around peace, anti-militarism, and anti-imperialism. 5) We recommend that theoretical and practical efforts be made to more effectively incorporate women's issues into the work of the CofC. Particularly, efforts should be made to network with progressive sectors of the women's movement and to incorporate insights from feminist theory. While there is a need to identify and prioritize the struggles against sexism and racism in CofC in the coming period, we recommend that all our work, theoretical and activist, must be infused by these concerns. Specifically, we recommend that the national convention plenary session on Class, Race, and Gender include programmatic recommendations for the coming period in CofC. At the conclusion of the meeting, participants agreed to submit these recommendations for consideration at the national convention. They also agreed to continue to organize Midwest regional meetings in the future, annually or biannually.
DISCUSSION ON THE DRAFT DOCUMENT FOR THE 3RD NATIONAL CONVENTION OF THE COMMITTEES OF CORRESPONDENCE The following articles were submitted in response to the Draft Convention Discussion Document printed in the previous issue of the Corresponder (April/May 1999):
A WELL-BALANCED DOCUMENT WITH AMAZING QUESTIONS by Annette T. Rubinstein New York City It is, I think, altogether a good, comprehensive, well-balanced piece. There are, however, some amazing omissions which could be remedied by the insertion of a few words or an easily available statistic. For example, in the 2nd paragraph on p. 6 instead of the colorless "economic realities" one might say "we remain a country where over 23 percent of our children living beneath the poverty line mock the goal of created equal." Of course, the single omission here is not important but nowhere in the entire ten page document is there a single mention of children! Similarly in the many listings of disadvantaged groups, including several relatively small ones, there is nowhere a hint of any concern about the discrimination and immiseration suffered by the very large and growing group of older people. Another major omission occurs on p. 8 in the lst paragraph listing Clinton's criminal policy which should certainly include his murderous violation of international law in the bombing of Iraq and Yugoslavia, destruction of the vital waterways in Bulgaria and Romania and, indeed of the entire environment for generations to come. In the 2nd paragraph on p. 13 the fifth line should conclude with the insertion of "who vote," they may express themselves politically through the Democratic Party but the majority express their attitude toward both major parties by not voting. Verbally the last sentence of the 3rd paragraph, 2nd column is confusing. It would be clearer to say that in spite of the media blitz two-thirds of all voters polled remained firmly against impeachment. I very strongly support the substantial minority that opposes making the living wage campaign THE rather than A major issue. In addition to the reasons you give, it seriously underemphasizes the importance of the fight for employment - a major issue for African American and Puerto Rican youth. I was glad to see the emphasis on the need for socialist education in 3A on p. 9, but would have liked to see a little more discussion. I would also personally like to see some analysis of the truly tragic deliberate destruction of our educational system from Head Start to City College (NY) Ñ the attack on open admissions, the end of remedial work, the conscious attempt to create a lumpen sector out of that part of the reserve army of labor no longer needed. But this I suppose is rather a matter for that socialist education, not for a convention document. That general approach is, I think, really well done except for the truly shocking lack of any awareness of, or concern about, children and old people. Which will, I trust, be remedied. I should say I was happy with most of the other material in the issue (Corresponder April/May 1999) although the fifth section of "Goals and Principles" on p. 32 seemed rather windy and unreal. As Prince Hal said, "Here's a monstrous deal of sack for a poor ha' penny worth of bread!" With all comradely good wishes.
ON THE CONVENTION DISCUSSION DOCUMENT
by Danny Rubin The Discussion Document is a step forward in clarity on the present situation - the role of the CofC and how to build it. I have no important disagreements, yet in several respects I see in it inconsistency, ambiguity and some confusion.
Need for CofC and Its Role The need for a socialist organization arises from the fact that capitalism past, present and future, necessarily causes great harm to all humanity, especially to our multinational, male-female working class, to the nationally oppressed and to women (multi-class categories). While reforms must certainly be fought for and will be won, capitalism can not be patched up and reformed. Its inherent nature is based on private ownership of the means of production and distribution, operating in pursuit of maximum profit, achieved by the capitalists through economic exploitation of all workers - those in traditional jobs and in the new technical-intellectual strata of the working class. The basic contradiction inherent in capitalism between the increasingly interdependent social character of production and private capitalist ownership of the means of production and appropriation underlies all its current anti-people qualities, problems and crises. An organization is needed which understands this and projects a socialism based on US conditions that will resolve this basic contradiction and that is based on science rather than utopian wishes not related to actual development or doctrinaire statist models that do not fit our reality, as they came not to fit technological development in the Soviet Union. There is a necessary connection between (1) a scientific concept of socialism for the US (2) a sound estimate of the situation today, above all the relationship of forces (3) grasping the general road of progress through different stages of struggle to the general construction of socialism and (4) a scientific methodology. Without any one of these it is very difficult for the other aspects to exist in any full measure. I believe this explains big limitations of other organizations that are avowedly socialist. Achieving and maintaining a sufficient level of these qualities to warrant characterization as a scientific socialist organization is a never-ending process. To do this while still welcoming people with other views is the challenge. This does not come at once nor by fiat. Yet such an organization is needed because the spontaneous class struggle of trade unions, etc. and other mass struggles can not give rise themselves to a socialist consciousness, the foundations of which were laid by Marx, Engels and Lenin. Such a science requires study and investigation, building on what has gone before and creatively taking into account ever new developments. Class struggle alone can produce receptivity to scientific socialism but there is the need for an organization that seeks to develop it, to influence the course of democratic struggle on the basis of that outlook, and continually to win more advocates of socialism. What the working class and all other potentially progressive strata of the people and their mass democratic struggle has to gain from the existence of such a growing socialist organization, is not only why capitalism needs to be replaced by socialism and what socialism is. It can help the mass democratic struggle find its way, achieve more victories, avoid more defeats, avoid diversion and advance with fewer difficulties by making clear who is the main enemy and who are potential allies at each stage, the potential leading role of the working class and the importance of alliance with the African American people as a whole, Latinos and the nationally oppressed generally and with women, what is the central task at each stage, how to build class unity and multi-class alliance, etc. A socialist organization can only play this role if it seeks to develop its theory, its conception of US socialism, of the strategic path to it, its tactics for implementing the strategy while participating in struggle in a non-dogmatic way. It must realize it does not and can not have all the answers itself, that it can and must learn from all other progressive-minded forces and even from some who are generally on the other side of the class divide. It must accept the likelihood that there will be other organizations also capable of playing a leading role in the struggle for social progress and socialism. It must learn by experience in struggle. It must be as closely connected as possible with the struggles of working people, of the nationally oppressed and with the new left that is arising in these struggles if it is to learn and be able to develop a scientific socialism. It needs to study both the classics of Marxism to grasp its methodology and judge what remains valid and what is outmoded but also other social thought and research data, the policies and estimates of the CofC itself, the organizational methods of building, etc. On the other hand, the CofC, DSA, the Socialist Party and others demonstrate how difficult it is to maintain and develop active local branches and how easy it is for them to whither and disappear if there is a relatively unclear outlook as to theory and methodology, strategy and on what socialism is - which is the content of the special contributions of the CofC. Involvement in local struggles in the absence of this becomes individual good deeds that do not lead to further development and, therefore, can not compete with single-issue mass organizations and community- based organizations. There is no reason to function as a local organization. It is not possible to develop sound political analysis of the current situation, strategy, theory and methodology without the CofC organization being involved in the mass democratic struggle and evaluating that experience of trying to apply its policies. It will also find it impossible to grow and even hold its members, recruit workers and the nationally oppressed if it does not itself play a role in social struggle. Nor is it possible for the CofC to engage for long in such struggle without seeking to make a special contribution based on having an immediate and strategic policy which flows from its theory and methodology.
Pluralism, Democracy and Ability to Act
One of CoC's strengths has been the variety of viewpoints and backgrounds of its members and leadership and the ability of such views to get a serious hearing. The resulting exchange of views help assure sounder conclusions and avoidance of getting off track. This reason for the necessity of a certain kind of pluralism has to be put together with the following problem: a socialist organization like CofC has to be a militant fighter for progress and socialism if it is to justify its existence and attract and keep a membership, especially among hard pressed working people, which includes the nationally oppressed generally. That is a tough problem to solve adequately and we need to keep working at it. In favoring pluralism we all have some idea of limits on what the scope of discussion should be. It is not a matter of restricting what anyone can say or setting ideological litmus tests for being accepted into membership. But we do not put our energy into the CofC to spend it permitting openly reactionary and racist views to be the center of discussion. While we welcome people to membership who like our activities and positions on issues who are not sure they are for socialism, we would not like to focus discussion on whether or not capitalism should be replaced by socialism as though our position on that had not been settled. Yet our pluralism should include: what is a US socialism, is it simply desirable or is it also inevitable, what is the path to it, etc.? We have not had enough discussion on such questions and on other questions of strategy and theory, but not because anyone is against it. It has to be given a higher priority and be organized. Even so there has been so much pluralism in the leading CofC bodies on the nature and role of the CofC and, therefore what its main activities should be and how carried out, that there is often near paralysis. There often is not a stable majority to pursue any course of policy and activity. If that continues for a period of time and exerts itself on all issues, the CofC will be unable to grow, will stagnate, and even disappear. How to solve this problem? For some, all of this gives rise to the notion the CofC should dissolve or be allowed to whither away to be replaced by a left and/or socialist think-tank institute and/or political-theoretical periodical of exchange of views among an even wider circle (in viewpoint) of left and socialist-minded people. For others, with a similar estimate of the future of CofC, they say CofC will not be missed and at some time in the future when conditions in the country are riper, a more successful left or socialist formation will come into being. Yet others, feeling the CofC presently is too diverse in politics to get anything done, question whether it should or will continue unless it becomes avowedly "Marxist" or even a "democratic communist party." While the CofC has not achieved the level of political cohesion, activity and contribution to the development of mass democratic struggle and of the left, nor its own growth and composition, many of us had hoped or even expected, its existence has been and continues to be important. It has shown an ability to work with others, democratic community and labor forces, left and socialist forces, and many individual members and some local CofC organizations, as well as the National organization, have contributed to struggles on various issues partly as a result of wider, collective influences of being part of the CofC. It has shown the possibility of building a socialist organization that functions democratically and yet effectively (with limitations). In particular places and moments it has shown the possibility of some growth and with acceptable composition. It has provided an imperfect home for well over a thousand socialist and Marxist-minded people at a time of strong danger of dispersion into the unorganized mass of socialists. This would also result in dispersion of political views which usually follows from a lack of a united organizational home, with its common experiences in struggle, exchange of views and study of strategy and theory. If the CofC were to go out of existence without a concrete perspective of another organization soon coming into being that would likely attract all or nearly all of its present membership, a lot would be lost. There would be dispersal of its members in every sense and they would become gun-shy, unwilling to make a commitment to something new and unproven after such dissolution. Individualism would completely take over. If the outlook is for a political and theoretical discussion periodical and/or an institute to replace it, these are useful things but disconnected from a socialist organization that also encompasses struggle on issues, their usefulness is greatly limited and they will embrace intellectuals only. Most workers and nationally oppressed would not find a home in such a form, yet they are the necessary base of any significant socialist organization. There is a need to achieve a working majority with greater agreement on the role of the working class, the role of the African American and nationally oppressed people generally, on international solidarity, on a common estimate of the central task today, on elements of strategy, on the basics of a US socialism and the main ways the CofC should work to make a special contribution and grow. This would constitute a great influence of Marxism. Because of the way things have developed in this country and internationally, those who consider themselves "Marxist" and/or "Communist" organizations embrace all the differences existing within the left and even beyond, if we include extreme national chauvinist and anti-Semitic views of some self-proclaimed "communists." Therefore, self-characterization as "Marxist" or "democratic Communist Party" resolves nothing except pushing away some good people who do not view themselves as Marxist adherents, though open to it, in part because of often crazy positions that some calling themselves "Marxists" express. Still others because of perceived weaknesses of the CofC, move in the direction of treating the CofC as a holding action, useful mainly if it is able to help something much bigger and broader. But unintentionally a holding action approach will lead to rather quick dissolution and it will play no role in building something else. Who wants to devote precious time and energy to an organization if it has no future and is a holding action? There are many questions about what else we would like to see, whether a periodical, a coalition, or membership organization? The most important question is what will its leading politics likely be? And if the answer to that is as I think likely, not a creative, flexible development of scientific socialism, then there will still be a need for a CofC type organization and periodicals distinct from a new formation, while it is a part of any such development. How is it possible to maintain a wide range of discussion in CofC and yet be able to follow a more or less consistent policy and engage in activities and struggles based on that? We need a more or less stable political majority in the leading bodies, along with substantial voices that raise other points of view on particular issues or on over-all direction. The majority needs to be open-minded to the views of others and not just lock-step marchers. Those who frequently differ need to accept the idea that the majority view should be given a substantial period of trial in practice to prove itself and, therefore, avoid continually trying to reverse prior majority conclusions. I would rather see positions that prove wrong get a real trial than paralysis, because paralysis is a guarantee of lingering or even quick death, while trying things gives hope of finding ever better answers. Such a more or less stable majority can be achieved not by dropping anyone because of their politics but by addition, through filling open slots, etc.
How to Implement Policies and Campaigns
It is in this context, the need to be able to pursue a policy and activities that flow from it, that the question of how to participate in struggle, what is a CofC activist, and of the living wage campaign assume importance. I offer some ideas based on 45 years experience in the CPUSA and its youth movement from club chair to 31 years in its national leadership, ten as National Organization Secretary. During those years, there always existed the tendencies that now exist in the CofC, DSA and other groups. There was not nor could there be a final resolution of such differences. One answer will not fit all situations, at all times, or on all issues. There is a need to avoid attempting to universalize policy at either extreme. On the one hand, we should not try and do everything in the name of the CofC and have everyone publicly identify as part of the CofC organization. Some members will not so identify themselves in some or all situations. There are justified reasons for this in places, and sometimes not justified, subjective feelings and wrong approaches which can not be overcome by majority decision, which require discussion and time, or may never change. On the other hand, some see no importance of the organization engaging in struggle in its own name and virtually all its members identifying themselves as socialists, as CofC members at least to a couple of close co-workers on the job, in the community in a mass organization, to some identifying themselves to everyone as such. While such an approach would have been understandable at the height of McCarthyism, justification on security grounds is much less important and becoming even less so. One must also start with a bias toward trying to move toward greater public presence and acceptance for the organization and its membership. There will be a multitude of ways the CofC projects itself, always attempting to work with other forces, hopefully as part of a coalition with each carrying on their own activities as well as in joint forms.
A National Action Campaign and the Living Wage
There are some who do not think there should be any national action campaign. One argument is the CofC should provide political analysis for its members participating in other organizations and movements to influence those groups. In this view, CofC is too small and isolated to carry out a national campaign and expect anyone else to respond. It would be a sectarian venture competing with the important work of members participating in these broader avenues. The CofC does have to develop an approach to political analysis that will help its members active in other organizations make a greater contribution there flowing from collectivity and CofC membership. During McCarthyism it was understandable that the CPUSA did not act much in its own or closely related names. But it played an initiating role and discussed how most members through many channels could advance the Stockholm Peace Appeal against nuclear war that achieved several million signatures. The last national effort of significance was that to free Angela Davis in the 1970s. Again a large proportion of members participated through many forms, left forms, open CP forms, through democratic organizations in which members were regularly active and ad hoc forms. With respect to campaigns, there were several typical weaknesses which, despite differences in times and in the character of the organizations, still express themselves in various ways. We frequently tried to take on too many campaigns at once for the size and status of the organization, often resulting in little traction on anything. Another was resistance at the local level to doing anything on any issues except local ones they were already involved in. This was a go-it-alone tendency that denied the value and validity of national collectivity, national concentration of effort that when related closely to the local issues produced the possibility for meaningful qualitative change, not just isolated good deeds that did not develop further. It also provided both aspects of what is necessary for a "realistic" approach to struggle - (1) related to smaller local demands that can be achieved relatively soon but do not change conditions much when won; (2) the realism of national issues which when won can make a significant difference in living conditions but can not be won just by a brief effort in one place. As to the CP national office, our main weakness was we often pushed the national campaign in a mechanical way, insufficiently taking into account each local situation, what they were involved in and how to relate the national campaign to that in a natural way. Today it is not understandable if an organization has no national issue campaign of a public character. What is the organization, an elitist analyzer and string-puller with a hidden agenda? When a working person is asked to join or participate in CofC activities and asks what do you do, it is not enough to answer we analyze from a socialist perspective, give leads to our members how to influence other organizations they are members of, and we have forums and study groups. They want to know whether you prove yourselves by engaging in struggle on issues of concern to them. They can understand members will act on issues in many different ways including where they are already involved. They will understand this activity via other groups only if the CofC discusses it as part of what it will do and strives for some fully open or semi-open forms of CofC expression that fit what its members will do and local circumstances. Over time the activities more directly by the CofC should become a larger proportion of what is done by the organization as it becomes a more accepted participant and initiator, etc. This is important both for the potential growth of the CofC and for the political health of the democratic and left forces. It was a good thing, therefore, for the CofC to decide on a campaign on an issue of struggle. While there are other issues that are worth considering in addition to or instead of the living wage, it is good that the organization settles on the living wage. It does not really have the organizational strength at this time to undertake more than one long term, on-going campaign. And this issue is especially well-suited for the type of organization the CofC is. It is of basic concern to the lives of working people, of the nationally oppressed and it is closely related to on-going activity of the labor movement on this issue in city ordinances and possibly a Federal law for government contracts providing a requirement of a significantly higher wage than the minimum. In advancing a fuller concept of a living wage containing major elements of a "social wage" it helps advance understanding of what is just and right and who opposes that, it moves toward understanding of how capitalism functions. It needs to combine support for the more minimal proposals of the labor movement with support for the more advanced proposal. In the present situation there is little danger local organizations and members will drop what they are working on for the sake of activity on the living wage, nor that the national leadership will concentrate all attention on it to the exclusion of the immediate issues, now against the bombing of Yugoslavia and police brutality. The main problem will be a tendency to ignore the national campaign and not see how to creatively relate it to what is being done locally and for even the national office to have problems in keeping with the campaign because of lack of experience with a national campaign, resistance to anything from a national center and just having too much to do. Such resistance, of course, will only be intensified if the national leadership were to press the national campaign on local areas in a rigid and non-creative way.
The Importance of a Sound Estimate of the Current Situation
The crucial thing for a socialist organization is to have a more or less sound estimate of the current political situation in the US. This is above all an estimate of the relationship of the class and social forces. An incorrect estimate means that every thing you do will run ahead of the actual situation and thereby isolate you from the basic masses (working class, African American and Latino peoples), fail to contribute to their maximum unity, and weaken potential growth of socialist organization, and perhaps even disunify and unintentionally help the main enemy. Or it will tail developments, not project the more advanced demands, forms of struggle, organization, and alliances that are possible, thus undermining a special contribution and justification for socialist organization. The balance of forces remains closely drawn. Reaction controls the Republican Party, holds the Senate, narrowly holds the House, holds the Supreme Court, and most of the judiciary, most of the Governorships, about half the state legislatures and a number of big city mayoralties. It consists of a significant section of big business (that now overwhelmingly finances the Republicans in the final elections), social conservatives, anti-government libertarians, Buchanan nativists and the neo-fascist militias, etc. Reaction has suffered some important defeats, especially the attempt to impeach Clinton and push the country to the right. And this has sharpened some of the inherent differences within the camp of reaction. But it is evident reaction is planning to recoup and will achieve sufficient unity through the candidacy of George Bush and as a result of Clinton's war against Yugoslavia. Most likely Bush, a "compassionate conservative," will be the Republican candidate and at this writing he would easily beat Gore or Bradley. If he does so, he will certainly save the Republican House majority. The opposition to reaction's anti-people, pro-extra profits agenda is labor and the working class, the African American, Latino, other nationally oppressed people, Jewish people in their overwhelming majority and women by a substantial but smaller majority. It can only defeat reaction in the coming elections via a Gore victory and a Democratic majority in the House and Senate. The strategic task before the country is to render a big defeat of reaction by electoral and non-electoral struggle and this will remain the strategic task until it is accomplished, no matter how long it takes. Only then will it be possible to make the main focus of struggle (as distinct from agitation and propaganda, which also have a place) radical democratization of the country by significant curbing of the power of the transnationals as a whole and advancing a progressive alternative and program. Who has to be and can be united for each of these two different stages of strategy differs significantly when examined on the basis of objective self interest and level of consciousness. There are many workers, nationally oppressed and most from the middle strata who do not now understand the necessity to radically curb the power of the whole of the transnationals but who can be won to oppose the program of reaction. To do this, reaction has to be treated as the main enemy and the Clinton Administration and most Democrats must be treated as temporary allies, though not very reliable, if only for the sake of being able to unite the great bulk of labor, African American, Latino peoples, etc., who see them that way. In fact, a careful analysis of positions and actions of the Clinton Administration on most questions will show democratic masses are right in seeing a significant difference with reaction on the issues of greatest concern. They are justly critical on most questions and have no great confidence in the Clintonites. For us socialists, this does not mean we can not be critical of Clinton and Gore or that we should not put forward agitationally more advanced demands and on specific issues take on the more realistic sector of the transnationals associated with Clinton, but it means clarity on whom is the main enemy now. It means an avoidance of any form of abstentionism - as from the Presidential elections, or support only for candidates on party lines not dominated by the transnationals, or only press on issues as if who wins is of no significance. It means at this stage, critical support of candidates to defeat reactionary ones. In the present relationship of forces, it is indispensable to render a major, lasting rebuff to reaction to prepare for the future, to being able to advance a serious progressive alternative and program that sets out to seriously improve the lives of working people at the expense of the economic and political power of the transnationals as a whole. In the present stage, we need to prepare the way for the next stage in which a contending party will have to be built led by labor and based on alliance with the African American people and Latino peoples, together with all other anti-transnational forces. That requires strengthening the independent way in which labor, the African American people and other democratic sectors participate, in terms of political position, independent electoral apparatus, financing, etc. even while still in the Democratic Party orbit. Our work on all issues even where we must sharply criticize Clinton, such as the Yugoslav War, should be shaped by the same strategic task. We need to show where the position of reaction is even worse, if it is, and direct our sharpest fire there if we are to avoid unintentionally helping reaction attack the Democratic Party from the right and present themselves as the "real" alternative. We need to support critically even weak opposition to the agenda of reaction. All our work, whether on hot immediate issues or on the on-going living wage campaign should be carried out to contribute to this strategic task. Only then can the balance of forces be shifted so that it becomes possible to advance radical democratization and severely curb the power of the transnationals in general. Why is it that a large section of the left, with significant support in the CofC, do not want to make such a differentiation and either include Clinton in a common enemy, "the right" or even single his Administration out. I am not sure I understand all its sources but one of them is subjectivity. They are mad at him for compromising on progressive causes. They are morally outraged by his actions or inaction. But such anger and absolutist standards of judgment while sometimes appropriate for agitation can not be the basis for analysis and policy of mass struggle. Impatience with seeming repetition of prior stages can not justify jumping over required stages of struggle. And if one sees the struggle of democratic masses on the basis of what they are ready to act on as the source of new more advanced understanding for the millions, rather than intellectual arguing why capitalism should be replaced by socialism, then uniting democratic-minded masses to rebuff reaction will be seen as the initial stage in the only possible road to socialism.
TRADE UNION DEMOCRACY - CRITICAL "MISSING LINK" TO LABOR'S REVIVAL
By Marilyn Albert CofC Labor Task Force
Submitted to the National Convention of the Committees of Correspondence.
Something exciting is happening in the labor movement. Walking through the door opened by the 1995 victory of the New Voice leaders of the AFL-CIO, hundreds of leading labor activists are talking about issues long dormant in the U.S. labor movement. Foremost among them is the relationship between union democracy and union strength. Examples of this trend are plentiful. One is the strong vote received, against all odds, by the Teamsters' Rank-and-File Power Slate candidate, Tom Leedham, in his campaign to continue the transformation of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Leedham received a vote of 39 percent, despite huge outspending and the obvious name recognition of the winner, James P. Hoffa, Jr. Despite the tragic events which brought an end to the Carey team reform leadership, members of the longtime Teamsters' reform movement, Teamsters for a Democratic Union, remain upbeat about the future. The Labor Notes Conference which took place in Detroit in April brought together a broad group of the most dedicated labor activists - both rank-and-file and union staffers, as well as some progressive union officers. The conference, which was opened by Congressman John Conyers, discussed the most cutting edge issues facing the labor movement. This national conference has become probably the most important regular meeting place for unionists dedicated to democracy and militancy. Another example of the fresh direction is the recent formation of the Bay Area Labor Left, a grouping of activists from a large number of Northern California unions, who made an extensive analysis of trade union democracy one of their top priorities. In Washington state, two rank-and-file members of the Amalgamated Transit Union launched an initiative to guarantee the membership's right to vote on all union contracts in the public sector. Their campaign has caused controversy within the labor movement, but has received national attention from leading labor journalists. At least two recently published books exemplify the new trend. "Which Direction for Organized Labor?" edited by Bruce Nissen, and "The Transformation of U.S. Unions," edited by Ray Tillman and Michael Cummings, contain essays by not only labor educators, but grass roots organizers and activists. These writers, while applauding the accomplishments of the new AFL-CIO leadership, identify the question of internal union democracy as the (mostly undiscussed) missing link in the fight to revitalize the labor movement. If the debate stimulated by these developments is to take root in the rank-and- file membership of our unions, the discussion will need to be constantly informed by, related to, and expressed in the language of, ordinary union members, or it runs the risk of becoming a discussion privy only to "labor intellectuals." As a twenty-five year rank-and-file activist in a large service workers' union, I would like to attempt to frame some of the issues being debated. The most important issue is the very survival of organized labor in the United States in the 2lst century. How can the need to organize massive numbers of unorganized workers be met? The relationship of "membership ownership" of union decision-making to the desperate need to organize the unorganized is one of the major themes of "labor transformation activists." While they have lauded the new AFL-CIO leadership's sincere commitment to organizing, they point to what could be the Achilles' heel of the AFL-CIO's strategy thus far: in order to organize the number of workers necessary to stop the erosion of union work and change the labor-capital balance of forces, the number of organizers and amount of money needed will be insurmountable if traditional organizing methods are relied upon. Veteran labor activist Michael Eisenscher, in an essay in the Tillman/Cummings collection, quotes a Bureau of National Affairs report: "Merely to maintain union density (the proportion of the work force that is organized) at its 1995 level (14.9 percent), the labor movement needed to enroll about 400,000 new members in 1996. Union density in 1996, however, dropped to 14.5 percent because the workforce grew by 3 million... To raise the 1995 density one percentage point would have required about 1.5 million new members. Even with an expanded organizing program, a shift of resources, and greater attention, organized labor was unable to maintain its relative proportion ... To merely maintain union density relying on staff organizers would require between $67 and $80 million. Raising union density by one point would cost between $250 and $300 million for a single year's effort." Given these sobering facts, the only alternative way of organizing the requisite numbers of workers is the mobilization of hundreds of thousands of rank-and-file activist-organizers. The shift to rank-and-file-based organizing will require profound changes in even the most progressive unions. To reverse the dominant climate of membership alienation from their own unions, a decades-long project must be undertaken to transform, not only business-model unions, but service-model unions, into social movement unions. Furthermore, the organizing methods of even the most successful unions will probably need extensive changes to make organizing "rank-and-file-friendly" and sustainable as a way of life. The current dependence of some international unions on former college students who have an interest in working for social change and are joining the labor movement as organizers is somewhat understandable, but not a long term solution. To think that there will be a never-ending stream of youthful organizers assumes that an interest in supporting the labor movement among young people will always exist. Fortunately, this is a period of social consciousness among young people, but it may not last. The need to organize the unorganized, however, will. Many labor activists have made the observation that the style of an organizing campaign usually determines the nature of the union which grows out of it. By using middle-class youth with little or no work experience, and "parachuting" them into staff-driven, frenzied campaigns, labor leaders are perpetuating the creation of staff-driven unions. Staff-driven unions, while often operating efficiently, never realize their full potential strength because the role of members and rank-and-file activists becomes limited to certain kinds of participation and never rises to the level of membership control. Unless members gain a much greater sense that they run their own unions, they will not develop the commitment to devote their lives to the struggles which will have to take place to change the labor-capital balance of forces in the United States. How can such a radical change in the role of members in their own unions come about? Tillman and Cummings note in the introduction to their book, "In the complex modern world, it is always tempting for overburdened workers and citizens to leave governing to elites." What can motivate workers to volunteer their time and energy to building the working-class movement? What obstacles exist to heightened membership activity in their unions? What leads to so-called "membership apathy"? What structural changes will unions have to undergo in order to harness their members' energies once they have accepted the responsibility for building their unions? I would like to suggest a few areas where dedicated labor activists - Left activists, in particular - could make a difference in launching the kind of changes necessary for union members to win a bigger role in running their own unions, and thus, to feel a greater responsibility to contribute to the union's struggles. Central to the question of the labor-capital balance of forces is the role of Black workers, as well as workers of other national minorities, and of women. A March 1999 poll conducted by Peter Hart Research Associates for the AFL-CIO on how various groups of workers would vote in union representation elections showed that African American workers have a dramatically stronger pro-union bias than any other demographic group. Eighty percent of Black workers polled would vote for a union, compared to 36 percent of white workers. This means that the role of affirmative action within unions, the development of Black workers as union leaders, and the linking of the struggles of Black workers to the struggles for equality in our communities, is absolutely critical to the future growth of the labor movement in general. Labor activists from all backgrounds who understand this fact and work for a greater role for African Americans within unions can make a major contribution toward the transformation of organized labor. Affirmative Action in unions is a struggle for union democracy. Within local unions, and even within international unions, activists can work for immediate changes which can heighten rank-and-file participation and members' sense of control of union life. For example, by winning paid time off the job for union activists to participate in not only grievance handling, but other union activities, space can be won for members to play a much greater role than they can when they are limited to their off-duty time, lunch breaks, etc. Capacity-building programs must be fought for so that rank-and-file activists have the knowledge base and skills necessary to play a greater role in union affairs. Structural changes of many kinds, not only in business-style or corrupt unions, but in even the most progressive unions, can be won through by-laws changes and electing union members who support change to union office. An important and difficult area of union transformation is day-to-day decision making and long-term strategizing. While it may be true that many members' union consciousness, social comprehension, political sophistication and tactical experience is not developed enough to make the right decisions, the usual practice - even in progressive unions - of officials monopolizing strategic and tactical discussion contributes tremendously to membership alienation. Union leaders and staffers, with rare exception, feel a strong need to control everything that happens. They distrust members' judgment but don't want to take the time to develop members' tactical abilities. Worse, they may not want to put decision-making power in members' hands because those members might replace them in the union structure. Many leaders think the members don't have sufficient understanding of the broad interests of the whole union to make responsible decisions, and so resort to making "action recommendations" to members who usually go along with the recommendation without understanding the reasoning behind it. Often, members with poor understanding of an issue rebel against a leadership decision which, while the correct one, is presented to members in a way that is destined to fail to win membership support. This results in leaders "jamming" the question or even resorting to undemocratic methods to get the needed outcome. Including leading rank-and-filers in strategic decision-making and developing their ability to decide strategies and tactics would be a major area of important union reform. It takes a strong belief in the long-term necessity of this to allow members to make mistakes and learn from them. The pressures of union leadership almost always lead to quick and undemocratic decision making, so that the union can address the crisis coming down the road. Progressive union staff members and elected officials who can manage to resist this and who search for ways to include members in democratic decision-making can make a major contribution to union transformation. Union reform movements almost always arise only in times of complete collapse of union democracy or strength. The reform movements in the United Mineworkers, the Teamsters, in the New York health care union Local 1199, and recently in District Council 37 of AFSCME, are examples. If democratic and militant labor activists can discover ways of winning democratic reforms before a union collapses Ñ indeed, during times of healthy union life Ñ we might be able to avoid the disasters which have almost destroyed once-strong unions. Caucuses of reform-minded members are a valuable method of fighting for such changes within even healthy and democratic unions. Too often caucuses are labeled "oppositional" and "anti-leadership" when they are simply trying to raise issues in an honest way. Good labor leaders need rank-and-file caucuses to keep their feet to the fire, and to give them "cover" so that they can take positions on issues which may not be popular with the labor establishment. Caucuses in unions which have a vibrant internal life have the potential to influence hundreds of thousands of union members. Caucuses in unions with inactive internal lives can often make change with just a few people. Supportive staff members and officials can help recruit members to rank-and-file caucuses and may be able to participate in caucuses on certain levels. One change in union by-laws can lead to deep changes in the level of membership control in a union. While "Left" caucuses may be appropriate in some situations, Left activists should try to build caucuses with broad concerns, with a long-term view and "shelf-life." Within such a caucus, Left activists can then work around issues which are more political or controversial, thereby deepening the social comprehension and class consciousness of member-activists beyond immediate union issues. The need for drastically higher levels of union solidarity - within and between unions in the U.S. as well as on an international level - can really only be realized through the development of greater consciousness among rank-and-file workers. To a great extent, that consciousness grows from workers' exposure to other workers who have advanced ideas and beliefs. Democratic transformation is essential if union members are to cope successfully with the complex problems that the globalization of capital has thrown at them and to be able to craft actions powerful enough to put capital on the defensive, whether in their own workplace or around the world.
CONVENTION TIME MUST BE REALITY CHECK TIME by Ed Hoffman Contra Costa Chapter
Our Committees of Correspondence needs a reality check. We must stop the decline of our membership. We must strengthen our CofC internally. We must not inflate our self-image. Since our founding six years ago, we have lost almost 40 percent of our members. More than half of the members that we still have live in two small parts of the country, the New York City area and the San Francisco Bay area. Our chapters and task forces have severely shrunk, with a precipitous drop in their number and effectiveness in Northern California. Three central goals at our founding Ñ to be an organization with a broad diversity of leftists, to have many people of color in our ranks, and to have a large youth contingent Ñ have not been realized. We tend to see ourselves as far more influential than we happen to be, small as we are and so weakly positioned in almost every part of our country. Even when progressive left demonstrations of many thousands have been achieved against the wars, for affirmative action, for the freedom of Mumia - our role and presence has been minor. We continue to have the ability to analyze effectively the issues which affect the American people and the peoples of the world, as is evident in our public statements and in the articles in our publications. We continue to have dedicated leaders and a membership active in many progressive organizations. We are a dogged group, determined to weather the strong anti-progressive, anti-socialist currents in our country and the world, and determined to get in good licks for social justice, peace, and better livelihoods. Whether our present leadership and structure, at all levels, is ready to strengthen and build our CofC organizationally remains to be seen. Whether our leaders and our convention delegates will give as much attention to our internal well-being as they give to developing our political positions must be the question before us. It is time that we look closely at ourselves, that we regularly analyze the size and nature of our membership, so that we can properly assess our capabilities and responsibilities. For example, we should ask: 1. How many members attend chapter and/or task force meetings? Regularly? Occasionally? How many attend regional meetings? 2. How many participate in CofC sponsored activities (from being in leadership bodies to marching behind our banners to attending our functions)? 3. How many are activists in progressive organizations, and how many who play roles in them are seen as CofC members? 4. How many members simply support CofC? financially and/or subscribe to our publications? 5. How many are African American, Latino, Asian-Pacific Rim American, Native American? 6. How many of us are gray-haired, how many are youth? 7. How many are union members, union activists? 8. How many are professionals, and what roles do they play? 9. How many live among people of color, and/or poor people? 10. How many members have been recruited in the past year? How many have dropped out and why? How many have been re-recruited? It is time to relate our political positions and our designated activities to our actual strength and weaknesses. We must ask what are reasonable goals and reasonable campaigns for the quantity and character of the membership that we actually have. We must ask ourselves whether we sound in our publications like an organization that speaks for and can move many thousands, when we happen to be but a few hundred voices wanting to be heard in the huge hurricane of capitalist propaganda. What should be the essential character of our CofC? 1. Should we see ourselves primarily as an organization conducting campaigns in its own name, with most of its active members giving much time to "street activities" in CofC's name? 2. Should we see ourselves primarily as an organization proclaiming the goals of democratic socialism and expressing positions for the people's welfare, but not an organization in which its members are primarily organizing actions on issues like the living wage? 3. Should we see ourselves primarily as chapters (and task forces?) where members active in issue organizations can come together for growth in political understanding, for camaraderie and assistance from one another, and for bringing in new members? 4. To what extent can we combine these types of purposes and structures? 5. Do we need to be an organization with clearer lines of leadership so that responsibility for the health of the organization is better defined? What we set out to do in 1993 made sense then and still makes sense now. The left is in need of the kind of organization that was born in Berkeley, and the Committees of Correspondence still has the Potential Ñ in ideology and in the character of its current Membership - to realize its potential. Its challenge at its 1998 convention is to be both introspective and creative so that it will reinvigorate itself. Note: This statement comes from a member who was politically unaffiliated when he joined the Committees of Correspondence at its founding convention. While I have welcomed the political positions taken by CofC, and have a high regard for the members I have come to know and for those who have expressed themselves in Dialogue and Initiative and in Corresponder, I feel that the leadership has failed to pay adequate attention to our organization's internal well-being, and therefore permits a serious gap to open between what we politically proclaim and what we can actually affect.
WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE COFC STATEMENT ON KOSOVO by Carl Davidson Chicago, IL
When the conflict in Kosovo escalated a few months back, I joined the "March Against Genocide" demonstrations in Chicago organized by Kosovars, Albanians and a range of Muslim organizations. Unfortunately, of the thousand or so people who turned out for these actions, there were only a tiny handful of U.S. left activists. While some people carried signs supporting NATO and the bombing, most people there were expressing their solidarity with their relatives, compatriots and co-religionists in Kosovo. I mention this to point out that there are more than two sides to this conflict, NATO and the Milosovic regime. The third side, and in some ways the most important, are the Kosovar Albanians themselves. I see myself as pro-Kosovar-Albanian rather than pro-NATO. I do recognize, however, that both the Kosovar Albanians and those who are in solidarity with them are in a tactical alliance with NATO, born of their need to survive. Their aims and the aims of NATO, while overlapping, are not the same. Some may say this doesn't matter, that I'm pro-NATO nonetheless. If that is to be accepted, then let's also accept that all those who oppose NATO are also pro Milosovic. I think we're better off with a multi-sided, rather than a two-sided approach. In any case, here's my main points of contention with the CofC statement: 1. It admits to a murderous campaign of "ethnic cleansing" on the part of the Serbian government and paramilitary forces, yet while this fascist onslaught is underway, it refused the Kosovar Albanians any effective means of self-defense. ( CofC statement, "Renounce any program of arming military groups within Kosovo, such as the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA)." The CofC tells the Serbian government to stop it, but in effect tells the Kosovar Albanians not to offer armed resistance to slaughter. This leaves the Kosovar Albanians with three options: 1) individuals can try to change sides and join the Serb forces in the slaughter of their own people; 2) they can get on their knees and beg their fascistic killers for mercy; or 3) they can flee their homes and try to hide in the mountains or in the border camps. This is not a minor point. The CofC position is an outrageously chauvinist stand against the national rights and national survival of an oppressed minority nationality. It contains an anti-Albanian blindspot that seeks to deny the fact that the Serbs are the oppressor nation and the Kosovar Albanians the oppressed nationality, that one side holds power and privilege while the other is harassed, purged, despised and even suppressed in the use of their own language. It implies an equality of evils by equating the violence of the oppressor with the violence of the oppressed. 2. It assumed that the Milosovic regime could be politically convinced to stop or reverse its ethnic cleansing program without also being compelled to do so militarily. (CofC statement: "Immediately cease any preparation for a future invasion of Yugoslavia and withdraw from the area all U.S. and NATO military forces not involved in refugee relief. Oppose the presence of troops on Yugoslavian soil under U.S. and NATO command.") The fascist Serb slaughter could only be stopped by a combination of political and military power. There were only three such powers available: NATO, the KLA and the Russians. (The Serbian democratic opposition was not strong enough and had not decisively distinguished itself from Milosovic in regard to Kosovo.) In the immediate period, Kosovo can only be ruled by a combination of these three or by the Milosovic regime. By opposing U.S., NATO and KLA forces, the CofC tacitly backed the continuation of the Milosovic regime's rule in Kosovo, which, even if they were "supervised" by the Russians alone, would mean continuing oppression of the Kosovar Albanians still there and the inability of those expelled to return. It is critically important for the Kosovar Albanians to quickly have some governing authority from which they can expect some measure of justice, however limited. Where great crimes have occurred and there is no justice, then revenge prevails. Some might argue that this solution subordinates or violates Yugoslavia's national sovereignty. Yes, it does. But here Yugoslavia's right to sovereignty conflicts with the Kosovar Albanian's right to national survival. Does national sovereignty permit governments to have the ability to commit genocide with inpunity as long as it's done within their borders? No one, of course, admits to genocide. But the U.S., China and the former Soviet Union have long held that it's nobody else's business if they feel the need to suppress nationalist movements within their borders. Whether the democratic rights of government can or should be restricted is an interesting debate that goes back to the differences between the political theories of Locke and Rousseau. But for now, we have to decide which is the greater violation: intervention to stop the slaughter or non-intervention that enables it to continue. 3. It assumed that the UN was capable of mounting an effective military force against the Milosovic regime and its aims in Kosovo. (CofC Statement: "Recognize the authority of the UN and to support the UN General Secretary in initiating direct negotiations between representatives of the Yugoslav Government and Kosovo Albanians. The U.S. must support the UN's authorization for such negotiations based on the full recognition of national sovereign rights and human rights of all minorities, including cultural rights.") In all likelihood, either Russia or China or both would have vetoed any measures that would have effectively removed the Milosovic regime's forces from Kosovo. Russia has only gone along with it once it became inevitable and China still doesn't go along with it or even admit the Serbs did anything wrong. 4. It makes no distinctions in the military responses of NATO. (CofC statement: "Immediately cease all bombing and military activities against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.") It should have demanded that NATO help organize, train and arm the KLA and any other Kosovar Albanian groups wanting to resist. Occasionally, the KLA asked for and got tactical air support when it was launching attacks on the Serb armed forces. These were some of the most serious defeats for the Milosovic regime and hastened the ultimate pullout. These should have come earlier and more often. Bombing civilian infrastructure in Serbia, however, is another matter entirely. It points to the difference between how imperialists fight wars and how more progressive forces fight wars, and the imperialist methods must be opposed as inhumane and counter-productive, even when progressive forces are in a tactical alliance with them. 5. I'll make a final point on the process leading to the statement, although I consider it secondary to the substance of the matter. I am a member of the CofC National Committee. Most everyone on that body knows I have worked for some time on the Balkan crisis. I helped found DiYuLog for Peace, a short-lived group of progressive activists from all the nationalities of the former Yugoslavia in Chicago. For several years I served on the board of Bridge for Humanity, a Chicago-based group which provided material aid to Bosnian war victims in Bosnia and Bosnia refugees in Chicago. I don't claim to be an expert, but I know something about the region. Yet I first saw the statement after it was published. Nobody asked my opinion about it, nor did I have a chance to vote one way or another about any part of it or any version of it. I leave it to others to explain why this was so.
CONVENTION AGENDA UPDATE by Leslie Cagan
The hard work of the program planning committee these past few months is coming to an end as the finishing touches are put on the agenda for the Convention in Raleigh, N.C. Building on the discussion in the National Coordinating Committee about the nature of this convention, we have put together a proposed agenda geared to moving ahead the work of our organization. With plenty of time for both plenary discussions and smaller workshops we believe the structure of the convention will help us tackle the issues we confront. While we will look at some of the big political questions of the day we will also spend time discussing specific issues related to the concrete work of building the Committees of Correspondence. In a number of places around the country people have gathered for pre-convention discussions based on the Draft Convention Document, as well as their own local organizing experiences. Whether or not you were able to attend such a meeting there is a place for you as we gather in Raleigh. In fact, the greater the breadth of experience at the convention, the more meaningful our deliberations will be. If you are a CofC member in a location without a chapter your input is needed just as much as those who will come from strong local groups. The planning committee for this convention is confident that our agenda will help us move through three exciting days of discussion and decision making. We hope you'll make every effort to be there with us.
THURSDAY, AUGUST 12 Registration Opens 7:00 PM National Coordinating Committee Meets 8:00 PM
FRIDAY, AUGUST 13 Opening Plenary 10:00 AM Greetings and Welcome Organization of the Convention
Keynote Address by Charlene Mitchell The Fight for Jobs, Peace, Justice, and Equality on the Eve of the 21st Century Panel Presentations in response to the Keynote Address
Plenary Discussion The plenary discussion will be framed by the Keynote Address and the Draft Convention Document (see April/May 1999 Corresponder )
"What Should a Socialist Organization Look Like: The Composition of the CofC" a skit by the CofC Youth Task Force
Small Group "Buzz" Discussions Lunch 1:00 - 2:30 PM Plenary Session 2:30 - 5:30 PM (Continuation of plenary discussion from morning session and reportbacks from buzz groups) Dinner 5:30 - 7:00 PM
Evening Plenary Session 7:00 - 9:30 PM The Intersection of Race, Class, and Gender A Panel Presentation with Bernice Carroll, Tim Johnson, and Mildred Williamson. Leslie Cagan, Moderator. Discussion follows.
SATURDAY, AUGUST 14 Plenary Session 9:00 AM Continuation of Discussion from Friday Plenary
The Living Wage Campaign and the Fight for Social and Economic Justice 10:30 AM A Panel Presentation with Irving Beinin, Ron Johnson, and Shirley McClain. Edith Pollach, Moderator. Discussion follows.
Convention Lunch 12:30 PM Introduction of Special Guests Distribution of Election Ballots and Instructions
Session 1 Workshops 2:15 PM * The African American Movement * Independent Political Parties * Peace and International Solidarity * Trade Union Movement and Labor * Youth and Student Movement * Prison Industrial Complex and Police Issues * Environmental Justice
Session 2 Workshops 4:00 PM The Practical Work of Socialists and the CofC Delegates will be grouped into 5 workshops to discuss and make proposals on building the CofC locally, improving the structure of the national organization, literature and resources, and fundraising. A combined report will be prepared by note-takers from each group for presentation at the final plenary on Sunday.
Dinner 5:30 PM
Saturday Evening Program 7:00 PM Rally for Equality and Justice "Carry It On!" with Angela Davis Ajamu Dillahunt Signe Waller
Music by Fruit of Labor Samadhi Manifest
Reception following program 9:00 PM
___________________________
SUNDAY, AUGUST 15 Plenary Session 9:30 AM * Report backs from Workshops * Resolutions Committee Report * By-Laws Committee Report * Balloting Committee Report
Convention Close 12:30 PM
Newly Elected NCC Meets 1:30 PM