COMMITTEE EXHIBIT NO. 28 FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE PARTY As of this writing the AFL Section in San Francisco stands in this unenviable position: 1. Its Section Organizer has been suspended and subsequently expelled from the Party by a District Committee decision. 2. All members of the Section are forbidden to associate with the Organizer in any official capacity. 3. The Section has been "officially" disbanded. 4. The Section Committee has been placed on charges of "disruption and factionalism." We suppose that this is only the beginning. The overwhelming majority of the Section have rejected the whole series of illegal actions against the Section, and have authorized the Section Committee to forward the appeals to the National Committee and to express the individual and collective desires of the Section Membership to rectify a serious harm to the Party. It is our purpose in this document to call the attention of the Party to this series of actions, to dig beneath the technical surface of the various motions to assess their meaning, and to detail a small portion of the history of our Section and its difficulties with the District, confident that the Party and its National Committee will find the way to end this disgraceful state of affairs. First, we in the Section are proud of our history. Not that we have done everything right or well. Not that we haven't made plenty of mistakes. Not that we have been a beehive of activity and stand as a model for the Party. None of these things. But we have fought for the Party against the attacks of the revisionists, being among the early ones to recognize the character of the revisionist offensive against the Party. And in this framework we have also fought infantile leftism. We have held Marxist classes and each class has resulted in the recruitment of fine young working class comrades. We have built the Party. OUR SECTION IS LARGER THAN IT WAS AT THE TIME OF THE SIXTEENTH CONVENTION. We are sure that no Party organization in Northern California can (to steal a phrase from the cigarette advertisements) make this claim. And, probably very few in the Country. This doesn't prove that we are right and others are wrong but it should have given the District Leadership pause to examine the harm to the Party before it began its unprincipled vendetta against the Section. The history of the Party elsewhere in the Bay Area is a history of merger after merger of club and section organizations as the membership dwindles as does the influence of the Party. At the time of the 16th Convention our Section was perhaps 1/15 of the San Francisco membership.-- today it is and perhaps even 1/3 of the San Francisco membership. True we have fought for every member and thus have lost almost none, true we have recruited several times as many as we have lost in the revisionist offensive, but the major reason for the relative strength of the section is the opposite policy of revisionist misleadership that has led to the destruction of many Party organizations and the loss of more than 70% of the Party membership in San Francisco. We have maintained and enlarged our activity in the trade union organizations and fulfilled our Party assignments. We do not detail these here because we enclose the Section Organizer's report to the membership meeting along with the previous Section Organizer's report to an earlier Section membership meeting that includes some of these activities. Ommitted oven from these are certain instances of the section's work in the trade union movement where the actions proposed here in the Section have, through the initiative of Comrades in the Section, become the property of the whole trade union movement. The attempted destruction of the Section set in the Framework of a National draft resolution that is firm in its opposition to revisionism sets before the Party the following questions: 1. Can the Northern California leadership, active members of a national right wing faction in the Party throughout most of the last three years, expell from the Party those who have criticized their actions? 2. Can the authors of the infamous California motions and the spearhead of a revisionist campaign against the Party simply by muzzling their previously expressed revisionism succeed in removing from the San Francisco Party the bulk of its trade union cadre? 3. Can those who didn't have a friendly word to say for democratic centralism at the time of the last convention now prevent the representation at this present convention of our Section (as well as other Party organizations) who have fought the right wing liquidators of our Party -- all in the name of a vulgar version of democratic centralism that has no point of similarity with Lenin's historic principle? - We think that the answer to all these questions will be a thundering NO, and that the Party and its National Committee will set matters right. We do not ask to be declared the winner, to be justified in any way we ask only that the National Committee come to San Francisco and straighten the situation out to the benefit of the Party. To this end we submit this report and accompanying documents, asking only that they be given serious consideration. Of course we cannot, in the space of a short document relate the whole complex situation and every development that led to it, and, we hope to be able, in person, to the representatives of the National Committee, explain much that we cannot write, and answer any questions as to our role and History. Here we will only discuss the bare bones of the "phoney" trials conducted by the District Leadership, some of the subsequent events, and attempt to place them in relation to the struggle for a Marxist Leninist Party, attempting to counter the mountain of misinformation sent to the National Committee by the District Leadership. ON THE TRIALS First off, let us state that the numerous documents, progress reports, and decisions put out by the District Committee on the trial of our Section Organizer and the Chairman of an Oakland Club are full of falsehoods and fabrications only lightly seasoned with a smattering of facts. We do not intend to refute at this instance each deviation from reality. We relate here the actual facts so that our National Committee can compare the versions. We are supremely confident that any investigation will establish the accuracy of the following: Between the nomination and the election of our Section organizer, the District Organizer went around to practically every club in the Bay Area giving a formal report on behalf of the District Board (perhaps it was the District Committee) branding the Comrade as a member of an ultra-left factional grouping, making no attempt to bring the matter up before the Section or Club he was a member of. This campaign by the District leadership is an authenticated excample of factionalism by a leadership of bypassing the proper Party organizations, of setting up a "psychological war of nerves" among Party members who would have no opportunity to hear an answer. Because of this campaign, the Section committee called a membership meeting to hear the report of the then elected, and without opposition, Section organizer, in order to hear his report and to establish in open section debate the unity of the Section. At this meeting the District Organizer came and demanded that the Agenda be changed so that he and not our Section Organizer would make the report. The Comrades angered both by the campaign being conducted outside the Section and by the arrogant presumption of the Organizer at the meeting refused by an overwhelming vote to so do. However, he was offered 20 minutes and I guess no one would have balked at a half an hour at any time he wanted, either before or after the Section Organizer spoke. He refused--it was either he made the report or nothing. After the report by the Section Organizer he did, however, take part in the debate before the action was taken. (The report by the Section Organizer and the motions passed are appended to this report). A motion was also passed that we hold a special Section membership meeting to hear the District Organizer. This meeting was subsequently held, and the report of the District Organizer there rejected. One word on its substance and you can see why the comrades could have no choice but to reject it. The so-called evidence consisted of two letters only one of which was by the Comrade in question, and honestly both letters actually condemned the actions of those who left the Party and formed a separate organization outside the Party. In each letter there is condemnation of factionalist procedures. And these are presented as evidence of factionalism! The rationalization, of all things, being that these letters were proof of the existence of a national faction that busted up over a question of tactics. If one could accept this kind of proof it would, of course, be a relatively easy matter to prove that night is day, war is peace, or to be more timely, that Welfare-Statism is Marxism-Leninism. Is it any wonder that his report was rejected? Then came the formal charges and the setting up of a trial committee by the District Committee. The Section and the club of the Comrade both protested that the trial procedure was unconstitutional in that article 7 section 3 of the Constitution was being violated where it is expressly stated: "Clubs shall act upon anyone holding membership in that club" (our emphasis). Later on in section 5 a little unclarity is introduced in that dedisions are to be made by two-thirds vote of "the club or leading committee having jurisdiction." We could not see how the unclarity here could be allowed to contradict the express and explicit directions in section 3 pertaining to the the conduct of the trial and the selection of the trial committee. Certainly, we felt, that it could not cover a trial by a district committee of one who was not a member of that committee, and that the ambiguity in the later section might apply only in the case of a higher committee trying a member of that commi**. In any case, irregardless of technicalities or constitutional provisions, what is the purpose of a trial? To clearly establish the guilt or innocence of the Comrade, and what purpose could there be in clouding the issues by the selection of a body that seemed to be a partial body? Remember that the charges are brought by the District Organizer personally and he certainly had a hand in the selection of the trial committee by the District Committee. This partiality and the atmosphere of rigging was further accentuated by the selection of two of the comrades on the trial committee. One from Oakland was a specific antagonist over a long period of the Oakland Comrade and he was made the Chairman of the trial committee. And the other was a member of our section who had specifically introduced motions in our section calling for the unseating of the Section Organizer. In a trial the Comrades of the accused have to be convinced of his error. A trial is not an organizational device to bring forth a point of view. And an obviously biased trial only serves to disrupt and destroy the unity of the Party and confidence in its correctness. In spite of our convictions we attempted to comply. As a matter of fact we welcomed the trial as an opportunity to end the campaign of vilification and slander against the Section. That is, we did not think that the action of the District was well considered and we opposed it as harmful to the developing unity of the Party which we considered to be in the process of achievement. But better a trial and a possible resolution to at least some of the difficulties than the continuation of this factional attack. The Section Committee met and appointed a committee to defend its organizer before the trial committee. It established the following basis for the defense: 1. 2. That there was nothing to the charges. That the charges were in reality an attack against the section and that this was the purpose of the charges. And 3. That the District Organizer did not bring the charges in good faith. We felt that we had evidence to prove all of the above and came to the trial committee prepared to do so. We also notified the Section membership of the trial and invited them to appear either as witnesses or observers. Almost thirty comrades (the subsequent district document called this a small group of disruptors) and were astounded to hear: 1. 2. That no verbatim record of the trial could be kept--(we had come prepared with a stenographer and tape recorder) That the trial would be held behind closed doors--NO ONE OF THE SECTION MEM- 3. That nothing "ideological" could be brought up in defense--only an answer to the specific charges. Naturally, the comrades were indignant--the fight against secret trials had presumably been won in the triumph of capitalism against feudalism--it was a little late in the day to set the clock back and so far into the past at that. And that bit about no ideological defense--the whole trial was to be reduced to "Did you or did you not beat your wife." In the resulting discussion the trial committee made a "concession" -- to permit a stenographer. (Incidentally the next session of the trial committee withdrew this concession). That about sums up the first attempt to hold the trial. A week or so later the Section Organizer was notified that his trial would be held on a certain date. He said that he could not possibly make it--that he had a long standing committment that could not be changed and suggested a date two weeks away. He was told that his trial would be held on that day whether he was there or not. On that day the Section defense committee attempted to defend him in his absence but were refused admittance to a trial of the comrade to be held in absentia. Thus we see that the subsequent statement of the District Committee that the Section Organizer refused to stand trial is not true. He never had an opportunity to stand even this caricature of a trial. However our Section Organizer makes no secret of the fact that he wouldn't do otherwise than did the Oakland Comrade who did attend the second trial who participated in part of it, and refused to continue when not allowed to present a defense, when the "rules" were made even more stringent including the limitation of defense witnesses to three. No, our section organizer would have done likewise but He also he didn't even get the opportunity to make the protest to the Committee. would not have found it possible to participate in such a farcical trial that makes a mockery of every party principle. He wouldn't have found it possible to participate, but as a point of actual fact--he did not even get the opportunity. This second trial was also very indicative of the calculated ends of the proceedings but we shall not discuss them here. The Oakland Club Chairman on charges has already made this information available to the National Committee. A COMMENT ON THE TRIAL AND A COMPARISON TO ANOTHER TRIAL The procedures in the trial are of course not the central question. We, of course, will go behind the arbitrary and undemocratic procedures to show why they were employed, but they are worthy of a little examination as things in themselves. When these rules were announced the section membership comments included the following. "Even the Bourgeois courts conduct open trials." "Dimitroff even got a fairer shake in a Facist court." "The Smith Act victims were certainly hampered in their defense but not this hampered," "The closest parrallels are to the Immigration Board hearings and the Loyalty Boards, "Shades of the Heikkaela Case." etc. The district leadership, professed to consider these comments shocking--comparison with bourgeois "justice" is an insult to the Party and its leadership. Two things must be noted. It is the facts that make the comparison, not us, and we do not recognize these blatant and unprincipled actions to be acts of the Party. Not yet, we don't. It is instructive to take notice of another trial in another place. In the book, "Comrade Vanka" by the Soviet writer, Pavel Nilin, recently published by Prometheus Paperbacks, between the pages 122 and 138 is the fictional account of a trial presumably drawn from life that occured in the Soviet Union a long time ago. A certain Komsomol Yegorev has been accused of taking part in a christening at a church. The District Committee had already expelled this Comrade and decided to make an example of him before the membership, the book giving the impression that at least a pair of the leadership dream this up to prove their own zeal and their leadership qualitics. After all, the Komsomols are the militant enemies of religion and going to a christening is Just as bad as any other kind of renegacy. They were fighting the white guard armies and they could have no patience with backsliders and weaklings. They try to prepare the meeting by getting Comrades to speak out forcefully and when conrades hesitate because thdy don't know the facts they try to tell them that the person or the facts aren't important--the important thing was to make a demonstration before the Party. Somehow the Comrades didn't buy this and actually (this book should be banned in Northern California) had the gall to oppose the District decision. It turns out that Yegorov lived with his uncle who had sheltered him and helped him get a job. This uncle became a parent and the wife was religious and insisted on a christening. The uncle invited the lad who accompanied them as far as the church but didn't go in. Later he drank two glasses of brandy at the social affair following the christening. The membership expressed their rejection and guess what happened. This may prove unbelieva ble in Northern California but I accept Comrade Nilin's word for it--THE DISTRICT COMMITTEE CHANGED ITS DECISION. Yes, this is more in line with honest democratic centralism, and the local District Committee should have acted this way. When an action was being taken against a comrade in the section and the section membership opposed that action in overwhelming majority, the District Committee here SHOULD ALSO HAVE REVISED ITS DECISION. It would be interesting to quote a great deal from those few pages in the book--we content ourselves with a few lines quoting one of the speeches: "Of course, I'm no orator, but I think it's still early to talk about Yegorov as a 'former Komsomol. It's still necessary to get to the bottom of this affair....... Yes, I need proof and I think we all need it. Not only 1. I insist on this very strongly. And I'm convinced that you fellows will support me, because I think a Komsomol should not only punish but also defend a Komsomol when he runs up against this kind of nonsense. That's what I think." Yes, we in the AFL Section are no orators and no polemeicists either but we will defend a comrade who "runs up against this type of nonsense." And we too think that it's a bit early to speak of our Section Organizer as a former Party Comrade." SOME CONCURRENT AND SUBSEQUENT ACTIONS Of course the trial was not the only means undertaken by the District to mount a factional offensive against the section. First, it wilfully hampered the process of transfers into the section and refused to recognize any of the recruits of the section as being members claiming that the District Committee had the final say on admittance to the Party. They raised no questions about any of the recruits but maintained that nothing was official until they gave their blessing which they refused to do. They then proceded to develop an organizational proposal that in substance was to abolish the county committees, that all policy district and local was to be made by the District Committee and that furthermore all responsibility for the carrying out of the policy was in the hands of the District Board with individual responsibility of the members of the board for the different areas of Party work. This because on the one hand the party had shrunk to a "stabilized core" "which had accumulated years of experience in the class struggle" and, on the other hand because the loss of experienced personnel limits the number of experienced people who can be called on for leading posts." In that last we presume is meant the 26 in the organized factional withdrawal from the Party. Since this was a proposal that contradicted the decisions of the previous County and District Conventions, the District very properly, we thought, scheduled a representative conference to make the final decisions following discussions in the clubs. But proper methods evidently were too dangerous and the Comrades would actually have been able to get together in a policy making way, and the possibility existed that some some Comrades would have the opportunity to be convinced of the bankruptcy of these proposals. So, no conference was called and the District Committee made this the Organizational procedure by decree after amending it to allow the County Committees to maintain their existence. Of course these proposals gave the District Board the unrestricted authority to transfer in and out of any Party Organi zation as it wished. It was obvious that both through the developing trials and the other actions the days of the Section were numbered. At the point when the County Chairman and a member of the District Board came to the Section Committee ordering it to go along with the phoney trial procedures, we passed a motion calling for a meeting between the Section Committee and the District Board to resolve the differences. Two meetings were held to no avail. The District insisted both on going ahead with the trials and also said that the Section"would have to go" and the clubs revanped according to District directives that would be prepared. The instrument they proposed for this was to create a subcommittee of the District in charge of trade union work who would do this revamping. We stated that we would not make the existence of the Section the bar to solution and that we would relinquish it for something better and their proposal was not that. To this end we proposed the liquidation of the Section and the establishment of one trade union section in San Francisco including Waterfront and Warehouse clubs in which case the present section organizer would undoubtedly not be the new organizer. There would be a different section committee and a fresh start could be made towards resolving the difficulties, and besides, this would be a real opportunity to improve our trade union work in all its aspects. They wouldn't hear of this proposal. Finally we made the following general proposal: Basic to the dispute that has come to a head between the AFL Section and the District leadership has been the continuing sharp ideological crisis in the American Communist Party. Since there are increasing indications that progress is being made in the resolution of this crisis, that a process is taking place that will place the Party firmly on the Marxist-Leninist path, it whould be possible to resolve the crisis in Northern California. Therefore, the AFL Section and the District Leadership find the following to be the fundamental basis for unity and progress in the Communist Party of Northern California. We resolve to struggle against dogmatism and sectarianism on the basis of reaffirming the fundamental Marxist-Leninist principles and organizational methods in the struggle against Modern Revisionism, which is the present primary ideological struggle. "Modern revisionism seeks to smear the great teachings of Marxism-leninis”, declares that it is outmoded" and alleges that it has lost its significance for social progress. The revisionist try to erercise the revolutionary spirit of Marxism, to undermine faith in socialism among the working class and the working people in general. They deny the historical necessity for a proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat during the period of transition from capitalism to socialism, deny the leading role of the Marxist-Leninist party, reject the principles of proletarian internationalism and call for rejection of the Leninist principles of party organization and, above all, of democratic centralism, for transforming the Communist Party from a militant revolutionary organization into some kind of debating society. The experience of the international Communist movement shows that resolute defense by the Communist and Workers parties of the Marxist-Leninist unity of their ranks and the banning of factions and groups sapping unity guarantee the successful solution of the tasks of the socialist revolution, the establishment of socialism and communism...." On the above basis we agree to systematically further a comradely and co-operative attitude and relations, confident, that we will be able to solve all present and f ture problems. You should have heard the screams--this is a rough quote echoed one way or the other by all three members of the District Subcommittee "This only proves the factional character of the AFL Section Leadership--what they propose is not the program of the |