by Gus Hall

We can say with confidence that the 17^th Convention of our Party has fulfilled its responsibilities.

When the national committee discussed convention perspectives some months ago and developed a general onward-and-outward outlook, many were not sure what particular place this convention would have in our party history. Generally we felt that it would be a step in the process of rebuilding a Marxist-Leninist Party. There were, however, some differences in assessing how ready our Party was for a national convention. Some of us were a little more optimistic, some less so.

But I think we can now all agree that it has been a very big step in the process of rebuilding the Party. Further, we have removed many serious obstacles from our path and can move forward at a faster pace than previously.

We can also say that we have had a meeting of the minds at this convention, While this would not be true under all conditions, under the present circumstances—in the period of rebuilding and remolding—it is healthy that nobody really had his way at this convention. None of us can say he is the same as when the convention opened. Because of the searching reports and the decisions, we are all better equipped to fulfill our responsibilities and are more mature Marxists. If there is a single comrade who feels this convention has not influenced him, I would say: look at yourself critically, not at the convention.

It is natural that in this type of gathering (and we did attempt too much in a four-day convention) there would be minor irritations and disagreements on various questions. But all in all, considering the rush and pressures, the convention proceeded in rather harmonious fashion.

Above all—and of crucial importance—emerging from the 17^th Convention is the fact that we have one party, one policy and one direction. And that is new. We have not had that fully in the last few years. Policy was not set down definitely enough; it was not concrete enough; it was not clear enough. And many of our difficulties stemmed from this. The policy, line and direction set forth at this Convention will be the policy, line and direction for the whole Party, for every member, including national committee members and officers.

Some Weaknesses

Many other positive things can be said about our convention, but we must also note some weaknesses. Among them is the fact that the agenda was too long and that we tried to hammer out policies and make corrections in too many fields in four days. But there were some others worthy of particular mention.

Possibly the most serious shortcoming is that concrete experiences in mass work did not emerge as the central feature of our convention. The electrifying effect of some that did emerge, like the speech of Archie Brown on his campaign for Supervisor in San Francisco, proves that we should have provided for more of this. I single out this convention weakness because we see here reflected a shortcoming in the Party’s daily work.

Somehow, that which holds the foremost position in our Party is the exhortation, the generality, the bombast. Somehow that is still dominant in our proceedings, in committees, in state organizations and even in clubs. We must elevate to a higher position in all committees, including the national committee, the examination of concrete experience in life and in leadership of masses. Bombast, exhortation and generalities must not replace examination, analysis, concreteness.

Now, a word about factionalism. This is necessary because even at this convention an element of this cropped up. We must draw the conclusion that this fight is not over; there are elements of factionalism yet, and it is unhealthy. We have no factions or “wings” in our party. We must not assess our cadre on past! positions but on present understanding, present performance, on today’s results. If I read this convention right, it gives the leadership a man. date to root out all elements of factionalism from our Party.

I want to add that even if you are presenting correct ideas—it makes no difference how right you are—if you do it in a factional way, you are wrong. To be right gives you no license to resort to a factional method of carrying your point. We have reached the point where there is no room for factionalism—and the Party decisions on this are not going to be on paper alone. Factionalism will not be allowed on any level. We have to make it as definite as that, and every member of the Party must be on notice of it.

We must find methods of work that show trust and confidence in the united Party we now have. In the past, when policy was unclear, there might conceivably be the excuse that factionalism existed because of the fight for a line. Today the Party has one policy, one direction, one line. There is no basis for .factionalism. Today a continuation of factionalism can be purely on the basis of unprincipled careerism, of opportunism. This, I believe, the Party will not permit.

On Leadership and the Individual

I don’t want to sound like a lecturer, but perhaps a word about the role of the individual in leadership here would not be amiss. In earlier years, when Marxist movements and Marxist-Leninist parties were fighting for a place in the sun—for acceptance and full recognition—it was understandable that individual leaders played important and sometimes the key roles. They necessarily became the spokesmen, the symbols, of the body of Marxist thought.

Today these economic, philosophical and theoretical principles have become established and widely accepted. They are the guide for nations and peoples numbering nearly one-half the world’s inhabitants. Political life does not require individual symbols in quite the same way as in the past. Today individuals can make their best political contributions only if they do so through the medium of the collective. Each individual will mature and grow only to the extent that the collective of which he or she is part develops and grows. Make no mistake about it: an absolute necessity in the structure of democratic centralism is the need for the individual to be part of a collective in the development of thought and work.

Maverick methods in political thought and work are by-products of a dog-eat-dog individualism (understandable, perhaps, in bourgeois politics, but not in ours). Marxist individualism is individual initiative, study, thought, work. This individualism seeks collective judgment and is ready to accept changes and additions to one’s own thought, fully accepting the scientific concept that no final thought is the product of any one mind. An individual who is unconcerned about the unity of the collective, the growth, morale, the fighting spirit, the togetherness, if you like, of the collective body—whether it be a committee, club, state or national organization—does not serve our Party or class. The enemy does all it can to disrupt and divert our work. Let not sincere but misguided comrades give them a hand.

Need for Greater Clarity

Now a word on some other matters. Our Party has adopted definite positions on a number of theoretical and policy questions, but this does not necessarily close the gate to developing and deepening these questions. This is an atmosphere we must preserve in the Party, and I don’t want to give the impression that I want to shut all doors on further discussion.

Take the peace question. I think we need some further clarity on this. There are some exaggerations and one-sidedness here and there. There is no disagreement on the proposition that the peace struggle is on a new level and that there are important new factors we must take into consideration. Neither do we disagree that it is central to us. This should not, however, lead us to one-sidedness.

Take the question of the role of President Eisenhower. I think the balanced position is that he is the spokesman for those circles which recognize the need for something new in U.S. foreign policy. This is clear and this we hail. Personally, Eisenhower apparently wants to go further, if possible. But he also has the problem of carrying other forces along with him. That also is true. But that should not blind us or lead us to become one-sided as to how far he has gone. In this connection I would like to read to you some remarks made recently by Soviet Premier Khrushchev. Talking about what is new since 1956, he said:

“The progress is in the direction of understanding the necessity of peaceful co-existence—that is the thing that is different from 1956.”

Further, in speaking about Eisenhower, he said:

“We felt a sincere desire on the part of the President to reach agreement to attain relaxation of international tension—that is very pleasant. True, so far this is nothing but our impression and a man’s feeling is not a very exact measuring stick. There can be a good deal here which is subjective. Nevertheless, we trust that the desire to improve relations will soon take on concrete form.”

Khrushchev made this speech just a few days ago. I think he placed the question in a very balanced way, particularly when he added the following:

“I think the President also wants that, but apparently he cannot take such a step for the reason that there are still strong groups in the US. that take a stand against disarmament. We must not deceive ourselves on that score. Why have bourgeois politicians come to recognize the idea of peaceful coexistence? It is said that being determines consciousness. There are some who put it this way, however: beating determines consciousness. I would say that both the one and the other are correct. The way it works out is that beating helps some people in being. At least they begin to recognize the necessity of peaceful coexistence.”

Considering that Khrushchev was at Camp David and thus had an advantage over us by being present in the negotiations, we can well regard his view as a balanced judgment based on a close examination of the concrete facts. So there is this great new development—but the cold war is not yet over. Our approach should be: we, along with the peace forces of the world, want to take advantage of everything that is new in the broadest and best possible way, but we recognize that it means struggle, mobilization, movement. One might ask: if the cold war is over, why a peace movement? There would be no need for it. But the need for a peace movement arises exactly because the cold war is not yet over. But the possibilities for ending it are tremendous—and that is what is new and must be taken into account.

On the Anti-Monopoly Coalition

Now a few words on the anti- monopoly coalition, another field where there are some possible differences, although there has been an increasing meeting of the minds on this question and very little basic disagreement remaining. We can say that the slogan of “anti-monopoly coalition” was much misused in the Party and has been used interchangeably with other concepts like the democratic front and the third party. Confusion necessarily resulted.

What is this anti-monopoly movement? Possibly it is more accurate to term it a political concept, a strategic political concept. It arises and develops out of present-day America; it is not invented by anybody. It is a realistic reaction to the class forces of our society. The era of imperialism brings forth this trustified, Big Business system of monopolies that rule and influence virtually everything in the nation from beginning to end. It has one main direction—towards maximum profits for the monopolies. The vic- tims of this monopoly domination are the majority of Americans, first of all the working class, the Negro people, the farmers, small businessmen, professionals, white collar people and, very definitely, sections of 95 the capitalist class. The present drive against organized labor is a part of the general process. Now, what is important about this is the very base of our broadest united front policy. If we do not understand the anti-monopoly coalition concept, we will not have the very broadest united front approach. To repeat, the anti-monopoly coalition is a political concept, expressed in a movement to organize the majority of American people to resist the domination of monopoly capital.

Now there will be stages in this. We must understand that all struggles, all rivulets of struggle, on all fronts, ultimately will meet the resistance of big monopolies. All struggles, whether for reforms of any kind, for a government not controlled by the monopolies, or any movement for democracy and progress and for socialism, will move through this avenue of resistance. The anti-monopoly coalition will grow in the resistance against the monopoly powers in America. This is a basic concept and from it flows our strategic view of the role of an anti-monopoly coalition in America.

Now, does this mean that if certain sections of the capitalist class and even certain sections of monopoly take positions that coincide with that of the great majority of Americans, that this nullifies our basic policy? Of course not. The basic policy remains and the antimonopoly movement will have to learn to take advantage of these differences. One of the reasons for con- fusion on this question is that we have not fully in our Party’s history appreciated how to take advantage of divisions and diverse interests among the monopolies. This is tactically important and, in an electoral sense, extremely so. But this does not basically change the concept of the anti-monopoly direction of our policy. For we all know that if sections of monopoly differ at times, their fundamental class character remains and the class forces at work in the country remain.

This is of importance because of some of the confusion evident in some resolutions presented in the pre-convention discussion that called for a “national front.” A national front is a practical outlook only under conditions when the whole nation or national existence is in danger. This is not what we face today, and it is a one-sided view of what is new in American conditions.

A further point. Does our basic anti-monopoly concept require that in united front relations everyone in the united front must share our understanding? The fact is that in most cases they won’t. We will be working with forces that will not under- stand the role of monopolies nor the fact that objectively the resistance to monopoly grows through such movements. Such lack of understanding is no obstacle to the broadest possible united front and we can set no such pre-conditions to united front work and policies.

If we take a realistic position, instead of setting up static concepts and generalized slogans in advance (although we have an outlook, a concept and a direction) we will realize that the main task of the Party is to work with an appreciation of the level of this anti-monopoly resistance, including the peace movement. We will then be able to work with this many-sided movement at many levels and help direct, guide, prod and nurse it along) in its manifold variations. As a result more forces will spring up, the anti-monopoly movement will grow and we will find words to describe it more scientifically than if we had first set up the concept and§- then tried to fit life into it—something we often do.

In a convention of this kind, one has an opportunity to hear not only speeches from the podium but also rich thoughts in personal and informal conversations. Based on such conversations, let me add a few thoughts about the ruinous negativism and cynicism which still persist in some quarters, and their side-effects. There are many degrees and levels of such effects. Some comrades so affected formally go through the motions of being active, even making speeches. But they cannot be effective because they lack real conviction. They cannot inspire or lead. Others hide their affliction by being critical about everything, making much ado about the insignificant. The figleaf for others is to be always looking for something “new,” something so “broad” that this be- comes the obstacle to any practical work or activity.

Such negativism affects relations not only in the Party but also with the mass of non-party people and organizations. Our theory as well as the time of day in history and the direction and speed of events realistically calls not for negativism but for the most sober, positive, optimistic outlook. We must have as our starting point not that on which we disagree with others but rather what we have in common. Criticism not based on the framework of points of agreement will fall on antagonistic and deaf ears.

Now a few words on the cadre question in the Party. To this we must give a lot of attention. Firstly, because our cadre is rather scattered and, while it is growing now, we need a lot of good Marxist-Leninist cadre. We are going to build and grow, all of us, in the process of work, but we must have a certain approach to this question.

I want to say these words especially in view of the fact that all the state conventions, except the state of Washington, will be electing leadership in the coming period. The leadership will have to show some real understanding of the present level of our process of rebuilding. In this connection I would like to suggest that we take to heart the warning that Comrade Mao Zedong gave to the Chinese Party about promoting and bringing into leadership “only those that are near and dear.”

We must be able to mold a leadership that takes into account the still different emphases that different comrades have, and that takes into account the infusion of both old and new as much as possible. We must have a unified leadership. We must understand that this is a process— a process of molding a unified leadership. Especially with the coming state conventions I urge we take such an approach in our cadre policy.

Finally, comrades, as we all agree, this has been a good convention. But when I say that, that is exhortation. That is bombast. Well, a little of that we have to have. But the fact remains that it does not necessarily prove that it is a good convention. The test of whether this is a good convention will have to come in the days and weeks ahead and months and years ahead. The approach we should use is that it has laid a good foundation for our work. We are a united party. We have an outlook. We have a united policy. But in about a year we should check the results. On such a concrete basis we will make final judgment as to how effective those proceedings have been and what place the 17th Convention will hold in our history. I have no hesitation in prophesying that the results will add up to a “well done.”

Our responsibilities and tasks are great. The obstacles are not small ones. But we need not be weary. Life and the direction of history, all subjective and objective elements, point only to one direction—to victory!