< 7 | Thinking The Unthinkable | 9 >

3. I can find no evidence of its prior discussion by Marcus with all of the leadership or any of the membership - a trend which is dangerous in itself.

4. Berl's paper "The CP Within Us" indicates that at least part of the Labor Committee viewed Mop-Up as a revolution, an opportunity to demolish the existing centrist "credit-structure" and put us on an entirely new basis. Contrast her two statements, one year apart:

"Do you remember now when you became unable to implement the CP policy as your own policy? It wasn't after the NC. It was that moment when you compromised with the feelings that made you become a revolutionary in the first place."
(April '73)
"What was actually occurring, unbeknownst to ourselves, was that, in sessions foreshadowing those which Marcus was later to conduct with the leadership, members were deluded into belie Iving that the military actions demanded of them by the leadership, of which I was a prominent spokesman, were in fact cathexised to their real inner selves, so that any failure to implement those actions was sufficient proof that the member was functioning under a persona."
(April '74)

5. It was during this period that the practice of LC members "performing psychological terror on each other, and finally, upon themselves" (C.B., 4/74) was institutionalized through the transfor mation of meetings into T-groups. That comrades now remember these with disapprobation does not mean that such attack-group techniques have been shown the door; they have simply been ^institutionalized, forsaking the extraordinary, concentrated form of the weekly meeting to flourish in the "pores" of the organization, between couples, in apartments, on intelligence files, etc. Mop-Up was the "training period." The T-groups were no accidental over-exuberance.

6. Finally, at this point a familiar social mechanism has taken hold: because the membership literally staked their lives and minds on the correctness of that policy on anunprincipled basis (namely blindness and fear), there is now too much danger from held-back humiliation to permit most of us to reconsider. As one comrade said, "I found myself kicking a girl. And the thought came into my mind - if this isn't really the real thing, if this isn't the revolution, I have just committed a crinimal act."

To skip over, for the moment, the December conference, because it was naught but psychodrama from beginning to end, the next attempt at discussion (in the membership's presence, that is) came in May. Let's review what Rumley's, Lerner's, and Cohen's perspicacious "mothers" were saying. Supposedly these ladies have recanted and I shall be accused of vamping! yet there is no decent basis for them to have so done.

RUMLEY: "We seem to view the world in terms of 3 back rooms of history - sleeping Russian bears, the chortling CIA, and us.
"The real question is, can we lead this mass strike? Do we have the leadership - or will they go hide again? The key to morale isn't morale itself but that demonstrated competence, which answers the questions put to it. All strikes aren't CIA, you know..."

MARCUS: "That's demogogy, Jim. Corkers can't win strikes in this period. The reason the national Patterns of Development was dropped was your own fault and the fault of poor organizing in the field."

LERKER: "We have developed very few people who understand or are capable of adding to program. There is a dichotomy between cur programmatic perspective and the actual organizing being done in the locals. Unless the program and its evolving specifics can be discussed the whole morale question is unreal."

MARCUS: "Aren't you blocking on the sublectivo problem, Eric? We've dealt with this in you before, and you know what we're talking about. Don't get into this unprincipled bloc with Bob Cohen's neurosis "You learn to cry, Eric. You learn to cry."

Edit - History - Print - Recent Changes - Search
Page last modified on November 22, 2007, at 12:08 AM