February 14, 1981
I am writing this letter to the NCLC membership in response to the actions of my friends, some of whom have resigned, some who have resolved to go through fire and water with LaRouche, and some who have resigned themselves to remain with the LC, at least until the next affront to their consciences.
The flurry of memos from LaRouche since mid-December, the subsequent letters of resignation and the consequent "security" memoranda issued in reply to the resignations, have raised questions somewhat larger than the specific charges and slanders raised at various members.
Theoretically, the cadre participates in the selection of the organization's leadership--i.e., those political and administrative executives who are, hopefully, most qualified to initiate and develop the new strategies required as the organization achieves--or fails to achieve--its goals. In practical terms, the selection of leadership necessarily involves trust. It is not faith (the belief in someone or something irrespective of or despite knowledge) but trust--rational belief based in knowledge--which is the basis of the cadre's implicit or explicit mandate to political and intellectual leadership.
Developments following the elaboration of the "elites" organizing perspective have placed a heavy burden on the membership's trust in its leadership, and necessarily so: the membership is often necessarily distanced from certain negotiations and decisions made on its behalf.
It is in this context that the membership should review the present situation. Whether or not initiated by LaRouche, and whether or not known to LaRouche, primitive accumulation against the membership and infrastructure was carried out over a protracted period. Members most directly affected worked in intolerable conditions, and continued to do so because of the political and "objective" portrayal of the situation.
One would expect of a responsible leader a careful evaluation of the scope and details of the situation once learned of, and the written dissemination of only that information sufficient to "get back on the track." Instead, LaRouche, upon learning of the economic holocaust ostensibly for the first time, launched a cynical campaign to "blow the scandal," placing the organization and a significant number of members in political and legal jeopardy. The sheer amount of crap placed in writing--including the "moral opinion of the majority" posturing--reflects a complete abandonment of prudence, and a de facto breach of trust as Chairman.
Further, LaRouche pursued a policy of capricious brinksmanship against certain leaders in the entities, further lowering productivity and making even more precarious the survival of the entire collection of entities. (Has the membership considered the practical repurcussions of a failure of one of these entities? We can only assume that Mr. LaRouche knew of these practical considerations, which makes the "politics" of his tactics untenable.)
To what end was all this grandstanding aimed? First, LaRouche had to force Andy and Gus to reply to his charges, since the membership would--on the whole--agree with LaRouche's charges with few reservations once either or both rose to "defend themselves against Lyn." LaRouche may also have been counting on their reluctance to defend themselves with facts which would damage both the Chairman and the entire organization: this would be the mark of someone who has placed himself "beyond." The fact that hysteria-induced attacks on Gus escalated to the point of practically threatening his life, and that then and only then did Gus say anything publicly, should give the membership some food for thought in an otherwise-starved period.
The second, and ultimate, aim of the campaign involved playing down the NEC [the NCLC's National Executive Committee] as helpless--given Gus and the circumstances--and thus to remind us all that, lest we forget, there is not only one Lyn, but only one truly competent leader--period. By giving the NEC an "out" for the recent past, and by announcing "trials and purges" of anyone who doubts that Gus poisoned Alexander the Great, LaRouche had one-upped George Orwell in showing how to close ranks at the top to carry on as usual.
Each member must examine the current political situation, the present political direction of the organization, the "ecumenical" nature of certain Sunbelt ventures formed recently, and the psychological climate emerging in the organization.
The handling of "security" is an efficient "crucial experiment" in assessing LaRouche's motives. If the current "scandal"-based hysteria is later used to discourage political and strategic discussion within the membership, how will proper intelligence (for example) ever be gathered, let alone acted on?
If the membership has lost the right to question or recall an executive, on what basis does the organization operate? What kind of humanism can be cited to support the present situation (no Borgias need apply)?
If the criteria for continued membership ceases to be trust (and how can the knowledge required for trust be obtained without free discussion?) and becomes fealty, what will emerge that is distinguishable from Scientology or the Sicilian family business?
D. Phillips
(signed)