◆ SpookStack

_ t persons who at oné time chose to put themselves Even after officially leaving NCLC in August, _. under the political leadership _of Lyndon La- 1974, Newman and his followers continued to Rouche, it becomes crucial to examine the debate and criticizeé-LaRouche and the NCLG ———. relationship carefully: over issues of shared political ideology as if it rep- During most of "1974, the NCLC under La- resented legitimate leftist theory long after the - Rouche was primarily attracting middle-class and rest of the American Left had denounced NCLC upper-class white intellectual students from pres- as either proto-Nazi Brownshirts, a sick political tigious eastern and mid-western college cam- cult, or outright police agents. puses—hardly a core of trade unionists and Fred Newman insists his group was not sophis- welfare recipients as characterized by Newman’s ticated about the American Left when it joined supporters. with LaRouche, yet when the Newmanites split A former member of LaRouche’s NCLC_. from NCLC, they announced the formation of a remembers the arrival in 1974 of what were called “vanguard” Marxist-Leninist political party. In the “Newmanites:” the resignation letter signed by Newman and 38 of They put themselves under the actual bis followers, there is a significa t use of Marust- political leadership of LaRouche fora aa of politi ogy we ee nan aan i few months, and we came to believe that degree political sophistication * , what Newman really wanted during that Announcing that Newman's International _... 4 : : 8 Workers Party (IWP) had “now become the van- period was to act as an understudy to La- d party of the working class,” the lett + went Rouche —to leam his methods and tech- guarc party or ette niques of controlling persons in an on to say: organization. The organization of the vanguard The individuals in Newman's group party is, as Marx makes clear, the or. ) seemed to lack clarity and political focus gonicanon ot the ip rn So enpe “of } and were obsessed with psychology and ize the iN cL rah within that it sexuality. Newman was clearly the leader a ght move from 7 pa ition of left and it was obvious that LaRouche 5 ego hegemony to a position of leadership of and Newman's ego were too big to allow the class. 3 them to work together in the same or- ganization for long. When joining the NCLC, Newman announced . : . he was putting himself and his followers under the P aye © actual membership ty ~ 0 ce political “hegemony” of LaRouche. After leading NCLC na u have lasted only a few months, the his followers out of the NCLC, Newman con- y y on € tinued to struggle with LaRouche over theory . Roushe aan: ee chi roups let aohtial within the principles of criticism among friends. leader named Gino Parente lasted far longer. None of indicates a casual, naive or short-lived Some activists from New York remember the ons: . i three groups working in a loose alliance around is- : | Sore eh os welfare reform, farm labor, and of- The Nature of NCLC During the . ganizing the Working class for a period as long as Newmanite Alliance { one year. One internal NCLC discussion of the . , oo oe Newmanites describes “ten months of serious Still, Newman’s merger and split with La- Rouche would have little merit as a criticism of \ : 8 * : ” bef = " Di Alera rue ie pochues oars hed in hoe meee = flys rs not for how ask oes | t 1 7 ° pes . aor — ~~ “E — eee lovember December, 1973 the New nature of LaR uche and the NCLC in late 1973 . manite split took place i 3 ¢ split place in late August, 1974. and 1974—the period when Newman grew close 4 - Political Research Associates