Mike Golash

The book shows the dangers of waiting fifty years to write a memoir. Having been an active member of the PLP for over 50 years and in a leadership role most of that time, i have a different memory of the period from the middle sixties to the early seventies. The party's line was in constant flux during that period as we got a better understanding of the past errors of the communist movement. When the party broke with China after crushing of the Cultural Revoluiton, it was widely discussed. Some left the party over the quesion. Does anyone think China is still a beacon of a communist future? We could have done a better job on presenting our line on revisionism and nationalism but I do not think it was wrong. Overall the book concentrates too much on the party's weaknesses rather than its strengths. I am sure the party could have done better, but the bottom line is the party was trying to build a communist movement in a period when the world communist movement was in decline. The concept of the worker-student alliance was developed and it persists today on many campuses and the idea of for fighting communism has been kept alive. You might think it is on life support, but I think it is better than that. I am not going to comment on many of the specifics in the book because my memory is no better than that of the contributors.