Yes, with regards sub reformism. It is no surprise that the proposal was overwhelmingly approved. Indeed, the party's slogan is correct, and as you say, the argument behind it is a powerful tool against arguments of the PoMo [short-hand for "post-modernist--ed.] type. Such arguments range from not only calling for a change in the personal life style of activists and revolutionaries but also propose to change the attitudes and lifestyles of people suffering under the yoke of imperialism in the third world. The line may be that of transforming the lifestyle of wimmin in the Third World who serve as 'baby factories,' for imperialist production. The issue of survival well overrides what lifestyle choices are available to the oppressed. It is the grossest chauvinism to propose first world settler family relations as a way forward for the oppressed. Not because anything in the first world family makes it inherently fucked up (in my opinion it is WAY FUCKED UP), but because to do so ignores the material conditions in the Third World an account of which is manifestly important for any proposed solution to the problems at issue.
Sub reformism is a perverse and popular idealist ideology which both misses the point as to what gives rise to the contradictions in capitalist society and which serves to mislead well intentioned activists and genuine revolutionaries. Its roots in the un-scientific ideology of the petty bourgeois who at times has a vested interest in chasing after its own tail for 'solutions' must be exposed.
This is pretty much the line that J. and I put forth against the charming fellows from TWLF [Third World Liberation Front - people leading the campaign for ethnic studies departments (dominated by PoMo theorists) at the UCs].
Contact MIM by writing mim@mim.org