COMRADES AND FRIENDS,
THE QUESTION OF PARTY BUILDING IN THE UNITED STATES OF NORTH AMERICA IS THE MOST BURNING QUESTION OF OUR DAY!!!
Just what is a Proletarian Party?
It is the most advanced, highly organized detachment of the working class – operating under the organizational principle of democratic-centralism, with a proletarian world outlook – guided by the science of Marxism-Leninism.
It is a Party of a NEW TYPE – distinct from the liberal reformist parties of the past and present whose major concern is the winning of elective positions or the passing of electoral initiatives.
Such a reformist party is the Communist Party of the USA. These parties – understanding nothing of class struggle or of socialist revolution, place all their hopes upon the objective evolutionary process of society the so-called “levelling of class distinctions” which will spontaneously and quantitatively lead small step by small step – into EVOLVED Socialism, peacefully and through the electoral process.
Of course, these revisionists completely reject the Leninist theory of the state and its inevitable control by the ruling class – in our case by the monopoly capitalist – a control which extends to and includes the electoral system.
The CP (USA) – never a truly bolshevized Party – nonetheless has had a revolutionary history – leading the mass struggles of the 1930’s and particularly the struggle of the Afro-American people in the South; at the insistence of the Comintern raising and upholding the demand of the right of the Afro-American people to self-determination in the Black-belt south.
However, its history has also been characterized by strong opportunist tendencies from its inception, due in large part to the strong syndicalist and petty-bourgeois reformist elements involved in its birth.
In 1929 – the Communist International – under the leadership of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union led by Josef Stalin had to severely criticize the leaders of the CP (USA) for their factionalism and opportunism:
While this contributed to a temporary rectification of its major errors the CP (USA) nonetheless in the late 30’s and into the 4O’s – particularly under the petty-bourgeois leadership of the revisionist and class-collaborator Earl Browder – began to liquidate its trade union fractions and factory nuclei, a first step in the liquidation of the Party itself. A step which was completed in 1944 with the CP being changed to the mass Communist Political Association. The CP line put forth was that the US bourgeoisie was still progressive and that class contradictions and struggle were being resolved peacefully.
The party never completely recovered from this, and even under the leadership of Browder’s so-called “left” opponent – William Z. Foster – the party turned towards revisionism – of the “peaceful transition to socialism.”
“Both groups”, (that is, the Lovestone and Foster factions in the CP (USA), said comrade Stalin, “are guilty of the fundamental error of exaggerating the specific features of American capitalism. You know this exaggeration lies at the root of every opportunist error committed by the minority and majority group…therefore, when the leaders (of each faction) accuses each other of a right deviation, it is obviously not without some measure of truth”.
Foster himself, while he fought Browder over certain questions – did not fight against the liquidation of the Party into the CPA for which he was severely criticized by French Communist Jacques Duclos (when he was still a communist), He also helped author the opportunist Center Left “Neutrality of the trade unions” policy of the Party – which failed to seize the opportunity to put communists in leadership of the Trade Unions – leaving the trade unions under liberal bureaucratic leadership, which laid the basis for the building of fascist labor fronts such as the teamster leadership and bringing these mass organizations of the workers under the control of the bourgeoisie through the bribed labor bureaucrats.
The results of this traitorous turn towards revisionism – led by the CPSU at its 20th and 22nd Congresses – (and faithfully followed by its lapdog CP (USA), we all know. THE PROLETARIAT WAS LEFT IDEOLOGICALLY AND POLITICALLY LEADERLESS IN ITS FIGHT FOR FREEDOM AND STATE POWER!!!
The struggles of the working class and the oppressed masses – while they were and still are determined and heroic – were carried on in a spontaneous, blind and parochical manner.
With the deepening objective crisis of USNA imperialism – signalled by its decreasing rate of productivity, loss of markets and rising inflation – and the accompanying political crisis, symbolized by Watergate – a political vacuum has been created in this country.
Every day the proletariat spontaneously sees for itself that bourgeois democracy is a sham. The masses by the millions refuse to vote and have no faith in the democratic and republican parties.
When a political vacuum exists, it will either be filled by a proletarian Party of a new type with deep roots among the working-class, or by Fascism – an outright terrorist dictatorship of the bourgeoisie over the working class. Every fascist takeover must be preceded by a division of the working class movement. In Italy and Germany this task was taken on and accomplished by the revisionist Socia1-democratic Parties. In our time it is mainly being accomplished by the revisionist CPUSA which seeks to deflect the working class from socialist revolution onto the reformist path and its own destruction.
In the final analysis the most decisive factor – is the subjective, conscious factor – a revolutionary Marxist-Leninist Party of a new type, a truly steeled and Bolshevized Party such as the Party of Lenin and Stalin.
The principle feature of the communist movement in this period has been amateurishness, isolation, unclarity of political line, theoretical diffuseness and eclecticism.
The amateurishness shows itself in the failure to systematically sum up past work and that of such organizations as the CPUSA and RU; in their failure to scientifically lay out a program, strategy and tactics for each immediate task or for different periods of work.
We must understand that the root of these errors lies in the low level of theoretical development of the various Communist organizations and the strong influence of the petty-bourgeoisie and their ideology.
Comrades,
It is theory MARXIST-LENINIST THEORY which must be our guide to action. We are either guided by Marxist-Leninist theory and line or by petty-bourgeois theory and a petty-bourgeois line there is no in between. An incomplete or eclectic grasp of Marxist-Leninist theory must inevitably show itself in our political line and practice any practice not guided by the science of Marxist-Leninist theory must inevitably show itself in our political line and practice – any practice not guided by the science of Marxism-Leninism must be guided by idealism and metaphysics. The results are there for all to see – the spontaneous, disjointed, narrow and unscientific work of many of the communist groups; compounded by the overwhelmingly petty-bourgeois social base of their leadership – a base which can only be transcended by a firm and complete ideological remolding – from petty-bourgeois to proletarian ideology – and only through fierce ideological struggle and a solid grasp of the principles of Marxism-Leninism and their application to concrete conditions. We must struggle against all those who try to revise and opportunistically change Marxist-Leninist principles masking this revisionism with a new cover for the old CPUSA theory of American exceptionalism.
These factors lie at the heart of all the deviations on the Party building question – whether it be from the Trotskyite and the old revisionists who deny the need to build a new Party, to the new revisionists who give verbal and vacillating commitment to this central task but whose practice speaks to the denial of the need for a proletarian Party.
The answer to the dilemma of the proletariat can only be for the Marxist-Leninists of the USNA to build a truly multi-national Communist Party under proletarian leadership, that is from the class to the class.
There has been somewhat general agreement on this point among Marxist-Leninists for some time, with, of course, one notable exception – the leadership of the Revolutionary Union.
At the risk of being slandered we say to the RU leadership – you’re FIVE YEARS TOO LATE!!!
However – better late than never. It would seem though, that the Revolutionary Union is confused as to how to build a Communist Party. This confusion arises from a lack of clarity as to the Leninist concept of the Marxist-Leninist Party, and its function in relation to the spontaneous mass movement. The RU leadership does not seem to understand that a vanguard Party must be guided by a vanguard theory – the science of Marxism-Leninism. But Marxism-Leninism is the science of proletarian leadership, of strategy and tactics; it is a guide to action which gives the proletarian Party the clarity of perspective and knowledge of the objective laws governing society and enabling-it to lead and carry through to completion the socialist revolution.
The KEY Comrades, is LEADERSHIP.
Now – how is the proletariat, its most advanced elements, to obtain this guide to action – this science of revolution? Can they gain this knowledge from strikes, or demonstrations, walkouts or strike support committees alone? In the month of July alone there were 600 strikes around the country. The question comrades, is whether the Marxist-Leninists were in leadership of those struggles, whether the working class has yet become a class for itself.
The answer to all these questions, comrades – is NO!! These struggles, in and of themselves can never lead to a highly developed socialist consciousness. They are only quantitative advancements of the spontaneous mass movement that can only end in bourgeois ideology, economism and trade unionist politics.
It makes no difference if one passes out millions of Farah leaflets – with the slogan, “Unionize the Southwest and Support 2000 Chicano Workers Out on Strike” – to carry on this sort of activity without seeking to bring Marxism-Leninism to the advanced workers is economism. It is detaching the objective factor from the subjective factor, and can only lead – as the experience of the RU proves – to tailing the masses, to reformism and revisionism. It is objectively an anti-theory attitude which hides under the cover of “you’re taking the workers out of the mass struggle and hiding them in little rooms just to study theory, to get a proletarian education.”
HORROR OF HORRORS!!! We want the advanced workers to study Marxism-Leninism. By the way as to the RU’s slander that ATM’s disdains mass struggle – we assert that no Marxist-Leninist group in Los Angeles has had as much practice as our organization in the last 3 years – in the trade unions and in the Chicano National movement.
There is only one way to get advanced workers to accept socialist ideas – and that is for Marxist-Leninist to become involved in the day-to-day struggles of the proletariat – BUT to link this work with communist propaganda.
We say communist Marxist-Leninist propaganda – not RU economist–Bay Area Worker propaganda. The proletariat does not need “left” trade unionism – it needs a Party – and will settle for nothing less. Communists can never – must never – be satisfied with mere quantitative progress; but must work for qualitative progress – for the advanced workers to take a leap in ideological understanding, from trade-unionist to SOCIALIST. In spite of the loud protests and denials of the Revolutionary Union they failed to get any of the Farah strikers into the study of Marxism-Leninism. To talk of broadening and deepening the struggle – without linking the struggle to the party-building process is to betray the working class, to leave it under the hegemony of bourgeois ideology.
We must be honest and bold in our analysis comrades – we must sum up the errors of the leadership of the Revolutionary Union – not in order to gloat – the VAST MAJORITY of RU cadre are sincere and honest communists seeking the correct answers to proletarian revolution – but to learn from them, to avoid these same errors.
Take for example, the strike at the DASCO Paper Company in Oakland, California. This strike occurred several months back and the principle organizations involved in the strike were the RU and the East Bay Labor Collective (now a part of ATM).
The mistakes made at Dasco by the East Bay Labor Collective and the RU can be traced back over a year prior to the strike itself. Working without a trade union program – especially one related to the central task of party-building – both groups failed to build a political base at the plant. The EBLC cadre did very good trade union work – had the confidence of most of the workers on the job – mostly Chicano, Latino, Mexicano and Asian. We failed, however, to develop the political consciousness of the advanced workers – to get them to take the leap from trade-unionist to socialist consciousness and build communist nuclei. EBLC – tailing the RU no less – would hand out a Farah leaflet one day, a farmworkers pamphlet another, etc. etc, ad nauseam – each thing we handed out bearing the indelible handprint of the RU – STONE ECONOMISM. When the EBLC cadre who was a shop steward was fired the plant HAD to walk out – to fail to do so would have strengthened the hand of the company immeasurably. At this point maybe 35% of the workers supported the strike, morale was high, people were militant but the strike lost. WHY?
Because the communists had failed to win over the advanced workers to Marxism-Leninism – workers who would have then taken the lead in the strike, would have seen the POLITICAL significance of the strike and would have rallied the intermediate and backward workers to continue the fight to the end. Lacking this base, and lacking a definite strategic and tactical line until halfway into the strike – the EBLC could not lead the strike to victory. When it became obvious to the strikers that the strike was lost, that they were not getting sound leadership, combined with enormous pressure from the company, the union misleaders and the police – they began to return to work. The RU – which had its strike support contingent at Dasco every day began to call them all scabs – not differentiating those who had sided with the company from the beginning and those who were forced back to the job. Soon there were twice as many RU’ers as strikers on the picket lines – RU still failed to do any Political work – all their agitation focusing on other strikes and the unity of strikers. By this time EBLC realized its mistake and began to bring communist propaganda to several of the advanced workers. On the basis of discussions with the advanced workers and an analysis of the concrete conditions, principally the fact that most of the workers had returned to work and the remainder were fast becoming demoralized – it was decided to regroup, consolidate our forces and prepare for a strike in November when the contract is up. Lenin says that one must know when to attack and when to retreat. It was time for an orderly retreat. RU resisted – “NO”, they shouted, “stay – beat up the scabs, hold them back, resist the pigs”. The RU failed to look beyond the strike – to realize the tactical nature of it. To them the strike – the immediate movement was everything, the end nothing. Of course the workers rejected this petty-bourgeois nonsense and followed the lead of EBLC.
The bitter and painful lesson of this strike comrades – a lesson carried on the backs of over 80 fired workers, was that we had not done communist work at Dasco. We had failed to carry out our central task – party building – had not won the advanced workers to communism. We – in lock-step with the RU – did the day to day trade union work – but no political work. We now have some of the Dasco workers studying Marxism-Leninism – doing now what we should have done a year ago. Why? Because we realize that the central task of party building cannot be metaphysically detached from our shop and trade union work.
The RU sent one of the Dasco strikers to China recently – I understand that that’s the only way one gets Marxism-Leninism with the Revolutionary Union.
We must remember Marx’s teachings that social consciousness is determined by social being – and that the social base of RU leadership is the petty-bourgeoisie, explaining their drift into reformism, elitism, commandism (for example, refusing to ideologically develop their cadre – only the leaders studying theory and deciding theoretical questions – the rank and file consigned to the mechanical, political work) – their white chauvinism, sectarianism, paternalism, and arrogance particularly towards oppressed nationality communists.
The RU with its “left” sectarian attitude has isolated itself – can work with no one, especially oppressed nationality communists, and yet it pretends it wants to build a Party. It is to be a party lead and composed only of the white petty-bourgeoisie? But while the Revolutionary Union is ultra “left” in form its essence is right opportunism. To put forward the line that the Party will be built by the various communist groups summing up their work in the spontaneous mass movement, and on the basis of this summation (of who are the best economists), conducting ideological struggle to develop a Party line and program – is consistent with the slavish, tailist line of the RU. For them to sum up their work in the mass movement is to sum up economism – bourgeois ideology. We have seen their lack of communist work in the Farah strike, a strike occurring in what Red Papers 5 calls an oppressed nation refusing to raise a single revolutionary slogan, because they say “the strikers didn’t call for self-determination” their refusal to bring Marxism-Leninism to the advanced workers (none of the Farah strikers was taken to China for PE). Is their summation of the Farah strike to be the basis for their programme for the Chicano National Movement? Summing up spontaneity only gives you spontaneity comrades – not a revolutionary maximum and minimum program defining the immediate and strategic aims of the revolution.
Or are we to develop a program for the national struggles based on the revisionists theory of a “nation of a new type”? This theory is nothing but a warmed-over rehash of the “cultural-national autonomy” line of Springer and Bauer – a line completely smashed by Lenin, and flowing today from the rehashed revisionist theory of Lovestone and Browder of American exceptionalism to Leninism.
Unfortunately comrades, ATM persists in being dogmatic – we stubbornly hold to the “orthodox” teachings of Comrade Stalin on the national question. We refuse to render him creatively more profound. We still believe as materialists that a nation development is tied to a common territory. We do not idealistically believe in mystical or floating nations. We do not believe in self-determination in the abstract but believe that nations must be defined concretely and scientifically according to the teachings of Lenin and Stalin. We believe that a nation consists of:
a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language territory, economic life, and psychological make up, manifested in a common culture.
In Red Papers 6 it is stated that the Marxist-Leninist theory of Stalin on the national question does not apply anymore, the new American exceptiona1ism. There are those whose vacillation leads to the line of “this is not revisionism” – well then just what is revisionism? Then also perhaps the dictatorship of the proletariat does not apply, or the destruction of the bourgeois state. Comrades, we must draw firm lines of demarcation, Marxist-Leninist principles or liberal principles masked with Marxist phrases – revisionism.
It is on this basis, using Marxist-Leninist theory that ATM develops its investigation into the Chicano national question, and it is on this basis that we will develop our line and programme for the Chicano national movement.
Now let us take a look at the “left” deviation on Party building. Holding high the banner of “left” opportunism are our old friends – the Communist League.
The fundamental error of the approach of the CL to party building is their detachment of the subjective factor from any scientific analysis of objective conditions – often called idealism. This leads of course to their “burn the house down” approach to winning over the so-called “most advanced of the advanced workers”.
It goes like this: “Whoever is left standing after our propaganda blitz and after we get fired – we can recruit into study groups.”
They subjectively assume that communist propaganda alone can win advanced workers to communism – detached from the day to day struggles of the class. They fail to do any base building; fail to analyze the general political level of workers in a particular plant, or the particular political level of the advanced workers – and to make a distinction between the two – leading them to liquidate the distinction between agitation and propaganda. At the same time they often destroy the efforts of honest Marxist-Leninists doing work at the same factories – especially given the fact that most communist organizations are rather young and solid bases of work are just in the process of being formed and consolidated. The CL reinforces every stereotype about communists put out by the bourgeoisie to the working class; and with its phrasemongering slogans never concretely explaining what fascism is, why there is a need for a new communist party since there is one already they create more confusion than clarity.
The second level at which the CL seeks to wreck the building of a new party is in its relationship to other Marxist-Leninist force.
Sharing kinship with the RU with their sectarianism and white chauvinism towards oppressed nationality communist groups, CL has been unable to work any genuine Marxist-Leninist forces. They have wrecked the Continuations Committee and are wrecking just as full blown Trotskyists wreck. They refuse to accept principled criticism, to wage principled ideological struggle – seeing their line as the only possible correct line in a sectarian manner. And what are some of the concrete features of their line?
Well, in common with Trots the world over, they hold to the single stage theory of revolution in the underdeveloped countries. Again, this flows from their lack of analysis of the situation in these countries and the CL’s departure from Marxist-Leninist principles and their inability to apply Marxist-Leninist interpretation to the situation in the Third World. They understand nothing of the Marxist-Leninist theory of political economy. They deny that semi-feudal, pre-capitalist survivals remain in the countryside of the underdeveloped countries. Survivals maintained by imperialism to prevent the full development of capitalism in those countries with its resulting threat to the hegemony of the imperialists and their comprador allies. The imperialists – particularly the USNA, must maintain semi-feudal fetters on the productive forces in order to maintain the chains of underdevelopment of the Third World – must see that survivals of land-tenure, ground rent and the large latifundias are preserved, as well as their allies the feudal landlords and comprador bourgeoisie. The answer for the underdeveloped countries of the Third World can only be a New democratic revolution under the leadership of the proletariat and its Party with the peasantry as their main ally – but including all democratic, anti-feudal, anti-imperialist forces, even certain sections of the national bourgeoisie.
The crux of CL’s Trotskite position on the international situation is its denial of revolutionary, anti-imperialist classes in the oppressed nations (that is, besides the proletariat) of the world, i.e. the rejection of the basis for the theory of New Democracy and two-stage revolution in the Third World. And, in true Trotskyite form the CL attempts to mask its counter-revolutionary line with super-phrasemongering and hypocritical accolades to proletarian internationalism.
In its June 1974 issue of the Peoples Tribune, in an article dealing with the international situation, CL states, “Another aspect of this struggle is what should be the communists attitude toward the national interest of the oppressed peoples. Should the leading factor be to support the national interest, which can only be bourgeois interests, or should the leading factor by proletarian internationalism? It is clear that it is impossible to unite the various national interests against imperialism..”
We claim that this is a Trotskyite stance, but let’s see what Trotsky himself had to say on this same question.
“A democratic or national liberation movement may offer the bourgeoisie its possibilities for exploitation. Independent intervention of the proletariat on the revolutionary arena threatens to deprive the bourgeoisie to exploit altogether.” (The Third International After Lenin, p. 172) and, “..The overthrow of the imperialist yoke is a progressive historical task in China. However, the conduct of the Chinese bourgeoisie in relation to imperialism, the proletariat, and the peasantry, was not more revolutionary than the attitude of the Russian bourgeoisie towards Czarism and the revolutionary classes in Russia, but, if anything, viler and more reactionary. That is the only way to pose the problem.” (ibid, p. 170)
The fact that the victorious Chinese revolution proved Trotsky wrong does not prevent CL’s leadership from uniting with Trotsky.
In 1940 Mao Tse-Tung came forward with the theory of New Democracy. In his article ”On New Democracy” Mao states:
The new historical characteristic of the Chinese revolution is its division into two stages, the first being the new-democratic revolution.. After the May 4th movement, the political leader of China’s bourgeois-democratic revolution was no longer the bourgeoisie but the proletariat, although the national bourgeoisie continued to take part in the revolution... Being a bourgeoisie in a colonial and semi-colonial country and oppressed by imperialism, the Chinese National bourgeoisie retains a certain revolutionary quality at certain periods and to a certain degree – even in the era of imperialism – in its opposition to foreign imperialists and the domestic governments of bureaucrats and warlords and it may ally itself with the proletariat and the petty-bourgeoisie against such enemies as it is ready to oppose... Here, the task of the proletariat is to form a united front with the National bourgeoisie against imperialism and the bureaucrat and warlord governments without overlooking its revolutionary qualities.
At the same time, however, being a bourgeois class in a colonial and semi-colonial country end so being extremely flabby economically and politically, the Chinese national bourgeoisie also has another quality, namely, a proneness to conciliation with the enemies of the revolution.. Possible participation in the revolution on the one hand and proneness to conciliation with the enemies of the revolution on the other – such is the character of the Chinese bourgeoisie, if faces both ways....
In China, it is perfectly clear that whoever can lead the people in overthrowing imperialism and the forces of feudalism can win the peoples confidence... History has proved that the Chinese bourgeoisie cannot fulfill this responsibility, which inevitably falls upon the shoulders of the proletariat.
Therefore, the proletariat, the peasantry, the intelligentsia and other sectors of the petty-bourgeoisie undoubtedly constitute the basic forces determining China’s fate. These classes, some already awakened and others in the process of awakening, will necessarily become the basic components of the State and governmental structure in the democratic republic of China, with the proletariat as the leading force. The Chinese democratic republic which we desire to establish now must be a democratic republic under the joint dictatorship of all anti-imperialist and anti-feudal people, led by the proletariat, that is, a new democratic republic...” (On New Democracy, ch. 5, pp. 136)
Thus Mao outlined for the first stage of the revolution which is of general applicability to the countries of the Third World today. He laid out the strategy for uniting all the revolutionary classes in China for the assault on Imperialism. Trotsky’s strategy on the other hand was to isolate the revolutionary proletariat in China, just as he had attempted to do in Russia, where it took the form of attacking the alliance between the proletariat and the peasantry.
CL’s line is a continuation of Trotsky’s line. CL. also attempts to isolate the revolutionary proletarian in the Third World by attacking the Marxist-Leninist theory of new democracy and by attempting to wreck the United Front against imperialism. At home CL’s line expresses itself in its dogmatism, its sectarian approach to party building, in its attempt to isolate the revolutionary proletariat from the working class by negating the necessity to involve itself and lead the spontaneous struggle of the working class as if political consciousness comes only from leaflets and slogans. CL attempts to isolate the USNA proletariat from its class brothers and sisters in China, Albania and throughout the Third World by attacking the very forces that are leading the struggle against USNA imperialism and Soviet Social-Imperialism. In effect, CL is collaborating with imperialism and social-imperialism in attempting to isolate the CCP and the PLA from the revolutionary proletariat in the USNA and the revolutionary peoples of the world. CL is carrying out a Trotskyite line of sabateur and wrecker of the international united front against imperialism and social-imperialism. CL’s line is “left” in form, and right in essence, that is, counter revolution in disguise, the essence of Trotskyism.
The CL denies this of course, just they deny dialectics and reject the science of Marxism-Leninism. What else can we expect out of the Trotskyite-infested Provisional Organizing Committee which bred CL except a new blossoming of Trotskyism?
The complete bankruptcy of CL’s line becomes clear when we examine their position on the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union. The CL says that there has not been a complete capitalist restoration in the USSR. That it is only a handful of elites who are attempting to restore the rule of capital in the Soviet Union. This line runs directly counter to the line and analysis of the Albanian Party of Labor and the Chinese Communist Party, which proves that monopoly-state-capitalism is the economic system of the USSR and that its political system is fascism – the open and undisguised terroristic rule of MONOPOLY capital of the most vicious and chauvinistic sort. The Communist League, with its left phrasemongering turns out to be just another group of Trotskyite conciliators with social-imperialism – true sons and daughters of the infamous Second International.
And where are these wreckers and left opportunists this weekend? Why they’re in Chicago having a 3 day discussion with themselves about changing the name of CL to that of Party.
We have talked about the situation in the USNA and on the left. Where does the August Twenty-ninth Movement fit in? Well – we have been politically deprived as an organization. We never had any old CP’ers or SDS’ers to give us leadership and guidance. For clarity we could only go to the teachings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao Tse-Tung. We were born primarily out of the Chicano National Movement. The class base of our leadership and our organization is from the proletariat, both urban and rural. We see party-building as our central task, but we see that it must be accomplished – in our mass work by linking communist propaganda to the day to day struggles of the workers, winning the advanced elements into the study of the science of Marxism-Leninism and consolidating them organizationally into cadre. The core and future leadership of the new Party is inside the factories and fields comrades, it is our duty to give them Marxist-Leninist study, recruit and train them.
On the other hand, and related to this, we must begin to come together with other honest, anti-revisionist, anti-trotskyist Marxist-Leninists to draw clear lines of demarcation – to wage ideological struggle with the purpose of applying the Marxist-Leninist science to an analysis of the motion of the class forces nationally and internationally; to scientifically derive a revolutionary party programme, and political, strategic and tactical line.
You know – the history of mankind is a history of struggle, and this is no less true today than it was in the time of Marx and Engels.
The road to the Party and to proletarian revolution will never be an easy and straight path – but is full of many twists and turns and obstacles. We must reject left impetuosity and apply proletarian patience in our approach. We must actively seek out and remove all obstacles to our goal. It was absolutely necessary for the development of proletarian revolution that Marx and Engels struggle against and smash the Bakunin’s and the LaSalles; that Lenin ideologically rout the Kautskys and the Martovs; that Stalin defeat Trotsky and Bukharin in the cause of socialist construction – and in our time that Comrades Mao Tse-Tung and Enver Hoxha lead all honest Marxist-Leninist forces in the struggle to isolate and destroy the poisonous line of the Brezshnevs, Liu Shao Chis and the Lin Piaos. We too must seek out and isolate and smash the counter revolutionary lines within the USNA – especially on Party building – of the Bob Avakians and the Nelson Perrys, and all other who would help the bourgeoisie to keep the masses in misery and oppression.
The choice is clear comrades:
FREEDOM or SLAVERY
DIGNITY or DEGRADATION
PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION or FASCISM
THE PROLETARIAN PARTY or DEFEAT
MARXIST-LENINIST UNITE!!!
Built a New Communist Party and we will surely defeat all of our enemies and march forward to the dictatorship of the proletariat.
VENCEREMOS!