The newly formed phoney “CPUSA(M-L)” has not “been built on Leninist principles or on a Leninist program. It has not used the Bolshevik Party as its model or Lenin’s great work What Is To Be Done? as its ideological foundation. Instead, it has modeled itself after the revisionist “CPML”(OL). The “CPUSA(M-L)” is not based among the advanced workers and represents nothing more than a tiny sect of petty bourgeois opportunists, careerists, and aspiring labor aristocrats. It has taken an anti-Leninist line on every major question of party-building and resurrected and defended every economist line that has plagued our movement for years. Its founders have fulfilled none of the theoretical or practical prerequisites to build a genuine party. The history of MLOC has been a history of right opportunism, belittling of Marxist-Leninist theory, and bowing to spontaneity. It has been the most consistent and widest spreader of ideological confusion among those forces opposed to Chinese revisionism. In fact, MLOC has been a center for opportunism. The “party” it has founded is nothing but a sick joke. The “CPUSA(M-L)” is nothing.
Why have we given so much attention to a group such as MLOC, whose plan for party-building so miserably failed that only one other circle joined in with it? The reason is that the phoney “CPUSA(M-L)”, as a major promoter of right opportunism among those opposed to Chinese revisionism, is part of a new current of opportunism in the international communist movement. The struggle against Soviet revisionism was easily sidetracked by the Chinese revisionists because most of the “opponents” of Soviet revisionism never really upheld orthodox Leninism, but were actually centrists. It is our duty to the international communist movement to nip this new anti-Leninist trend in the bud among the forces opposed to Chinese revisionism, lest these forces too merely shed only some features of revisionism in general only to adopt and consolidate around others. This is a key time in the international communist movement, when the struggle for Leninism can and must be carried out to the end. If a ruthless struggle to defeat all anti-Leninist lines and theories is not successfully waged, the gains made in the struggle against Chinese revisionism will be quickly lost.
The fact that “CPUSA(M-L)” claims to oppose Chinese revisionism and uphold Leninism only means that it has given its opportunism a slicker cover than the raving social-chauvinists of OL-CPML and company. This is why we call “CPUSA(M-L)” centrist, because it borrows some phrases from the genuine left wing and pretends to fight the right, but actually maintains in essence the line and program of the right. MLOC’s consistent anti-Leninist line and practice is virtually indistinguishable from that of OL, and they have brought all their rightist baggage with them into the forces opposed to Chinese revisionism. Like all centrists, they have directed their main fire at the genuine left wing, the real defenders of Leninism. They have consolidated their “party” in the course of the struggle against the Leninist line on party-building, which is why they had to issue such a frenzied attack in their Dec. 1, 1978 “Unite” against any circle that even partially exposed their anti-Leninist line. To pose left, fight the real left, and conciliate with the line of the right – this is the rightist essence of centrism.
The fact that several anti-Chinese revisionist parties have quickly rushed to endorse this sham “CPUSA(M-L)” shows that either these parties have no idea of just what the situation is in the US communist movement, in which case they should first investigate, or, worse, that they cannot tell the difference between a Leninist party and an anti-Leninist sect. If the latter case is true, this indicates that they themselves have also not used Leninism as their guide. We urge the genuine Marxist-Leninists in the international communist movement who have recognized the “CPUSA(M-L)” to reconsider It is true that there can only be one genuine Marxist-Leninist party in each country – but the “CPUSA(M-L)” is not it. There is still no Marxist-Leninist party in the US.
The initial acts taken by “CPUSA(M-L)” have only shown that it has fully consolidated on an opportunist line. The January 15, 1979 “Unite” informs us that its “congress” was held on December 23, 1978. The report of the activities of the congress itself shows the continuation of the anti-Leninist line. There is no mention of any debate on the program at the congress, much less a recounting of what that was. This is especially important at a founding congress, since a newly founded party is still in the process of cementing its ideological unity and rooting out the errors of the past. This was why Lenin attached so much importance to recounting the debate on the party program before and at the 2nd party congress, which was in reality the founding congress of the Russian party. Further, the “CPUSA(M-L)”’s founding congress, for some unexplained reason, only adopted its program as a draft program. The founding congress is supposed to consider the draft program, make amendments, and consolidate around the party program. That “CPUSA(M-L)”’s founding congress only adopted a draft program means that this draft must still be approved by something else (which is not specified), and that it still has not consolidated upon or approved a final party program. Thus, they have founded their “party” without consolidating on a party program.
Besides not correcting in their new draft any of the fundamental errors of their old draft we had earlier mentioned, the rest of the proceedings make it sound like the “congress” was a wild and crazy time. “Unite” reports of “an inspiring and emotion-filled banquet” and a lot of singing and toasting. They can tell us about the food and drink, but not about the debate, if any. They can show pictures of the flowers and “chairman” Barry standing next to portraits of Marx and Engels, but cannot show a picture of the congress members, even from behind, because it was so small. Notice from the pictures that at the podium there is no microphone, because the group was so small that one wasn’t needed. They can twice print their sketch of the working class, which looks like a scene from “Invasion of the Body Snatchers”, and twice print pictures of Weisberg. But they cannot conceal their social-chauvinism when they print their new symbol showing the map of the US including the stolen territories of Alaska and Hawaii. If US imperialism decides to make Puerto Rico the 51st state or annex any more territory, you can be sure that “CPUSA(M-L)”’s map will grow bigger. Their social-chauvinism is also seen in that they have declared themselves the “vanguard” of the US proletariat, but are still unable to put out an edition of their newspaper in any other language than English, thus abandoning millions of workers and oppressed peoples. And now they publicly advertise in their paper “Join the CPUSA-ML” (p.8), asking every striker, professor, and high school student to join their Menshevik party. This is on a page entitled “Life of the Party”. Sounds like a lot of fun.
Predictably, their reformism is coming more out in the open now that their party-building charade is over. They try to sound very revolutionary when they say “Hundreds, thousands and millions of people are drawing the conclusion that they have nothing to lose but their chains, that the barbaric system of wage slavery must be overthrown.” (“Unite”, Jan. 15, 1979. p. l) But as examples of this supposed “revolutionary upsurge of the masses” they give – the farmers’ strike, which was really led by small capitalist farmers fighting for reforms, and the “national Equal Rights Amendment demonstration”, which was openly led by the bourgeoisie, (p.7) Again, they paint bourgeois ideology and petty reformism in communist colors, and pretend that socialist consciousness is spontaneously arising from the “mass” movements of the bourgeoisie. They then go on to brag that “With the formation of the Party, the struggle of the US proletariat and oppressed peoples is transformed from spontaneous battle against individual capitalists into a class conscious battle to destroy forever US imperialism.” (p. 2) Just like that, by merely having a handful of petty bourgeois people meet in a hotel somewhere, trade union consciousness is transformed into socialist consciousness throughout the entire US working class. Even Reverend Ike wouldn’t claim such miraculous powers. For all the claims that “The great historical importance of the foundation of the CPUSA-ML is that it materially and ideologically advances the subjective factors of the revolution in the US” (p. l), and so on, the “CPUSA(M-L)” remains a powerless party.
But for all this talk that “all of the necessary conditions in the objective realm of the class struggle are prepared for revolution” (p. l), is “CPUSA(M—L)” advocating an ultra-left line of premature revolutionary action? Not in the least. Just a glance at their “tactical slogans to guide the Party’s work in the period ahead” shows their true reformist nature. (“Unite”, Jan. 15, 1979, p. 2)
The first part is blatantly social-chauvinist, since the living standard of the US people is kept artificially relatively high by the plunder of the world by US imperialism, and the struggle of the world’s people against it, which we must support, often leads to a decline in our living standard. For instance, as limited as it is, the democratic and anti-imperialist struggle of the Iranian people has led to, in the short run, a cut off of Iranian oil to the US, a boost in prices, and the threat of gas rationing by the bourgeoisie. Yet this social-chauvinist slogan “forgets” this and actually calls for a defense of the national privileges of US imperialism. While we are not opposed to the struggle for economic reforms, this must be carried out in a revolutionary way and not with social-chauvinist slogans like this.
The second part is blatantly reformist, for it paints the attacks on the working class as a “policy” carried out by one bad apple, Carter, and conceals the fact that these attacks are inevitable products of the capitalist system. It amounts to a repeat of “throw the bum out” and an appeal for an alliance with sections of the bourgeoisie opposed to Carter. Their structural reformism of capitalism is also seen in their accompanying article on Cleveland, which raises the old social-democratic demand, just like OL, WVO, and the CPUSA, of “increased taxation on the capitalist class.” (p.3)
The first part confirms what we said earlier about MLOC claiming that before the party it was too early to focus on winning the advanced workers to communism, and that after the party was formed it was too late and that “building the mass movement”, which is in essence what this says, must be the focus.
The second part clearly reveals their aspirations to become entrenched in the trade union bureaucracy. To raise such a slogan today, when every major trade union is run by the labor aristocracy and tied to US imperialism in a million ways, is to call for unity of and unity with the labor aristocracy and the trade union bureaucracy. Weisberg and company hope to get their piece of the action and attract some attention by promoting a program of “unity” of all the reactionary unions, of “unity” of the mass of workers under the leadership of the bureaucrats, rather than revolutionary unity of the working class and its allies.
“Full democratic rights” – but for whom, for which classes? Rather than a revolutionary approach to fighting fascism and national oppression, they must leave out the slogan of self-determination of oppressed nations in order to make their program acceptable to their prospective allies in the bourgeoisie. Just like OL, they raise self-determination in one breath and take it away in another. Why can they later raise the dictatorship of the proletariat in another “tactical slogan” but not self-determination here? This is classical social-chauvinism. It also sounds like they are getting very close to a line of united front against fascism (they say “Fight Fascism”, as if it was just around the corner), and a two-stage revolution for the US.
The “Carter war machine”?! Weisberg must know that the ideological level of most of his “party” is so low that they will not catch this one. This slogan is the same type the CPUSA has pushed for years, which does not target imperialism as the source of war, but instead talks of individual “war-mongers”. It is reminiscent of the liberal slogan during the Vietnam war of “Stop Johnson’s War”. The call for “stop imperialist war preparations” is also a reformist call for disarmament. Genuine Marxist-Leninists must frankly tell the people that these war preparations are inherent in capitalism, and that only struggle against the system of imperialism, and not just Carter, can prevent world war.
What is most striking about these particular slogans is that they are a virtual repeat of the Chinese revisionists’ “united front against hegemonism”. Nothing is said of proletarian internationalism or support for the revolutionary struggles around the world. What contemptible social-chauvinism! Instead of calling for the unity of the international proletariat and the national liberation movements, the call is put out in essence for a “united front to stop war. To “CPUSA(M-L)”, it is now an incorrect “tactic” to raise and fight for proletarian internationalism. The only difference this has with the “theory of the three worlds” is that it sees a somewhat different alignment of forces. But the overall reformist nature of these slogans shows that “CPUSA(M-L)” presents no revolutionary threat to US imperialism, and is well on the road to consolidating around a new social-chauvinist line.
The fifth and sixth slogans, for the dictatorship of the proletariat and for defense of socialist Albania, are merely window dressing. Still they are only “tactics”, and tactics, as we know, often change under different conditions. So tomorrow they may be withdrawn. Even so, they are put last, because that is when they will be raised – last, if ever.
We now see that this list is their real program, and that these opportunist slogans will, as they say, “guide the Party’s work in the period ahead”, but only down the road of reformism and social-chauvinism. All the masks about the “party program” and party-building are being dropped. Taken in the context of MLOCs entire history, these slogans are not mere deviations that can be corrected, but represent consolidated opportunism that is maturing and consummating with each passing day. These new slogans confirm everything we have said about their deep-seated right opportunism and bowing to spontaneity. They are set on a course of trying to “lead” the reformist movements, keep them on a reformist path, and trying from various angles to build an alliance with a section of the bourgeoisie.
So the “CPUSA(M-L)” is but the latest marcher in the parade of opportunist and social-chauvinist “parties” in the US, which are really sects that plague the working class. They have moved quickly to take advantage of the fragmentation and ideological confusion that does prevail among their opponents in the US communist movement, and the fact that a strong, genuine leading Marxist-Leninist center has yet to be built. But their advantage will be short-lived, because the genuine Marxist-Leninists are not sitting idly by with their arms folded, but are actively propagating and struggling for their views and exposing the likes of “CPUSA(M-L)”. It is not saying too much to predict that the time is not far off when the balance of forces in the US communist movement, that is, among those opposed to Chinese revisionism and the “theory of the three worlds”, will swing away from the opportunists and in favor of the genuine Leninist forces.