Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line

Marxist-Leninist Party of the USA

Introducing the Correspondence Between the MLP,USA and the RCP of Britain (ML)

Published: The Workers’ Advocate, Vol. 12, No. 8, September 5, 1982.
Transcription, Editing and Markup: Paul Saba
Copyright: This work is in the Public Domain under the Creative Commons Common Deed. You can freely copy, distribute and display this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit the Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line as your source, include the url to this work, and note any of the transcribers, editors & proofreaders above.

For a decade, fraternal relations existed between our Party (and our predecessors, the American Communist Workers Movement (M-L) and the Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninists) and the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (ML) (and its predecessors, the English Communist Movement (ML) and the Communist Party of England (ML)). For most of these years there was little contact between the two Parties except for literature exchange. Nevertheless, both Parties supported each other. In 1978 and 1979, direct contact between the two Parties increased, and a series of friendly and frank discussions took place between the leaderships of the two Parties. This strengthened the relations.

However, in a letter dated January 10, 1980, the Central Committee of the RCPB (ML) suddenly announced a boycott of the Marxist-Leninist Party, USA. Then, in a further letter on August 21, 1980, the CC of the RCPB (ML) unilaterally, out of the blue, severed all relations with our Party. The CC of the RCPB (ML) gave no reasons for their stand. Instead, they simply resorted to abuse, mudslinging and name-calling. Lacking any way to justify their stand, the CC of the RCPB (ML) instead declared that their comrades of over a decade, the MLP,USA, were allegedly “a group of provocateurs.”

Why did the CC of the RCPB (ML) suddenly break relations in which there had been, prior to their letter of January 10, 1980, no serious problems? The reason was that they were acting under the baton of the leadership of the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist). The CPC (M-L) had savagely attacked our Party because we refused to give up the struggle against Chinese revisionism and the social- chauvinist and opportunist groupings in the U.S. and because we refused to take part in their international factional activities. This is documented in our articles “The Truth About the Relations Between the Marxist-Leninist Party of the USA and the Communist Party of Canada (M-L).” The leadership of CPC (M-L) demanded a “special relationship,” to use their term, with our Party, and they advocate that the international Marxist-Leninist movement is divided up into different “trends,” one of which is led by CPC (M-L). When they attacked us, they demanded that all the parties that they regarded as part of their “trend” should join them in wrecking activity directed against us. The RCPB (ML) itself upholds in its press the idea that there is an “international trend” based on upholding the “revolutionary ideas and principles” from their Canadian comrades. Their taking part in CPC (M-L)’s wrecking activities against our Party is an evil fruit of this factionalist theory.

Thus the CC of the RCPB (ML), in its letters to our Party, did its best to follow the tactics and justify the stands that had been dictated to them by the leadership of CPC (M-L). Following the lead of CPC (M-L), the CC of the RCPB (ML) centered its attack on the slogan “Build the Marxist-Leninist Party Without the Social-Chauvinists and Against the Social-Chauvinists.” In their letter of January 10, 1980, they cited the “without and against” slogan, and the document written by the COUSML elaborating this slogan, as their reasons for boycotting the MLP,USA.

But the “without and against” slogan is the slogan of consistent, resolute struggle against opportunism. Thus the central issue in the RCPB (ML)’s opposition to this slogan boils down to their demand that our Party stop or tone down the struggle against Chinese revisionism and our “own” domestic American opportunists and social-chauvinists. To this end, the CC of the RCPB (ML) put forward such timeworn, anti-Marxist-Leninist theses as counterposing the struggle against the monopoly capitalists to the struggle against opportunism. They made especial use of “official optimism”; for example, they boasted how the question of fighting opportunism had already been “settled” decades ago and so, why raise it today? The questions at stake included whether to carry the struggle against Maoism through to the end, the role of polemics in fighting opportunism, and whether to take seriously the revolutionary authority of Leninism. Our Party held then and still holds that the struggle against opportunism has to be broadened and deepened, while the CC of the RCPB (ML) broke relations with us to force us to abandon this stand.

One of the arguments used by the CC of the RCPB (ML) against the “without and against” slogan deserves mention in its own right. They made light of the authority of Leninism. They admitted that the slogan they wanted us to drop as a precondition for further relations, namely “Build the Marxist-Leninist Party Without the Social-Chauvinists and Against the Social-Chauvinists,” was a Leninist slogan. In their own words, this slogan “was, of course, a correct and scientific slogan put forward by Lenin at the time of the open exposure of the opportunists as downright social-chauvinists and was aimed at the centrists who were for conciliation with the social-chauvinists.” But they added that the exposure of the opportunists had already been “settled” in Lenin’s day. On this pretext, they insisted that the Leninist “without and against” slogan had become, in today’s conditions, a mere “truism” and even a source of dangerous “illusions.”

Our Party rejected these demands. In our view, any communist party that denigrates the struggle against opportunism or takes a cavalier attitude towards Leninism is steering a course towards disaster. Yet the CC of the RCPB (ML) was, in essence, demanding that our Party abandon Leninism and replace it with the empty, deviationist rhetoric that is so much the fashion with the leadership of CPC (M-L).

The sorry results of the wrong stand of the CC of the RCPB (ML) on these issues was not long in coming. In other articles in this issue of The Workers’ Advocate, we examine the stand of the RCPB (ML) towards the British-Argentine war over the Falkland Islands (the Malvinas). The CC of the RCPB (ML) denounced our struggle against social-chauvinism, and today we see that they are deviating towards petty-bourgeois nationalism. They have counterposed to the chauvinism of the British bourgeoisie not internationalism, but the “genuine” defense of British national interests. They denounced the Leninist “without and against” slogan in their letter of January 10, 1980 and denied its applicability to today’s conditions, and today we see that during the Falkland crisis they denounced in their press the Leninist slogan that in a reactionary war “the main enemy is at home.” They have replaced the Leninist teachings on the anti-war struggle with petty-bourgeois pacifism and denounced the very idea of connecting the anti-war struggle to class struggle and agitation for socialist revolution. They broke relations with our Party complaining that we placed too much emphasis on the struggle against Chinese revisionism and “three worlds-ism,” and today we see that they have taken up various theses straight from the arsenal of “three worlds-ism.” They no longer talk about the “third world,” but just like the Maoists they prettify the military adventure of the fascist generals in Argentina; they no longer talk about the “second world,” but they prettify the “genuine national interests” of such a major imperialist power as Britain; and they replace class analysis of the international situation with rampant speculation about the power politics between the various imperialists.

The fiasco of the CC of the RCPB (ML) over the Falklands war, where they manage to simultaneously prettify the military adventure of the Argentine junta and fall into a social-democratic attitude towards British imperialism, is an illustration, taken from the lively sphere of practical politics and current events, of the theoretical issues discussed in the correspondence between the CC of the RCPB (ML) and our Party. It is the working out of the controversy between the two Parties in practice. It shows how important for the guidance of revolutionary work is the principled stand of our Party on the necessity to carry through to the end the struggle against social- chauvinism and Maoism.

But it should not be forgotten that there is also the issue of how communist parties should act towards each other. Our Party holds that the differences that arose between the RCPB (ML) and us should have been sorted out according to the methods provided by the Marxist-Leninist norms. We condemn the unscrupulous and wrecking methods made use of by the CC of the RCPB (ML) and their participation in factionalist activities with the leadership of CPC (M-L). We believe that the international factional conspiracies hatched by the top leadership of the CPC (M-L) and their henchmen threaten the international Marxist-Leninist movement with unprincipled splits and great injuries.

Our condemnation of this unprincipled splitting and factional activity does not mean that we underrate the seriousness of the Maoist and liquidationist deviations being committed by the CPC (M-L) and the RCPB (ML). A deviation is something that can be corrected; but so long as the deviations are not corrected, they undermine any party that falls prey to them and even threaten its very existence. However, in our view, the Marxist-Leninist norms are designed not just for ceremonial purposes or for show, but precisely in order to deal with the burning questions of principle and the life and death issues. Our struggle to uphold the Marxist-Leninist norms and defend the principled unity of the international Marxist-Leninist movement is inseparably connected with our defense of revolutionary Marxism-Leninism against the Maoist and liquidationist deviations.

For our part, we wish no harm to the RCPB (ML). On the contrary, we have replied to their vile language and abuse with calm reasoning, and we have tried to show them the danger of their deviations and violations of the norms. When we protested their arrogant ultimatum of their letter of January 10, 1980, at the same time we wholeheartedly agreed to hold discussions and patiently took the time to raise with them the important issues of political principle. It was the CC of the RCPB (ML) who tore up their own proposal for discussions and took refuge in the empty name-calling of their filthy letter of August 21, 1980.

Yet in reply to their letter of August 21, 1980, we remained calm. We stressed the necessity to adhere to the Marxist-Leninist norms of relations between parties, and we proposed a plan to reestablish relations between the two Parties on the basis of equality and the Marxist-Leninist norms. But the CC of the RCPB (ML) has never even replied to our proposals. They have chosen to uphold the discipline of their factional agreements with the leadership of the CPC (M-L) concerning our Party, rather than to act in a manner befitting Marxist-Leninists.

Nevertheless, today we still maintain the same stand. Our Party still stands by the letter of the CC of the MLP,USA of February 5,1981 and the basic idea behind the proposals in this letter for reestablishing relations between the two Parties and dealing with the ideological and political differences through Marxist-Leninist consultation. We sincerely hope that the leadership of the RCPB (ML) overcomes the Maoist and liquidationist deviations which, as the example of their fiasco over the Falklands crisis shows, have been so detrimental to the RCPB (ML) itself. We undertake the public discussion of the wrecking activity of the RCPB (ML) towards our Party and of the burning issues in the anti-war struggle with the attitude of extending proletarian internationalist support and assistance to the British Marxist-Leninists as well as with the aim of expressing our views on the issues confronting Marxist-Leninists the world over.

But, as well, it is the duty and responsibility of our Party to defend itself against the wrecking activity directed at us by the international factional conspiracy directed by the top leadership of the CPC (M-L). It is the duty and responsibility of our Party to speak out to the Marxist-Leninists, revolutionary activists and class conscious workers of the U.S. and of the world about the dangers of this international factionalism as well as to clarify the nature of the Maoist and liquidationist deviations being committed by the factionalists. For this reason, and also as background material for the articles on the stand of the RCPB (ML) on the Falklands war, we have decided to reproduce the correspondence between our Party and the RCPB (ML). This article has been written to serve as an introduction to this correspondence.

How the Leadership of the RCPB (ML) Joined the War on Our Party

In severing their relations with our Party, the leadership of the RCPB (ML) made use of the most unscrupulous means. They violated all the norms of relations between Marxist-Leninist parties. They replaced the Marxist-Leninist methods of consultation and criticism and self-criticism with the use of brutal ultimatums and mudslinging. They refused to talk matters over with our Party, while at the same time they coordinated every step with the leadership of CPC (M-L). They displayed a total absence of scruple or of respect of even the most elementary norms of revolutionary morality.

All Marxist-Leninists and class conscious workers regard the unity between the different contingents of the international communist movement as a matter of the utmost importance. Disunity splits the ranks of the proletarian army in the face of the savage onslaught of the international bourgeoisie. For this reason and more, proletarian parties cherish their unity. When something happens that raises the possibility of a split, the Marxist-Leninists take the matter seriously. They do their best to resolve the issue. If, despite everything, relations have to be severed, they explain the reasons to the masses and to world revolutionary opinion.

But the leadership of the RCPB (ML) took a frivolous and light-hearted attitude to their international duties. Despite the absence of any outstanding problem in the relations between the two Parties, they suddenly presented our Party with an ultimatum in the form of the letter of January 10, 1980. On the surface, this letter presents minor disagreements with this or that phrase in the document entitled “Build the Marxist-Leninist Party Without the Social-Chauvinists and Against the Social-Chauvinists” as the justification for their hostile stand against our Party. The letter presents the ultimatum that “...these errors...must be corrected before the Party is formed in the United States.” The astonishing fact is that the CC of the RCPB (ML) put forth mere trifles and quibbles as the justification for creating a split. This shows with what utter abandon the CC of the RCPB (ML) trampled on the Marxist-Leninist norms. On one hand, the CC of the RCPB (ML) admitted that the COUSML had “now created the ideological, political and organizational conditions for forming the Party,” but, because they didn’t like this or that phrase, they declared that they had the right to create a split and sever relations.

Our Party, in the letter of the NEC of the MLP, USA of March 17, 1980, did its best to bring out the matters of principle that the CC of the RCPB (ML) was hiding behind quibbles and trifles. We showed that behind the absurd nit-picking of the letter of January 10. 1980 stood two main demands: 1) that our Party should follow someone else’s baton; and 2) that our Party should abandon its vigorous struggle against our “own” opportunists in the U.S. and against Chinese revisionism generally. But, at the same time, our letter of March 17, 1980 stressed that these demands were not raised directly, but instead the ostensible issues raised by the CC of the RCPB (ML) in their letter of January 10, 1980 were all, on their face, second-rate or even third-rate matters. The CC of the RCPB (ML) did not discuss the issues from the point of view of analyzing the major questions confronting the Marxist-Leninist parties, or studying the historical experience of the last few years, or reviewing the main documents and accomplishments of our Party, or from any serious angle at all – but simply resorted to quibbles of the sort that such-and-such phrase is “obviously true” but “tends to create illusions.” This was hardly a serious stand towards the revolution on their part.

Since the letter of January 10, 1980 makes everything depend on the Call of the National Committee of the COUSML entitled “Build the Marxist-Leninist Party Without the Social-Chauvinists and Against the Social-Chauvinists,” we shall trace the history of the discussions between the RCPB (ML) and the COUSML on this document.

The Call of the COUSML is a profound statement that sums up much of the struggle against social- chauvinism in the U.S. and that bears as a title one of Lenin’s central instructions on the building of genuine communist parties. It was issued as the main document announcing the impending founding of the Marxist-Leninist Party of the USA. Right from the start of the movement against social-chauvinism, the COUSML had stressed that the struggle against social-chauvinism and “three worlds-ism” was leading to the reconstitution of a genuine communist party. Finally the entire COUSML decided that the time had come to actually found that Party. The Call of the COUSML was prepared to help rally all that was alive and honorable in the U.S. Marxist-Leninist movement for the founding of the MLP,USA. Prior to the public release of the Call on May 12, 1979, preliminary drafts of the Call were discussed as much as possible with the fraternal Marxist-Leninist parties of the COUSML as well as with class conscious workers and various progressive organizations in the U.S.

Thus the delegate from the CC of the RCPB (ML) was consulted by the delegation from the COUSML at the time of the Sixth Consultative Conference of CPC (M-L) in March-April 1979. The British delegate read the draft of the Call of the COUSML and heard the plans for the founding of the MLP,USA. His opinion was eagerly solicited. He raised various minor questions. Among other things, he asked why the “without and against” slogan was being given since Lenin “had sorted this out long ago.”

Nevertheless, the CC of the RCPB (ML) decided to support the plan to found the Marxist-Leninist Party. Indeed, the RCPB (ML) enthusiastically supported the Call of the COUSML in their organ, Workers’ Weekly. They reprinted major excerpts from the Call in two separate issues, those of August 4 and August 11, 1979, under the bold headline “Build the Marxist-Leninist Party Without the Social-Chauvinists and Against the Social-Chauvinists.”

Clearly, in August 1979, the CC of the RCPB (ML) believed that, whatever minor differences they may have had with this or that phrase, they supported the document overall and looked forward to the founding of the MLP,USA.

In October 1979, there was another opportunity for discussion between the two Parties. A delegation from the National Committee of the COUSML talked with a representative of the CC of the RCPB (ML) on the occasion of the All-Canada National Youth Festival organized by CPC (M-L) in Montreal, Canada. Among other things, the delegation from the COUSML thanked the delegate of the RCPB (ML) for the support for the Call of the COUSML in Workers’ Weekly. The delegate of the RCPB (ML), however, was silent on this as well as on a number of other issues. The discussions were friendly and satisfactory overall.

Thus it is clear why the letter of January 10, 1980 from the CC of the RCPB (ML) twists and turns over the fact that the Call of the COUSML was reprinted in Workers’ Weekly. No matter how they squirm, the CC of the RCPB (ML) cannot hide the fact that the letter of January 10 marks an overnight turnabout in the stand of the CC of the RCPB (ML), a turnabout that came without the slightest warning to, or attempt at consultation with, our Party. On one hand, the letter of January 10, 1980 attacks the Call of the COUSML and paints it as so bad that the RCPB (ML) just had to sever its relations with the MLP,USA. On the other hand, the Workers’ Weekly itself had already proudly displayed this same Call of the COUSML. Despite the frantic waffling in the letter of January 10, anyone familiar with the editorial policy of the Workers’ Weekly knows that it only reprints such statements as it supports.

The letter of January 10 dances all around this point. It states that the reprinting of the Call of the COUSML did “not mean support for the Statement but fraternal support for the COUSML and its work to re-found the Marxist-Leninist Party of the United States.” Nonsense! Yet, by saying this, the letter of January 10 has to admit that the RCPB (ML) had stood in favor of the founding of the MLP,USA. But the whole point of the letter of January 10 is to oppose the founding of the MLP,USA. Charming, is it not?

Why did the CC of the RCPB (ML) execute this sudden about-face? As we have seen, it cannot be because of the Call of the COUSML; which had been publicly released on May 12, 1979 and praised in Workers’ Weekly in early August, 1979. No, it was not because of the Call. It was because of orders from the leadership of CPC (M-L). On December 5, 1979 the CC of the CPC (M-L) wrote two shameful letters to the COUSML in which the leadership of CPC (M-L) savagely slandered our Party and broke off relations with us in order to force us to submit. The top leadership of the RCPB (ML) believed that the most important thing was not to obey the norms of relations between parties, but to servilely follow the behind-the-scenes promptings of the leadership of CPC (M-L). In order to coordinate their stand with that of the CC of CPC (M-L), they had to eat their own words about our Party. And so eat their own words they did.

Thus, since the leadership of CPC (M-L) was trying to strangle our Party, the CC of the RCPB (ML) issued its own ultimatum to our Party and began its own boycott. Because the leadership of CPC (M-L) opposed our struggle against social-chauvinism and hated the “without and against” slogan, the CC of the RCPB (ML) had to fall into line on this question as well. And so they did.

Despite the RCPB (ML)’s savage boycott of our Party and hostile ultimatum in the letter of January 10, our Party maintained a fraternal and supportive stand towards the RCPB (ML). Due to a mix-up, the NEC of the MLP,USA only received the letter of January 10 in early March. The NEC showed the proletarian internationalist concern of our Party for the British comrades by immediately setting aside time from other pressing work to write a detailed reply to the CC of the RCPB (ML). While this reply, the letter of the NEC of the MLP,USA of March 17, 1980, firmly rebuffs the ultimatum of the CC of the RCPB (ML) and protests against their violations of the norms of relations between parties, this was not its main content. On the contrary, the main body of the letter of March 17, 1980 consists of a patient attempt to sort through the issues raised by the CC of the RCPB (ML), to elevate the discussion by finding the issues of principle behind the various trifles raised in the letter of January 10, and to elaborate slowly and carefully, from several different directions, the Marxist-Leninist analysis of these issues. This was a true display of fraternal concern for and confidence in the comrades of the RCPB (ML).

Among other things, our Party’s letter of March 17, 1980 stressed our enthusiasm for further discussions between the two Parties. The CC of the RCPB (ML) had claimed in their letter of January 10 that they stood for discussions. Our letter stressed the value of discussions and accepted, without any preconditions, the proposal made by the CC of the RCPB (ML).

What was the result? The CC of the RCPB (ML) rejected the discussions that they themselves had proposed. On April 23, 1980, after a several weeks’ stay with the CPC (M-L), the British delegate to the tenth anniversary rally of the CPC (M-L) telephoned the U.S. and left a message canceling his proposed visit to our Party. He stated that “As a result of the views in the letter [of March 17 – ed.], the delegation thinks that there are not conditions for a visit.” This made it clear that the CC of the RCPB (ML) was insincere about their proposal for discussions. Their idea was that first we must accept their views, and only then could there be discussions. Since our letter of March 17 criticized their wrong stands, although with a comradely and fraternal spirit, in their eyes there was no longer any reason for discussions at all.

However, the British delegate did, in his message of April 23, promise that the leadership of the RCPB (ML) would be writing us soon. Months passed, and there was only silence from the CC of the RCPB (ML). It was quite clear that the CC of the RCPB (ML) had no serious interest in the quibbles which they themselves had raised in their letter of January 10. They once again displayed a frivolous attitude to revolutionary theory which they regarded as a mere source of pretexts for their unprincipled splitting activity and for hiding their demand that we give up the struggle against Maoism and social- chauvinism. This is why they were upset at our letter of March 17, rather than welcoming it as a serious contribution to the discussion of the pressing issues facing the two Parties.

Finally, on August 21, 1980, the CC of the RCPB (ML) sent a brief seven-sentence note to the CC of the MLP,USA. This note stated that the CC of the RCPB (ML) had decided to sever all relations with the MLP,USA. This filthy note was void of any explanation or attempt to justify the stand of the RCPB (ML). Instead it simply declared that the MLP,USA was allegedly a “gang of provocateurs.”

Unable to answer any of the Marxist-Leninist reasoning contained in our letter of March 17, their vile note of August 21 simply cursed our Party. It declared, without a shred of evidence, that our, letter of March 17 had “attacked, slandered and abused” the RCPB (ML) and was “vivid proof” that the MLP, USA consisted of “provocateurs.” Just as the Maoist leadership of the Communist Party of China attacked any criticism of their deviations as “polemics” and “anti-China attacks,” so the CC of the RCPB (ML) attacked our patient letter of March 17, 1980, so full of concern for the British comrades, as “attacks,” “abuse” and the work of “provocateurs.”

But our Party fights indefatigably in defense of the principled unity of the world Marxist-Leninist movement. Despite the filthy note of August 21, 1980, the Central Committee of our Party decided to make yet another attempt to open the eyes of the leadership of the RCPB (ML) to the damage they were doing to the interests of the revolution and of world Marxism-Leninism. Hence on February 5, 1981, the CC of the MLP,USA addressed another patient letter to the CC of the RCPB (ML). This letter had the task of protesting against the unprincipled splitting activities of the CC of the RCPB (ML) and their filthy note of August 21, 1980. Yet even this letter combined these protests with a patient explanation of the Marxist-Leninist norms. It step by step pointed out to the British comrades the harmfulness of their methods and appealed to them to replace their deviationist methods with activities based on communist morality and the Marxist-Leninist norms. The CC of our Party also proposed a plan whereby the relations between the two Parties could be restored on the basis of equality and the Marxist-Leninist norms and the ideological and political differences dealt with through principled consultations. Our Party was determined to give the RCPB (ML) every chance to break away from the international factionalism that they were mired in.

Since then, the CC of the RCPB (ML) has not deigned to reply. They have taken upon themselves the full responsibility for creating a split between our two Parties, and they have mired themselves in unprincipled factionalism. The history of the development of this split shows that the RCPB (ML) has trampled on the Marxist-Leninist norms of relations between parties at every step. They have thrown to the winds the basic principles of proletarian internationalism. This is why there are two basic issues involved in their attacks on our Party. On one hand, there is the question of the Maoist and liquidationist deviations that lie behind their attacks on our Party. And, on the other hand, there is the question of safeguarding the norms of relations between parties. Both questions are of vital interest to all Marxist-Leninists and class conscious workers.

An International Factionalist Conspiracy

As we have seen, one of the CC of the RCPB (ML)’s major violations of principle in their stand towards our Party is that they have become involved in international factionalism. They have refused to talk matters over with our Party, while they have coordinated every step in their war on our Party with a third party, the CPC (M-L). This factional conspiracy is one of the reasons why the controversy between the RCPB (ML) and our Party is not just a special and particular controversy, not just of interest to the two Parties involved, but a general matter of concern for all who strive for the principled unity of the world Marxist-Leninist movement.

In this section we shall review some facts about the conspiracy between the RCPB (ML) and the CPC (M-L) in attacking our Party. In the next section, we shall then go on to discuss the theory that lies behind this factionalism. The factional conspiracy between the RCPB (ML) and the CPC (M-L) is not just an accident, but is the working out in practice of the theory proclaimed in the RCPB (ML)’s organ, Workers’ Weekly, that there is a special trend inside the international Marxist-Leninist movement that is centered on CPC (M-L).

As we have seen, the CC of the RCPB (ML) attacked our Party out of the blue. Their splitting activities were not the result of a quarrel with our Party, but were a sudden about-face for the RCPB (ML). This about-face came about because of the backstage promptings of the leadership of CPC (M-L), which for its own reasons was demanding the overthrow of the leadership of our Party, was engaged in out-and-out wrecking activity against our Party, and preferred to try to destroy us than to live side-by-side with us according to the Marxist-Leninist norms. The record shows that each hostile stand of the CC of the RCPB (ML) towards our Party was coordinated with the twists and turns of the tactics of the leadership of CPC (M-L). The leadership of the RCPB (ML) reacted not to the state of relations between the RCPB (ML) and our Party, but to each development in the relations between the leadership of CPC (M-L) and our Party. To be exact, they simply followed the baton waved by the leadership of CPC (M-L).

Now let us examine four of the basic incidents in the RCPB (ML)’s relations with our Party and see how each time the stand of the leadership of the RCPB (ML) echoed the line dictated by the leadership of CPC (M-L).

* 1. In the last section we showed how the CC of the RCPB (ML), despite certain initial hesitations about this or that phrase in the Call of the COUSML, supported the Call and hailed the upcoming founding of the MLP,USA in articles in Workers’ Weekly under the headline “Build the Marxist-Leninist Party Without the Social-Chauvinists and Against the Social-Chauvinists.”

But the leadership of the CPC (M-L) had a different idea. In discussions with a COUSML delegation on August 1-2, 1979, the leadership of CPC (M-L) bitterly attacked the COUSML for the “without and against” slogan. This was the first time that they had raised this question to the COUSML. (See “Chronology of Events: 1975-1981,” The Workers’ Advocate, July 30, 1981, Vol. 11, No. 9)

It was only after the CC of the RCPB (ML) learned of this attitude of the leadership of CPC (M-L) towards the “without and against” slogan that they began to have second thoughts about their support for the founding of the MLP,USA in Workers’ Weekly. The leadership of CPC (M-L) conducts its conspiracies through personal meetings with and pressure upon various individuals from the leadership of other parties. Thus it took a little while for the CC of the RCPB (ML) to readjust its stand – that is. it took until the next meeting. At the time of the All-Canada National Youth Festival in October 1979. a British delegate arrived and had discussions with the leadership of CPC (M-L). It was at this time that this delegate from the RCPB (ML), in talking to the COUSML delegation, was silent when thanked for Workers’ Weekly support for the Call the COUSML. It was clear that the delegate from the RCPB (ML) was silent because he was discussing the Call of the COUSML with the leadership of CPC (M-L) behind the back of our Party, and hence he was in an embarrassing position.

The letter from the CC of the RCPB (ML) of January 10, 1980 misrepresents the stand of the Workers’ Weekly in a very interesting way. The letter claims that the Workers’ Weekly supported the founding of the MLP,USA, but not the Call the COUSML. We have pointed out that this is nonsense as the Workers’ Weekly reprinted the Call. But this stand – allegedly supporting the founding of the MLP,USA but opposing the Call – is precisely the stand of the leadership of CPC (M-L) in August 1979, and it corresponds to their article in the August 1 PCDN entitled “Brother Marxist-Leninist Party to Be Founded in the U.S. in the Near Future.” Apparently, the CC of the RCPB (ML) conspired with the CPC (M-L) to such an extent that they regard it as an unfortunate fact of little significance that Workers’ Weekly reprinted the Call of the COUSML. So the letter of January 10 simply rewrites history in order to present CPC (M-L)’s stand as that of the RCPB (ML).

What probably happened is that the leadership of the RCPB (ML) misunderstood the PCDN issue of August 1. Since PCDN had hailed the imminent founding of the MLP,USA, the Workers’ Weekly did so too, in its issues of August 4 and 11. But when the delegate of the RCPB (ML) visited Canada next, he was berated for not realizing that the PCDN article had never mentioned the Call of the COUSML or the “without and against” slogan. And so the delegate of the RCPB (ML) could say nothing to the COUSML delegation who thanked him for the articles in Workers’ Weekly. The job of a yes man is not an easy one.

* 2. On December 5, 1979, in two shameful letters, the CC of CPC (M-L) broke off all relations with the COUSML and savagely demanded the overthrow of COUSML’s leadership. To back up these letters, the leadership of CPC (M-L) proceeded to organize a boycott of the MLP,USA, which was founded on January 1, 1980. This boycott was the culmination of years of unprincipled activities by the leadership of CPC (M-L), years of repeated attempts to subvert the organizational integrity of our Party.

It is precisely at this time that the CC of the RCPB (ML) made its abrupt about-face towards our Party. Their letter of January 10, 1980 announced their hostile stand towards our Party. Simultaneously they instituted a boycott of our Party, which was nothing but wrecking activity designed to force our Party to submit to CPC (M-L)’s baton. These stands had nothing to do with any quarrel between the RCPB (ML) and our Party. Indeed, our two Parties had not met or communicated – other than through the exchange of public literature – since the discussions of October 1979. The CC of the RCPB (ML) acted at the behest of the leadership of CPC (M-L) and had to eat their own words about our Party.

* 3. Following their shameful letters of December 5, 1979, the leadership of CPC (M-L) tried various ways to step up their pressure on our Party. A major development in their splitting activity took place at the Internationalist Rally in Montreal on March 30. 1980 to celebrate the tenth anniversary of CPC (M-L). Up until then, the controversy between the CPC (M-L) and the MLP,USA was still a relatively private matter – a situation that w as favorable to resolving the issue without further damage to the interests of international solidarity. But the leadership of CPC (M-L) was not interested in proletarian internationalism, but only in putting the maximum amount of pressure on our Party. Hence, through their boycott of the MLP,USA at this event, they acted to make the split public and announce it to the whole world. They also acted to further incite those who they regarded as part of their “trend” to engage in wrecking activities against us.

At this rally, the delegate from the RCPB (ML) at first greeted our Party’s delegation in a friendly fashion. Since he said he had not seen our Party’s letter of March 17, 1980, our delegation gave him a copy. Within twenty minutes of receiving it, he handed it over to the CPC (M-L). He subsequently refrained from having any serious discussion with our delegation.

Later, on April 23, this same delegate from the RCPB (ML), who was still in Canada, telephoned the U.S. and revoked the RCPB (ML)’s proposal for discussions.

* 4. In June 1980, the leadership of CPC (M-L). which had been escalating its out-and-out wrecking activities against our Party and seeking to organize an anti-party network in the U.S., now launched public polemics against our Party. On June 9, 14, 27 and 28, PCDN, the organ of the CC of the CPC (M-L), carried major front-page articles attacking our Party. These polemics were incoherent tirades, but the leadership of CPC (M-L) was desperate because of the series of disasters which had befallen their schemes to undermine our Party, and wanted to do something to counteract the demoralization of the handful of motley, liquidationist elements they were attempting to patch together into an anti-party network in the U.S. These articles attacked out Party violently as the class enemy.

It was also in June that the leadership of CPC (M-L) received the letter of the CC of the MLP,USA of June 16, 1980. From this letter, as well as from the failure of their schemes to split the MLP,USA. they realized that their hopes to bring our Party to its knees were futile. They realized that the MLP,USA had replied calmly to their attacks and taken its time to sort out the issues not because we were vacillating, but because we were and are pursuing a steadfast and principled line. This infuriated the leadership of CPC (M-L), which held that if our Party could not be forced to submit to a “special relationship,” then it should be destroyed.

Thus, when on August 8, 1980 the CC of the RCPB (ML) sent its filthy note to us and broke off all relations, they were acting in accordance with the newest developments in our relations with CPC(ML). Their note of August 21 was not a reply to our letter of March 17, 1980, but a response to our letter to the CC of the CPC(ML) of June 16, 1980. Even the particular vile language and random charges were copied from the tactics of the leadership of CPC (M-L).

Thus each step of the CC of the RCPB (ML)’s war on our Party was taken at the behest of the leadership of CPC (M-L). The four examples we have given above cover all the major incidents in the relations between the RCPB (ML) and the MLP,USA, from the RCPB (ML)’s reversal of stand on the Call of the COUSML to their boycott of the MLP,USA and on to their final severing of all relations. These steps were all part of an international conspiracy directed by the leadership of CPC (M-L).

Nor was this the first time the leadership of CPC (M-L) had organized an international conspiracy. One may get a fuller picture of the hypocrisy of the leadership of CPC (M-L) by comparing their conspiracy against our Party with another one of their international conspiracies.

In 1979 a fight broke out between the International Commission of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Chile and the leadership of CPC (M-L). The International Commission of the RCP of Chile was then engaging in unscrupulous and unprincipled activities in a desperate attempt to save Maoism. They violated the norms of relations between parties and the principles of proletarian internationalism and put the defense of Maoism above the interests of the revolution. They came into contradictions with many parties, including our Party, and also including the CPC (M-L).

But the leadership of CPC (M-L), in fighting against the filthy actions of the International Commission of the RCP of Chile, itself descended into vile and unprincipled tactics. Both the International Commission of the RCP of Chile and the leadership of CPC (M-L) made use of the methods of Maoist conspiracy in fighting each other. This is shown by the following fact. In the latter part of 1979, the leadership of CPC (M-L), while making a big show of its alleged rigorous adherence to fraternal friendship for the RCP of Chile and its work to aid and support the RCP of Chile, simultaneously demanded in secret that our Party issue public statements denouncing the RCP of Chile. The leadership of CPC (M-L) wanted to maintain one stand in public and another one in private. They wanted to hide the hand that threw the stone.

In fact, our refusal to attack this or that party at the secret prompting of the leadership of CPC (M-L) was one of the reasons that the CC of the CPC (M-L) broke relations with our Party. They denounced our Party up and down for refusing to publish polemics attacking the RCP of Chile by name in the latter part of 1979. In their letters of December 5, 1979, which severed all relations with our Party and called for the overthrow of the leadership of the COUSML, they wrote:

“Furthermore, our Party proposed in some detail to the representatives of COUSML on October 9 [1979 – ed.] that COUSML should launch an open attack on the RCP of Chile.... We offered every political and ideological assistance to the American Marxist-Leninists to develop this offensive within the USA which we estimated would highly contribute to the defense of the monolithic unity of the International Marxist-Leninist Communist Movement and its common political and ideological line based on Marxist-Leninist principles.... But COUSML did not agree with this proposal....you [COUSML – ed.] were satisfying yourself with a concealed attack on the RCP of Chile about whom...you yourself write, ’we are in no hurry to come to a final conclusion on the RCP of Chile’ ad nauseum.” (The two letters of December 5, 1979 are reprinted in their entirety in “The Truth About the Relations Between the MLP,USA and the CPC (M-L), Part One,” The Workers’ Advocate, June 30, 1981. The passage cited above is from p. 33, col. 1)

Our Party was fighting the Maoist activities of the RCP of Chile through principled means: we were stepping up the ideological struggle against Mao Zedong Thought; exposing the “three worlds-ism” of the new allies of the RCP of Chile, namely, the “RCP,USA”; condemning the policy of alliance with “three worlders” being pursued ’by the International Commission of the RCP of Chile; and so forth. All this the CC of the CPC (M-L) contemptuously dismisses as a “concealed attack.” Instead the CC of the CPC (M-L) demands that the blood flow. They even ridicule the idea that the overall assessment of the RCP of Chile might still be unclear in 1979 and that one might make a distinction between helping the RCP of Chile by fighting its deviations and mistakes and denouncing the RCP of Chile overall.

Very well. If the CC of the CPC (M-L) believed in 1979 that the RCP of Chile was totally no good and that attacking it was essential for. in their own words, “the defense of the monolithic unity of the International Marxist-Leninist Communist Movement and its common political and ideological line.” then why didn’t the CC of the CPC (M-L) do so itself? Why didn’t the CC of the CPC (M-L) carry out its responsibility to the revolution? Indeed, the CC of the CPC (M-L) had far more opportunities to launch and spread an international polemic against the RCP of Chile than we had.

But no, right after condemning our Party for not polemicizing against the RCP of Chile by name, the CC of the CPC (M-L) writes that:

“...because of our fraternal relations with the RCP of Chile, we could not attack the International Commission including Palacios publicly. Thus, we carried the struggle prudently and worked out a tactic for this, until such time as the RCP of Chile breaks relations with our Party publicly, or we decide to do so.” (Ibid., p. 33, col. 2)

Here we see the complete hypocrisy of the CC of the CPC (M-L). On one hand, they say that the existence of fraternal relations between the CPC (M-L) and the RCP of Chile prevents them from issuing a public statement. On the other hand, these fraternal relations do not prevent them from trying to force another party to make a public statement against the RCP of Chile, while the CC of the CPC (M-L) stays hidden in the background. Thus, according to the CC of the CPC (M-L), fraternal relations are only a matter of empty show and hypocrisy. One must appear in public to be virtuous and moral, but can commit any sin in private. Appearances are everything, the reality is nothing. The CC of the CPC (M-L) finds it perfectly proper to declare in public that it is marching side by side with the RCP of Chile, while in private it berates our Party for not having come to “a final conclusion” and damning the RCP of Chile altogether. There is a name for this – it is called conspiracy, lying and double-dealing.

Finally, the International Commission of the RCP of Chile severed all relations with the CPC (M-L). The CC of the CPC (M-L) then wrote a letter, dated November 18, 1979, to the CC of the RCP of Chile protesting this step. The CC of the CPC (M-L) also wrote a cover letter, dated December 15. 1979, for use in circulating the letter of November 18 to various other parties. Some time later, CPC (M-L) published the letter of November 18 in the issues of PCDN for February 29 and March 1, 1980. What do these letters say?

These letters condemn the “International Commission of the RCP of Chile” for organizing a “centrist faction” (letter of December 15) and for “two-faced” behavior and even for “degenerating to the level of agent-provocateurs” (letter of November 18), while insisting that the CPC (M-L) was for continued relations with the RCP of Chile and for resolving the differences “through bilateral and multilateral meetings.” The letter of November 18 reiterates over and over how- two-faced and conspiratorial the International Commission of the RCP of Chile is and how the CC of the CPC (M-L)’s “attitude towards the RCP of Chile remained constant, fraternal and internationalist, despite the emerging ideological contradictions.” (PCDN, March 1, 1980, p. 2. col. 3-4) Naturally, the letter said nothing about the fact that the CC of the CPC (M-L). with its “constant, fraternal and internationalist” attitude, demanded that another party engage in public polemics against the RCP of Chile and reach a “final conclusion” damning the RCP of Chile. Indeed, the letter had no talk at all about any “final conclusion” about the RCP of Chile, but instead innocently demanded further discussions and the reestablishment of relations between the RCP of Chile and the CPC (M-L).

Thus the CC of the CPC (M-L) said one thing in public and another in private. It was as “two-faced” and factional in its methods as was the International Commission of the RCP of Chile. And, we might add. the CC of the CPC (M-L) had little concern over the ideological issues and Maoism. In their letter of November 18. they stress over and over that Maoism isn’t the issue in the fight between the two parties, and there is barely enough mention of ideological and political differences to keep up a thin pretext of dealing with them.

It should be clear from the above description of the international factionalism of the leadership of CPC (M-L) that we are not opposed to discussion between the RCPB (ML) and CPC (M-L) on the burning questions facing the world Marxist-Leninist movement, including the question of the controversy between our Party and CPC (M-L). On the contrary. We oppose only conspiracy and factionalism, while favoring the maximum contact between the different contingents of the international Marxist-Leninist movement. We believe that factionalism and unscrupulous conspiracy are the enemies of principled discussion and collaboration. We have no objection at all to discussion between the leaderships of the RCPB (ML) and the CPC (M-L) of various issues, if the discussion is held on a principled basis, according to the norms and elementary standards of revolutionary morality and honesty.

We believe that each of the Marxist-Leninist parties has its solemn obligation to consider all the burning questions of the world revolution, including the problems concerning relations between the various parties. In our view, the Marxist-Leninist parties must make use of a number of different methods of exchanging views and developing fraternal collaboration. This includes both the press and discussions between the parties. There should be better utilization of the valuable body of Marxist-Leninist literature from the parties and a better exchange of literature among the parties. The circulation of literature from other countries is not only of value for the leadership of the parties but creates enthusiasm among the masses and encourages the growth of proletarian internationalist sentiments.

As well, we think that better use should be made of various types of meetings between the parties, including both bilateral meetings and multilateral meetings, such as regional meetings and general meetings. The parties should make use of these meetings to put forward their analysis of the situation in their own countries and the important experience of their parties. But, at the same time, the parties must also express their views on world problems, on the situation in other countries as may be appropriate, and on the problems of consolidating the world Marxist-Leninist and revolutionary movements. The meetings of the parties serve both to exchange views and to develop common work and collaboration in the common struggle. Naturally, what is needed are not empty, ceremonial meetings, but real, working meetings.

But international factionalism is the complete negation of the genuine unity of the international Marxist-Leninist movement. The factional conspiracy between the RCPB (ML) and the CPC (M-L) has had nothing to do with the healthy process of collaboration between the Marxist-Leninist parties. In fact, this conspiracy was directed towards misleading other parties and preventing them from getting a true picture of the situation. The conspiratorial nature of the coordination between the CPC (M-L) and the RCPB (ML) in attacking our Party is shown by such features as the following:

To begin with, the leaderships of the CPC (M-L) and the RCPB (ML) were both aware of the illegitimate and unscrupulous nature of their collaboration in wrecking activity against our Party. This is proved by their own guilty covering up of their conspiracy. Principled discussions and collaboration would not have been covered up, but would have been proudly displayed as a model of proper fraternal relations. By slinking around in the dark of night like bourgeois politicians up to “dirty tricks,” the leaderships of the CPC (M-L) and RCPB (ML) showed that they were fully conscious of their factionalism.

The existence of factionalism is also shown by the fact that the RCPB(M-L) refused to discuss matters with our Party. In fact, one of the central features of the conspiracy led by the leadership of CPC (M-L) has been the attempt to develop a boycott of our Party. They have demanded that those who obey their baton refuse to talk matters over with us. This shows that the leadership of the RCPB (ML) and CPC (M-L) are trying to arrange the affairs of the Marxist-Leninist movement in the U.S. behind the back of the American Marxist-Leninists and out of sight of the international movement. It also shows that the basis of the collaboration between the RCPB (ML) and the CPC (M-L) has been the subordination of the RCPB (ML) to the baton of the leadership of CPC (M-L).

Another vile feature of the factionalism is the complete lack of principle in the charges of the leaderships of the RCPB (ML) and CPC (M-L), their name- calling and lying and demagogical emotionalism. Principled discussion is marked by its concern to get at the truth, by its attempt to follow a policy based on Marxism-Leninism and the interests of the revolution. But if the letters sent to us by these parties are so full of name-calling – and the leaderships of the parties can be expected to put their best foot forward in their letters and written documents – then one can imagine the secret discussions between these parties.

As well, the existence of a factional conspiracy is shown by the failure of the leaderships of the CPC (M-L) and the RCPB (ML) to appeal to the American proletariat and to world revolutionary opinion. If these parties really believed that our Party was “a gang of provocateurs,” if they really believed that their attempts to destroy our Party were the expression of proletarian internationalist assistance to the American Marxist-Leninists and class conscious workers, then they would address themselves to the masses and not whisper their slanders behind dark corners. By hiding in dark corners, they have shown that they have no faith in the American proletariat or the revolutionary process in the U.S. They have conducted themselves, with respect to their stand towards our Party, like people who want to arrange affairs in a smoke-filled backroom, not like representatives of a revolutionary class. In our view, this is one of the most damning indictments that their own actions testify to. They have not just violated the Marxist-Leninist norms, they have not just lied and slandered and gossiped and wrecked, but they have been conscious, in their acts against our Party, of acting in the interests of a handful and of having nothing to do with the education and consolidation of the revolutionary proletariat in the U.S. or in the world.

Indeed, we are quite aware that the leaderships of the RCPB (ML) and the CPC (M-L) have acted in a conspiracy directed not just against other parties and the proletariat of other lands, but against their own parties as well. When they can get away with it, they have told their own comrades such tall tales as that our Party allegedly doesn’t exist anymore or other such fairy tales, rather than daring to tell their comrades the truth and letting them judge for themselves the issues of principle involved. Even after the leaderships have deeply mired their parties in wrecking activities and have incited various comrades against our Party, even now, two years later, they still do not dare to have their comrades see our literature and read our side of the story. The comrades of the MLP,USA, on the other hand, have studied with the utmost attention the views of the RCPB (ML) and the CPC (M-L). Since we are fighting for principle, for the victory of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism, we rely on the political consciousness of the party members and of the masses. Since the leaderships of the RCPB (ML) and the CPC (M-L) are fighting to defend a factional conspiracy, they rely on the ignorance of the party members and of the class conscious workers in their countries.

A Self-Proclaimed “International Trend”

In the last section we have seen some of the methods of factional conspiracy employed by the leaderships of the RCPB (ML) and the CPC (M-L) in their war on our Party. This international factionalism has an ideological basis. The leaderships of the RCPB (ML) and the CPC (M-L) claim that there is a special “international trend” led by CPC (M-L) that must be preserved and that must consolidate its position within the international Marxist-Leninist movement. This is flagrant factionalism, and it has been advocated both privately and in the press of these parties and their predecessors. The conspiracy of the RCPB (ML) and the CPC (M-L) against our Party is their attempt to enforce the factional discipline of this “international trend” upon our Party.

In the press naturally, the leaderships of the RCPB (ML) and the CPC (M-L) speak in a somewhat veiled way. Nevertheless, they have continually found ways to inculcate in the party members the idea that the leadership of CPC (M-L) occupies a special place in the international Marxist-Leninist movement and is even the head of its own grouping.

One of the ways this is done is through hailing this or that action of the CPC (M-L), and especially of its top leadership, as being of exceptional international significance. For example, People’s Canada Daily News, the organ of the CC of the CPC (M-L), printed statement after statement hailing the “international” or even “world-wide” significance of the recent Fourth Congress of the CPC (M-L) and especially of the new book, The Necessity for Revolution, written by the First Secretary of the CC of the CPC (M-L). At the Fourth Congress itself, the delegation from the RCPB (ML) declared that:

“...your Congress is further elaborating the revolutionary Marxist-Leninist position of the Party and presenting the objective analysis of the concrete conditions in Canada and internationally.... And in this respect, the delegation of our Party would like to express its great enthusiasm and support for the book The Necessity for Revolution by Comrade Bains which it considers not only to be an extremely important ideological-political work for your Party and for the Canadian revolution but also a definite contribution to the entire InternationalMarxist-Leninist Communist Movement.” (PCDN,April 3, 1982, p. 2, col. 3, emphasis added)

Another fraternal delegation stated, at the Fourth Congress, that:

“...we hail the book The Necessity for Revolution, written by Comrade Bains.... It is an important contribution made to Marxism-Leninism, to the struggle for revolution and socialism, not only in Canada but on a world-wide scale.” (Ibid., p. 3, emphasis added)

There are more such statements in the April 3 PCDN and also in the April 10 PCDN describing the Rally of Marxist-Leninist Parties organized on the occasion of the Fourth Congress.

But what is this book that is being hailed for its global importance? Two volumes were promised. Volume I is a shoddy compilation of statistics, jumbled together at random from Canadian government reports and bourgeois handbooks. (See the article in this issue of The Workers’ Advocate entitled “Once More on Canadian Imperialism and the Maoist Deviation of the Leadership of CPC (M-L).”) Volume II has never appeared. Yet Volume II was to deal with the political issues of the revolution and with the strategy and tactics of the CPC (M-L). For that matter, none of the other much-ballyhooed documents of the Fourth Congress have appeared either.

Thus it seems that the delegation of the RCPB (ML) praised CPC (M-L)’s book as “a definite contribution to the entire International Marxist-Leninist Communist Movement” before the main part of that book even existed, assuming it ever will exist. What was important for the leadership of the RCPB (ML) was not the contents of the book, but advancing the international stature of the CPC (M-L) and its First Secretary. The same holds for PCDN, the organ of the CC of the CPC (M-L). It had little to say about the analysis and the content of the Fourth Congress, but a great deal to say about its importance, This is typical of the methods being used to promote the concept of the important international rote of the CPC (M-L).

Another method used by the leaderships of RCPB (ML) and the CPC (M-L) to advocate that CPC (M-L) occupies a special place in the international Marxist-Leninist movement is through creating a mystique about the “Internationalists.” Strictly speaking, the term “Internationalists” refers to three organizations, composed mainly of university students and faculty, which existed in the 1960’s: the Canadian Internationalists, the Irish Internationalists and the English Internationalists. But the leaderships of the RCPB (ML) and the CPC (M-L) use the term “Internationalists” loosely to refer to anything and everything, either in the past or the present; and in private discussion the leadership of CPC (M-L) uses the phrase “Internationalist Movement” to refer to those forces which they regard as part of their “trend.” The press of the RCPB (ML) and the CPC (M-L) glorifies the Internationalists in order to make it appear natural that “the parties which emerged from the Internationalists” should have factional relations with each other, and especially with the CPC (M-L), outside the Marxist-Leninist norms. The special position of CPC (M-L) and its First Secretary in the “Internationalist Movement” in particular, and in the international Marxist-Leninist movement in general, is advocated through talk of how the Internationalists originated in Canada and through extravagant praise of the founder of the Canadian Internationalists, who is also the First Secretary of the CC of the CPC (M-L).

For a long time our Party and its predecessors didn’t understand the motives behind the fables being told about the Internationalists. We thought that all the fuss over the Internationalists by the CPC (M-L), RCPB (ML) and some others was simply the discussion of the history of the revolutionary movement. We believed and still believe that it is correct and essential for all Marxist-Leninist parties to study their history, to discuss it with class conscious workers and to draw lessons from it. This helps foster party spirit and develop a sense of how the proletarian movement develops.

But we eventually found out that the big hullabaloo by the CPC (M-L), RCPB (ML) and some others about the Internationalists has nothing to do with studying the history of the revolutionary movement of the 1960’s, but is designed to build their faction today. In 1979 the leadership of CPC (M-L), in discussions with us, advocated that there was a presently existing “Internationalist Movement” which should strengthen the “special relations” existing between its different parts. They conceived of the international Marxist-Leninist movement as a federation of two “trends”: one, the Internationalists led by the CPC (M-L), and the other being all the remaining parties. They demanded that we accept this theory and take part in the “Internationalist Movement.” Thus, in discussions with the delegation of the COUSML at the time of the Sixth Consultative Conference of CPC (M-L) in March-April 1.979, the representative of the CPC (M-L) stated:

“In practical terms, not political, there are the Marxist-Leninist parties that came out of the struggle against Khrushchovite revisionism led by the PLA and those who come out of the Internationalists. There is a question of merging them as one trend. The historical significance of the Internationalists and the work we have done shouldn’t be underestimated: 1) common struggle; 2) relations and unity. Should utilize this as a force to develop strong relations in the International Communist Movement. In the present situation, the parties coming from the Internationalists can make a big contribution, utilizing the existing strength in the struggle against revisionism and opportunism. While I was in Albania, I came to the view of the need for a joint statement of the Parties from the Internationalists.” (From COUSML minutes, cited in “Letter of June 16, 1980,” The Workers’ Advocate. August 10, 1981, p. 9, col. 1)

Thus the leadership of CPC (M-L) made it clear that they regarded the “parties who came out of the Internationalists” as a presently existing grouping. This grouping was to be consolidated so as to play a big role in the international Marxist-Leninist movement. This was all to be done under the pretext of “merging” with the international Marxist- Leninist movement. Yet this whole concept of “merging” implied that the various organizations “that came out of the Internationalists” must act as a group. Such organizations could talk all they wanted to, in “political terms,” of their loyalty to Marxism-Leninism and the international movement, but they were to remember that, “in practical terms,” they owed their loyalty to the “Internationalist Movement.” “Political terms” were for show, for public display, while the “practical terms” were to guide the actions of these organizations.

It is notable that this conception separates off the “parties that came out of the Internationalists” from the anti-revisionist movement and the great struggles that led to the reestablishment of the other new Marxist-Leninist parties where the old parties had decayed. The leadership of CPC(’M-L) does not find their rationale for existence in what they have in common with the general movement, but in separating themselves off from the other parties. This reminds one of Marx’s comment on Lassalle:

“...just because he was the founder of a sect, he denied all natural connection with the earlier movement both in Germany and outside.... The sect sees the justification for its existence and its ’point of honor’ – not in what it has in common with the class movement but in the particular shibboleth which distinguishes it from it.” (Letter of Marx to Schweitzer, October 13,1868, emphasis as in original)

The leadership of CPC (M-L) must have a trend of their own to be the head of, and they stressed that they represented a different “trend” than that of the general anti-revisionist struggle. Once their “trend” is safeguarded, then they can “merge” into the international Marxist-Leninist movement – but not on the same level as everyone else, but as the sovereign leader of a whole international retinue.

Our predecessor, the COUSML, refused to accept this factional theory. Instead, the National Committee of the COUSML reiterated its traditional view: that the COUSML belonged to only one trend, that of revolutionary Marxism-Leninism. We were repulsed at the idea of dividing up the international Marxist-Leninist movement into different cliques.

Moreover, it should be noted that the COUSML did not “come out of the Internationalists.” The Internationalists never organized in the U.S. Our Party emerged from the revolutionary mass movements of the 1960’s and the struggle against modern revisionism. Yet the leadership of CPC (M-L) wants to enforce the factional discipline of “the Internationalist Movement” upon us. This shows how much they stretch the term “Internationalists” to cover any of their factional pretensions and how little their chatter about the “Internationalists” has to do with a real study of the historical facts. However, it is also true that we do not accept the legitimacy of their idea of forming a faction, the “Internationalist Movement,” for those organizations that actually did “come out of the Internationalists” either.

The leadership of CPC (M-L) was upset at our rejection of their factionalism. The letters of the CC of the CPC (M-L) of December 5, 1979, which pour out their hatred of our Party, bring up the question of the Internationalists. They raise the issue of:

“...this concept that we have advanced that the Internationalist Movement came up as one movement and merged with the International Marxist-Leninist Movement, with no exception. This is a very important issue.” (Cited in “Letter of June 16, 1980, ” The Workers Advocate, August 10, 1981, p. 7, col. 1)

Here the CC of the CPC (M-L) makes a pretense of saying that the “Internationalist Movement” has already merged with the international movement. However, it is not hard to see that if the CC of the CPC (M-L) were really simply discussing some facts about the revolutionary movement at the end of the 1960’s and about some organizations with no connection with our Party, then it would hardly be “a very important issue” between CPC (M-L) and our Party. Clearly, CPC (M-L)’s idea of the “Internationalist Movement” is that of a presently existing movement in which they wish to include our Party. The CC of the CPC (M-L) was using this concept of an “Internationalist Movement” to justify their demand that our Party submit to their baton and agree to establish “special relations” with them. Hence the letters attack our stand that the Marxist-Leninist norms should govern relations between CPC (M-L) and our Party by saying that this would mean:

“...that there is nothing whatsoever between the CPC (M-L) and COUSML, no history and no common struggle....” (Ibid., p. 6, col. 2)

Our Party’s letter of June 16, 1980 to the CC of the CPC (M-L) refuted these wild and factionalist theories. Among other things, we showed that CPC (M-L)’s theories dividing the parties into an “Internationalist Movement”Internationalist Movement and everyone else were close in and everyone else were close in spirit with Mao’s theories on the necessity of several lines or headquarters in the party. Just as Mao regarded the party as a federation of trends or headquarters, so too the leadership of CPC (M-L) regards the international Marxist-Leninist movement as a federation of “trends” led by separate, competing headquarters. Our Party, on the contrary, has a different view of the question of “trends.” We enthusiastically take part in the struggle of the revolutionary Marxist-Leninist trend against all opportunist and revisionist trends, but we steadfastly oppose the slightest idea of dividing up Marxism-Leninism itself into several different, competing “trends.” We hold that Marxism-Leninism is a universal theory, and we do not accept the idea of different varieties of Marxism-Leninism, whether national “exceptionalist” brands or multinational factional cartels.

Besides the factional theory of the “Internationalist Movement,” there is also the question of what the Internationalists were. At the time of our Party’s letter of June 16, 1980, we still hadn’t reexamined the actual history of the Internationalists in the 1960’s. We still thought that the Internationalists had various of the virtues that the leadership of the CPC (M-L) ascribed to them.

Since then we have made an independent study of the history of the Internationalists. We have based ourselves on the historical documents of the time, and not on later reinterpretation and rewritings of the record. We found that the stories being told by the leadership of CPC (M-L) about the alleged great accomplishments and contributions of the Internationalists are utter fantasy, sheer fairy tales, a big cover-up. These stories are being told for the purpose of having an innocent-sounding screen for building a faction led by themselves and for glorifying themselves for their alleged great contributions to the world revolution.

In a moment, we shall give a brief description of the Internationalists. But first it should be noted that it is not only the CC of the CPC (M-L) that has been busy building up the myth of the Internationalists. The CC of the RCPB (ML) are also ardent supporters of the “Internationalist Movement.” They have gone to the extent of proclaiming in their press that there is an “international trend” based on the Internationalists. This was reported in a major centerfold article in the April 11, 1981 issue of their newspaper, the Workers’ Weekly. This article describes a rally celebrating the second anniversary of the RCPB (ML) and. reporting on the speech of a representative of the CC of the RCPB (ML), states that he

“...hailed the glorious work of the Internationalists, a revolutionary organization led by Comrade Hardial Bains, which arose in the sixties out of the concrete conditions internationally and in particular out of the concrete conditions in Canada. Its work led to the founding of the Marxist-Leninist Party in Canada as well as in Britain and other countries. He said that the Internationalists was an organization born in Canada, but it was also an internationalist organization; it immediately became an international trend and worked for the victory of revolution not only in Canada but in all lands.... The origins of our Party, the speaker explained, are in the Internationalists, and it was the work of the Internationalists, and the other forerunner organizations of the Party, the English Communist Movement (Marxist-Leninist) and the Communist party of England (Marxist-Leninist) which created the conditions for the reconstruction of the British Party.” (emphasis added)

Thus the representative of the RCPB (ML) inculcated in his Party the view that the Internationalist Movement was an “international trend”; in order to avoid a public scandal, however, he left it vague whether he believed in the present existence of such an “international trend.” He followed the principle that a word to the wise suffices, while the naive can have the wool pulled over their eyes. Indeed, he went so far as to express the ambition that this “international trend” will someday encompass “all lands.” This, indeed, is what the Internationalists actually tried to do in the late 1960’s, as shown by the resolutions of the “Necessity for Change Conference” organized in 1967 in London and by their establishment of the journal World Revolutionary Youth. Apparently the faction that “emerged from the Internationalists” has never given up this ambition. It is interesting that he said that the Internationalists gave rise to various Marxist-Leninist parties, but was careful not to list them. This is because a list might prove embarrassing: one never knows where the Internationalists will claim jurisdiction next, so it is best to leave the list of countries completely open.

It is also notable that the representative of the RCPB (ML) placed the origins of his party in “the concrete conditions of Canada.” If this is true, it is astonishing. All genuine Marxist-Leninist parties integrate the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism with the concrete conditions of their own country. But the representative of the RCPB (ML) wanted to stress the idea that the Internationalist Movement is based on allegiance to the leadership of CPC (M-L), so he placed the origins of his party in the concrete conditions of Canada, rather than of Britain.

Several months later the Workers’ Weekly returned to this theme. In an article commemorating the anniversary of the “Necessity for Change Youth and Students Conference” held in London, England in 1967 and organized by the Internationalists, the Workers’ Weekly states:

“...the work to rebuild a genuine Marxist-Leninist party for the whole of Britain was begun in 1967, when the revolutionary ideas and principles of the Internationalists, a revolutionary communist trend originating from Canada, were taken up by the advanced sections of the working class, youth and students and other sections of the people.” (Workers’ Weekly, August 15, 1981, p. 2, emphasis added)

Here the RCPB (ML) stresses that the Internationalists made new and decisive contributions to revolutionary theory. The “revolutionary ideas and principles” of the Internationalists – based on the “concrete conditions of Canada,” as mentioned above – are supposed to be the basis for the parties of the Internationalist Movement. The advance of the revolutionary movement in Britain was supposed to depend, not on taking up the theory and practice of Leninism, but on taking up “the revolutionary ideas and principles” of the Internationalists, “a revolutionary communist trend originating from Canada.”

But what are the “revolutionary ideas and principles” developed by the Internationalists? The Workers’ Weekly is silent. This is characteristic of the present behavior of the entire “Internationalist Movement.” It reminds one of the way run-of-the-mill charlatans operate. We are told how important the new experience of the Internationalists was, how valuable the lessons taught by their activity, how vital it is to uphold their traditions, ad nauseum, but we are not told precisely what it is that is so valuable. This underlines the fact that this new “internationalist trend” is completely unprincipled. It is simply a faction based on loyalty to whatever the conductor says – and with all the lectures about “the concrete conditions of Canada” and the origin of the Internationalists in Canada, there is hardly much mystery about who the conductor is. This is a “trend” whose basis is following whatever is dictated by the top leadership of CPC (M-L).

Very well. We shall have to see for ourselves what “the revolutionary ideas and principles” of the Internationalists are. Let us take a brief glance at the theories and practices of this “internationalist trend,” about which so much noise has been made.

As we have pointed out, the Internationalists were three organizations of the 1960’s. They were composed mainly of university students and faculty. The earliest one, the Canadian Internationalists, was founded on March 13, 1963. By January 1, 1970 all the various groups of Internationalists had been replaced by their successors.

The actual record of the Internationalists is no more distinguished, and in some respects far less distinguished, than that of a multitude of groups of activists of the 1960’s. The Internationalists wandered from one thing to the next throughout their entire existence. At various times they advocated petty- bourgeois nationalism, theories of personal emancipation, and, finally Maoism. They made a number of attempts to work through existing social-democratic trends and organizations.

The Internationalists, although their work centered on certain university campuses, repeatedly denounced various of the mass student upsurges of the 1960’s. For example, Hardial Bains, the founder of the Internationalists, replying in 1967 to the charge that the Internationalists were Marxist-Leninists and out to inspire “Berkeley-style revolutions,” denounced the mass upsurge at the University of California as just 𔄢the American ’New Left’ movement” and stated that “I have denounced the ’New Left’ as CIA-inspired groups, who do nothing but rationalize their impotency and immorality.” He boasted that he was a “card-carrying member of the New Democratic Party of Canada,” which he correctly identified as “the equivalent of the British Labor Party.” He glorified the social-democratic NDP, while denouncing the Communist Party of Canada, and all similar parties in the Anglo-American world without referring to whether they were revisionist or not. (See the Internationalist journal Words, No. 12, early 1967, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland) Thus he disassociated himself and the Internationalists from the mass student struggle at Berkeley in a most disgusting way and flaunted his social-democratic credentials.

The Internationalists gave the following description of themselves in one of their most official journals, World Revolutionary Youth, in 1969.

“The Internationalists developed from an ’informal discussion group’ in 1963 to a ’center-left’ organization based on opposition to imperialism in 1966, anti-imperialist youth, and student movement in August 1967 and Marxist-Leninist youth and student movement in 1968.” (World Revolutionary Youth, February, 1969, p.6)

Thus it was not until 1965 that the Internationalists even reached the level of a “center-left” organization, and not until the last year or so of their existence in 1968 that they began describing themselves as Marxist-Leninist. Yet the myth of the Internationalists presents them as having worked for Marxism- Leninism from 1963 on and as having taking the decision, in the Necessity for Change Conference in London, England in August 1968, of working to refound the Marxist-Leninist parties in the countries they were in. The CPC (M-L) even tells us that “the Internationalists were the first student organization to take a clear-cut stand against modern revisionism, dating back to 1962-63.” (See the CPC (M-L) pamphlet On Unity of Marxist-Leninists, 1976, p. 39) The RCPB (ML) assures us that the Internationalists, at the time of the 1967 conference, had been “objectively leading the struggle against imperialism and revisionism.” (Marxist-Leninist Journal, Theoretical Journal of the RCPB (ML), Vol. 1, No. 2, July 1979, p. 43) All this is sheer rubbish. According to their own documents the Necessity for Change Conference of August 1967 marked the transition of the Internationalists up to an anti-imperialist movement from a “center-left” organization. The actual documents of this Conference talk of spreading the Internationalists, not of rebuilding the Marxist-Leninist parties. (These documents are reprinted in Mass Line, journal of CPC (M-L)’s immediate predecessor, Sept. 17, 1969)

The Internationalists were exceptionally confused in their ideas and principles. Let us look further at the Necessity for Change Conference of 1967. The main document that was produced to prepare for this Conference was Hardial Bains’ pamphlet entitled Necessity for Change. This has always been regarded as one of the main documents of the Internationalists. Yet it centers on a confused discussion of the psychology of taking an anti-imperialist stand. It contrasts “going-out” to “going-in.” Since Marxism-Leninism teaches that a person transforms himself through transforming the world, through taking part in the revolutionary struggle to change the world, it might be presumed that “going-out” is the correct stand. But no, according to this pamphlet, “going-out” is reformism. Indeed, “going-out is the root cause of discord which confuses the fundamental issue.” Instead, the pamphlet stands for “going-in,” a sort of introspection, which it claims “reveals the true nature of being that is to seek truth to serve people.” After all, as the pamphlet points out, “The will-to-be demands fundamental change.” This mish-mash is an “anti-imperialist” rephrasing of the existentialist and “new leftist” theses then fashionable. The adherence of the Internationalists to this rot is especially significant when one notes that the main attention of the Internationalists was devoted to culture. As the resolution of the Necessity for Change Conference states: “At this stage our struggle is on the cultural front.” (Mass Line, September, 17, 1969, p. 8, col. 2)

This type of theory of personal emancipation continued to exercise an influence on the English Internationalists and their successor, the English Communist Movement (M-L), for some time. The ECM (M-L) itself analyzed that such ideas caused setbacks in the period from August 1967 through 1970, although they did not recognize that these ideas had any connection with the analysis given at the Necessity for Change Conference. They gave the example of the slogan used by their comrades working at one of the British universities until 1969: “Be a communist and solve your hang-ups.”

It was in 1968, in the last year or so of their activity, that the Internationalists began to present themselves as Marxist-Leninists. To be more precise, they presented themselves as more Maoist than thou. Within a few years, it was declared that it was the Internationalists who had brought the lessons of Mao Zedong Thought and the Chinese Cultural Revolution to Canada and other countries. It was at this time that they began to try to “merge,” as the CC of the CPC (M-L) calls it, with the international Marxist-Leninist movement. With their typical modesty, in 1969 they declared themselves the organizing committee for the “First International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Youth,” which was to be open to “all Marxist-Leninist youth organizations who follow Mao Tse-Tung’s thought creatively and in an all-sided manner” throughout the world. (Resolution carried in every issue of World Revolutionary Youth) The only justification was that this was alleged to be in accordance with the decision of the Necessity for Change Conference in 1967. However, that conference had instead called for an International Congress of the Internationalists. The “Public Statement” at the end of the conference had stated: “I will close the conference by announcing that we are going to organize an International Congress next year in which we will adopt our political program, the structural form of the organization, and give birth to a genuinely anti-imperialist and anti-revisionist movement.” (Mass Line, September 17, 1969, p. 9)

The plan for an International Congress flopped. But it seems that the faction descended from the Internationalists never gave up its global pretensions. It is still even trying to use the memory of the Necessity for Change Conference of 1967 to justify itself. Thus the RCPB (ML), in writing about this conference, claims that it included American Internationalists, who were the advanced section of the revolutionary youth and student movement and who took the decision that led to the founding of our predecessor. (Marxist-Leninist Journal, Vol. 1, No. 2, July 1979, p. 43) This is utter fantasy. None of our predecessors were at this conference, and there were no American Internationalists at all. We didn’t even meet the “Internationalists” until 1969. But this flight of fantasy is the ideological basis for their demands that our Party follow the dictate of the leadership of CPC (M-L) and overthrow our leadership, give up the Leninist slogans, and join the Internationalist Movement. Anything else would be sheer ingratitude.

This brief account of the Internationalists shows that they made no special contributions to the theory and practice of the revolution. On the contrary, they had a lot to learn from Marxism-Leninism and the revolutionary movement. Any group that “comes out of the Internationalists” would have to take very seriously the task of replacing the confused ideas of the Internationalists with the revolutionary and mobilizing ideas of Marxism-Leninism. But the glorification of the alleged new, important contributions of the Internationalists to revolutionary theory and practice is not only a fraud, a fraud that is fraught with the danger of a wild and unrestrained international factionalism, but it has gone hand in hand with the denigration of Leninism. For example, in their letter to us of January 10,1980, the CC of the RCPB (ML) denounced the Leninist slogan “Build the Marxist-Leninist Party Without the Social-Chauvinists and Against the Social-Chauvinists.” During the Falklands war they denounced the Leninist slogan that “the main enemy is at home.” This cavalier attitude to Marxism-Leninism is no accident. This is the flip side of the RCPB (ML)’s advocacy of the decisive value of the new contributions to revolutionary theory developed by the Canadian Internationalists.

Thus in our view, the Workers’ Weekly is making a serious blunder when it puts forward the “revolutionary ideas and principles” of the Internationalists as the basis for communist parties. Genuine communist parties should take Marxism-Leninism as their theoretical basis. True, new experience does develop. For example, the Great October Socialist Revolution in Russia marked the triumph of Leninism. All over the world the experience of the October Revolution and the theory and practice of Leninism was taken up eagerly by the world’s communists; the genuine Marxists all became Marxist-Leninists. Leninism pointed out the way to purge the proletarian parties of social-democratic traditions and recast them into proletarian revolutionary parties of a new type. And today it is still revolutionary Marxism- Leninism that is the issue at stake in the battle against modern revisionism. The new Marxist-Leninist parties that have been formed in the struggle against revisionism must, in our view, restore the revolutionary traditions of Marxism-Leninism, not supplant them with some allegedly new development. When the Workers’ Weekly takes, not Marxism-Leninism, but the “revolutionary ideas and principles” of the Canadian Internationalists as the basis for the development of the revolutionary movement in Britain, it is showing the corrupt fruit that necessarily springs from the factionalist theory of consolidating the “Internationalist Movement”.

The task of the organizations which “emerged from the Internationalists” was to rebuild themselves on the firm foundations of the Marxist-Leninist principles. It is no sin, in and of itself, to be descended from groups that were confused or wandering in the wilderness. Marxist-Leninist parties do not come into existence out of nowhere, but out of the revolutionary movement of their times. But when the “Internationalists” are separated off from the revolutionary movement of their times, and the revolutionary movement is denounced while the Internationalists are put forward as saviors, this is downright ludicrous and sectarian. When the CC of the RCPB (ML) preserves and perpetuates the confusion of the Internationalists, when they worship before the altar of this confusion, then they are doing the RCPB (ML) a grave disservice and are preventing the RCPB (ML) from wholeheartedly taking up Marxism-Leninism as its theoretical basis. When the CC of the RCPB (ML) goes further and hails the Internationalists as an “international trend,” then they are doing the entire international Marxist-Leninist movement a disservice.

In Conclusion

In this article, which is designed to serve as an introduction to the correspondence between our Party and the RCPB (ML), we have dealt almost exclusively with the factional conspiracy of the leaderships of the RCPB (ML) and the CPC (M-L). We have done this because this is the story behind the letters, so to speak. It barely appears in the letters themselves and so required explanation.

Nevertheless, the political issues dealt with by the letters are the real focus of attention. The correspondence centered on the question of the struggle against Chinese revisionism. It shows that it is not enough simply to repudiate the phrase “Mao Zedong Thought,” but that a real struggle has to be carried through against Maoism, “three worlds-ism” and Chinese revisionism generally. Even the issues raised in the letters about the norms of relations between parties and the additional material we have provided in this article about the factional conspiracy of the RCPB (ML) and CPC (M-L) are, to a large extent, part of this question of the fight against Maoism; it is not hard to see that the violations of the norms and the factional conspiracy have been done according to the typical Maoist methods made infamous by the Chinese revisionist leadership. Thus the letters show the obstacles our Party faced in carrying on the struggle against Maoism.

It should be noted again that the leadership of the RCPB (ML) raises as the central issue their opposition to our fight against our “own” opportunists. Because of the large amount of material we have provided on the controversies between our Party and our erstwhile fraternal comrades, the CPC (M-L) and the RCPB (ML), it may be possible to lose sight of this simple fact. But the fact is that the RCPB (ML) began their boycott of our Party on the grounds that they opposed our fight against our domestic Maoists; against the raving social-chauvinists and directors of “the main blow against Soviet social-imperialism” of the Klonskyite “CPML”; against the frenzied Maoists and shamefaced “three worlders” of the “RCP,USA”; against the social-democratic opponents of the struggle against social-chauvinism, such as the MLOC/“CPUSA(M-L)”; and so forth.

The CC of the RCPB (ML) opposed this struggle against social-chauvinism, “three worlds-ism” and Maoism. It is true that they did this at the behest of the leadership of CPC (M-L). But it is also true that they are responsible for their own stands, and they proved unable to cope with the pressure of the leadership of CPC (M-L) because of the longstanding weaknesses of the RCPB (ML).

The results of giving in to these longstanding weaknesses and to the dictate of the leadership of CPC (M-L) have not been long in coming. These results are documented in the article in this issue of The Workers’ Advocate on the stand of the RCPB (ML) during the Falklands war. The RCPB (ML) went to the extent of denouncing the Leninist teachings on the struggle against imperialist war and taking up petty-bourgeois nationalist and “three worldist” stands. Thus the RCPB (ML) went from opposing carrying through to the end the struggle against Maoism to repeating the errors of Maoism. The article on the history of the RCPB (ML) with respect to “three worlds-ism” shows the course this Party has followed. The RCPB (ML) began with the Maoist heritage of the Internationalists. It was the fight against Maoism that, for a time, brought light to the RCPB (ML). For a period this Party took various positive steps in this struggle, although slowly and hesitantly. When the CC of the RCPB (ML) denounced our struggle against our “own” domestic Maoists, this was a sign that the RCPB (ML) was abandoning its own struggle. It began to relapse into a Maoist deviation, going so far as to take flagrant “three worldist” stands.

Finally, in concluding, we reiterate that our Party wishes no harm to the British comrades. It is our hope that the RCPB (ML) overcomes the deviations that are proving so harmful to it, resumes the fight against Maoism and all revisionism and opportunism, and finds its way out of the factional conspiracy forced on it by the leadership of CPC (M-L). Our Party has always worked and will continue to work for close fraternal relations with the British Marxist-Leninists.

Letter of the CC of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist) to the CC of the Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninists

January 10, 1980

The correspondence between the MLP,USA and the RCPB (ML) has been reproduced from the original letters without deletions. Minor typographical errors have been corrected. As well, British usage in matters of spelling has been replaced by American usage (e.g. “centre” has been replaced by “center”). All parenthetical notes in the text are not additions but appeared in the original letters. One footnote has been added, however. This occurs at the end of the letter of March 17, 1980 from the NEC of the MLP, USA to the CC of the RCPB (ML). It is the only footnote in the correspondence and is clearly marked as an explanatory comment added by The Workers’ Advocate.

January 10,1980

Central Committee

Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninist

Dear Comrades,

Revolutionary greetings from the Central Committee and the entire Party to the Central Committee of the Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninists and all of its militants!

Comrades, we were once again very happy for representatives of both our Central Committees to meet and hold extensive discussions during the All- Canada National Youth Festival in October. As is always the case, we found these meetings, the exchange of experience, the discussions on many of the common problems that confront our two Marxist- Leninist organizations, the discussions on important international questions, the discussions on the situation in the United States, all extremely useful and positive. These meetings, of which there have been four over the past year and a half, have served to strengthen still further the longstanding ties and relations that have existed between our Party and the COUSML for over ten years now. Our Central Committee greatly cherishes these relations with our comrades from the United States and feels very happy that, after a relatively long period where we were unable to meet with each other, over the past year or so our meetings and our relations have been further strengthened.

We are writing to you now to clarify with you our point of view concerning one topic that arose in the last meeting with our Central Committee representative. During the meeting, your comrade explained to our representative that the COUSML was very happy and wanted to thank us for printing in Workers’ Weekly extensive extracts of the “Call of the National Committee of the Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninists” entitled “Build the Marxist-Leninist Party Without the Social-Chauvinists and Against the Social-Chauvinists.” We want to take the opportunity to explain our policy on this question in this letter.

We printed the “Call of the National Committee” because of our deep and longstanding relations with the COUSML, because of our joy at the news that the Marxist-Leninist Party of the United States was soon to be founded, and because we felt, at the time, that it was our duty to print this important statement from our fraternal comrades in the Party’s central organ. We would like to clarify with you that, while we did print the Statement and while we fully support and applaud the work to re-found the proletarian party in the United States, we do not support and agree with many of the issues that are raised in the “Call of the National Committee.” We would like to clarify with you that our printing of the Statement does not mean support for the Statement but fraternal support for the COUSML and its work to refound the Marxist-Leninist Party of the United States. We would like to take the opportunity to explain our views on this question.

When the representative of our Central Committee met representatives of your Central Committee in March last year during the 6th Consultative Conference of the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist). our comrade was asked for his views on the draft statement of the National Committee. During the subsequent meeting, our comrade raised five main points with your comrades. These can be summarized as follows:

(1) Wholehearted support for and joy at the news of the preparation by the COUSML to form the genuine communist party in the United States.

(2) Disagreements on the question of saying that the neo-revisionists in the United States were ever part of the anti-revisionist movement. Our comrade explained that in Britain, for example, we do not say that the so-called “C”PB(ML) was ever part of the anti-revisionist movement but that right from its inception was an economist, trade-unionist organization. Our comrade explained that in Britain we say that recent events have openly exposed the treacherous activities of the neo-revisionists over the past 12 years. Our comrade said that to say that the neo-revisionists are or were part of the anti-revisionist movement, in the way that the Statement of the National Committee tends to do, creates harmful illusions about these counter-revolutionary characters.

(3) Underplaying of the central role of the COUSML as the heart, the center, of the anti-revisionist movement. Our comrade explained that the Statement tended to put the COUSML as one of many groups in this anti-revisionist movement whereas, from our understanding of the United States and also from our understanding of the similar situation in Britain, the COUSML can proudly say that it is the only genuine anti-revisionist center, it is the decisive force that has fought revisionism in theory and practice and it has now created the ideological, political and organizational conditions for forming the Party.

(4) Disagreements on the slogan “Build the Marxist Leninist Party Without the Social-Chauvinists and Against the Social-Chauvinists” as a call for the founding of the communist party today. Our comrade acknowledged that the slogan was, of course, a correct and scientific slogan put forward by Lenin at the time of the open exposure of the opportunists as downright social-chauvinists and was aimed at the centrists who were for conciliation with the social- chauvinists. But our comrade also explained that, in our view, from that time onwards the issue as to whether the Marxist-Leninist Party should be built without and against the social-chauvinists was settled. To raise in 1979, that the Party should be built without and against the social-chauvinists was minimally a truism but more importantly, he explained, we considered that it was dangerously creating illusions that in the United States this issue was not settled before 1979, that the Statement was creating illusions that only now has this issue been settled, creating illusions that the neo-revisionists have had some “genuine” interest in building a Marxist-Leninist party.

(5) Disagreements with the references in the Statement to the neo-revisionists being “anti-Party.” Our comrade explained during the meeting that while this was obviously true it did not strongly make the point, tending to confuse the central issue, that the neo-revisionists are against Marxism-Leninism, the revolution and socialism, that the neo-revisionists are in theory “anti-revisionist” but that in practice they have never broken with revisionism, that the neo-revisionists are a variant of modern revisionism, an agency of the bourgeoisie in the communist and workers’ movement.

These, comrades, summarize the main points raised by our comrade at the meeting in March. Your comrades stated then that they would take our views back to your Central Committee and our comrade said that if there were any other views that our Central Committee wished to raise on the Statement we would write to you. After studying the Statement on the comrade’s return, the Central Committee considered that all of its basic views on the Statement had already been raised by our comrade with you, and so decided not to write.

While in the final Statement issued on May 12 there have been some changes and modifications as compared with the draft statement of March, our basic views on the question, on the “Call of the National Committee,” on the views raised by our comrade in March, have not changed. On the contrary, we have studied the Statement further and wish to raise a further disagreement. We consider that following on from the last four points raised above, the Statement of the National Committee has tended to create a new main enemy for the American proletariat and people. It states that:

“There can be no lasting victory in the struggle against social-chauvinism apart from the reconstitution and constant growth and strengthening of the Marxist-Leninist Party of the American proletariat. The great movement against social-chauvinism has mobilized a whole section of class-conscious workers and revolutionary activists to break completely with the social-chauvinist class traitors. And this has created favorable conditions to reconstitute the Marxist-Leninist Party. And this in turn will further intensify the struggle against the social-chauvinist liberal-labor politics.”

Comrades, this is turning things upside down. The proletariat forms their Marxist-Leninist parties in order to guide and lead them in proletarian revolution, in the revolutionary overthrow of monopoly capitalism and the establishment of socialism and eventually communism. The main objective of the proletariat and its Marxist-Leninist parties in the West is the overthrow of monopoly capitalism. At the same time, as Lenin pointed out, the “fight against imperialism is a sham and humbug unless it is inseparably bound up with the fight against opportunism.” The Marxist-Leninists have, in order to lead the proletariat in socialist revolution, to defeat the main obstacle in their path, the revisionists and opportunists of all hues, more particularly the modern revisionists. But this cannot mean building a party to lead a “great movement against social-chauvinism.” This tends to make social-chauvinism and not the American monopoly capitalist class the main enemy, at which the

American proletariat, led by its Marxist-Leninist party, are directing their socialist revolution.

Comrades, we repeat that we are extremely happy that the COUSML is preparing to form the Marxist- Leninist Party in the United States. But we would like to say sincerely that we consider that it would be a grave error to form the Party on the basis of a number of erroneous lines being presented in the “Call of the National Committee.”

We raise our views from no other standpoint than that of further deepening and strengthening the relations between our two organizations on the basis of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism. It is our duty and it is our right to raise our Central Committee’s views on such questions with our fraternal comrades, especially with those who like COUSML are so close, with whom we have fought shoulder to shoulder to build our respective Marxist-Leninist centers. We earnestly ask you to seriously consider the views that we raised in the meeting of March 1979 and that we are reiterating in this letter. In our view, comrades, these errors that we have highlighted should and must be corrected before the Party is formed in the United States.

We propose that we elaborate and discuss our views in greater detail and to a greater extent in March when a representative of our Central Committee will be visiting Canada. We would, if it is convenient and appropriate for you, be very happy to visit the United States to hold these discussions around this period.

With warmest revolutionary greetings,

D. Williams

on behalf of the Central Committee Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist)

Note: Mistakenly the CC of the RCPB (ML) addressed the above letter to the Central Committee of the COUSML. The COUSML had no Central Committee; rather its leading body was known as the National Committee.

[Photo: First page of the Letter of the Central Committee of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist) to the Central [National] Committee of the Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninists, January 10,1980.]

Letter of the NEC of the Marxist-Leninist Party, USA to the CC of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist)

March 17,1980

National Executive Committee

March 17,1980

Central Committee Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist)

Dear Fraternal Comrades,

We have received your letter of January 10, addressed to the Central Committee of the COUSML. We are writing you a reply, which, however, is merely an introduction to the discussion of the issues at stake. We agree with your proposal for discussion between the two Parties.

We also take this occasion to send you our fraternal revolutionary greetings. By now you have undoubtedly received the unanimous resolution of our Founding Congress which sent the ardent revolutionary greetings of the Founding Congress to your Marxist-Leninist party, the RCPB (ML). Our two Parties have had fraternal relations right from the start. Although throughout the years we have been unable to meet frequently, we have shared a warm comradely relationship, welcomed each other’s triumphs and worried about each other’s problems. We are fighters in the same trench against imperialism, revisionism and opportunism. And we have both faced the savage onslaught of neo-revisionism and Chinese revisionism which sought to subvert and liquidate the new Marxist-Leninist parties arising in the course of arduous struggle against the Khrushchovite betrayal and in the midst of the raging class struggle.

Our letter is divided as follows:

I. A Protest

II. Agreement With Your Proposal for Discussion Between Our Two Parties

III. On the General Issue Raised by Your Letter of January 10

IV. On Particular Objections Raised by Your Letter of January 10

V. On the Past Discussions Between Our Two Parties

I

In this letter we would like to begin some discussion on the issues you have raised in your letter. But first it is our unfortunate duty to have to raise a protest against one aspect of your letter. We firmly protest the hostile stand taken by you in your letter when you write: “...we consider that it would be a grave error to form the Party on the basis of a number of erroneous lines being presented in the ’Call of the National Committee.’... In our view, comrades, these errors that we have highlighted should and must be corrected before the Party is formedin the United States.” (emphasis added) Since your letter, you have backed up your statement with action and through boycott of the MLP,USA, thus showing that the passage we have quoted was not a mere slip of the pen. With this statement in your letter you have issued an ultimatum. The Founding Congress of the MLP,USA was based on the line of Marxism- Leninism, which we have followed since our predecessor, the ACWM(M-L), was founded in May 1969. The particular views of the Call of the NC of the COUSML of May 12, 1979 are those that our predecessor the COUSML had followed for years. We may have disagreements between our two Parties on this or that question. But such differences should be resolved through discussions and other means to deepen our grasp of Marxism-Leninism and to further our analysis of the concrete situation facing our two Parties and the world revolutionary movement and not through exerting pressure and threatening splits. But with your hostile ultimatum, you resort to brutal anti-Marxist-Leninist pressure in an attempt to impose your views on our Party.

Comrades, it is one thing for you to put forward your views, even in terms of sharp criticism if you believe the situation warrants that. It is quite another thing to boycott the MLP,USA, to take a hostile stand towards it, and to leave it to face the savage onslaught of the class enemy and his revisionist and social-democratic servants without the proletarian internationalist support of such fraternal parties as yourself. You are boycotting the MLP,USA and damaging the longstanding fraternal relations between our two Parties even though you admit that COUSML was “the only genuine anti-revisionist center” and had “now created the ideological, political and organizational conditions for forming the Party.” Your overall and longstanding view is that our Party is the Marxist-Leninist vanguard of the American proletariat. But when you denounce the founding of the MLP,USA and boycott the MLP,USA on the grounds that you disagree with this or that thesis or slogan, and not on the basis of an overall evaluation of the Party, then you are taking a stand of brutally dictating to our Party. Objectively, whether you realize it or not, whether you have carefully thought through this question or not, this is not the stand of fighting for principle, but is the stand of fighting for the right to violate the norms laid down by Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism for relations between Marxist-Leninist parties, and to impose some sort of “special relationship” outside these norms. It is fighting for the right to use such anti-Marxist methods as using ultimatums and dictating to another party. We sincerely ask you, our fraternal comrades, do you think that this ultimatum of yours and boycott of our Party is consistent with following the principled path for the resolution of ideological differences and for the upholding of Marxist-Leninist principle pointed out by the example of the Party of Labor of Albania in its struggle against Khrushchovite and Chinese revisionism? We ask you to think over your action in the light of the glorious example of the calm but firm and bold defense of Marxist-Leninist principle displayed by the Party of Labor of Albania and documented and elaborated on in Comrade Enver Hoxha’s works Reflections on China and Through the Pages Volume XIX of the Works of Comrade Enver Hoxha and in the Letter of the CC of the Party of Labor and the Government of Albania to the CC of the Communist Party and Government of China(July 29, 1978).

We hold that this brutal boycott of our Party is a totally impermissible stand, that violates the Marxist norms, is incompatible with proletarian internationalism, and damages the fraternal relations between our two Parties. And it is also incomprehensible to us that, after you had been consulted over a whole period beginning in March 1979 and had consistently supported the founding of the Marxist-Leninist Party of the USA, you wait for over three-fourths of a year until January 10 to put forward preconditions for the Founding Congress of the MLP,USA. It is astonishing that you are maintaining your stand against the formation of the MLP,USA even after you have found out that your letter was dated nine days after the founding of the MLP,USA on January 1, 1980. It is astonishing that you suddenly on January 10 object to the formation of the MLP,USA partly because of our Party’s firm leadership of the movement against social-chauvinism, when this question has been repeatedly put forward in detail in our literature since March 10, 1977, almost three years ago, and thus you had ample time to consider this question and raise objections previously. It is surprising that you allege that there is a disagreement over whether COUSML was considered by us to be “one of many groups” or “the heart, the center, of the anti-revisionist movement” at a time when the founding of the MLP,USA has answered that question in the most definite, emphatic and public manner for anyone who had the slightest doubt. And it defies understanding that you on one hand say that COUSML “has now created the ideological, political and organizational conditions for forming the Party” while simultaneously not supporting the founding of that Party. But then again, this contradiction just emphasizes the unprincipled nature of your opposition to the founding of the MLP,USA. We do not accept this wrong stand of yours. We ask you to repudiate this stand and to explain yourselves. We have faith that you will find the Marxist-Leninist strength and maturity to turn back from this wrong stand.

We are also surprised by the issues you raise as suitable for a letter dealing with the reasons for your boycott of the MLP,USA. Your letter does not deal with the issues of first-rate importance, but confines itself to verbal quibbling about issues of tertiary importance, if that, is full of vague hints and unworked out ideas, and does not even make a pretense of dealing with the actual work and struggle of the MLP,USA but simply logically deduces that this or that phrase might “tend to” create “dangerous illusions.” Do you really believe that the issues you have listed in your letter are a principled basis for putting in question the fraternal ties between our two Marxist-Leninist Parties? In our reply to you we try to elevate the discussion by seeking the issues of principle hidden behind this mass of trivialities. But the trivial content of the immediate issues you put forward reemphasizes the fact that the pressure you are applying to us goes against the norms of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism.

Our protest is not that you disagree with us on this or that question. True, we don’t agree with the content of the views you are putting forward, because it amounts to the demand that we tone down or even stop this or that aspect of the vigorous ideological, polemical and all-round struggle that we are waging against revisionism. True, we don’t agree with your method of approach in your letter either, because it consists of hairsplitting, abstract moralizing and focusing attention away from the issues of first-rate importance to matters of tertiary importance, if that. But we agree with your view that “It is our duty and it is our right to raise our Central Committee’s views on such questions with our fraternal comrades....” It is correct for you to put forward questions for discussion between the two organizations, and we look forward eagerly to detailed and thorough discussion both on the issues you raise in your letter and on other questions. But there is nothing in common between hostile actions and brutal ultimatums, on one hand, and comradely discussion which can include sharp criticism on the other hand. On the contrary, such stands as playing off COUSML against the MLP,USA, professing the greatest friendship for one while opposing the other, boycotting the Party, etc., are stands that are opposed to the development of proper fraternal relations and proper consultation and discussion between Marxist-Leninist parties. The norms and relations between fighting contingents of the international Marxist-Leninist communist movement, such as the RCPB (ML) and the MLP,USA, are regulated by the principles of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism.

II

In your letter you proposed discussions between the two Parties. You write: “We propose that we elaborate and discuss our views in greater detail and to a greater extent in March when a representative of our Central Committee will be visiting Canada. We would, if it is convenient and appropriate for you, be very happy to visit the United States to hold these discussions around this period.” We enthusiastically accept the proposal for further discussions. We also believe that it would be good to hold these discussions in the U.S. this time. For one thing, we would be able to make available many documents, published and private, which would be useful for a serious study of the issues that will be discussed. We believe that such discussion would be a good opportunity not only to discuss the issues raised in your letter, but other issues concerning: the struggle against Chinese revisionism, the building and internal consolidation of our Marxist-Leninist Parties, the questions involved in building revolutionary mass organizations, the objective situation in our countries, and so forth.

We are looking forward to giving a warm comradely welcome to your delegation. This visit would be for private discussion with the representatives of our Central Committee. We will provide accommodations and the size of the delegation is up to you. You can send any necessary information to us via the same way you sent the letter of January 10.

We also would like to apologize to you for not having replied to your proposal for discussions until now. We did not receive your January 10 letter until a week ago. The address you sent it to is the proper address and is secure, but because of a foul-up your letter was not promptly delivered to the NEC. This problem has been solved. We stress that the address you used is still valid and secure.

III

At this point in the letter we can begin the discussion of the ideological and political views put forth in your letter concerning the struggle against revisionism and opportunism. In this section of the letter we will discuss some general issues involved, while in the next section we will go into detail concerning certain of your particular objections to our struggle against opportunism, which you raise by way of criticism of the Call of the National Committee of the COUSML entitled “Build the Marxist-Leninist Party Without the Social-Chauvinists and Against the Social-Chauvinists.” The central issue is that you are demanding that we tone down or stop altogether this or that aspect of the struggle against revisionism and opportunism. Thus the questions at stake concern: the carrying through to the end of the struggle against Chinese revisionism, the role of the struggle against revisionism and opportunism in general (including but not restricted to Chinese revisionism) in revolutionary work, and the role of polemics in the struggle against revisionism and opportunism.

Our Party holds that the struggle against revisionism and opportunism must not only be continued, it must be deepened and intensified. The struggle against revisionism and opportunism is one of the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism, and this teaching of Marxism-Leninism appears especially fresh and new today when the bourgeoisie is activating the opportunists and revisionists in country after country and on a global scale for the struggle against the revolution and Marxism-Leninism. Any illusions that this struggle is a mere side issue or any loosening of the grip against the revisionists and opportunists can only give rise to grave danger for the revolutionary forces. To think that, for example, with the condemnation of Mao Zedong Thought the struggle against Chinese revisionism has come to a successful end, would be a grave mistake. On the contrary, it is essential to use the condemnation of Mao Zedong Thought to deepen and intensify the struggle against Chinese revisionism and to give that struggle a yet deeper ideological content. The question of fighting revisionism is not just a question of repudiating a phrase or of repeating a six-word quotation, like the Chinese revisionists liked to reduce everything to. Fighting Mao Zedong Thought is not just a matter of repeating “down with Mao Zedong Thought,” or of just repeating that the Chinese revisionist groups are criminals, but of elaborating Marxism-Leninism and of reexamining every question that has been confused by the Chinese revisionists. And indeed it involves other questions too and in a sense permeates much or all of the other revolutionary work. The question of the struggle against the international opportunist trend of Chinese revisionism – which includes both open tools of the Hua-Deng clique as well as those groups who fight for the basic stands of Chinese revisionism while professing some disagreement with the Hua-Deng clique – cannot be regarded with complacency, that they are now exposed so we can go to sleep or just call them names, nor can it be separated from the providing of a deep ideological basis to the struggle against Chinese revisionism. The great setbacks and disasters that Chinese revisionism has faced everywhere for the last few years should not be used as a pretext for complacency, but as a spur to further action. The great scientific works from socialist Albania, the great books by Comrade Enver Hoxha such as Imperialism and the Revolution, and Reflections on China and With Stalin, the scientific sessions, should be used to spur on the struggle, not to say that, OK, now everything’s settled.

The struggle against revisionism is not something away from the masses, not a matter of some profound thoughts for a handful while the real revolutionary work among the masses is something else. On the contrary. (1) The struggle against revisionism and opportunism is on questions of vital importance for the orientation and direction of the work of revolution. It is a fight both over the general principles of the revolution and over all the concrete problems of the revolutionary movement. It comes up in the formulation and defense of the revolutionary strategy and tactics in the concrete situations facing each party, over the questions of how and what revolutionary mass organizations to build, over the question of how work among the masses is to be conducted, etc. (2) The struggle against revisionism must be taken to the masses. This is part of imbuing the proletariat with Marxism-Leninism, it is part of the Party’s task of educating the proletariat. As it was put by Comrade Fiqret Shehu in the scientific sessions of October 1978 in Albania: “The historical experience of the struggle between Marxism-Leninism and revisionism over the last decades too, fully confirms Lenin’s teaching that the only correct Marxist line in the world communist movement is to explain to the proletariat and all the working people the absolute need to break with revisionism and opportunism, to educate the masses through a consistent struggle against those trends, to expose their betrayal of the proletariat and the peoples and all the infamy of the policy they pursue.” (Problems of Current World Development, Tirana, 1979, p. 68, emphasis added)

The struggle against the revisionists and opportunists necessarily includes the polemical struggle. If someone were to say that they are for struggle, even the allegedly most stern and uncompromising struggle, against revisionism and opportunism – but yet to advocate and practice the toning down or cessation of the polemics or advocate and practice the reduction of polemics to trivialities or side issues devoid of the proper theoretical and political content – then this would be to simply pay lip service to the Marxist-Leninist teachings on the struggle against opportunism for the sake of emasculating them and undermining them. An example of the type of struggle we must wage can be seen from the example of the Party of Labor of Albania. Without ceasing in the slightest their revolutionary work among the masses and all other fronts of revolutionary work, indeed while constantly strengthening and invigorating the other fronts of work, the PLA has waged a step by step, careful, but bold and breathtaking in sweep, ideological and polemical struggle against Chinese revisionism. A partial listing of their recent work includes:

* Comrade Enver Hoxha’s Report to the Seventh Congress of the PLA;

* the editorial “The Theory and Practice of the Revolution”;

* the scientific sessions of October 1978 “Problems of Current World Development”;

* Comrade Enver Hoxha’s books Imperialism and the Revolution, Reflections on China, and With Stalin,

* numerous articles in Albania Today, many other speeches, pamphlets and books.

This work has had a tremendous effect in fighting Chinese revisionism and has been and is indispensable to the strengthening of the unity of the international Marxist-Leninist communist movement. By listing these glorious works of the PLA, we are not saying that anyone should try to compete with the PLA, but that one should learn from the PLA the importance of the Marxist-Leninist teachings on the ideological struggle and polemics as well as making great efforts to study and assimilate these great works.

Comrade Lenin wrote explicitly about the sad results of trying to avoid the polemical struggle or the struggle against opportunism. In the quote below he is referring to the situation within the Swiss Social-Democratic Party, while at present the issue is between the Chinese revisionist and other opportunist trends and the Marxist-Leninist parties, but the basic issue nevertheless comes through very clearly. Lenin wrote:

“Nor can we avoid hard struggle within the party....

“The real choice is this: either the present concealed forms of inner-party struggle, with their demoralizing effect on the masses, or open principled struggle between the internationalist revolutionary trend and the Griitli trend inside and outside the party.

“An ’inner struggle’ in which Hermann Greulich attacks the ’ultra-radicals ’ or the ’hotheads,’ without naming these monsters and without precisely defining their policy, and Grimm publishes articles in the Berner Tagwacht larded with hints and only comprehensible to one out of a hundred readers... – that kind of inner struggle demoralizes the masses, who see, or guess, that it is a ’quarrel among leaders’ and do not understand what it is really about.

“But a struggle in which the Griitli trend within the party – and it is much more important and dangerous than outside the party – will be forced openly to combat the Left, while both trends will everywhere come out with their own independent views and policies, will fight each other on matters of principle, allowing the mass of party comrades, and not merely the ’leaders,’ to settle fundamental issues – such a struggle is both necessary and useful, for it trains in the masses independence and ability to carry out their epoch-making revolutionary mission.” (V.I. Lenin, “Principles Involved in the War Issue,” Collected Works, Vol. 23, pp. 159-160, emphasis as in the original)

Hence, without committing suicide, one can not avoid the polemical struggle, even if one wants to. The issue is how it will be waged. Either it will be waged on matters of principle and in such a way that it “trains in the masses independence and ability to carry out their epoch-making revolutionary mission,” or it will be waged in a way that “demoralizes the masses.” The theories that oppose the polemical struggle, or advocate polemics devoid of ideological content, or counterpose it to work among the masses or to other revolutionary work, rather than correctly defining the role, scope and methods of the polemical struggle and its proper relations to the other fields of revolutionary struggle, do not prevent the polemical struggle but instead channel it into forms that are demoralizing to the masses.

The movement against social-chauvinism led by the COUSML was precisely such an invigorating struggle against opportunism as is being referred to by Comrade Lenin in the above quotation. The emergence of the theses of “directing the main blow at Soviet social-imperialism,” the propagation of the blatant counter-revolutionary theses of the “three worlds” theory and the deepening degeneration of the Communist Party of China called forth an objective reaction against it in the U.S. This movement against social-chauvinism existed independently of the desires or wishes of the COUSML. The issue was not whether or not such indignation among the masses against the counter-revolutionary theses of Chinese revisionism would exist or not. The question was that either the motion among the masses would be demoralized, factionalized, trivialized, subverted, liquidated or even turned into its opposite, or else it would be led by the Marxist-Leninists and utilized to “train in the masses independence and ability to carry out their epoch-making revolutionary mission.” By leading the movement against social-chauvinism, the COUSML put it onto the correct path of struggle, gave it a correct orientation, and deepened and broadened it. This movement gave an immense moral prestige to the COUSML and the MLP,USA.

In your letter you express doubt about this movement against social-chauvinism. You seem to believe that it is an invention or concoction of the National Committee of the COUSML. But the movement against social-chauvinism was an objective phenomenon, a powerful revolutionary movement. It is the American component of the great international struggle against Chinese revisionism. Today we have militants of the MLP, US A and even several entire units who came forward to rally around the COUSML precisely through this movement. It is this struggle against social-chauvinism that has spelled bankruptcy, disaster and utter fiasco for the neo-revisionists. It is not enough that the “three worlders” have revisionist positions for them to suffer fiasco – the struggle against the “three worlders” must be consciously organized and led. It is this struggle against social-chauvinism that has preserved the honor of Marxism-Leninism in the U.S. And it is in this movement against social-chauvinism that all the neo-revisionists saw their doom. Besides the open Klonskyite social-chauvinists, the Pentagon-socialist advocates of “directing the main blow against Soviet social-imperialism”, as well the conciliators of social-chauvinism came out to wage a fierce battle to liquidate the movement against social-chauvinism. The conciliators wished to preserve the basic neo-revisionist politics, the basic corrupt Browderite liberal-labor politics that underlies and nourishes open social-chauvinism, at the expense of a bow to the left or of giving up one or the other thesis. So the conciliators would even take up this or that thesis of the Marxist-Leninists in order to maintain some credibility among the activists, but always at the same time the conciliators would move heaven and earth to smash the movement against social-chauvinism. For example, the social-democrats of the Barry Weisberg MLOC/“CPUSA(ML)” wished to preserve the basic neo-revisionist politics of the Klonskyites. Therefore they went from being advocates of “three worlds-ism” and most ardent Klonskyites to being vacillating opponents of “three worlds-ism” who however openly denounced the movement against social-chauvinism. They advocated everything: that the lines of demarcation had already been settled; counterposing the fight against social-chauvinism and “three worlds-ism” to the fight against Khrushchovite revisionism and the “C”PUSA; counterposing the fight against revisionism in general to the defense and elaboration of Marxism-Leninism; that the basic issue is ultra-leftism; etc. As well, the neo-revisionists and “three worlders” of the “RCP,USA” quickly dropped their short-lived struggle against the open social-chauvinism of the Klonskyites and also did everything possible to smother the struggle over the “three worlds theory.” They even went to the point of inventing two allegedly different “three worlds” theories, the allegedly good one of Mao’s and the bad one of Deng’s. For the leadership of the “RCP,USA” knew that the vigorous development of the movement against social-chauvinism and “three worlds-ism” would mean utter fiasco for their defense of Chinese revisionism and their elaboration of Mao Zedong Thought.

The movement against social-chauvinism has also been important for reexamining and clarifying the questions confused by the social-chauvinists and for providing clarification of the political line for revolution in the U.S. It is not enough that the various opportunist groups suffer defeat in and of themselves. The political and ideological basis of the bankrupt groups must be repudiated and the questions of principle put to the fore, so that it is revisionism and not just some group in and of itself that suffers defeat. The COUSML gave a broad outlook and orientation to this movement. We oriented this movement to seeing the inseparable connection between neo-revisionism and social-chauvinism. We connected it to political clarification on the burning questions of the American revolution and to the repudiation of Browderite liberal-labor politics. The theoretical work done in conjunction with this movement has been indispensable for the progress of the work on the mass fronts and for the correct general orientation.

In your letter you ostensibly restrict yourselves to criticism of the Call of the National Committee entitled “Build the Marxist-Leninist Party Without the Social-Chauvinists and Against the Social-Chauvinists.” You pick at this or that phrase in your letter and on this basis you also oppose the movement against social-chauvinism. While we hold that even on the basis of looking at the Call of the NC of the COUSML as a document in itself your comments are both wrong and unfair, nevertheless this document and the movement against social-chauvinism should have been looked at in context, in the context both of the struggle against revisionism and opportunism that is actually proceeding and of the extensive documentation and writings on that struggle. For example, a whole series of documents exist, starting from September 1, 1976. A partial listing, which includes only public documents that are available to you and that we have sent to you, follows:

* The articles from The Workers’ Advocate issue of March 10, 1977 entitled “U.S. Marxist-Leninists, Unite in Struggle Against Social-Chauvinism! Proletarian Revolution in the U.S. Is Our Sacred Internationalist Duty!” and “On the Situation in the U.S. Marxist-Leninist Movement: Marxist-Leninists, Unite! Denounce Social-Chauvinism! Build the Party Through the Repudiation of Revisionism and Opportunism!” These articles gave the basic program and developed much of the plan for the direction given to the movement against social-chauvinism by the COUSML.

* The article of February 10, 1978 entitled “How to Advance the Struggle Against Social-Chauvinism.” This article reiterates the basic program for the movement against social-chauvinism and also begins the open struggle against the “obstacles in the struggle against social-chauvinism,” that is, against “conciliation with opportunism and social-chauvinism.” These conciliators might for convenience be called the “centrist” forces. The COUSML had realized the danger posed by these groups right from the start. In 1977 the COUSML used the tactics of intensifying the struggle against social-chauvinism and “three worlds-ism” in order to put the conciliators of social-chauvinism into difficulties. At the start of 1978, the COUSML analyzed that it was time to launch an open struggle against the conciliators or “centrists.” “How to Advance the Struggle Against Social-Chauvinism” was the beginning of that attack, as well as continuing the struggle against the direct social-chauvinists and advocates of “directing the main blow at Soviet social-imperialism.”

* The pamphlet of March 1978 entitled Why Did the “RCP, USA” Split? The introduction to this pamphlet sets the struggle against the “RCP,USA” in the context of the movement against social-chauvinism.

* The pamphlet of June 1978 Reply to the Open Letter of the MLOC.

* The articles of February 12 and March 29, 1979 entitled “Does the ’RCP,USA’ Oppose the Theory of ’Three Worlds’?”

* The series starting in the February 12 issue of The Workers’ Advocate entitled “U.S. Neo-Revisionism as the American Expression of the International Opportunist Trend of Chinese Revisionism.” Part I of this series provides the general program behind this series.

* The article of March 29, 1979 entitled “Mao Tsetung and Mao Tsetung Thought are Anti-Marxist-Leninist and Revisionist.”

* The article of March 29, 1979 and the pamphlet of May 1979 entitled “Against Social-Democratic Infiltration of the Marxist-Leninist Movement.”

* The Call of the NC of the COUSML “Build the Marxist-Leninist Party Without the Social-Chauvinists and Against the Social-Chauvinists” of May 12, 1979.

The above is a partial listing of the works on the movement against social-chauvinism. It excludes a great number of articles denouncing the social- chauvinists and concentrates (without listing all of them) on those articles which give the program, so to speak, for the movement against social-chauvinism with particular attention paid to the issue of what could be called the “centrist” groups. Our literature on the movement against social-chauvinism is a powerful body of literature that extends over years, is consistent in principle, provides an excellent picture of the development of the struggle in the U.S., and that broadens and deepens its analysis as the movement develops and as the international struggle develops. But you judge the Call of the NC of the COUSML of May 12, 1979 in isolation, as if the movement against social-chauvinism were an invention of the COUSML and not an objective fact and as if the Call of the NC of the COUSML was the first time that the COUSML dealt with this movement. True, we hold that even regarding the Call of the NC taken in itself, your comments are wrong. But that doesn’t excuse you from the necessity to take a serious attitude to the questions which you take up for discussion.

In order to help give you a more comprehensive picture of the strategy and tactics used by the COUSML and the MLP,USA in leading the movement against social-chauvinism, we are going to reproduce two extracts from an internal bulletin. This internal bulletin deals with an internal conference of the COUSML of March 1979. This was an important conference that made many historic decisions. This conference condemned Mao Zedong Thought, endorsed the plan for the founding of the MLP,USA, studied the first draft for the Call of the NC, and so forth. We are going to reproduce two excerpts from a speech at this conference. This conference took place prior to the consultation with the representative of the RCPB (ML) at the 6th Consultative Conference of the CPC (M-L). The internal bulletin came out later, but the speech was reproduced as delivered, with only minor editing. These excerpts follow:

“The final factor that calls for the founding of the Party is the strengthening and consolidation of the Marxist-Leninist nucleus itself. The strengthening of the Marxist-Leninist center is inseparably linked with all the other favorable conditions. The advances in the situation do not come of themselves, but require the active role of the Marxist-Leninists. This is analogous to the fact that the development of the objective factors for revolution is intertwined with the development of the subjective factor, the decisive subjective factor being the Marxist-Leninist Party.

“Consider, for example, the development of the movement against social-chauvinism. This is extremely favorable for the Party, which in fact is being founded in the course of the intensification of the struggle against revisionism. The movement against social-chauvinism cannot be developed arbitrarily, at someone’s or even some party’s whim. It follows definite laws. But without the active factor of the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists, this powerful movement against social-chauvinism, this extremely favorable condition, would be frittered away. The ’RCP,’ for example, has bickered on and off indecisively with the Klonskyites for years. This has given rise to nothing, and the ’RCP’ and the ’CPML’ often seem in a certain sense to be indispensable prerequisites for each other’s existence – each tries to maintain credibility by pointing to the bankruptcy and vileness of the other. Or again, without the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists, the MLOC would split off a section of the movement against social-chauvinism in order to turn it into an adjunct of social-democracy. Or the official revisionists of the ’CPUSA would have a free hand to use the bankruptcy of Chinese revisionism in order to prop up and give new life to modern Soviet revisionism and Gus Hall-type revisionism. And the ’C’PUSA is in fact doing extensive work on this issue. It is gloating over Deng’s crimes, it has placed in the New York Times an open letter to the Communist Party of China, it is trying to draw revisionist conclusions from China’s aggression against Viet Nam, and it is actively circulating this literature among the proletariat.

“Thus the leadership of the COUSML has been decisive for the powerful development and correct orientation of the movement against social-chauvinism. The COUSML has oriented this movement as follows: (a) First of all, it was the COUSML that recognized the importance of the emergence of open social-chauvinism in such theses as that of ’directing the main blow at Soviet social-imperialism.’ All the time this and that intellectualist debate goes on among the opportunists, and various diversionary theses are floated. This causes disorientation and revulsion among the serious elements. It was the COUSML that calmly and cooly picked out the question of principle, focused attention on it, and refused to let it be treated as a fad or novelty, to be dropped after a brief period of excitement. The COUSML realized that the thesis of the ’main blow against the foreign threat’ and the rise of open social-chauvinism was of crucial importance, that social-chauvinism characterized the whole mood and treachery of the stratum of ’quiet revolutionaries.’ The COUSML led a wide movement on this issue and took the issue all across the country to the activists and to the proletariat.

“(b) The COUSML stressed that struggle against social-chauvinism is an irreconcilable struggle. It is not a question of being a point up on someone or of some mistaken formulation; it is instead a question of the path of revolution versus the path of collaboration and alliance with the bourgeoisie. The issue is to build the Party without the social-chauvinists and against the social-chauvinists and to mobilize the masses against the social-chauvinists. Of course, this does not mean that one should be sectarian or refuse to create trouble for the opportunists by infiltrating and disintegrating their circles. But the goal of the movement is an irreconcilable split with the opportunists. And not just the opportunist type of ’split,’ where the opportunists try to stop the movement by saying ’I know so-and-so is bad, so I will hide my head in the sand and say that so-and-so no longer exists.’ No, the object is to create a real motion of the revolutionary movement and all serious activists to fight the social-chauvinists, to inspire bitterness and hatred towards the social-chauvinists, to create the burning conviction that they are the class enemy, and to treat the professional conciliators with the contempt that they deserve.

“(c) The COUSML merged the struggle against social-chauvinism and the thesis of ’directing the main blow against Soviet social- imperialism’ with the struggle against the ’three worlds’ theory and Chinese revisionism. One of the tricks of the conciliators is to counterpose one issue to the other. But it was precisely the combination of the struggle against the ’main blow’ at the foreign threat and against the ’three worlds’ theory after the 7th Congress of the Party of Labor of Albania that has given tremendous momentum to the struggle. Furthermore, the COUSML has conducted the movement as part and parcel of the international struggle, neither counterposing the two fields of struggle nor speculating on some weird exceptional American features. In this way the movement against social-chauvinism has been carried out as the American component of the international struggle against the ’three worlds’ theory and Chinese revisionism.

“(d) The COUSML connected the struggle against social-chauvinism with the question of the neo-revisionist and Browderite politics that preceded it and gave rise to it. In this way the COUSML connected the struggle with the sorting out of the historical trends from the 60’s, and with the necessity to thoroughly repudiate Browderism and liberal-labor politics. The fight against social-chauvinism is a fraud unless it means not just fighting some formulations, but also means standing for the preparation of revolution on all fronts. The movement against ’three worlds-ism’ and social-chauvinism must not be oriented simply to changing one or two formulations, to putting a bandaid on the problem. It must be aimed at rooting out the overall manifestations of social-chauvinism, at revolutionizing the movement and defending the purity of Marxism-Leninism. Thus it involves the questions of party concept, of revolutionary methods of struggle, of pushing forward the revolutionary movements against the social-chauvinist sabotage, of organizing the proletariat as a revolutionary force, and so forth. The question of the connection of the question of social-chauvinism with that of the history of opportunist corrosion of the revolutionary movement is a basic and fundamental Leninist principle.

“(e) And finally, the COUSML has pointed but that the movement against social-chauvinism can have no lasting victory apart from the reconstitution and constant growth and strengthening of the genuine Marxist-Leninist Party of the American proletariat. The movement against social-chauvinism is irresistibly giving rise to the founding of the Party. Thus the COUSML has stressed in its work against social-chauvinism the questions of the party concept and of respect for the international Marxist-Leninist communist movement. And thus it is no accident that we are now on the verge of founding the Marxist-Leninist Party.

“Thus the growth and strengthening of the Marxist-Leninist center has been decisive for the movement against social-chauvinism, as it is the COUSML that has given correct direction and orientation to the movement. The strengthening of the Marxist-Leninist center has taken a whole process. This process was traced in detail in the Internal Conference in 1977. Here we wish to emphasize two things. One is the importance of the central organs and central bodies, of The Workers’ Advocate and national and regional bodies. The other is the importance of developing a revolutionary style and method of work which goes in practice against the reformist, liberal-labor and revisionist styles. We started out with nothing, with no living traditions or inheritance from the revisionists, with no comrades trained in party work, and we had to go against the whole curse of decades of liberal-labor politics. We went through a hard school of tempering, a tempering that cost us a great deal. Therefore we must always remember this history. ”...

“Another task of the upcoming period is the movement against social-chauvinism. This movement must be continued. The Party is being built in the condition of the intensification of the struggle against revisionism, in the condition of the surging forward of the struggle against social-chauvinism, and in turn the founding of the Party will deepen the struggle against revisionism. In a way, the founding of the Party is a new and higher stage of the struggle against social-chauvinism.

“What is this movement, the struggle against social-chauvinism? It has both a broad aspect, as a movement and a struggle that inspires all our activities, as infusing all the activities, of the organization with revolution. It also has an aspect as a particular campaign.

“First let us consider the broad aspect. The Internal Bulletin on the Internal Conference of 1977 explained this as follows:

“’In considering the rise of open social- chauvinism and the tactics against social-chauvinism, often we discuss this or talk about this in a narrow way, as just traveling teams or just special issues of The Workers Advocate, etc. Actually the struggle against social- chauvinism expresses itself throughout all the work to solve the decisive problems of the revolution. Our three point tactical line is opposed point for point by the three point tactical line of the social-chauvinists. The struggle against social-chauvinism is expressed in the struggle between the revolutionary tactics and the opportunist tactics.’

“Thus the struggle against social-chauvinism imbues all the work of our organization. At the same time, we must be able to discuss the work of the movement against social-chauvinism as a particular front of work. That work is using the indignation of the masses against social-chauvinism, using the struggle against war preparations, against militarization, against the warmongering U.S.-China alliance, against U.S. imperialist aggression, for the purpose of exposing the utter vileness of the social-chauvinists and their liberal-labor politics. This is a front that is not restricted to work among narrow left circles, such as the Westcott Cafe, or certain poly centrist sects, although such disagreeable work is part of it. It also includes a broad campaign among the proletariat and all serious activists. Many of the elements who are susceptible to this campaign are activists who have gone into the proletariat out of class sentiment, which is natural, as the OL, the revisionists and the ’CLP’ are squabbling over those who have become lawyers.

“This distinction between the broad aspect of the struggle against social-chauvinism and the aspect of it as a particular campaign of the organization should be borne in mind. Otherwise, sometimes when discussing the particular front of the movement against social- chauvinism, it is said to be either all the work of the COUSML or just the work in certain narrow left circles, both of which are one-sided views. The struggle against social-chauvinism imbues all our work; as well there is a definite particular front of struggle against social-chauvinism, a front not restricted solely to narrow ’left’ circles.”

We hope these passages will help contribute to a more scientific discussion about the movement against social-chauvinism.

IV

In this section of our letter we will go in more detail into certain of the particular objections to our struggle that you raise in your letter.

However, in the first place, we must remark again that we are amazed by your manner of approach to the questions you raise. Instead of studying the objective situation facing us and our strategy and tactics for dealing with it, you resort to quibbling on this or that phrase. You neither make analysis of our activities and our objective situation, nor do you give a serious theoretical discussion of the issues of theory involved. For example, you claim that we create illusions about the neo-revisionist groups. Which one? Where are such illusions created? How has that manifested itself in the struggle? Since we have right from the start of the struggle against social-chauvinism, on September 1, 1976, used the indignation of the masses against social-chauvinism to expose how utterly vile neo-revisionism was right from the day of its birth, how can the charge of creating illusions about neo-revisionism be cast at us? You make no analysis and give no argument, and instead point to the fact that we call the neo-revisionists, among other things, “anti-party,” and, to top it off, you yourselves admit that it is “obviously true” that they are “anti-party.” What it boils down to is that you are charging that the struggle against opportunism is what creates illusions about opportunism. And it is the same with your charge that we allegedly “tend to make social-chauvinism and not the American monopoly capitalist class the main enemy.” You have no comments whatsoever about our actual struggle against the monopoly capitalist class. This struggle is surging forward. That is totally irrelevant to you when you make this charge. Neither do you give any theoretical explanation at all and, to top it off, you yourselves use the formulation you attribute to us and write that “The Marxist-Leninists have, in order to lead the proletariat in socialist revolution, to defeat the main obstacle in their path, the revisionists and opportunists of all hues, more particularly the modern revisionists.” (emphasis added) This is not a serious discussion – your method of argument verges towards the level of mudslinging. Because of your method of approach, it is often rather hard to see exactly what issues you are raising.

The main issue is that you are opposed to our struggle against revisionism and opportunism. You are demanding that we tone down or stop this or that aspect of the struggle against revisionism and opportunism, and you direct your attention particularly to denouncing the movement against social-chauvinism and the Call to “Build the Marxist-Leninist Party Without the Social-Chauvinists and Against the Social-Chauvinists.” The main particular objections you raise can be listed as follows:

A) To our utter amazement, your letter takes a non-serious stand towards Leninism by denying that the Marxist-Leninist teachings on the struggle against opportunism, that you admit to be true in Lenin’s day, can be applied “in 1979.” You call them a “truism” and thus scoff at them. These “truisms,” as you call them, are the ever-young theory of Marxism-Leninism, the lifeblood of the MLP,USA and of all Marxist-Leninist parties. They are your lifeblood too, as a Marxist-Leninist party.

B) You deny the necessity for struggle against the opportunists and revisionists by saying that the issue was “settled” in the time of Lenin. And you misrepresent our views by claiming that we believe that the issue was settled “only now,” whereas on the contrary we do not believe that the issue is “settled” and that one may go to sleep, but instead we hold that the struggle against opportunism and revisionism must be further deepened and broadened.

C) You counterpose the struggle against revisionism and opportunism to the struggle against the monopoly capitalist class. Unfortunately, by doing so your letter has fallen into one of the time-honored neo-revisionist dichotomies. The neo-revisionists were and are famous for setting building the mass movement against building the party, or doing the reverse and setting building the party against building the mass movement. Similarly, the neo-revisionists either set building the mass movement against the struggle against opportunism, or they set the struggle against opportunism against building the mass movement. Different neo-revisionists may use one or the other side or even both sides of the dichotomy, but they all agree on the basic counterposition. These are anti-Marxist-Leninist counterpositions. And your letter resorts to one of the these counterpositions when you denigrate the struggle against revisionism and opportunism by claiming that this tends to negate the struggle against the monopoly capitalist class.

D) Turning things on their head, you charge the struggle against revisionism and opportunism with creating illusions in the revisionists and opportunists.

E) You counterpose the struggle against revisionism and opportunism to the fact that the Marxist- Leninist Party is not just another group.

Now we shall take up each of these points individually in more detail.

IV-A

To begin with, we were astonished to see that your letter takes a non-serious stand towards Marxism-Leninism and denies its applicability “in 1979.” You refuse to take seriously the question of the Marxist-Leninist teachings on the struggle against opportunism and instead you simply wave aside whatever you please to. According to your letter, the slogan “Build the Marxist-Leninist Party Without the Social-Chauvinists and Against the Social-Chauvinists” was “a correct and scientific slogan put forward by Lenin” in Lenin’s time, but not today. Today, on the contrary, this Leninist teaching has become the means for “dangerously creating illusions.” You end up in the absurd position of holding that in Lenin’s time this slogan was a weapon especially designed to fight against “conciliation with the social-chauvinists” and hence against dangerous illusions in the social-chauvinists, while today this slogan is allegedly a slogan that is the source of dangerous illusions about and hence conciliation with the social-chauvinists. But it is clear that if this slogan is a slogan that creates illusions in the social-chauvinists, then it was wrong in Lenin’s time too as well as “in 1979.”

Your letter gives an expression of a wrong attitude towards the universal laws of Marxism-Leninism by mocking the slogan “Build the Marxist-Leninist Party Without the Social-Chauvinists and Against the Social-Chauvinists” as “minimally a truism.” In this way you scoff at the idea of universal principles of Marxism-Leninism and rely implicitly on the wonderful argument that if something is universally true then it is false for any particular situation, since it is just a “truism.” When you admit that the “without and against” slogan is a “truism,” it means that: (a) you can adduce no serious argument against it at all; and (b) you acknowledge that the basic idea behind the “without and against” slogan is a basic Marxist-Leninist principle, although of course whether or not this particular formulation of that principle, this particular slogan, is given or not at any particular time depends on the concrete situation. Hence your admission that the “without and against” slogan is “minimally a truism” speaks in favor of the Call of the NC of the COUSML and is an admission of the emptiness of your opposition to this slogan, an opposition so empty of valid reasons that attempting to defend it has led your letter to take a non-serious stand towards the universal nature of the Marxist-Leninist laws by scoffing at “truisms.”

In another part of your letter you go on to endorse Lenin’s view that “the fight against imperialism is a sham and humbug unless it is inseparably bound up with the fight against opportunism.” You set up this immortal teaching of Comrade Lenin against the “without and against” slogan, which you had earlier in your letter acknowledged as a “correct and scientific slogan put forward by Lenin.” But Leninism is not a smorgasbord, where one can come and take this or that teaching as one likes and turn aside from the rest. No. Leninism is a coherent whole, an integral revolutionary theory. You imply that there is a contradiction or difference between Lenin’s teachings on “the fight against imperialism is a sham and humbug unless it is inseparably bound up with the fight against opportunism” and the “without and against” slogan. But there is no such contradiction and you give no analysis at all to back up your view. In fact, we shall see in IV-C that your declared opposition to the “without and against” slogan leads you also to oppose Lenin’s teaching that “the fight against imperialism is a sham and humbug unless it is inseparably bound up with the fight against opportunism” by counter-posing the fight against imperialism to the fight against opportunism and thus denying their inseparable connection.

It must be stressed that the issue here is not general versus specific, or universal law versus concrete application. No, the issue is the clash between two different general principles. The issue is that your letter is taking a non-serious stand towards the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism, by sneering at “truisms,” in order to negate certain of the Marxist-Leninist principles about the fight against opportunism and replace them with other, opposed anti-Marxist-Leninist general principles. Thus you give no concrete analysis about the present situation to justify your opposition to the “without and against” slogan. Instead you give a general principle, a universal law of your own, which you counterpose to the “without and against” slogan. You counterpose to the Marxist-Leninist teachings about the struggle against opportunism the view that the issue of opportunism is already “settled” and has been so since the time of Lenin. What a charming way of paying lip service to Leninism while denying that his teachings have any relevance after his death! After all, the revolutionary authority of the entire system of Leninism was established in his lifetime and was hence a “settled” question, nevertheless Comrades Joseph Stalin and Enver Hoxha along with all the world’s Marxist-Leninists have had to wage the most fierce, determined and protracted struggles to uphold, apply and develop Comrade Lenin’s teachings! They did not go to sleep and yawn that it was a “settled” question!

IV-B

This brings us to your view that the question of opportunism is a “settled” question. You write that since Lenin’s time “the issue as to whether the Marxist-Leninist Party should be built without and against the social-chauvinists was settled. To raise in 1979, that the Party should be built without and against the social-chauvinists was minimally a truism but more importantly...it was dangerously creating illusions that in the United States this issue was not settled before 1979, that...only now has this issue been settled, creating illusions that the neo-revisionists have had some ’genuine’ interest in building a Marxist-Leninist party.” (emphasis as in the original)

If the question of opportunism was “settled” in Lenin’s lifetime, then why was it that Comrade Stalin had to lead the CPSU(B) and the entire international communist movement to defend Leninism against the Trotskyites, Bukharinites and other opportunists? If it were a “settled” question, then why did the CPUSA, when it was a revolutionary and Marxist-Leninist party, have to fight against the Trotskyites, American exceptionalists, social-democrats and so forth? If it were a “settled” question, then why did the ACWM(M-L) have to be formed to fight against the social-chauvinist, Browderite and Khrushchovite so-called “C”PUSA? If this is a “settled” question, then why is it that the struggle against opportunist, revisionist and social- chauvinist parties is the order of the day on the global scale?

We must stress that your letter misrepresents our view on the issue of when the question of opportunism became a “settled” question. We do not hold that this issue was settled in 1979 or with the found- of the MLP,USA. The slogan “Build the Marxist-Leninist Party Without the Social-Chauvinists and Against the Social-Chauvinists” was not a call to purge the COUSML. Neither the American Communist Workers Movement (Marxist-Leninist) nor the COUSML allowed social-chauvinists inside the Party. The slogan “Build the Marxist-Leninist Party Without the Social-Chauvinists and Against the Social-Chauvinists” is part of the movement against social-chauvinism, to rally all genuine Marxist-Leninists about the MLP,USA and to train the proletariat in the revolutionary spirit. This question can not be regarded as “settled” in the U.S. while the American proletariat is split and divided by opportunism, social-democracy and revisionism. And even later, it would still be dangerous to lose vigilance and regard the issue as “settled,” for this would leave the door open to a rebirth of opportunism and to a new splitting of the proletariat. This is not to say that the particular slogan “Build the Marxist- Leninist Party Without the Social-Chauvinists and Against the Social-Chauvinists” will always be the exact slogan on all calls and appeals. But the basic idea underlying this slogan will retain its freshness and validity.

Can the issue of opportunism be considered a “settled” question in the proletariat?

In his Report to the 7th Congress of the PLA, Comrade Enver Hoxha pointed out:

“Today, the world proletariat is not a single bloc, it is split by various bourgeois ideologies: capitalist, reformist, social-democratic, ’socialist,’ revisionist, etc. All these different ideologies and political trends have the single objective: to split the proletariat, to prevent it from rallying and organizing itself into a great force as the gravedigger of capitalism that it is. Therefore, all these anti-Marxist ideologies and trends are props for local and international capital, are forces against the revolution, socialism and proletarian internationalism.” (Ch. VI, p. 23)

In the same Report, Comrade Enver Hoxha calls for a powerful ideological struggle and the deepening of the great polemics against modern revisionism. He says:

“Our Party holds that the continuation and extension of the ideological struggle against revisionism in general, and of Soviet revisionism in particular, the deepening of that great polemic which began after the 1960 Moscow Meeting, constitutes an important and imperative duty for all the Marxist-Leninists, for all true revolutionaries. Now, as at that time, the historic burden falls on them to defend Marxism-Leninism from revisionist attacks and distortions, to defend the revolutionary line of the true world communist movement from influences and pressures brought to bear upon it by the bourgeoisie and the various opportunist forces, to defend proletarian internationalism against the great-power chauvinism of the Soviet social-imperialists and the bourgeois nationalism of the other opportunists. Lenin’s saying that, without fighting opportunism, it is impossible to fight imperialism, remains just as valid and indispensable today. The defense of Marxism- Leninism is a question of principle.” (Ch. VI, p. 226, emphasis as in the original)

But, perhaps, it will be said that, while the proletariat is split, nevertheless the world Marxist- Leninist movement has not split since the time of Lenin. After all, the splitters are not Marxist-Leninists but opportunists, revisionists and imperialist agents (that is true), therefore how could the genuine Marxist-Leninists ever be divided (that is sophistry). By the same argument, one could prove that there is no such thing as impure water, as the impurities in water are always, without exception, not water molecules but something else. But such arguments fly in the face of the well-known facts about the development of the international communist movement.

At the scientific session in Albania in October 1978, it was pointed out by Comrade Agim Popa that:

“As in the case of the betrayal of Marxism- Leninism by the Second International and that by the Khrushchovite revisionists in the 50’s and 60’s, the emergence on the scene and crystallization of the present-day Chinese revisionism with its counter-revolutionary theory of ’three worlds’ has caused a split in the Marxist-Leninist movement today.” (Problems of Current World Development, p. 103)

It is in regard to such a situation in the international communist movement that Comrade Enver Hoxha put forward the “without and against” slogan. In his Report to the 5th Congress of the Party of Labor of Albania in 1966 Comrade Hoxha stated that:

“unity will be reestablished in the communist movement and the socialist camp, but it will be reestablished by the Marxist-Leninists without revisionists and traitors and in resolute struggle against them.” (Quoted in the History of the Party of Labor of Albania, Ch. VII, Sec. 2, p. 605)

Thus the issue of fighting opportunism is far from “settled.” On the contrary, it is a burning question facing the genuine Marxist-Leninist parties.

In fact, to argue that the question of fighting opportunism and of building the Marxist-Leninist Party without the social-chauvinists and against the social- chauvinists is a “settled” question is to slip into a line of reasoning that has more in common with the spirit of the Second International than with the revolutionary spirit of Leninism. In your letter you state your support for Lenin’s statement about “the fight against imperialism is a sham and humbug unless it is inseparably bound up with the fight against opportunism.” Here it is appropriate to quote for you the passage from which this quotation comes. In this passage, Lenin strikes a devastating blow against any sort of “official optimism” that serves to minimize the necessity for the struggle against opportunism. Such “official optimism” bears the mark of the flabby, philistine, social-democratic and opportunist spirit which corroded the Second International. The particular arguments that Lenin cites as “official optimism” are not the ones that you use. But that isn’t the issue. The general point made by Lenin applies fully. He writes:

“Some writers, L. Martov, for example, are prone to wave aside the connection between imperialism and opportunism in the working class movement – a particularly glaring fact at the present time – by resorting to ’official optimism’ (a la Kautsky and Huysmans) like the following: the cause of the opponents of capitalism would be hopeless if it were progressive capitalism that led to the increase of opportunism, or if it were the best-paid workers who were inclined towards opportunism, etc. We must have no illusions about ’optimism ’ of this kind. It is optimism in respect of opportunism; it is optimism which serves to conceal opportunism. As a matter of fact the extraordinary rapidity and the particularly revolting character of the development of opportunism is by no means a guarantee that its victory will be durable: the rapid growth of a painful abscess on a healthy body can only cause it to burst more quickly and thus relieve the body of it. The most dangerous of all in this respect are those who do not wish to understand that the fight against imperialism is a sham and humbug unless it is inseparably bound up with the fight against opportunism.” (“Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism,” Ch. X, Collected Works, Vol. 22, pp. 301- 302)

Lenin continued to assail “official optimism” in his article “Imperialism and the Split in Socialism.” (Collected Works, Vol. 23, p. III) He stressed:

“The fact is that ’bourgeois labor parties,’ as a political phenomenon, have already been formed in all the foremost capitalist countries, and that unless a determined and relentless struggle is waged all along the line against these parties – or groups, trends, etc., it is all the same – there can be no question of a struggle against imperialism, or of Marxism, or of a socialist labor movement.... There is not the slightest reason for thinking that these parties will disappear before the social revolution. On the contrary, the nearer the revolution approaches, the more strongly it flares up and the more sudden and violent the transitions and leaps in its progress, the greater will be the part the struggle of the revolutionary mass stream against the opportunist petty-bourgeois stream will play in the labor movement.” (Vol. 23, pp. 118-119, emphasis as in the original)

Comrades of the CC of the RCPB (ML), we have high respect for you. But we must tell you that your letter makes a big mistake when it insists on the view that the struggle against opportunism and the issue of building the genuine communist parties without and against the social-chauvinists is a “settled” question. Such arguments are “official optimism” with respect to opportunism. Such arguments are not Leninist. Lenin’s well-known and well-loved quotation about the connection between the struggles against opportunism and imperialism was written precisely against any sort of “official optimism” with respect to opportunism.

IV-C

In your letter you write: “The Marxist-Leninists have, in order to lead the proletariat in socialist revolution, to defeat the main obstacle in their path, the revisionists and opportunists of all hues, more particularly the modern revisionists. But this cannot mean building a party to lead a ’great movement against social-chauvinism.’ This tends to make social-chauvinism and not the American monopoly capitalist class the main enemy, at which the American proletariat, led by its Marxist-Leninist party, are directing their socialist revolution.” Thus you oppose the movement against social-chauvinism by counterposing it to the struggle against monopoly capitalism.

But counterposing the struggle against opportunism to the struggle against monopoly capitalism is one of the tired out theses floated by neo-revisionism to oppose carrying out the struggle against modern revisionism and opportunism. According to this thesis, a party that is waging the class struggle and mobilizing the masses cannot be active in the struggle against revisionism and opportunism. And conversely there are those who take up this basic neo-revisionist dichotomy from the other side and advocate that leading the masses in struggle is opportunist and that the party or the pre-party collective must spend all its time in the libraries working out great “anti-revisionist” tomes in the air. We do not take any pleasure in having to note this fact, but the truth is that your argument against the movement against social-chauvinism is just a repetition of this same neo-revisionist dichotomy.

Furthermore, your argument is not only theoretically wrong, it is also monstrously unjust. The COUSML before it and the MLP, USA right from the day of its birth have both been built in the midst of the class struggle. Indeed, the last immediate period prior to the founding of the MLP, US A and since it to the present have been noted for a strengthening and broadening of the Party’s influence among the masses. The bitter truth is that in opposing our struggle against revisionism and opportunism your letter has also come to the position of not defending, but writing off and underrating, the practical revolutionary work being carried out by our Party.

In order to find some argument, however slight, to prove that by carrying through the movement against social-chauvinism we are thereby allegedly tending to downplay the struggle against monopoly capitalism, you quote a passage from the Call of the NC of the COUSML and make the point that it does not mention the struggle against the monopoly capitalist class. This passage, which is actually quite a good passage that gives a correct perspective, goes as follows:

“There can be no lasting victory in the struggle against social-chauvinism apart from the reconstitution and constant growth and strengthening of the Marxist-Leninist Party of the American proletariat. The great movement against social-chauvinism has mobilized a whole section of class conscious workers and revolutionary activists to break completely with the social-chauvinist class traitors. And this has created favorable conditions to reconstitute the Marxist-Leninist Party. And this in turn will further intensify the struggle against the social- chauvinist liberal-labor politics.”

This passage occurs in part V of the Call of the NC, the part that is devoted to a description of the movement against social-chauvinism. Since that passage made no pretense of giving an exclusive list of the tasks of the Party, and since that passage was devoted exclusively to the question of the movement against social-chauvinism, it would seem natural that it discusses the role of the Party solely with respect to the struggle against social-chauvinism. True, the passage does not directly mention the direct struggle against the monopoly capitalist class, except insofar as the struggle against the straightforward party of the big bourgeoisie called the Democratic Party is part of the struggle against “social-chauvinist liberal-labor politics,” and except that our conception of struggle against liberal-labor politics includes organizing the mass revolutionary struggle, but what conclusion can be drawn from that? What conclusion can be reached from the fact that the words “American monopoly capitalist class” do not appear in this passage? None at all. Your objections to this passage is thus similar to the frivolous complaint that since the Call of the NC is entitled “Build the Marxist-Leninist Party Without the Social-Chauvinists and Against the Social-Chauvinists,” therefore the Call negates all the other aspects of the Party’s activities. True, the Call of the NC goes into other activities of the Marxist-Leninist Party and the other aspects of the building of the Marxist-Leninist Party, but allegedly the title of the Call must contain everything or else it implies that the Party’s only activity is the struggle against revisionism in the air. But such objections are just mere futile word chopping. By a similar logic, when the Party issues a call for struggle against the capitalist program of starvation, fascism and war, the Party could be accused of tending to negate the struggle against revisionism.

Really, comrades, don’t you think that there is a limit to the type of pettifogging complaints that we are to be subjected to? Couldn’t we finally ascend to the level of discussion of serious theoretical issues, or of the concrete analysis of the present situation, or of other worthwhile topics, rather than constantly being forced to pay attention to verbal quibbles? But no, we must persevere in answering these trifles and quibbles, and in trying to find what is the point of principle underlying all this word chopping. You are forced to resort to such empty arguments because of the weakness of your position. But let us let our minds wander for a second. Imagine what could happen if someone read the Marxist-Leninist classics in the same way you read the Call of the NC of the COUSML. In the Foundations of Leninism Comrade Stalin says: “Proletarian parties develop and become strong by purging themselves of opportunists and reformists, social-imperialists and social-chauvinists, social-patriots and pacifists.” (from just before the end of Ch. VIII) What?! Comrade Stalin does not mention in this rather categorically stated passage the struggle against the external class enemy at all. Horrors! Can he be tending to make the opportunists and not the bourgeoisie into the “main enemy”? Hands trembling, our hypothetical reader turns to “Once More on the Social-Democratic Deviation in Our Party.” Here Comrade Stalin has a section entitled “Contradictions of Inner-Party Development.” He actually writes the following:

“...we can say without exaggeration that the history of our Party has been the history of a struggle of contradictions within the Party, the history of the overcoming of these contradictions and of the gradual strengthening of our Party on the basis of overcoming them. Some might think that the Russians are excessively pugnacious, that they love debating and multiply differences, and that it is because of this that the development of the Party proceeds through the overcoming of inner-party contradictions. That is not true, comrades.” And Comrade Stalin adds that, “It follows that the CPSU(B) grew and became strong by overcoming inner-party contradictions.” (Works, Vol. 9, pp. 3 and 8) Now truly puzzled, our hypothetical reader turns to Comrade Lenin’s “Left-Wing” Communism, An Infantile Disorder. Here we find that there is a chapter entitled ”In the Struggle Against What Enemies Within the Working Class Movement Did Bolshevism Grow Up and Become Strong and Steeled?” The answer is “first and principally” opportunism, but also petty-bourgeois revolutionism. But with this reference to Comrade Lenin, our hypothetical reader’s wanderings are finally at an end. After all, he can always say that these quotations, just as the “without and against” slogan, are nothing but “truisms” and hence although “correct and scientific” when put forward by Comrades Lenin and Stalin, they are today, “in 1979,” sources of dangerous illusions. But by so doing he is simply performing a conjuring trick and not engaging in a serious study of the theoretical issue at stake.

Another way you try to give your counterposition of the struggle against opportunism to the struggle against the monopoly capitalist class some alleged theoretical justification is through bringing up the issue of “the main enemy.” Actually, this isn’t our formulation. It is just your way of parodying our movement against social-chauvinism. Look how bad that movement is, you say, why it tends to make the social-chauvinists, and not the monopoly capitalists, into “the main enemy.” This doesn’t really add anything to your argument, it just translates it into different, and perhaps more vivid and lively, if also more demagogic, terms. Apparently you are relying on an emotional or sentimental aversion to the term “the main enemy” due to the shameful and criminal misuse of the concept of “the main blow” and “the main enemy” by the social-chauvinists who are striving to “direct the main blow at Soviet social- imperialism.” You actually give no analysis besides parading this phrase. In fact, you yourselves take up the formulation you are denouncing us for, only you claim that the revisionists and opportunists should be called “the main obstacle” rather than “the main enemy.” This is just word chopping.

Although we in fact did not use the term “the main enemy” in the document in question, it appears that there is nothing especially wrong with calling the revisionists and opportunists “a main enemy” of the revolution. The History of the Party of Labor of Albania, describing the analysis given in 1966 by the 5th Congress of the PLA, states: “Modern revisionism, with the Soviet leadership at its center, now comprised not only a main danger but also a main enemy of the international workers’ and communist movement.” (Ch. VII, Section 2, p. 603, emphasis as in the original)

In the article “The October Revolution and the Tactics of the Russian Communists,” Comrade Stalin describes in Section III how certain people “accused the Bolsheviks of excessive ’Cadetophobia’; they asserted that with the Bolsheviks the struggle against the Cadets ’overshadowed’ the struggle against the principal enemy – tsarism. But these accusations, for which there was no justification, revealed an utter failure to understand the Bolshevik strategy, which called for the isolation of the compromising party in order to facilitate, to hasten the victory over the principal enemy. He also points out that in the period after the Tsar fell, many people ’ ’accused the Bolsheviks of displaying ’excessive hatred’ towards the Socialist Revolutionaries and Mensheviks and of ’forgetting’ the principal goal. But the entire period of preparation for October eloquently testifies to the fact that only by pursuing these tactics could the Bolsheviks ensure the victory of the October Revolution.” (On the Opposition (1921-1927), Peking, 1974, pp. 165 and 166, emphasis as in the original) Today you are accusing us of an excessive struggle against the social-chauvinists, but for this charge there is no justification. Without a fierce struggle against revisionism and opportunism, neither could the COUSML have prepared the conditions to found the MLP,USA nor could the MLP,USA exist for any length of time.

Your letter endorsed in words Lenin’s famous quotation that the “fight against imperialism is a sham and humbug unless it is inseparably bound up with the fight against opportunism.” Lenin’s idea should be deeply pondered. By counterposing the struggle against opportunism to the struggle against imperialism, your letter in fact slips into the position of repudiating Lenin’s teachings, which call for these struggles to be “inseparably bound” up with one another.

IV-D

Turning things on their heads, your letter charges that the struggle against revisionism and opportunism is the source of dangerous illusions about the revisionists and opportunists. We have already seen this with regard to your criticism of the “without and against” slogan. On the one hand you say that this slogan was put forward by Comrade Lenin in order to fight against “conciliation with the social-chauvinists,” while on the other hand you maintain this slogan is, “in 1979,” a source of dangerous illusions that “the neo-revisionists have had some ’genuine’ interest in building a Marxist-Leninist party.”

You also continue to charge the struggle against revisionism with creating illusions in other passages in your letter. For example, you write: “(5) Disagreements with the references in the statement to the neo-revisionists being ’anti-party.’ (It should be recalled that elsewhere in your letter, in (4), you attack the statement for allegedly creating dangerous illusions that “the neo-revisionists have had some ’genuine’ interest in building a Marxist-Leninist party.” Now in (5) you admit that the statement created no such illusions and instead you denounce the statement for its sharp denunciation of the long history of anti-party activities of the neo-revisionists. – ed.] Our comrade explained during the meeting that while this was obviously true (and hence precisely for that reason a source of dangerous illusions, like Lenin’s alleged “truism,” the “without and against” slogan? – ed.) it did not strongly make the point, tending to confuse the central issue, that the neo-revisionists are against Marxism-Leninism, the revolution and socialism, that the neo-revisionists are in theory ’anti-revisionist’ but that in practice they have never broken with revisionism, that the neo-revisionists are a variant of modern revisionism, an agency of the bourgeoisie in the communist and workers’ movement.” (emphasis as in the original)

Here you stress that the neo-revisionists should not be denounced for their anti-party stands because such criticism “tend(s) to confuse the central issue, that the neo-revisionists are against Marxism-Leninism, the revolution and socialism.” Generally speaking, it would be correct to replace the phrase “tends to,” which your letter repeats so often, with the phrase “does not in the slightest.” In your letter this phrase becomes truly elastic and able to expand to justify anything. Why, if we were to say “Two plus two equals four,” it could be said that this is “obviously true,” hence a “truism,” hence our raising such a question “tends to” suggest that the question isn’t really “settled” and thus creates the “dangerous illusion” that two plus two might really be five.

What you are saying boils down to the assertion that any repudiation of any particular anti-Marxist-Leninist political or ideological stand of the neo-revisionists allegedly confuses the central issue that the neo-revisionists are against Marxism-Leninism. In short, the struggle against neo-revisionism allegedly creates illusions about the neo-revisionists. Instead, presumably, one should simply call the neo-revisionists criminals and police and leave it at that. Strangely enough, it turns out that the literature of the RCPB (ML) itself and its predecessors has criticized the various political and ideological stands of the neo-revisionists. Hence one of two things: Either your criticism of our Call on this point is simply hypocrisy. Or you are in fact repudiating your own literature on the neo-revisionists and, instead of saying what your old views are and what your new views are and how and why you changed views, you are hiding the change in your views.

For example, consider the article starting on the front page of the August 25, 1979 issue of Workers’ Weekly entitled “Hail the Twelfth Anniversary of (the) Founding of the Internationalists in Britain!” It says: ”Furthermore, the Internationalists also arose out of the struggle against neo-revisionism, the numerous groups and individuals who were in words ’against’ revisionism but who, in practice, refused to make a radical rupture with revisionism, with revisionist methods of work, with revisionist line, with revisionist methods of struggle. These ’anti-revisionist’ groups and organizations refused to take up the crucial task of rebuilding the Marxist- Leninist party [i.e. they were anti-party – ed.], refused to take up the task of arming the working class and people with Marxism-Leninism [what ever happened to the worry that such a characterization would “tend to” confuse the “central issue” that the neo-revisionists are against Marxism-Leninism – ed.], refused to take up the task of organizing the working class movement on a revolutionary basis [what ever happened to the worry that such a characterization would “tend to” confuse the “central issue” that the neo-revisionists are against the revolution?–ed.]. They either sat on the sidelines and said that there was nothing that could be done except to ’develop more theory’ or they adopted straightforward economist and trade-unionist politics.” Thus the article does not limit itself to the single remark that “the central issue” is that “the neo-revisionists are against Marxism-Leninism, the revolution and socialism,” but characterizes various of their anti-Marxist-Leninist and anti-revolutionary stands. It goes on and later says that “As a result of this struggle [waged by the Party against the neo-revisionists – ed.], as a result of the sharpening of the class struggle nationally and internationally, all these groups and organizations have been caught upholding outright revisionist theories: they have all openly adopted revisionism as the theoretical basis of their activities. The ’pre-party collectives’ [one part of the neo-revisionists, with the other part being Reg Birch’s “C”PB(M-L) – ed.] – all those groups that sat on the sidelines of the working class movement, that sat on the sidelines in relation to the task of rebuilding the Marxist- Leninist center and party [there is the anti-party characterization again, and it is being heavily stressed – ed.] – have adopted the counterrevolutionary ’three worlds’ theory.” And that is the first reference in the article to the characterization “counter-revolutionary,” and it explicitly refers to something that came up only after a period of time. These passages from Workers’ Weekly make crystal clear your hypocrisy when your letter denounces the Call of the NC of the COUSML for characterizing the neo-revisionists as, among other things, anti-party.

The truth is that right from the start the questions of the party concept and the party spirit were at the center of the struggle between Marxism-Leninism and neo-revisionism. To denigrate raising the question of the party against the neo-revisionists means in fact to get down on one’s knees and put up the white flag in the struggle against neo-revisionism, to say nothing of the struggle in general against Chinese revisionism and Mao Zedong Thought. It is just another way of paraphrasing the doubletalk that the polemical struggle against the neo-revisionists is allegedly what creates illusions about them. The question of the party concept is not only one of the key issues in the struggle against neo-revisionism, it is also one of the central issues in the struggle against revisionism and opportunism in general.

Thus the fact that the Call of the NC of the COUSML accuses the neo-revisionists of being anti-party is not a fault but a great virtue of the Call. The Call is a powerful weapon against the neo-revisionists and scathingly exposes their vile nature. Accusing the neo-revisionists of being anti-party does not mean toning down the struggle against neo-revisionism. On the contrary! All of our literature has stressed that the political content behind the anti-party and disruptive, factional and wrecking activities of the neo-revisionists can be found in the disgusting imperialism of open social-chauvinism and of Browderism. We have used the struggle against social-chauvinism to rake neo-revisionism over the coals and to stress the irreconcilable antagonism between Marxism-Leninism and neo-revisionism. For example, the Call states that: “Neo-revisionism has also borrowed heavily from the counterrevolutionary arsenal of Browderite revisionism. Its essence has proved to be Browderite liberal-labor politics, reformism and flimsy conciliation to all opportunism and any fashionable deviation.... Browderite liberal-labor politics fights the revolution and communism.... Under the guise of fighting for reforms, they [the Browderites – ed.] make it their job to fascize the government apparatus.... They similarly betray all of the revolutionary movements.... The neo-revisionists cling to this Browderite revisionist ’American Marxism’ in their struggle against the universally applicable, revolutionary teachings of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin.”

You also charge the movement against social-chauvinism with creating illusions in the social-chauvinists in the following passage: “(2) Disagreements on the question of saying that the neo-revisionists in the United States were ever part of the anti-revisionist movement. Our comrade explained that in Britain, for example, we do not say that the so-called ’C’PB(M-L) was ever part of the anti-revisionist movement but that right from its inception (it) was an economist, trade-unionist organization. Our comrade explained that in Britain we say that recent events have openly exposed the treacherous activities of the neo-revisionists over the past 12 years. Our comrade said that to say the neo-revisionists are or were part of the anti-revisionist movement, in the way that the statement of the National Committee tends to do, creates harmful illusions about these counter-revolutionary characters.” (emphasis as in the original)

To begin with, you are trying to suggest that we believe that the neo-revisionists are or were genuinely anti-revisionist or that we “tend to” create such illusions. We are amazed to see that your letter stoops to such an ugly means of argument, that verges on mudslinging. You know perfectly well that we say the exact opposite, that neo-revisionism is exactly that, neo-revisionism or new-style revisionism, revisionism trying to falsely fly the flag of Marxism-Leninism and anti-revisionism. What reasoning do you use to back up your accusation against us? You say that “...in Britain we say that recent events have openly exposed the treacherous activities of the neo-revisionists over the past 12 years.” Very well, but on what basis do you counterpose that statement to our well-known views, repeated over and over in the literature on the movement against social-chauvinism, that the neo-revisionists were always social-chauvinist to the core and that the emergence of the thesis of “directing the main blow at Soviet social-imperialism” brought out into the open the rabid social-chauvinist nature of neo-revisionism? Our literature speaks of the “emergence of open social-chauvinism,” the degeneration of neo-revisionism into “open social-chauvinism” (emphasis added) and so forth in order to stress that the new development is that the social-chauvinism has come out into the open. The Call of the NC of the COUSML stresses the inseparable connection between social-chauvinism and neo-revisionism and writes: “Social-chauvinism is the highest form and typical result of a decade of corrosion of neo-revisionism within the Marxist-Leninist movement. For a decade the alliance of the neo-revisionists with the U.S. imperialist bourgeoisie has been hidden and secret. Today it is open and disgusting. The political content behind their years of disruption and factionalizing of the Marxist- Leninist movement is now clearly revealed for all to see. Social-chauvinism is neo-revisionism in finished form. And their degeneration to open social-chauvinism marks the complete bankruptcy of the neo-revisionist trend.” It is because you know yourself the falseness of your charge against us that we allegedly believe that there is something genuinely “anti-revisionist” in neo-revisionism that you resort to the phrase “tends to” again.

Your actual argument boils down once again to “official optimism.” Your letter objects to such phrases as “the corrosion of neo-revisionism within the Marxist-Leninist movement” and to the various calls to rid the Marxist-Leninist movement of neo-revisionism and social-chauvinism. These calls according to your letter create illusions about neo-revisionism. A phrase such as “the corrosion of neo-revisionism within the Marxist-Leninist movement” is a phrase that creates hatred against the “corrosion” and is a call to throw out this “corrosion” from the Marxist-Leninist movement, but according to the mode of reasoning in your letter such a phrase is favorable to the neo-revisionists. The call to struggle against the neo-revisionists can be taken to suggest a relationship of a sort between Marxism-Leninism and neo-revisionism – for example, the relationship of being in life and death struggle against each other – and any “relation” between Marxism-Leninism and neo-revisionism violates “official optimism.”

At the time of the beginning of the movement against social-chauvinism, the neo-revisionists in the U.S. were generally accepted as part of the Marxist-Leninist movement. Accepted by whom? By COUSML? Did COUSML accept them as genuine “Marxist-Leninists” and “anti-revisionists”? No. the COUSML didn’t. The COUSML had never accepted neo-revisionism as “Marxism-Leninism” and the COUSML declared relentless war upon the social-chauvinists. The COUSML fought to make the neo-revisionists, “three worlders” and social- chauvinists an object of scorn in the eyes of every progressive person. The COUSML fought not just the neo-revisionist groups, but it also fought neo-revisionism as a trend of thought, as a theory.

Thus the COUSML fought tooth and nail against the neo-revisionists. But it is exactly this fight that you accuse of “creating” or “tending to create” dangerous “illusions.” Did the COUSML create illusions about the neo-revisionists by realizing that they were generally accepted as being in the Marxist-Leninist movement? No. The issue was not to absolutize and then define and redefine whether or not the neo-revisionists were in the Marxist-Leninist movement. The issue was to fight the neo-revisionists. The fact that the neo-revisionists were generally accepted as being part of the Marxist-Leninist movement was not the doing of the COUSML. If the COUSML had closed its eyes to this unfortunate fact, the fact wouldn’t go away. The most harmful thing in this regard is “official optimism” that closes its eyes to such generally known but unpleasant facts as the presence of opportunists infiltrating into the Marxist-Leninist and working class movement. What creates illusions in the neo-revisionists is the blunting of the struggle. What destroys illusions is the sharpening and intensifying of the struggle against neo-revisionism. It is the movement against social-chauvinism that has destroyed many illusions about neo-revisionism and been an utter fiasco for them. It is the scientific stand of the COUSML, which acted to change the situation whereby the neo-revisionists were accepted as part of the Marxist-Leninist movement not by defining the problem away, but by hard struggle, which has destroyed illusions.

Phrases like “the corrosion of neo-revisionism within the Marxist-Leninist movement” nevertheless seem wrong in principle to you. At the same time, at one point in your letter you say that “the neo-revisionists...are an agency of the bourgeoisie in the communist and workers’ movement.” (emphasis added) But elsewhere you stress that the neo-revisionists were not “ever part of the anti-revisionist movement.” (emphasis as in the original) Can one make heads or tails of what the point of principle is behind such contradictions? The neo-revisionists are not any more “communists” than they are “anti-revisionists.” The neo-revisionists are both anticommunist and revisionist. But behind these crying contradictions you continue to assail us for phrases like the “corrosion of neo-revisionism inside the Marxist-Leninist movement.” Allegedly these phrases create dangerous illusions. But is that true? Can it be said that such phrases are wrong in principle independent of time and place? Did not Lenin describe old-style or Bernsteinian revisionism as follows: “And the second half-century of the existence of Marxism began (in the nineties) with the struggle of a trend hostile to Marxism within Marxism itself.” In his article “Marxism and Revisionism” in 1908 (Collected Works, Vol. 15, p. 32, emphasis added) Lenin went on to add: “Pre-Marxist socialism has been defeated. It is continuing the struggle, no longer on its own independent ground, but on the general ground of Marxism, as revisionism.” (Ibid., p. 33, emphasis added) But perhaps one might object, similar to your letter’s objection to the “without and against” slogan of Lenin’s, that this only applies back in those days, whereas now the issue is “settled.” But this would be to take a nonserious stand to Marxism-Leninism. This would mean to counterpose the Leninist teachings on the monolithic unity of the party to the Leninist teachings on the struggle against opportunism. The Leninist parties are not like the old social-democratic parties. The Leninist parties are parties of revolutionary action, they represent unity of will, they are monolithic parties. But the monolithic character of the party presupposes an active struggle against opportunist trends. The unity of the proletariat in the Marxist-Leninist party, in the mass revolutionary organizations, in the revolutionary actions and so forth can only be maintained with the help of a determined and protracted struggle against opportunism and revisionism. To cover up the contradictions and the problems in the Marxist-Leninist movement, to present everything as fine and in good shape and as a sphere which is a priori totally immune from any danger from opportunism, this does not help ensure true unanimity and unity of will. It in fact brings to mind the method of social-democracy. The social-democratic parties were riddled with factions and lacked unity of will, but their method was to cover everything up. Stalin flayed the “official optimism” of the social-democratic parties in the following passage, written in December 1926:

“How do the Social-Democratic parties of the West exist and develop nowadays? Have they inner-party contradictions, disagreements based on principle? Of course, they have. Do they disclose these contradictions and try to overcome them honestly and openly in sight of the mass of the party membership? No, of course not. It is the practice of the Social-Democrats to cover up and conceal these contradictions and disagreements. It is the practice of the Social-Democrats to turn their conferences and congresses into an empty parade of ostensible well-being, assiduously covering up and slurring over internal disagreements. But nothing can come of this except stuffing people’s heads with rubbish and the ideological impoverishment of the party. This is one of the reasons for the decline of West-European Social-Democracy, which was once revolutionary, and is now reformist.

“We, however, cannot live and develop in that way, comrades. The policy of a ’middle’ line in matters of principle is not our policy. The policy of a ’middle’ line in matters of principle is the policy of decaying and degenerating parties....

“Our Party’s whole past confirms the thesis that the history of our Party is the history of the overcoming of inner-party contradictions and of the constant strengthening of the ranks of our Party on the basis of overcoming them.” (“Once More on the Social-Democratic Deviation in Our Party,” Works, Vol. 9, pp. 4-5)

It is quite clear that Stalin’s idea applies fully to the question of the present-day Marxist-Leninist movement. To pretend that everything is fine, to fail to disclose the contradictions and to fail to try to deal with them honestly and openly “in sight of the mass of the party membership,” is in fact to introduce a spirit akin to that of social-democracy. It is clear that “nothing can come of this except stuffing people’s heads with rubbish and the ideological impoverishment of the party.” In order to rally all genuine Marxist-Leninists around the Marxist-Leninist Party, in order to eliminate neo-revisionism from the Marxist-Leninist movement not by closing our eyes to it but by driving it out, the Marxist-Leninists must wage a vigorous, determined and open fight for Marxist-Leninist principle. The Call of the NC of the COUSML to “Build the Marxist-Leninist Party Without the Social-Chauvinists and Against the Social-Chauvinists” is precisely an example of the manifesto for such a struggle for Marxist-Leninist principle, such a struggle as the powerful movement against social-chauvinism.

The issue arises of how should unity be achieved in the Marxist-Leninist parties and how should their monolithic character be ensured. By ideological means or organizational means? No, the question cannot be posed in that way. Such a counterposition of the two methods is not proper. The Marxist-Leninist classics stress the proper use of both methods. Thus Comrade Stalin speaks both against relying solely on “ideological” measures and leaving the party paralyzed and faction-ridden, and also against neglecting the ideological questions. Thus in Foundations of Leninism there occurs Stalin’s famous passage:

“The theory of ’defeating’ opportunist elements by ideological struggle within the Party, the theory of ’overcoming’ these elements within the confines of a single party, is a rotten and dangerous theory, which threatens to condemn the Party to paralysis and chronic infirmity, threatens to make the Party a prey to opportunism, threatens to leave the proletariat without a revolutionary party, threatens to deprive the proletariat of its main weapon in the fight against imperialism.... Our Party succeeded in achieving internal unity and unexampled cohesion of its ranks primarily because it was able in good time to purge itself of the opportunist pollution, because it was able to rid its ranks of Liquidators and Mensheviks. Proletarian parties develop and become strong by purging themselves of opportunists and reformists, social-imperialists and social-chauvinists, social-patriots and social-pacifists.” (from near the end of Ch. VIII “The Party”)

But this cannot be understood as meaning that one should neglect the ideological struggle or ideological clarification. In a striking passage, Stalin elaborates that:

“...To expel Brandier and Thalheimer is an easy matter, but the task of overcoming Brandlerism is a difficult and serious one. In this matter, repressive measures alone can only cause harm; here the soil must be deeply plowed, minds must be greatly enlightened. The RCP(B) always developed through contradictions, i.e., in the struggle against non-communist trends, and only in that struggle did it gain strength and forge real cadres. The same path of development through contradictions, through a real, serious and lengthy struggle against non-communist trends, especially against Social-Democratic traditions, Brandlerism, etc., lies before the CPG [Communist Party of Germany – ed.]. But repressive measures alone are not enough in such a struggle.” (“A Letter to Comrade Me-rt,” Works, Vol. 7, p. 46)

The Call of the NC of the COUSML takes these Marxist-Leninist teachings on the party into account. The Call gives the orientation of excluding the social- chauvinists from any unity with the Marxist-Leninists, of building the Marxist-Leninist Party without and against the social-chauvinists, of creating a burning conviction among the masses of activists and in the proletariat that the social-chauvinists are class enemies, and so forth. But at the same time the Call of the NC of the COUSML goes deeply into the ideological issues involved. It is for the deepening and broadening of the polemics. It is not just for the exposure of this or that group, but for the exposure of Browderite liberal-labor politics. It directs attention to neo-revisionism and it directs attention to the Browderite liberal-labor politics that has been the main source of corruption inside the communist and workers’ movement in the U.S. for whole decades.

The MLP,USA is a united, monolithic party, and the COUSML was also a united, monolithic organization. As we have stressed earlier in the letter, the Call to “Build the Marxist-Leninist Party Without the Social-Chauvinists and Against the Social-Chauvinists” was not a call to purge the COUSML. Neither the ACWM(M-L) nor the COUSML allowed neo-revisionists and social-chauvinists to corrode the Marxist-Leninist nucleus of the party from within. But the ACWM(M-L) and COUSML could only achieve their unity and the MLP,USA can only maintain this unity by means of struggle against opportunism.

When your letter deals with the Call of the NC of the COUSML or with the general issues concerning the movement against social-chauvinism, it does not analyze the actual course of the movement against social-chauvinism, nor does it examine any particular problem about how to develop the struggle against neo-revisionism, nor does it make a serious theoretical analysis. It simply raises some abstract moralizing or intellectualism. For example, your letter makes a big fuss about whether or not the neo-revisionists were ever part of the “anti-revisionist movement.” Your letter absolutizes this question and discusses it independent of time and place.

Very well, there are many different ways to approach a question. If you wished to start from this angle, the angle of examining the composition of the “anti-revisionist movement,” fine, but then your letter should have taken seriously the issue that it itself raised. And a serious approach to the question of the “anti-revisionist movement” would require among other things that you explain what you mean by the phrase “anti-revisionist movement.” But your letter avoids this like the plague. Do you mean that the “anti-revisionist movement” consists of all the genuine Marxist-Leninist fighters against revisionism? If so, then it is clear that the neo-revisionists were never part of this movement. Do you mean “any group which at least called itself Marxist-Leninist” (Workers’ Weekly, August 25, 1979, p. 6, in referring to those groups that had to be dealt with seriously by the party)? Then this concept would indeed include the neo-revisionists, who in words claim to be “Marxist-Leninist.” Do you mean those groups that are generally accepted, whether correctly or incorrectly, as being Marxist-Leninist and anti-revisionist? Then whether the neo-revisionists were in the “anti-revisionist movement” or not would depend entirely on the exact state of the “anti-revisionist movement” of that particular country at that particular time. Do you mean those activists from the revolutionary mass movement who took part in an objective movement to take up Marxism-Leninism and who came to the realization of the need to fight revisionism? Or do you mean something else. No, your letter doesn’t explain in the slightest what you mean. Or do you mean that you have been willing to strive “to unite them [various groups – ed.] around the Marxist-Leninist party” or through such a process of striving to unite, to expose that these groups “have had no interest to actually unite to rebuild the Party and participate in and lead the revolution in Britain” (“Interview With the Delegation of the RCPB (ML)” in the March 24 and 26, 1979 issues of PCDN, reprinted in Proletarian Internationalism, Vol. 1, No. 3) even though those groups are not in what you consider to be the “anti-revisionist movement” but only claim in words to be Marxist-Leninist or anti-revisionist? And this last appears to be the case, as your history with Reg Birch’s “C”PB(M-L) shows, and that is a group which you stress was not ever part of the “anti-revisionist movement.” But seeing that this is the case, then why bother to waste time and effort arguing about who was or who wasn’t in the “anti-revisionist movement”?

Thus the fuss made in your letter about whether or not the neo-revisionists are or ever were in the “anti-revisionist movement” serves to cover the real issues involved in the struggle between Marxism-Leninism and neo-revisionism. You never explain what the “anti-revisionist movement” being referred to is, nor what significance being in or out of it has. Instead you stress: “...in Britain, for example, we do not say that the so-called “C”PB(M-L) was ever part of the anti-revisionist movement but that right from its inception (it) was an economist, trade-unionist organization.” But this remains an empty phrase until you explain what the “anti-revisionist movement” being referred to is, and what the significance of being in or out of it was. Does it mean that right from the start you had nothing to do with the neo-revisionists, declared an irreconcilable split and openly polemicized against all of them? No, it doesn’t. You went through a whole process of sorting out the groups. The “anti-revisionist movement” being referred to in the above quotation about “C”PB(M-L) is not one of the possibilities we have listed in the previous paragraph. Instead it is the abstract “anti-revisionist movement” in the sense that it is independent of time and place. It is this abstract movement which your letter makes a fuss about and moralizes over, while in practice a whole process was necessary to sort out the neo-revisionist groups.

For example, let us examine your own description of the process that was necessary in dealing with the neo-revisionists. We shall see how little it has to do with the abstract moralizing about the “anti-revisionist movement.” In the “Interview With the Delegation of the RCPB (ML),” the process of sorting out the neo-revisionists is described in general terms. It is pointed out that “All the groups and organizations in Britain which called themselves anti-revisionist were invited to” the historic Necessity for Change Conference in August 1967 in London. It describes that at this conference a “most sharp struggle took place between the genuinely revolutionary forces, represented by the Internationalists, and the so-called ’anti-revisionist’ elements” and it characterizes the basic issues. Later on it points out that the RCPB (ML) “was also born out of the struggle against neo-revisionism, against those forces who pay lip service to Marxism-Leninism, but who, on all major questions, refuse to make decisive political, ideological and organizational breaks with modern revisionism, with the modern revisionist methods of work and thinking.... Throughout this period, the Party has at all times firmly upheld and defended the purity of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism, has always taken the attitude of striving to deal with and resolve the question of various other groups and organizations which have called or call themselves anti-revisionist, or Marxist-Leninist, [including the neo-revisionists – ed.], from the standpoint of either trying to unite them around the Marxist-Leninist party or openly expose them as being against Marxism-Leninism, revolution and socialism. Through engaging in this process [What!! Here we have a process and not just a priori theorizing about whether or not to define this or that group as in or out of the “anti-revisionist movement.” Horrors! – ed.], a number of things have been clarified. Besides a number of individuals who have joined the Party’s ranks, those groups which split from the revisionist party have been shown to have had no interest to actually unite to rebuild the Party and participate in and lead the revolution in Britain. The whole opportunist spirit and line that was reflected and manifested in those groups during the Necessity for Change Conference, and shortly after this, has become more and more vivid, more and more clear during the last 11-12 years. Through this period, many of these groups, and even some so-called ’parties,’ have even gone to the extent of blatantly refusing to answer letters or requests from our Party simply for.meeting, just to have discussion to clarify various lines on national and international questions. What this shows is opposition to actually uniting around Marxism-Leninism to lead the revolution. This fact has become clearly expressed. The ’Marxist-Leninist’ face of these groups and organizations, as the class struggle has intensified and matured over the last few years, has been more and more exposed to reveal basic and open revisionist features.” In this process, no role at all was played by moralizing about the “anti-revisionist movement” in the abstract. Such moralizing could not guide this process nor explain how to decide how and when to either try “to unite them [the groups, including the neo-revisionists – ed.] around the Marxist-Leninist party or openly expose them as being against Marxism-Leninism, revolution and socialism.”

Thus the big fuss in your letter about whether or not the neo-revisionists were ever in the anti-revisionist movement actually covers over and obscures the actual history and experience of the struggle against neo-revisionism. It obscures the profound contradictions rather than bringing them to the fore. It is simply a way of denigrating the history of the struggle against neo-revisionism through “official optimism.” Thus in using this method of reasoning, your letter is able to comment on the Call of the NC of the COUSML without examining the actual course of the struggle or the issues involved. The struggle against social-chauvinism can be condemned a priori as “creating illusions” at a time when it has done wonders in destroying illusions. No, illusions cannot be avoided by closing one’s eyes and redefining the problem of revisionism out of existence, but only by struggle against revisionism and opportunism. It is turning the truth on its head when your letter uses word chopping to denounce the very struggle against revisionism as the source of dangerous illusions in revisionism.

IV-E

You counterpose the struggle against revisionism to the fact that the Marxist-Leninist Party, which leads and directs this struggle, is not just another “one of many groups.” Thus in your letter you write: “(3) Underplaying of the central role of the COUSML as the heart, the center, of the anti-revisionist movement. Our comrade explained that the statement tended to [which again should be translated as “does not in the slightest” – ed.] put the COUSML as one of many groups in this anti-revisionist movement whereas, from our understanding of the United States and also from our understanding of the similar situation in Britain, the COUSML can proudly say that it is the only genuine anti-revisionist center, it is the decisive force that has fought revisionism in theory and practice and it has now created the ideological, political and organizational conditions for forming the Party.”

The first point is that to say this in a letter in which you start a boycott of the MLP,USA is hypocrisy. On one hand you admit that COUSML is “the only genuine anti-revisionist center” and that “has now created the ideological, political and organizational conditions for forming the Party.” But at the same time you threaten not to recognize the MLP,USA. This is utterly unprincipled. In actual fact, the COUSML proved in deeds that it was not guilty of “underplaying of the central role of the COUSML” by issuing the Call of the NC of the COUSML and by proceeding to dissolve in favor of the MLP, USA.

But further, what exactly is the issue you are raising? It is one thing to deal with the question of whether or not the first draft of the Call of the NC of the COUSML should be strengthened in its description of the role of the ACWM(M-L) and COUSML. But that is not what you are dealing with, for you pass over without any examination the actual description of the role of ACWM(M-L) and COUSML in the final draft of the Call and blithely remark that “there have been some changes and modifications” in the final draft but your views “have not changed” (emphasis in the original). Instead you are therefore bringing up an alleged issue of principle. But this is hogwash. There was no mistake of principle on the question of the leading role of the party in either draft of the Call or in the other literature on the movement against social-chauvinism. The Call of the NC of the COUSML, as well as other literature over a period of years, has consistently stated that the ACWM(M-L) and then the COUSML functioned as the nucleus of the Party. And the COUSML maintained this stand despite the fierce howls of the opportunists in the U.S. against “the nucleus of the party” and against the COUSML regarding itself as the “center” or “central organization.” The excerpt from the speech at the March Internal Conference of the COUSML, which we have reproduced earlier in our letter, shows the tremendous stress that we lay on the leading role of the party in the movement against social-chauvinism. This evaluation of the role of the nucleus of the party, of ACWM(M-L) and COUSML, cannot be separated from the general question of the struggle for the party concept. But it is your letter that has objected to our stress on the question of the party concept and the party spirit in the movement against social-chauvinism by claiming that this allegedly “tends to” confuse “the central issue.” And it is your letter which denounces the conception of the MLP, USA as the leader of the struggle against revisionism by opposing the clear passage in our Call which runs: “There can be no lasting victory in the struggle against social-chauvinism apart from the reconstitution and constant growth and strengthening of the Marxist-Leninist Party of the American proletariat.”

What it all boils down to is that you are denouncing the movement against social-chauvinism again. It is not sufficient for you that the COUSML is the leading force of this movement. Just the recognition of the existence of this movement alone is alleged to be “underplaying the central role of the COUSML as the heart, the center, of the anti-revisionist movement.” You say that this “tended to [in your letter the phrase “tended to” is your way of admitting that your charges are false and hypocritical – ed.] put the COUSML as one of many groups in this anti-revisionist movement.” This is an extreme form of the counterposition of the objective movement to the party. Your letter alleges that even the recognition of the very existence of objective phenomena and mass motion in the world means downplaying the party. The truth is the exact opposite. It is only through being extremely sensitive to the mood and motion among the masses and by playing close attention to such phenomena as the movement against social-chauvinism that the party can play its leading role.

The whole attitude manifested by your letter towards the movement against social-chauvinism and towards the struggle against revisionism and opportunism is wrong. The question is not simply that the struggle against revisionism is a sad necessity, something like taking castor oil. On the contrary, the struggle against revisionism, when it is a real struggle and not a concoction, when it is based firmly on principles, is a powerful invigorating force. It lends tremendous moral authority to the genuine Marxist-Leninist parties, it sweeps away rust, it helps light the path forward, and it helps train and prepare the masses for the revolution. It is not for nothing that at the Scientific Sessions in Albania Comrade Agim Popa pointed out that: “In the struggle against Chinese revisionism, too, just as in the struggle against Khrushchovite revisionism, new Marxist-Leninist revolutionary parties of the working class will emerge and grow where such parties do not yet exist, or where the existing parties have deviated from the road of Marxism- Leninism and the revolution.” It is not for nothing that Comrade Lenin eulogized this struggle and pointed out in his article “Marxism and Revisionism” in 1908 that:

“The fight against the revisionists on these questions resulted in as fruitful a revival of the theoretical thought in international socialism as did Engels’ controversy with Duhring twenty years earlier.” And he added further on “The ideological struggle waged by revolutionary Marxism against revisionism at the end of the nineteenth century is but the prelude to the great revolutionary battles of the proletariat, which is marching forward to the complete victory of its cause despite all the waverings and weaknesses of the petty bourgeoisie.” (Collected Works, Vol. 15, pp. 34 and 39)

It is not for nothing that Comrade Lenin enthusiastically raised the perspective in What Is To Be Done? that “Perhaps in this first really international battle with socialist opportunism, international revolutionary Social-Democracy will become sufficiently strengthened to put an end to the political reaction that has long reigned in Europe?” (Note at the beginning of Ch. I)

V

In this section we would simply like to point out that your account of the discussions between our two Parties is not correct.

First of all, you raise the question of the discussion between the representatives of our two Parties at the All-Canada National Youth Festival in October. You present these as extensive discussions. But in fact your delegate was silent on a number of burning questions and did not wish to discuss them. Very well, it happens that for some reasons a discussion is not possible. But to represent these discussions as you do is not correct.

Secondly, you present matters as if you haven’t changed your position on the MLP, USA. That is not true. You used to have close fraternal relations with COUSML, while now you are threatening not to recognize the MLP,USA. Just that alone indicates a change on your part. But you try to twist the discussions into a pattern that doesn’t exist. That is particularly clear in your explanation of why you reprinted excerpts from the Call of the NC of the COUSML of May 12, 1979. Trying to explain this away, you say that “our printing of the statement does not mean support for the statement but fraternal support for the COUSML and its work to refound the Marxist-Leninist Party of the United States.” Then, having stressed your support for the refounding of the genuine Marxist-Leninist Party of the American proletariat, you turn around and say that you cannot support the MLP,USA. And why? Because of the very statement that you reprinted excerpts from in Workers’ Weekly. Charming, is it not? This game of hide-and-seek is not seemly for a Marxist-Leninist party such as yours.

Thirdly, you do not present the discussions on Reg Birch and the “C”PB(M-L) correctly. You raise the issue of “C”PB(M-L) in your letter, but then simply say “Our comrade explained that in Britain, for example, we do not say that the so-called “C”PB(M-L) was ever part of the anti-revisionist movement but that right from its inception (it) was an economist, trade-unionist organization,” You raise this in the context of a “disagreement” with us. But having raised this issue, it should have been dealt with seriously. We do not understand what disagreement on this is being raised. Our Party has always supported you and not wavered on the question of Reg Birch and the “C”PB(M-L). At one time pressure was put on COUSML to drop its public support in the press for you on the grounds that this would allegedly make it easier for COUSML to receive international recognition. But the NC of the COUSML refused and did not waver in support of you and The Workers’ Advocate continued to publicly support you. The NC held that it would never barter its fraternal parties for the sake of international recognition. 1 The only disagreement that therefore arose concerning “C”PB(M-L) occurred in discussion between the parties. For example, at the time of the Internationalist Rally of 1978 your representative presented to us that there were “two parties” in Britain. This deeply disturbed our delegation. While stressing its support for you and that it was up to you to decide on the tactics necessary to carry through the struggle, our delegation spoke Frankly that it did not agree with the idea that there were “two parties” in Britain, that it did not regard Reg Birch and the “C”PB(M-L) as Marxist-Leninist and that it regarded the CPE (M-L) (now RCPB (ML)) as the sole Marxist-Leninist party in your country. With the subsequent development of the discussions between our two Parties, it appears that both our two Parties agree on this. So what disagreement is there on the issue of the evaluation of the nature of the “C”PB(M-L)?

There are other points too. If you believe that it is important to establish the exact course of these discussions, then we could exchange minutes of these meetings.

This concludes our letter. We take this occasion to once again send you our ardent, fraternal revolutionary greetings. We salute the revolutionary work done by the RCPB (ML). The RCPB (ML) has shown itself to be a party of revolutionary action. It has stood in the van of the anti-fascist and anti-racist struggle, it has persisted in organizing the workers on the party basis, and it has built itself in the midst of the class struggle against monopoly capitalism. The RCPB (ML) has stood firmly against Khrushchovite and Chinese revisionism and against the social-democracy of the Labor Party. Your struggle against neo-revisionism has always been a source of great interest for us, as we also faced savage attack by neo-revisionism from the moment of the founding of the ACWM(M-L) in May 1969 down to the present. We are confident that the problems raised in your letter of January 10 will be sorted out in the upcoming discussions and consultations between our two Parties and that the long-standing fraternal relations between our two Marxist-Leninist Parties will be strengthened. Let the struggle of the Marxist-Leninist parties of the entire world surge forward!

Communist greetings,

National Executive Committee Marxist-Leninist Party of the USA

1 This refers to the fact that the leadership of CPC (M-L), in discussions with the COUSML in January 1978. protested against the support for the Communist Party of England (ML), the immediate predecessor of the RCPB (ML), in The Workers’ Advocate. In particular, they opposed the collection of articles entitled “British Workers Will Never Accept Fascism” in The Workers Advocate of December 1977. It should be noted that the CPC (M-L) was, of course, the fraternal party of the CPE (ML) and had been such since the very founding of the CPE (ML). The leadership of CPC (M-L) considered that the CPE(ML) was one of the organizations that was in CPC (M-L)’s “trend.” Nevertheless, the leadership of CPC (M-L) asked that all mention of CPE (ML) be dropped from the pages of The Workers’ Advocate, just as CPC (M-L) had dropped all mention of CPE (ML) from PCDN. This was for the sake of some international maneuvering of CPC (M-L) which was connected with the fact that Reg Birch’s Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist) was recognized by various parties. So the leadership of CPC (M-L) held that, for the time being, the relations with the CPE(ML) should be continued in private, but not in public. The leadership of CPC (M-L) tried to entice the COUSML with the carrot of recognition, stating that dropping public support for CPE(ML) would help ensure that various parties would recognize COUSML more quickly. The National Committee of the COUSML discussed this proposal from CPC (M-L) in February 1978 and decided that the COUSML does not barter its fraternal parties for the sake of recognition or anything else. – Note by The Workers Advocate.

Letter of the CC of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist) to the CC of the Marxist-Leninist Party, USA

August 21,1980

August 21,1980

To the Central Committee of the Marxist-Leninist Party, United States of America

The Central Committee of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist) wishes to inform you of its stand towards the MLP,USA.

The Central Committee of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist) considers that the MLP,USA is a group of provocateurs. The proof of this correct assessment of our Central Committee is contained in the letter which the Central Committee of the MLP,USA sent to the Central Committee of our Party on March 17, 1980. Our Central Committee considers that this letter, the manner in which our Party is attacked, slandered and abused in it, the tricks and maneuvers used by the authors of the letter to “prove” their slanders, the entire attitude and stand which is taken throughout this letter are vivid proof that the letter is not the work of Marxist-Leninists but of provocateurs.

Our Central Committee has ample additional proof, including the treatment meted out by the representatives of the MLP,USA to a leading comrade of our Party in Montreal during the Internationalist Rally in March 1980, as well as other information which our Central Committee has received concerning the stand and attitude of the MLP,USA. Our Central Committee does not consider the Communique which it has received concerning the founding of the MLP,USA to be in any way a Marxist-Leninist document.

In the light of these points, the Central Committee of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist) does not recognize the MLP,USA as the genuine Marxist-Leninist party in the United States and wishes to have nothing to do with this organization.

From the Central Committee of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist)

David Williams

(Representative of the Central Committee of the RCPB (ML)).

Letter of the CC of the Marxist-Leninist Party, USA to the CC of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist]

February 5, 1981

Central Committee Marxist-Leninist Party,

USA February 5, 1981

Central Committee Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist)

Dear Comrades,

We have received the letter of the Central Committee of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist) dated August 21, 1980. We have studied this letter and we have also carefully examined the development of the contradiction which emerged between our two Parties over the past year. After painstaking consideration of all the questions of principle involved we have decided to write you this reply.

Unfortunately the situation makes it necessary for us to express a strong protest to the Central Committee of the RCPB (ML). With your very hostile letter of August 21 you have unilaterally severed the warm fraternal bonds which had been built up between our two Parties over more than a decade. Your letter declares that “the CC of the RCPB (ML) considers that the MLP,USA is a group of provocateurs.” And based on this vile charge your letter concludes with the statement that the CC of the RCPB (ML) “wishes to have nothing to do” with the MLP,USA.

Thus, your August 21 letter is the consummation of a break between our two Parties. This constitutes an unprincipled split for which the Central Committee of the RCPB (ML) bears the full responsibility. This unprincipled split is an unconscionable act of hostility towards the MLP,USA and the American proletariat. Moreover it helps to create unprincipled divisions within the militant ranks of the international Marxist-Leninist communist movement. For these reasons it is the opinion of the Central Committee of our Party that the split which you have precipitated between our two Parties in general and your August 21 letter in particular constitute a terrible black stain on the name of the RCPB (ML).

The Central Committee of the MLP,USA earnestly appeals to you to repudiate your letter of August 21, 1980; to repudiate your hostile stand against our Party and to return to the road of principled solidarity with the MLP,USA. This is what the unity of the international Marxist-Leninist movement, the cause of communism and proletarian internationalism requires.

I

Now we shall go into these matters. To begin with, with your letter of August 21 you have unilaterally severed the longstanding relations between our two Parties. In our opinion that such a thing has taken place is shocking and terribly harmful.

For many years the relations between our two Parties had been very good and mutually beneficial. The last time representatives of our two Parties met to hold discussions was in October of 1979. Concerning this last meeting and the development of the relations between our two Parties you wrote in your letter of January 10, 1980, as follows:

“Comrades, we were once again very happy for representatives of both our Central Committees to meet and hold extensive discussions during the All-Canada National Youth Festival in October. As is always the case, we found these meetings, the exchange of experience, the discussions on many of the common problems that confront our two Marxist-Leninist organizations, the discussions on the situation in the United States, all extremely useful and positive. These meetings, of which there have been four over the past year and a half, have served to strengthen still further the longstanding ties and relations that have existed between our Party and the COUSML for over ten years now. Our Central Committee greatly cherishes these relations with our comrades from the United States and feels very happy that, after a relatively long period where we were unable to meet with each other, over the past year or so our meetings and our relations have been further strengthened.” (p. l)

Further on, by way of summation of the points made by your delegate to our comrades during the discussion held in October, 1979, you expressed among other things: “Wholehearted support for and joy at the news of the preparation by the COUSML to form the genuine communist party in the United States.” And you went on to say that: “The COUSML can proudly say that it is the decisive force that has fought revisionism in theory and practice and it has now created the ideological, political and organizational conditions for forming the Party.”

Since those discussions held over a year ago there have been no further discussions between our two Parties. Nevertheless, you proceeded to unilaterally sever all relations with our Party. You trampled into the mud the close fraternal bonds which had been built up between our two Parties which you also spoke very highly of only a short time ago.

The breaking of relations between Marxist- Leninist parties is an act of tragedy, an act with grave repercussions upon the revolutionary movement and international Marxism-Leninism. Marxism-Leninism therefore requires that such a step is undertaken only on the basis of irreconcilable and profound ideological and political reasons that make the preservation of unity impossible. Conversely, Marxism-Leninism condemns most severely splits undertaken on frivolous and unprincipled grounds.

The CC of the RCPB (ML), however, has given no grounds whatsoever for the split which it has effected between our two Parties. Fits of empty and vile abuse are not reasons but demonstrate a complete lack of reasons. You condemn out of hand the Communique of our Founding Congress. But you do so without so much as a single word to indicate what your disagreement with this document may be. To us this is astonishing. How can such extremely weighty matters possibly be handled in such a cavalier fashion? We hold that it is the duty of all the Marxist-Leninist parties to resolve any differences which may arise between them with the utmost care and maturity. Serious differences must be discussed thoroughly to ensure that the nature of the contradiction is gone into in depth, the Marxist-Leninist analysis is deepened, and the unity of the fraternal parties is safeguarded. But, as can be seen by your August 21 letter, you are displaying an amazingly flippant and highhanded attitude towards breaking relations with our Party, a matter of serious concern to our two Parties and to Marxism-Leninism.

II

At this point we want to go into the utterly unprincipled nature of the accusations made against the MLP,USA in your letter of August 21. This letter makes the charge that: “the MLP,USA is a group of provocateurs.” It goes on to say that: “the proof of this correct assessment of our Central Committee is contained in the letter which the Central Committee of the MLP,USA sent to the Central Committee of our Party on March 17, 1980....the entire attitude and stand of this letter is not the work of Marxist-Leninists but of provocateurs.” To this the letter adds: “Our Central Committee has ample additional proof, including the treatment meted out by the representatives of the MLP, USA to a leading comrade of our Party in Montreal during the Internationalist Rally in March, 1980, as well as other information which our Central Committee has received concerning the stand and attitude of the MLP,USA.”

These are very grave accusations. Nevertheless, despite the extreme gravity of the charges, your letter does not even provide the slightest shred of evidence to back them up. Your list of so-called “ample additional proof” only demonstrates how totally unsubstantiated and completely groundless your accusations are. It would therefore be quite evident to any fair-minded person that with these accusations you are not the least bit concerned with questions of fact. On the contrary. Your only concern is to sling mud at our Party, to hurl at random the most extreme accusations imaginable. Thus it is clearly not the responsibility of the Central Committee of the MLP,USA to refute accusations of this nature. Of course, we reject these despicable accusations with the contempt that they deserve. But it is our firm opinion that the burden lies entirely with the CC of the RCPB (ML) to explain why it has resorted to such filthy methods. How can the CC of the RCPB (ML) possibly justify utilizing methods which are so completely alien to communist morality? This question is an important issue of principle.

III

In our opinion your vile and totally groundless charges must be seen as part of a definite method for achieving definite objectives. The hostile stand which you have adopted against our Party is not possibly justifiable from the perspective of Marxist principle. Therefore to defend your unprincipled position you are striving to avoid the issues of principle at stake like the plague, including the issues raised in our comradely and constructive letter of March 17. For this reason you have come up with the bogeyman that our letter is “the work of provocateurs” in an effort to poison the atmosphere and drown the issues at stake in a sea of emotionalism.

But in resorting to such unprincipled methods you are only further revealing the totally unprincipled nature of your position. We hold that such despicable methods have absolutely no place in the revolutionary movement. They constitute a gross violation of proletarian morality and of the Marxist- Leninist norms. We cannot but strongly protest the fact that you have resorted to such methods in the relations between our two Parties.

It must be stressed that you have resorted to a method which is filthier and bears more serious repercussions than ordinary mudslinging. You have issued the charge of “provocateurs.” You have done so with the sole objective of realizing the maximum emotional effect. But as you are fully aware this is a most serious and grave charge. The Marxist- Leninist forces must maintain the sharpest vigilance against provocateurs. But precisely for this reason groundless charges are most harmful. To smear innocent comrades or to make loose charges without any substance whatsoever can cause immense damage to the revolution. Therefore the Marxist-Leninists necessarily regard bearing false witness against revolutionary comrades or making frivolous charges of being provocateurs as a serious crime against the revolution. It is in this sober light that the totally groundless accusations made by the CC of the RCPB (ML) must be judged.

It is our view therefore that these accusations should be taken very seriously; that is to say, they should be taken most seriously as a strong condemnation of those who would stoop to such despicable methods. Such methods are not simply heated words made in the course of “hostile polemics.” They are filth. They are gutter politics. Of course it cannot but sadden us that the CC of the RCPB(M-L) has resorted to such disgusting filth. However, it is our opinion that this is only a logical consequence of the unprincipled nature of the split which you have precipitated between our two Parties.

IV

The highly unprincipled nature of this split is further demonstrated by your rejection of all discussions and consultations. From the outset you were not sincere about the proposal for discussions which you made in your letter of January 10, 1980. Thus, despite ample opportunity for these discussions, and despite a later promise by your representative that there was no question of these discussions not taking place, in fact no discussions ever took place because you were opposed to such discussions.

In your January 10 letter you outlined a number of very harsh and unfair criticisms of our Party. You. concluded your letter with a proposal for discussion in order to elaborate and discuss these criticisms. You wrote: “We propose that we elaborate and discuss our views in greater detail and to a greater extent in March when a representative of our Central Committee will be visiting Canada. We would, if it is convenient and appropriate for you, be very happy to visit the United States to hold these discussions around this period.” We readily agreed to this proposal. But when the representatives of our two Parties met in Montreal at the end of March, your delegate took the position that when and where the discussions should take place could only be discussed after you had studied our March 17 letter. In response our delegate pointed out that the letter changed nothing and that the discussions should proceed as planned. In turn your delegate assured us that: “There is absolutely no question of the discussions not taking place.”(see attached appendix)

Nevertheless, these discussions were never held because you boycotted them. This is despite the fact that you proposed these discussions in the first place allegedly for the purpose of further elaborating the criticisms which you had made of our Party. Hence the only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that your proposal for consultation wasn’t genuine. On the contrary, you wanted us to accept your wrong and unfriendly criticisms without any elaboration or discussion whatsoever. Thus your proposal for discussions was made insincerely with the aim of covering up what was in fact a brutal ultimatum against our Party to which you demanded we submit without question.

Presently, with your letter of August 21, you have declared your opposition to all discussion or consultation with our Party. It is our opinion that your rejection of discussions between our two Parties has been very harmful and completely impermissible from the viewpoint of Marxist-Leninist principle. Our two Parties were close fraternal parties for many years. A sharp disagreement emerged between our two Parties at the time of your letter of January 10. From this point it was the duty and responsibility of both Parties to do everything they could to resolve this contradiction through discussions and consultation in order to prevent the possibility of an unprincipled split. This was what was required by the Marxist-Leninist norms. But you displayed not the slightest intention to resolve this contradiction on the Marxist-Leninist road, a contradiction which you had precipitated in the first place. Instead you cast to the winds the mandatory norm of discussion and constructive criticism and self-criticism between parties.

It is precisely because you have grossly violated this norm that you make the false charge that our letter of March 17 allegedly “attacked” the RCPB (ML). This charge, too, is totally unfounded. Here again you are trying to conjure up horror stories with which to incite emotionalism to hide the issues at stake. But facts are stubborn things. That is why you cannot refer to a single word in our letter which “attacked,” “slandered,” or “abused” in any way the RCPB (ML). In fact it would be quite evident to any unbiased reader that our letter was written with lofty proletarian internationalist sentiments toward our close fraternal Party in Britain even though this Party was acting in a hostile manner towards us.

The truth of the matter is that our letter of March 17 was both principled and comradely. Nevertheless you condemn our constructive criticisms as “attacks,” “slander” and “abuse.” Such a stand is totally impermissible in the relations between parties. Marxism-Leninism teaches that without proper consultation and discussion, without defending the Leninist norm of criticism and self-criticism, immense harm is done to the unity of the international Marxist-Leninist movement. Among other things, it means that any talk of equality between the fraternal parties is converted into an empty phrase. In practice it means dividing up the parties between those who make the law and have a monopoly on the theoretical interpretations, and those who are not supposed to have any say whatsoever but are only supposed to obey and approve the dictate of others.

Your August 21 letter has provided a shocking example of such a practice. In your January 10 letter you made very unfair and uncomradely criticisms of the line of our Party, demanding that we “should and must” “correct” these alleged errors. You wrote then that: “It is our duty and it is our right to raise our Central Committee’s views on such questions with our fraternal comrades, especially with those who like COUSML are so close, with whom we have fought shoulder to shoulder to build our respective Marxist-Leninist centers.” Very well. But when we calmly reply in disagreement to your criticisms you all of a sudden become very thin-skinned, forgetting completely the “rights” and “duties” of the fraternal parties which you had spoken about to us before. To be more exact, you begin to shriek bloody murder about “attacks,” “slander” and “abuse.” No, this is not right at all. It means applying a hypocritical double standard in violation of the principle of equality of the Marxist-Leninist parties.

According to the Leninist norms, criticism and self-criticism must be a two-way street. The norms apply equally to all and the principle of reciprocity must be upheld. But the CC of the RCPB (ML) has grossly violated these mandatory norms: refusing to carry through on agreed upon discussions, rejecting altogether discussions and consultation, and condemning our constructive and comradely letter of March 17 as “attacks.” It must therefore be said frankly that in its conduct of relations with our Party the CC of the RCPB (ML) has pushed aside the Marxist-Leninist norms and replaced them with the anti-Marxist-Leninist and splittist methods of hostile ultimatum and arbitrary dictate.

It is the opinion of our Party that today the defense of the Marxist-Leninist norms continues to have a great relevance to the contemporary struggle for the revolution, for the defense of Marxism-Leninism and for the consolidation of the international Marxist-Leninist movement. The vitality of the Marxist- Leninist norms has been powerfully underscored by the historic struggle against modern revisionism. The best testimony of this is the courageous battles waged by the Party of Labor of Albania against the Yugoslav, Soviet and Chinese revisionists and the brilliant works of Comrade Enver Hoxha on the anti-revisionist struggle. The modern revisionist ringleaders have all rejected the Marxist-Leninist norms, including that of consultation and reciprocal criticism and self-criticism between parties. They do so as part of their criminal efforts to impose their revisionist positions onto others. It was the Chinese revisionists and Mao Zedong who provided the most blatant example of this. On the one hand, Mao demanded that the world’s Marxist-Leninists follow every zigzag in his opportunist line. On the other hand, Mao never even deigned to respond at all to the principled and comradely criticisms made by the PLA. Instead Mao rejected them out of hand, branding them as “polemics” and “anti-China attacks.” The Marxist-Leninist parties have been tempered in the fierce battles against modern revisionism and their anti-Marxist and splittist methods. It has been this historic struggle which has brought home to the world’s communists the enormous significance of upholding the Marxist-Leninist norms governing the relations between the fraternal parties.

V

All these facts vividly reveal that in the relations between our two Parties you have been applying anti-Marxist methods of hostile ultimatums and brutal dictate. With these methods you are striving to impose on our Party a “special relationship” completely outside of the Marxist-Leninist norms. These efforts on your part have been necessarily fraught with unprincipled splitting.

Let us briefly review the history of the contradiction between our two Parties.

The January 10, 1980 letter of the CC of the RCPB (ML) addressed to our Central Committee contained within it a hostile ultimatum against our Party. This ultimatum consisted of threatening our Party with the severing of the fraternal relations between our two Parties if we did not accept the criticisms of our Party contained in your January 10 letter. You demanded that our Party “should and must” submit without question to the erroneous positions of the CC of the RCPB (ML) on matters centering on the questions of party-building and the struggle against revisionism and opportunism in the U.S. or else be subjected to bitter hostility. In fact this ultimatum had already been put into effect by the time of the writing of your January 10 letter.

In reply we wrote our comradely and constructive letter of March 17, 1980. Our letter firmly protested the unfriendly ultimatum issued against our Party by the CC of the RCPB (ML). At the same time we seriously and in detail elaborated a preliminary reply to the political and ideological issues raised by your letter of January 10. As we pointed out, all of your wrong criticisms boiled down to one demand: that the MLP,USA tone down or stop altogether one front or another of its vigorous ideological, polemical and all-sided struggle against modern revisionism. Your criticisms were neither based on Marxist-Leninist science nor on any serious consideration of the situation facing the revolutionary movement in the U.S. Rather they were an eclectic string of blatantly self-contradictory and pettifogging quibbles. They were pseudo-arguments for the purpose of putting a good face on an ugly ultimatum against our Party. Nevertheless, despite this character of your criticisms, we considered it to be our duty to write a comradely reply to them. Furthermore, our letter enthusiastically accepted the proposal of the CC of the RCPB (ML) for further discussions as we were convinced that the only correct road on which to resolve the contradiction between our two Parties was through comradely discussion. This was the road mandated by the Marxist-Leninist norms.

After receiving our March 17 letter, instead of repudiating the method of ultimatums against our Party, you only intensified your brutal methods. In fact you responded with your letter of August 21 which was written with the aim of bludgeoning our Party into submission. You call us the most vile names and condemn us with the most extreme accusations. And you do these things simply because we do not agree with you, or more precisely, because the Central Committee of our Party has refused to submit to your arbitrary dictate. In this way you hoped to strike the fear of the Almighty into whosoever might be so insolent as to disobey.

Our Party has not and never will accept such things. Our Party stands steadfast on Marxist-Leninist principle. We do not trifle with the Marxist-Leninist analysis, strategy and tactics of our Party which have been developed systematically over long years of revolutionary work and which have been approved by the Founding Congress of the MLP,USA and before that by the conferences and other collective forms of its predecessors. The leadership of any party which agrees to change its line and analysis according to the arbitrary dictate of others is not a Marxist-Leninist leadership worthy of its name.

Our refusal to accept your hostile ultimatums is not only a principled stand in defense of our Party. It is also a stand in defense of the unity of the international Marxist-Leninist movement. Indeed, for such methods of brutal dictate to become an accepted practice would have the gravest consequences for the unity of the fraternal parties. Through such methods of brutal ultimatums and dictate you are striving to impose a “special relationship” on our Party, a relationship outside of the mandatory norms. Such efforts on your part are necessarily fraught with unprincipled splitting and they can only help create unprincipled divisions in the militant ranks of the international Marxist-Leninist communist movement.

VI

Besides the inherently divisive nature of your attempts to impose a “special relationship” on our Party, other facts bring out still further that the hostile stand which you have taken against the MLP, USA is part of blatantly factional activity of an international character. The CC of the RCPB (ML) so much as spells out this fact in its August 21 letter. You write: “Our Central Committee has ample additional proof” of its vile charges against the MLP, USA, including “other information which our Central Committee has received concerning the stand and attitude of the MLP,USA.” (emphasis added) This statement on your part reveals a great deal about the unprincipled character of the stand which you have taken.

Our two Parties have had close fraternal relations for over a decade. But during the course of the last year you have unilaterally trampled these relations into the mud and have taken a stand of bitter hostility towards our Party. You did this while refusing to so much as sit down and hold even initial discussions with our Party. But that is not all. According to your letter, this stand has been based, at least in part, on “other information which our Central Committee has received concerning” the MLP,USA. Hence while refusing to even meet with us, you are talking with others behind our backs. In brazen violation of the well-known Marxist-Leninist norms you have been freely exchanging “information” with a third party “concerning the stand and attitude of the MLP,USA.” Then you write to us that on the basis of this “other information” you are going to condemn your longstanding fraternal comrades in the U.S. as “provocateurs.” In other words, on the authority of whispered gossip exchanged with a third party, gossip which it doesn’t even dare to put into writing, without so much as a single meeting with our Party, the CC of the RCPB (ML) has unilaterally severed the close fraternal ties built up between our two Parties over more than a decade and has declared war against our Party. That such a thing could ever take place we find appalling. What this clearly demonstrates is the fact that your splittist stand towards our Party is part of blatantly factionalist activity.

This fact explains many other things as well. For example, in Montreal, after your representative had informed our delegate that he had not yet seen our March 17 letter, our comrade presented him with a copy. But twenty minutes had not gone by before our comrade saw our letter addressed to the CC of the RCPB (ML) in the possession of a representative of a third party. Thus, at the very time when you were refusing to discuss with our Party the issues pertaining to our correspondence on the alleged grounds that our letter had to first be studied by yourselves, you were only too ready to share our letter with others.

How can such very wrong things be explained? There is no possible explanation other than the fact that the unprincipled split which you have precipitated between our two Parties is part of international conspiratorial and factionalist activity.

VII

The Central Committee of our Party holds that the unprincipled split precipitated by the CC of the RCPB (ML) between our two Parties is harmful to the cause of Marxism-Leninism and the revolution. The militant unity of the international Marxist-Leninist communist movement is one of the most powerful weapons of the international proletariat. All the work and activity of our Marxist-Leninist parties must be carried out in the spirit of being a fighting contingent of a single international proletarian army. All the Marxist-Leninist parties must work unceasingly to consolidate the unity of the world movement. It is our view that the present situation facing the international Marxist-Leninist movement underscores the imperative nature of making unrelenting steps towards further and closer unity. At the same time the creation of unprincipled splits between the Marxist-Leninist parties can only bring joy to the enemies of our glorious cause.

We believe therefore that the situation between our two Parties should not be left as it is at the present. The CC of our Party is of the opinion that the relations between our two Parties should be reestablished. These longstanding relations served as a source of strength and encouragement for our two Parties. They were part of the militant ties binding together the international Marxist-Leninist movement. The severance of these relations can only benefit our common enemies, while we believe that the reestablishment of relations would serve our common cause. Hence we harbor the trust in the British Marxist-Leninists that you will find the Marxist-Leninist courage and maturity, the revolutionary staunchness, to condemn your letter of August 21, to repudiate your hostile stand against our Party, and to return to a principled stand in favor of unity between our two Parties.

The relations between our two Parties must be firmly based on principle. We do not favor unity for unity’s sake, but unity based on principle. Therefore the relations between our two Parties must be governed by the principles of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism. We have always been and we continue to be in favor of discussions between our two Parties. However, for these discussions to be fruitful it is necessary for them to be held on the Marxist-Leninist basis which includes that these discussions be held on the basis of equality.

As Comrade Enver Hoxha has pointed out: “...any discussion or meeting between two parties, whichever they may be, should be held on an equal footing, on the basis of consultations and mutual respect, avoiding any manifestation of imposing the will of one side upon the other side, etc.” (Through the Pages of Volume XIX of the Works of Comrade Enver Hoxha, pp. 269-70)

At the present time, under conditions when you are in a declared position of hostility against our Party, the relations cannot be considered equal. Therefore certain preparations are needed to ensure a fruitful meeting on the basis of equality. In order to take the first steps towards restoring relations between our two Parties and creating the proper conditions for a meeting of representatives of our two Parties, the Central Committee of our Party proposes the following:

1) The Central Committee of the RCPB (ML) should repudiate the vile and groundless charges against the MLP,USA contained in its letter of August 21,1980.

2) The Central Committee of the RCPB (ML)should do the proper self-criticism for resorting to such unconscionable methods in dealing with the relations between our two Parties.

3) The Central Committee of the RCPB (ML) should repudiate its efforts to impose its will and dictate on our Party through methods of brutal ultimatums.

4) At a certain point both of our two Parties should reestablish a policy of public support for each other in the press. Such mutual support would remove the contradiction between our two Parties from the eyes and ears of our common enemies and help create conditions for resolving the differences between us on the Marxist-Leninist road.

Of course, the path of reestablishing relations does not require either Party to back down on any ideological or political differences which may exist. Such differences can be dealt with properly only through Marxist-Leninist consultation. We hope that the CC of the RCPB (ML) will respond favorably to this proposal.

* * * *

This brings us to the conclusion of our letter. We trust that the CC of the RCPB (ML) will consider what we have raised carefully. We sincerely hope that you will return to the path of principled solidarity with our Party in our common struggle for the triumph of Marxism-Leninism and the revolution.

Communist regards,

Joseph Green,

for the Central Committee Marxist-Leninist Party, USA

Appendix

In your letter of August 21 you refer to something which you describe as: “the treatment meted out by the representative of the MLP,USA to a leading comrade of our Party in Montreal during the Internationalist Rally in March, 1980.” We would very much like to ask the CC of the RCPB (ML) just what possibly it could be referring to with this term “treatment meted out”? Of this you do not and cannot say a word for the simple reason that it is a completely groundless and absurd charge. Nevertheless, seeing as you have raised this question, we are including a record of what actually took place in Montreal. For this purpose we have reproduced the following account provided by the report of our delegation.

On the occasion of the Internationalist Rally in March, 1980, representatives of our two Parties had three very brief encounters:

a) The first short meeting took place during a break in the proceedings of the Rally on March 30. The discussion went as follows:

Our delegate: Remarks that it is an enthusiastic program.

Your delegate: Asks how our delegate has been.

Our delegate: Asks as to whether your delegate had received our letter of March 17.

Your delegate: Indicates that he does not know of our letter.

Our delegate: Explains that we sent a reply. The first point is to accept the proposal for discussion. I am authorized to make arrangements for your visit to the U.S. Also, we have with us a copy of the letter. We can arrange to get together and we can make arrangements for your visit and also give you a copy of the reply.

(Subsequently our delegate provided your delegate with both a copy of our March 17 letter and the hotel telephone number of our delegation. Our delegate asked your delegate to call the next day at the hotel where our delegation could be reached. Some twenty minutes later our delegate saw our March 17 letter in the possession of a representative of a third party.)

b) The next meeting was at the Montreal train station the following day where your delegate approached our delegate at the ticket line.

Your delegate: Explains that he was about to ring our delegation at the hotel. He says that now that our letter has been received the leadership of the RCPB (ML) will want to study it before discussion. Your delegate asks if there is an address at which to write us.

Our delegate: The best thing will be to make actual arrangements. How long will you be here?

Your delegate: Doesn’t know. But that they, the leadership of the RCPB (ML), will want to study the letter before discussing where and when to meet.

Our delegate: The position of our Central Committee is that the letter changes nothing. You have proposed discussion. We have accepted..It should take place. If there had been no reply, there would be no issue of the discussion not going ahead. It should go ahead in any event.

Your delegate: There is absolutely no question of the discussion not taking place. But now that we have received your reply we want to study it before discussing when and where it should take place.

(At this point your delegate indicated that he must board the train. Our delegate provided him with a telephone number for contact in the U.S.)

Our delegate: I will report that you have said there is absolutely no question of the discussion not taking place, but at some later time after study of the letter; while I have pointed out that the position of our Party is unchanged and have provided you with the telephone number.

Your delegate: Agrees to this.

c) The third and last encounter took place upon arrival at the Union Station in Toronto. The delegates of our two Parties shook hands good-bye.

Our delegate: Our Central Committee will look forward to hearing from you during your present visit in North America.

While very brief, these three short discussions between our delegates were held in a comradely and proper manner.

Back to High Tide: The Consolidation of UK Maoism by the Late 1970’s – Index Page | Back to the EROL homepage