The Workers' Advocate

Marxist-Leninist parties from around the world condemn both sides in the Falklands war..........	3
Why does the RCP of Britain (ML) reject the slogan "The Main Enemy Is at Home"?...............	10
On the history of the nationalist deviations of the RCP of Britain (ML):
The struggle against the theory of "three worlds" must not be forgotten......................................	26
The "three worldist" deviation of the CP of Canada (M-L) and the military adventureof the Argentine generals................................................................................................................	32
Once again on Canadian imperialism and the Maoist deviation of the leadershipof the CP of Canada (M-L).............................................................................................................	37
Reference material on CPC (M-L)'s nationalist strategy (1969-1982)..........................................	56
Introducing the correspondence between the MLP,USA and the RCP of Britain (ML)................	67
Letter from the CC of the RCPB (ML) to the CC of the COUSML, January 10,1980.................	85
Letter from the NEC of the MLP,USA to the CC of the RCPB (ML), March 17,1980.................	88
Letter from the CC of the RCPB (ML) to the CC of the MLP,USA, August 21,1980..................	112
Letter from the CC of the MLP,USA to the CC of the RCPB (ML), February 5,1981..................	113

[Back to Top]

Marxist-Leninist parties from around the world condemn both sides in the Falklands war

Workers Communist Party of France: CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE WAR FOR THE MALVINAS

(The following article is excerpted from La Forge, Central Organ of the Workers ' Communist Party of France, July 1-15, 1982. Translation by The Workers' Advocate staff)

The problem of the Malvinas, the conditions of the launching of the war, its development and its unraveling must draw our attention and enrich our experience....

Therefore it is indispensable in each conflict that breaks out here and there, to determine where is the camp of the peoples, of the struggle against imperialism and for the revolution, and where is the camp of imperialism; to distinguish between just wars of liberation (as, for example, that one in which the people of El Salvador face the united forces of internal reaction and American imperialism) and the unjust wars which break out on the backs of the peoples and against them. The war for the Malvinas is an example of this category of unjust war. To be confident of this, it is necessary to understand that imperialism and social-imperialism can utilize and divert the just aspirations of the peoples for independence in order to put them in the service of their dealings in all fields, economic, political and military. We have numerous examples of this. For example the French bourgeoisie and the left administrators of its interests (the Socialist Party and the Communist Party of France) never cease utilizing the reality of American dictate over our country in order to divert the discontent of the working people in the face of the policy of austerity which is imposed on them today. They attempt to divert the workers from the class struggle in the name of the national interest and by means of demagogical and chauvinist propaganda.

This is the same policy which led to the launching of the war for the Malvinas by the fascist military junta of Argentina, an instrument of the domination of American imperialism in the country.

Independently of the fact that the Malvinas are Argentinian and that British imperialism has occupied them illegally for decades, the war adventure of the Argentine generals had as its objective diverting the revolt of the people against the regime of terror which is imposed on them. At the same time the dark intentions of American imperialism and also of Soviet social-imperialism (which maintains close commercial ties with Argentina and has always taken good care not to criticize the lack of democracy there) stood out. What is at stake is the control of the strategic zone and the wealth of raw materials of the South Atlantic.

The problem for American imperialism is that the British government, its very close ally and partner in NATO, did not see things in that light. Thatcher set in motion its navy and the whole continuous arsenal of chauvinism from the political parties of the right and the left. The USA was compelled in such a case to choose between its ally and its servant. British intransigence and also the obvious inability of the Argentine military junta to mobilize the Argentine people in a "national jump" very quickly determined its choice. It renounced the junta with the vengeance of the "Iron Lady." At the beginning the leaders of the Argentine left tried hard to draw the Argentine people into the adventure, but they retorted that if "the Malvinas are Argentinian, the missing are also," just as the "angry women of May,'' the mothers, wives and sisters of thousands of the missing in the fascist prisons, declared. At the time of the British army's assault on Port Stanley, the fascist generals found themselves quite alone, abandoned by their American protector and their Western friends and by the bourgeois and fascist cliques of Latin America, those closely tied to them a moment ago. The USSR was prudently content with a few protests. The fascist generals deserted, leaving in the field the unfortunate Argentine soldiers enlisted by force in the name of the struggle against English colonialism. Now that the war is finished the Argentine people continue to come out into the street in order to demand bread, peace and liberty and not to demand the pursuit of the war for the Malvinas. Forthe people who want independence are not indifferent to the form of government; they want democracy and no fascist government can launch a progressive national war. Such is the lesson to draw from the war for the Malvinas and from all the experience accumulated by the peoples in the struggle against fascism and imperialism. At the same time, the war for the Malvinas must be the reason for the peoples to sharpen their vigilance because imperialism, social-imperialism and world reaction are hatching secret plots behind their backs. The weapon of bourgeois nationalism, of chauvinism, will be more and more utilized and on a great scale by the enemies of the peoples as a means to divert their struggles. Here also, historical experience must be a lesson for us. At the same time that it is necessary to foster a healthy and progressive patriotic spirit in the people, it is necessary for us to teach them not to be deceived by the slogans on "the national interest," "national unity" or the so- called sacred defense of the imperialist fatherland, propagated by the bourgeoisie and all the reactionaries. Imperialism will employ every means to obscure the consciousness of the peoples in order to lead them deluded into war of imperialist redivision. Some will flaunt "democracy," the supposed defense of the "free world," others an "independence" gained or defended by the fascists who exterminate the sons of the people in their jails.

Be vigilant. Resolutely fight the poison of chauvinism and understand well that democracy and independence are indissolubly linked and that the people need both in order to become a free people, and master of their destiny.

[Back to Top]

Communist Party of Germany:

IS ARGENTINA CONDUCTING A JUST WAR?

(The following article is excerpted from Roter Morgen, Central Organ of the Communist Party of Germany, May 7, 1982. Translation by The Workers' Advocate staff.)

Our reader K.K. from Reutlingen has severely criticized the Roter Morgen article on the war over the Malvinas (Falkland Islands). Below we publish some excerpts from his letter in which the main critical points are set forth.... [The reader explains his support for the Argentine junta in the war -- WA.)

The essential question brought up by K.K. in his letter is that concerning a possibly just (as he thinks: Argentine) side in the present war. We are definitely of the opinion that, in this case, no such "just side" exists. Moreover, what answer is there to the position of the exiled Argentine democrats who, in a declaration, to be sure confirmed the historic demand of their country for the Malvinas, but at the same time condemned the "adventurous and irresponsible" military action of the junta.

Such a position only apparently contains a contradiction. For if one investigates concretely the present conflict, one can only conclude that the occupation of the Malvinas does not lie "in the interest of the sovereignty of the Argentine people" (as K.K. says). In our opinion it is important to take into consideration that military action is always the continuation of politics by other means; hence, in the first place the politics which has produced such action must be investigated.

Then does the junta represent the national interests of the people? The opposite is the case: Argentina's sovereignty and independence are really not threatened by a few islands in the South Atlantic remaining under British colonial domination. Its independence is much more threatened -- and in fact liquidated -- by the fact that Argentina itself is nothing but a neo-colony of the strongest imperialist powers, and in the first place of the USA. These imperialist powers control the greater part of the economy; they have brought Argentina, through their credits, into additional dependence, etc.

Every real struggle for sovereignty, for the national interest of the people, must therefore have as its goal to break the chains of imperialist plunder of the country. Has the fascist junta conducted anything like such a struggle? No -- it has bloodily suppressed such struggle in Argentina, wherever it flared up.

But perhaps some shifting of positions inside the junta has produced more of a correct politics, more to the benefit of the national interest? Let us just look at the most recent changes in the military regime. In December of last year Lieutenant- General Galtieri -- the present "hero" of the Malvinas War -- loosened up his previous position as chief of the junta. This was tied to a certain change in the regime. The new foreign minister was Costa Mendez -- an old confidant of American imperialism. Galtieri entrusted the "reorganization" of the economy to a man who had always been the candidate of the American monopolies for this department: Roberto Aleman.

And shortly thereafter it was clarified that this "reorganization concept" consisted of measures to demolish any remaining barriers for the further penetration of foreign (and in the first place American) capital. Such measures included lowering the customs barriers, freeing up the rates, of exchange, and restoring the previously nationalized enterprises to private ownership. The results of this program are now already evident: it is driving the ordinarily weak national economy into conclusive ruin, and is securing (at the Argentinians' expense) the positions of the imperialist monopolies. (The domestic bourgeoisie has also complained about this program that threatens to make Argentina a "second Chile.")

So this is the real, straight-up politics of the present Galtieri junta: not defense of the national interest, but just the opposite -- wholesale sellout of the country to imperialism. And only in the context of these politics can the Malvinas adventure be correctly understood. For it is completely obvious that, should a "united front" be built around this adventure, the junta would try to use this to unite the entire people behind itself. Certainly the junta has been able, with this adventure, to mobilize some legitimate national feelings. But it has still not -- and this is decisive -- mobilized the people for a correct and necessary anti-imperialist struggle, but in fact is mobilizing to prop up the imperialists with through and through pro-imperialist politics.

These connections are disregarded, not only by our reader K.K., but evidently also by a large segment of the Argentine opposition. But to disregard these connections is to condemn the struggle of the people for independence to disaster. In Roter Morgen it has already been shown that the occupation of the Malvinas followed right after an intensification of the growing class struggle in Argentina. In fact the Aleman Program had devastating results above all for the workers: for example, a drastic increase in unemployment as a result of the disorder of the domestic economy; and increased pauperization through a decreed freeze on wages combined with a world record inflation rate of 146%.

These factors were decisive for the working class and other sections of the people, for the first time in years, to once again take the road of mass actions against the junta. The bourgeois observers themselves were indicating, before the Falklands War, that the positions of the junta had become difficult. And along with that the imperialist domination over Argentina was endangered. And contrariwise: if the regime can now, with the Malvinas adventure, find some breathing space, then that is at the same time a relief for imperialism from the growing struggle and driving pressure of the people against it.

Hence the military action of the junta is set directly against the real interests of the Argentine people, and therefore it is necessary to condemn this action. That does not exclude -- as we have said -- our recognizing, on the one hand, the historic right of Argentina to the Malvinas; and on the other hand, in our propaganda directing the main blow against the militarist politics of British imperialism -- and here in the first place we struggle against any support for these politics by the Bonn government (boycott measures against Argentina, etc.).

[Back to Top]

Communist Party of Japan (Left):

EXPOSE THE REACTIONARY POLITICAL PURPOSES BEHIND THE FALKLANDS CONFLICT!

(The following article is excerpted from The People's Star, international bulletin of the Communist Party of Japan (Left), June 1, 1982.)

The Falklands conflict has escalated from the air and sea fighting into a close ground battle with the landing operations on West Falkland Island enforced by the British troops. Both Thatcher and Galtieri are endeavoring to stir up national chauvinism and to mobilize the British and Argentine proletariat into a reactionary war to kill each other.

The Thatcher administration has stubbornly pursued the hard line on the dispute by dispatching the British task force, imposing total blockade on the Falkland Islands and then starting the disembarkation of troops. This comes from its deep critical concern that Great Britain may be degraded to the Status of a second-rate political power if it takes an irresolute attitude of tolerating as a matter of fact the Argentine military occupation of the islands, which brought the political prestige of British imperialism down to the ground. It is directly connected with the sense of alarm that this event may lead to a complete collapse of British Empire's legacy including its Commonwealth and concessions in the Middle East, Africa and other areas. At the same time, the Thatcher administration is exploiting the Falklands dispute to whip up "patriotism" and escape from the political crisis that has been deepening in the country.

The Reagan administration came out open in political and military support of British imperialism, and so did other imperialist powers of the West....

For the Galtieri junta, on the other hand, the armed occupation of the Falkland Islands was aimed to distract the attention of Argentine workers and people from the profound political and economic crisis at home and to alleviate the ever-sharpening class antagonisms through bourgeois nationalism and chauvinism which it inspires, using the historical fact that the islands were annexed into British territory 133 years ago. The Argentine regime utilized it for the sake of "national unity" even when the battle expanded with the deployment of British naval forces. Galtieri has accused the British of being "colonialists," yet without fingering the neocolonialist aggression and rule in Argentina by the Western imperialists headed by the U.S. On the contrary, he has intended to quell the anti-imperialist and anti-junta struggle of Argentine workers and people who are revolting to this colonial state.

The Argentine proletariat cannot be in the least for, but right against, in [its own] class interests, the "anti-colonialist struggle" appealed by the Galtieri military regime. Also, the British proletariat cannot be at all for, but right against, in [its own] class interests, the "battle to defend democracy from invaders" called by the Thatcher administration.

The only action for the Argentine and British proletariat to take is exposing the reactionary political purposes of ruling classes of their countries and stimulating the revolutionary struggles to overthrow them by taking advantage of the political and economic crisis which the Falklands conflict has given rise to. Making common cause frontally against the imperialists and reactionary ruling forces will enable the proletariat of both countries to smash the attempts at killing each other's class brothers.

(The following is excerpted from the article entitled "New Phase in the Falklands Conflict and the Shrewd Maneuvering of Japanese Imperialism which was published in The People's Star, international bulletin of the Communist Party of Japan (Left), July 1, 1982)

Likewise, we must expose the particularly shrewd attitude of Japanese imperialism toward the war.

It was only the Japanese government, among major Western imperialist powers, that joined the Soviet Union and China in voting for a resolution of the U.N. Security Council calling for an immediate cease-fire of the Falklands dispute, while Britain and the U.S. used vetoes and France abstained from voting.

Since the occupation of the Falkland Islands by Argentine forces,, the Japanese imperialist bourgeoisie has conducted a press campaign sympathetic in general to the Argentines, except being critical of the act of "military occupation." On the other side, it even ridiculed Britain's recapturing operations with a big fleet dispatch, calling this a reminder of the "nineteenth-century" gunboat policy. The Japanese government also indirectly declined to take economic sanctions against Argentina at the request of Thatcher administration. The aim of Japanese imperialism in doing all that is to embellish the neocolonialist aggression it is actually carrying out under the label of a "peace-loving nation," "economic cooperation" or "coexistence and coprosperity," while accusing the method of old-fashioned colonialism followed by British imperialism. It is obvious, therefore, that the response of Japanese imperialism to any war or conflict which breaks out in various parts of the world reflects keenly its own involvement in imperialist interests.

[Back to Top]

Communist Party of New Zealand:

STOP THE WARMONGERS!

(The following article is excerpted from People's Voice, newspaper of the Communist Party of New Zealand, May 10, 1982.)

The conflict between Britain and Argentina over the Falkland Islands is the inevitable result of the fierce competition that exists within the system of imperialism. It is an imperialist war which will result in greater restrictions and hardship for the working class of Britain and Argentina....

Typical of any imperialist war is the fanning of jingoistic patriotism. A deliberate campaign is being conducted in order to dupe the working people into making economic and human sacrifices for their exploiters (this is happening in New Zealand too!).

The capitalist politicians of all parties, in Britain and New Zealand, have lined up in favor of war, and Muldoon has already pronounced his willingness to commit New Zealand troops to the Falklands....

The great Russian revolutionary Lenin wrote, at the time of World War I, that war is a continuation of politics by other means, and that to determine the nature of a war it is necessary to examine the politics, the class interests, that give rise to it. In the case of the Falklands it is imperialist politics which has led to war....

Such a war is not in the interests of the working people!

British sovereignty over the Falklands is a relic of British colonialism which they do not want to give away. The Falklands were forcibly taken from Argentina by the British colonialists in 1833. But now that empire has crumbled, and the fascist regime in Argentina has pounced on some of its bones.

This conflict is being "settled" in the only way imperialism knows -- by spilling the blood of the sons and daughters of the working people in an imperialist war. And while the arms monopolies are raking in the profits, the working class will be coerced into carrying the cost. Apart from the casualties in deaths, there are other casualties in imperialist war. These are the truth and the rights and interests of the mass of the people. Such a war can only result in greater exploitation and oppression....

There is only one course for the working people of the world. That is to build the struggle against their own exploiting classes, and world imperialism -- to throw the exploiters off their backs and build socialism. Only then can the question of correcting territorial claims and borders left behind by colonialism and imperialism be settled amicably between socialist states -- to the benefit of the working people.

War will then be abolished because the system which gives rise to it will have been abolished.

[Back to Top]

Communist Party (Reconstructed) of Portugal:

FASCISTS ARE OF NO USE IN DEFEATING COLONIALISM

(The following article is reprinted from Bandeira Vermelha, central organ of the Communist Party of Portugal (Reconstructed), June 17, 1982. Translation by The Workers' Advocate staff)

The occupation of the Malvinas islands by the Argentine military and the subsequent British invasion brought about the war in the South Atlantic, with its inevitable procession of dead and wounded, astronomical expenditures for armaments, and increased suffering for the Argentine and English peoples.

This conflict is followed attentively by the world's peoples who expect the communists to take a clear stand about the questions in dispute and about the perspectives for the resolution of the problem.

Today, when the Argentine losses in men and military material are increasing, when the British are at the point of retaking the capital, Port Stanley, the question is posed whether the communists should support one of the sides in the conflict, even if this would be a "critical support," similar to the support of the pro-Soviet revisionists. In fact, after the support of the USSR, the scribblers writing in the Cunhalist Diario (newspaper of the pro-Soviet revisionists -- WA) and in Diario de Lisbon have multiplied their efforts in defense of Argentina which, although it is a dictatorship, would be conducting a "just war."

This position has nothing in common with the true interests of the proletariat and people of Argentina and, because of this, it can not be supported by the genuine communists. The military occupation of the Malvinas, which was decided on and carried out by the fascist military junta that oppresses Argentina, is based on the irrefutable fact that Great Britain is a colonial power which was in the islands illegally and that these islands must be delivered to Argentine sovereignty. But that fact can not cleanse the Argentine generals of the despicable crimes that they have committed against their own people.

A war is just when it is in the interests of the social liberation of a people or peoples, when it weakens imperialism and reaction, and advances the cause of the revolution and socialism. The war for the Malvinas serves neither of these objectives.

The war was utilized by the fascist junta of Buenos Aires as an internal and external propaganda action, designed to unite the people in its vise, making them forget the thousands of dead and imprisoned, the 30,000 missing people, the millions of exiles and unemployed produced by the odious military regime of Videla/Galtieri.

The communists, in directing the fire of their attacks against imperialism and British bellicosity, similarly do not stop denouncing the true intentions and objectives of the Argentine fascist military, now also responsible for thousands of dead youths in defense of the Malvinas and for the tragic economic and social consequences which this war will cause for the already tormented Argentine people. But it will be precisely this people that will one day put an end to the military regime and then have the power to simultaneously, freely and consequently, to resolve the national problem and all the other problems which affect their country.

[Back to Top]

Communist Party of Spain (Marxist-Leninist):

THE MALVINAS WAR: IMPERIALISM AND FASCISM ARE TO BLAME

(The following article is excerpted from Vanguardia Obrera, organ of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Spain (Marxist-Leninist), May 27-June 9, 1982.)

The military escalation in the Malvinas between British imperialism and the Argentine fascist dictatorship is continuing. After several weeks of preparation, the English troops have now disembarked on the Islands. And the list of losses, destruction and deaths has begun to get longer. But this is not important to the reactionary rulers of England and Argentina who are preparing to throw new forces and more men into the battle. The slaughter of soldiers and the melting away of millions of pounds and pesos that the destructions of war presuppose, is something that has very little importance in the eyes and minds of these imperialist petty politicians and fascist military men who are waging the war from their comfortable offices. They are not the ones paying the consequences. Those who are dying in the Malvinas are the soldiers, the youth sent there by these rulers. Those who are tightening their belts and who are going to have to make the most economic sacrifices because of the war are the workers and the people of the two countries, but not the respective ruling classes. Imperialist and fascism are to blame.

What importance do the Malvinas have? Apparently a lot for British imperialism and the Argentine fascist dictatorship. More than 50% of the Islands belong to a single British development company; in the waters that surround them, oil-bearing deposits were discovered a little while ago; and they have always been rich in fish. Furthermore, these islands have taken on great strategic value lately in the military plans of the two superpowers and their lackeys (among whom are found the rulers of England and Argentina).

On the other hand, for the people of these two countries the domination of the Malvinas is not going to change anything, nor is it going to mean any advantage for them. Nevertheless, it is their blood that is being spilled for the benefit of the interests of the classes that oppress them. Imperialism and fascism are to blame.

In fact, the Argentine military dictatorship of General Galtieri finds itself besieged on all sides. The economy is bankrupt; the external debt already exceeds 35,000 million dollars; industrial production has plummeted; unemployment surpasses 13%; and inflation is the highest in the world -- 150% in 1981. At the same time, in spite of terrible repression under the military fist (some 30,000 "disappeared persons" since 1977 and some 4,000 political prisoners), opposition to the regime was raising its head and organizing demonstrations against the dictatorship, like the one carried out at the end of March which ended with more than 2,000 arrests. The military men in power, in order to divert attention and patch up their forces, decided to occupy the Islands militarily in a clear attempt to foster in their favor the nationalism and chauvinism that this measure was going to provoke; at the same time they were using the people's anti-imperialism to mend the social base of the regime. Therefore the Argentine occupation of the Malvinas April 2 (there is no doubt that the Malvinas belong to Argentina) has, nevertheless, a twisted, anti-popular and reactionary purpose....

The Argentine people as well as the English and other peoples should draw lessons and come to conclusions from this war. Wars of this type solely benefit the ruling classes. Therefore the people must be against this type of war. But not only this. It is necessary to declare war on imperialist war and to get mobilized and fight against the imperialist rulers and fascists who want to use the peoples to serve their own interests. Only in this way will the peoples be able to put an end to wars of the Malvinas type.

[Back to Top]

Partido Bandera Roja, Venezuela:

THE MALVINAS -- ONLY THE ARGENTINE PROLETARIAT CAN SECURE ITS FREEDOM

(The following article is reprinted from the April 14 edition of the Venezuelan newspaper Que Hacer?, newspaper of the Committee for Popular Struggle. This article can be taken to reflect the thinking of the Venezuelan Marxist-Leninists organized in the Partido Bandera Roja. Translation by The Workers' Advocate staff.)

For the Marxist-Leninists, the Argentine invasion of the Malvinas Islands signifies a political event which ends up strengthening the fascist dictatorship which has in its possession more than 30,000 detained and disappeared Argentines.

Although the British, in an act of open colonialist aggression, deprived Argentina of these islands in 1833, and even though the recovery of the Malvinas is a demand of the Argentine people, one cannot forget and much less avoid the reasons for which today the Argentine government undertook this action, an action which is considered by many to be patriotic and nationalist.

Argentina is passing through a difficult economic, political and social situation that makes a generalized malaise evident. On more than one occasion, the government has tried eradicating this by changing hats.

When Galtieri assumed the leadership of the government, his social base of support was rather limited. It rested upon repression, terror and the continuation of an anti-popular policy which keeps all the public freedoms suspended and prohibits and outlaws political parties. The trade union movement as well as any sort of trade union type of organization is regulated and persecuted. The economic inheritance of the country is handed over by handfuls and on a silver platter to the multinational companies. The external debt comes to more than 35 billion dollars. The development of its external policy is marked by interventionism and complicity with the rest of the dictatorships and fascist genocidal governments of Latin America and the world. The basis of support of this regime, that seeks to appear as the most patriotic and nationalistic in the Americas, is crime, torture and persecution of whoever struggles, in one form or another, to establish a different social order.

The factors displayed here are the "weighty" reasons for carrying out this "patriotic" action. This has not only succeeded in reestablishing in great measure the confidence of the people in this nationalist-disguised dictatorship but also has permitted other figureheads, just like Galtieri, Videla or Pinochet, to incite warmongering and patriotism, calling for "Latin American unity against the English" or that "the Venezuelans ought, with respect to Guyana, to follow the example of Argentina," as Caldera declared in recent statements to the press of the capital city.

The same people who in Argentina and Venezuela till their mouths exalting nationalism and national sovereignty are the very ones who have imposed conditions upon our rights, our natural riches and our nation to the benefit of the interests of the internal and external capitalists. They are the ones, in power or around it, who have made themselves accomplices and producers of the poverty, exploitation and oppression in which the American peoples are kept today. So too are they the ones who applauded the massacres of the Salvadorian people.

We don't doubt that the Argentine people will very soon understand that once more they were deceived and used to safeguard the darkest interests of reaction in that country. It will not take much time for the nationalist powder keg to begin to pass and for the Argentine people to realize that, far from the recovery of the Malvinas being a victory and act of popular sovereignty, this action at this time only favors the ruling castes and that the true recovery of the Malvinas will come about through the destruction of the fascist dictatorship and the establishment of the power of the proletariat that ensures the right of the people to their self-determination and the complete exercise of their liberties.

[Back to Top]

Why Does the RCP of Britain (ML) Reject the Slogan 'The Main Enemy Is at Home'?

"The Main Enemy Is at Home" -- A Fundamental Concept of Marxism-Leninism and Revolution...........................................................................	11
If Not "at Home," Where Then Is "the Main Enemy" of the British Workers?.........	12
The Principle of Working for Defeat for One's "Own" Government in a Reactionary War.........................................................................................................	13
The Leninist Thesis of Linking the Struggle Against Imperialist War With the Socialist Revolution...................................................................................................	14
The Fallacy of Opposing Imperialist War From the Standpoint of the "National Interests"....................................................................................................................	16
"National" Tactics Blunt the Fight Against the British Imperialist Aggressors.........	18
Bending Before the Tempest of Bourgeois Nationalism............................................	18
Renouncing Revolutionary Tactics Before the Specter of Bourgeois Reaction.........	19
Liberal Arguments Against Revolutionary Tactics....................................................	20
Either the Principles of Marxism-Leninism or the Opportunism of Maoist "Three Worlds-ism"...............................................................................................................	21

The war over the Falkland Islands will go down in history as a senseless slaughter to serve the reactionary aims of both the warmongering British imperialists and the Argentine military dictators. Nevertheless this capitalist bloodletting has provided valuable lessons. Among other things, the Falklands crisis served as a litmus test for the Marxist-Leninist and revolutionary forces: Do our tactics and agitation stand up to the required Marxist-Leninist level? Do they stand up to the level required for the coming much greater storms of war and revolution? Or are there serious shortcomings which must still be overcome?

This test was most severe for the revolutionaries in the two belligerent countries where the bourgeois pressure was greatest and where the responsibility was greatest for taking a revolutionary Marxist stand. But unfortunately, in the case of the Marxist- Leninist party in Britain, the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist), the Falklands crisis brought out in striking relief major weaknesses.

We believe that these weaknesses are not just of importance to the Party and the working class of Britain, but that they are weaknesses which center on fundamental questions of general concern to all of the Marxist-Leninist communists. We are writing this article guided by the Marxist-Leninist spirit that shortcomings cannot be overcome by shuffling them under the rug and pretending to the world that all is fine and dandy. At the same time, by addressing these problems squarely, we are confident that this will serve to overcome weaknesses and to further temper the militant unity of the international Marxist-Leninist communist movement on the foundations of revolutionary Marxism-Leninism.

The June 5 issue of The Workers' Advocate carried an article entitled "The Falkland Islands, Social-Democracy, and Fighting One's 'Own' Bourgeoisie." Without naming the RCPB (ML) or its newspaper Workers' Weekly, referring only to the agitation of "a political newspaper in Britain," this article raised some of our concerns about the agitation on the Falklands war. While pointing out that the authors had appropriately denounced the chauvinism and aggression of British imperialism, we also pointed out there was a fly in the ointment. This mistake was to raise the strange issue that in the British imperialist aggression in the Falklands a major factor was the alleged betrayal of the "national interests" on the part of British imperialism. We showed how this mistake had "led the authors to tone down, to take the edge off of their own repeated condemnations of aggressive British imperialism." And we raised our concern that this error carried with it the danger "of blunting the razor sharp exposure of one's 'own' imperialist ruling class and obscuring the idea of the class struggle with that of a struggle for national interests."

Unfortunately our worst fears were confirmed; the agitation of the RCPB (ML) fell into major errors of principle in its stand towards the British imperialist government. Other mistakes of principle were made as well such as coming out foursquare in support of the Argentine junta (see article on page 26). But our primary objective in this article is to examine the serious shortcomings in the stand towards its "own" British imperialist ruling class.

An examination of the Workers' Weekly over the course of the Falklands war reveals a failure to take a militant proletarian revolutionary stand against British imperialism and the Thatcher government's criminal aggression. On the contrary, the agitation in the Workers' Weekly was marred by the influence of the bourgeois pacifism and social-democracy of the "left" wing of the British Labor Party. Moreover, it trimmed its sails before the imperialist tempest of national chauvinism, adapting itself to petty- bourgeois nationalism.

These serious weaknesses in the agitation of the Workers' Weekly are completely incompatible with the proletarian spirit of class struggle, the spirit of implacable hostility towards one's "own" bourgeoisie. But what is equally striking is the theoretical argumentation that has been given to defend these weaknesses. No attempt has been made to show how Marxism-Leninism justifies such erroneous stands. On the contrary, reflecting a liquidationist spirit, the arguments flaunted their disregard for well-known Marxist-Leninist principles. Without unbending loyalty to the fundamental teachings of Marxism-Leninism, it is impossible to maintain a firm class line and to wage a consistent revolutionary struggle against reactionary war. Nevertheless, the Workers' Weekly produced arguments which, in a most cavalier manner, cast to the winds the basic premises of Marxism-Leninism on the questions of war and revolution.

The shortcomings which we have described run through all of the agitation of the RCPB (ML) on the Falklands war. The arguments to justify these weaknesses are brought together in a major four-part series entitled "The Events in the Falkland Islands: A Matter of Grave Concern for the British Working Class and People." The Workers' Weekly explains that it is the fourth and last installment, carried in its May 29 issue, that presents the "tasks of the revolutionary and patriotic forces in opposing the reactionary policies of the British imperialists...." (See excerpts on page 23)

The starting point of this installment is a polemic against the " 'left' opportunists." Workers' Weekly makes an impassioned appeal for "Great Vigilance Against the Dangerous Activities of the 'Left' "; but for some unexplained reason it doesn't bother to say who these "leftists" might be. This major article is devoted to refuting "their semi-anarchist, semi-terrorist positions"; but for some queer reason no indication is given as to what ideological or political trend these " 'left' opportunists" may belong -- Trotskyism, Maoism, Castroism or whatever. How it is that the workers are supposed to maintain "great vigilance" without being informed against whom and what this vigilance is necessary is a mystery to us. But what concerns us here is the arguments which Workers' Weekly attempts to wield against the so-called "dangerous activities of the 'left' '' because these arguments are dangerously rightist. They are pacifist, liberal, and petty-bourgeois nationalist arguments; they are arguments directed against the left without quotation marks, directed against the fundamental principles of Marxism-Leninism in regard to war and revolution.

"The Main Enemy Is at Home" -- A Fundamental Concept of Marxism-Leninism and Revolution

Workers' Weekly introduces its polemic with a bitter condemnation of the slogan "The Main Enemy Is at Home." It brands it as a typical example of the "sectarian slogans and policies" of the " 'left' opportunists.'' ( Workers' Weekly, May 29. 1982) To us, how this slogan can be ridiculed as a "left" or "sectarian" slogan or policy is simply beyond comprehension.

Isn't the idea expressed in this slogan a cornerstone of the doctrine of Marxism? Wasn't this same idea proclaimed by Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto when they set forth that "the proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie"? (Foreign Languages Press edition, Peking, p. 45)

Moreover, is there a single lesson from V.I. Lenin's struggle against the social-chauvinists during the inter-imperialist First World War that is more fundamental than the principle that under conditions of a reactionary war between governments the primary duty of the proletarian revolutionary is to explain to the workers that his "main enemy is at home" -- his "own" capitalist ruling class? Didn't the German revolutionary Marxists that rejected "defense of the fatherland" in an imperialist war hold aloft the slogan "Our Main Enemy Is at Home!"? And didn't Lenin hail them as comrades precisely because they gave this slogan?

The Falklands war was another example of a reactionary war between governments. To pursue this reactionary war the British bourgeoisie unleashed a barrage of jingoist and chauvinist hysteria among the people precisely, as Lenin put it, "to divert their attention from the chief enemy -- the government and the ruling classes of their own country." (Collected Works, Vol. 21, p. 369, emphasis as in the original) Under these conditions, for a consistent struggle against the British imperialists and their chauvinist crusade, it was essential that the agitation of the British revolutionaries be conducted fully in the spirit of training the workers that indeed their "chiefenemy'' is none other than "the government and the ruling classes of their own country." This fundamental idea is essential for combating bourgeois chauvinism, for training the working class in the spirit of the class struggle and proletarian internationalism, for instilling in the minds of the workers an implacable hatred for their "own" British bourgeoisie, a hatred which is essential to bring the workers into revolutionary action against the British imperialist aggressors.

Conversely, under the conditions of the Falklands war, to appeal to the British workers for "the necessity of great vigilance" against such "dangerous" slogans and policies as "The Main Enemy Is at Home," is completely unjustifiable. It means trimming one's sails to bourgeois chauvinism. It means obscuring the class struggle. It means pouring water on the fire of hatred and struggle against one's "own" British imperialist ruling class, instead of doing everything possible to fan the flames of this fire among the working masses.

In our opinion, this failure to conduct their agitation in the spirit of this touchstone of the Marxist- Leninist doctrine -- that the enemy of the working class is first and foremost its "own" domestic bourgeois ruling class -- was the primary shortcoming of the RCPB (ML)'s agitation on the Falklands war.

If Not "at Home," Where Then Is "the Main Enemy" of the British Workers?

The question naturally arises: If "The Main Enemy Is at Home" is an erroneous slogan and policy, where then is "the main enemy of the British workers? Workers' Weekly tries to avoid giving a direct answer: it prefers to warn of all the pitfalls and "dangers" implied by the "main enemy is at home" idea without saying explicitly where the "main enemy" might be. But what the Workers' Weekly authors have on their minds is not lost on the reader. For example, in contrast to the "left" opportunists and their "dangerous and splittest policies" they explain that: "The Party considers that the struggle against the policies of the British bourgeoisie in the South Atlantic is extremely important; but, at the same time, it considers that this struggle should not be seen in a narrow way, that it must be taken up and waged in the context of opposing and fighting all imperialism and reaction, headed by the two superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, and opposing and fighting the growing and grave danger of inter-imperialist war...." (This and all other quotations from Workers' Weekly are from Part IV of the series "The Events in the Falkland Islands: A Matter of Grave Concern to the British Working Class and People," May 29, 1982, pp. 6-7, unless otherwise indicated.)

Under the cover of generalities, a very definite message is being conveyed here. Let us not be so "narrow" as to declare that our main enemy is at home. Let us not expend too much energy concentrating too much fire against our "own" British government and its imperialist aggression. Rather, let us be broad-minded, let us fight "all imperialism... headed by the two superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union," and "the danger of war."

But this warning against the "danger" of such "narrowness" is a false alarm. The real danger is in failing to tell the British workers the truth! Only in the "narrow" context of seeing that "the main enemy is at home," only in the "narrow" context of the working class and its Party striking with all their might against their "own" British imperialist ruling class, can there be any meaning whatsoever to splendid declarations about "fighting and opposing all imperialism," "the two superpowers," and "the danger of war." Any other line means falling prey to phrasemongering and impotence before the bourgeoisie.

Indeed, this has been one of the main points of contention between revolutionary Marxism-Leninism and the Chinese revisionist theory of "three worlds." The "three worlders" have also demanded a "broad" and "international" outlook. They have argued that the working class of Western Europe, Canada and Japan, of the so-called "second world," must see that their main enemy is not their "own" imperialist ruling classes, but the two superpowers and the danger of war. On this basis, the "three worlds" theorists have wiped out the perspective of the class struggle and the proletarian revolution. They have demanded that such "narrow" aims as the revolutionary action of the proletariat and the socialist revolution must be subordinated to a struggle for "national sovereignty" waged against one or both of the two superpowers. Following this road, it is well known that the "three worlders" joined into an open patriotic alliance with their own imperialist governments in the name of opposing the two superpowers. Today this policy has been reduced to opposing only one superpower, siding openly with U.S. imperialism against Soviet social-imperialism.

The lessons from the struggle against Maoist "three worlds-ism" -- a struggle which burst out with such intensity on a world scale only six short years ago and which is in fact far from over -- must never be forgotten. One of the most important of these lessons is that the proletariat of the imperialist states must never lose sight of the perspective that it must "first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie." The proletariat must understand fully that its "main enemy is at home." Only by building up the revolutionary mass movement against this "main enemy" can the proletariat strike blows against all imperialism, the two superpowers, and the danger of war. This is a major question of principle; it is a dividing line between revolutionary Marxism-Leninism and counter-revolutionary "three worlds-ism."

The Principle of Working for Defeat for One's "Own" Government in a Reactionary War

Adherence to the principle that "the main enemy is at home" demanded that in both Britain and Argentina the revolutionaries had the duty to strive to use the Falklands crisis to advance the revolutionary movement against their "own" reactionary governments. Both sides of the conflict represented sworn enemies of the cause of the proletariat and oppressed peoples. In this situation, it was not the job of revolutionaries to speculate about whether it would be more "favorable" for either the British or Argentine forces to gain victory. Clearly for either side to gain victory would only strengthen the bloodstained hand of either the Thatcher or the Galtieri government. The revolutionaries in both countries, therefore, could not but welcome defeat of their "own" government. This is because, from the proletarian standpoint, the only "favorable" outcome of such a reactionary bloodbath would be for the revolutionaries to successfully take advantage of the military reverses and embarrassments of the war to bring closer the overthrow of the warring governments.

But to our astonishment, Workers' Weekly polemicized vehemently against the "dangerous and reactionary aims of the 'left' opportunists" in welcoming "Every defeat for British imperialism." This polemic against the "defeat" idea is a serious error. Indeed, how is it possible that the leadership of a Marxist-Leninist party would attempt to polemicize against this concept? It is well known that the principle of welcoming defeat for one's "own" government in a reactionary war is a red thread running through Lenin's teachings on war and revolution. It is also well known that this principle was one of the central points of contention in the world Marxist movement at the time of World War I. It was a major dividing line between, on the one hand, the proletarian internationalists led by Lenin's Bolsheviks and, on the other hand, the social-chauvinist class traitors of the Second International and their Kautskyite centrist hangers-on. It is therefore incomprehensible why the leadership of the RCPB (ML) would not take this ABC of Leninist tactics as the underlying idea behind its agitation on the Falklands war. But what is worse, it rejected this principle out of hand, and tried to bury it with liberal, pacifist, and petty-bourgeois patriotic arguments. In fact, as we shall see, these arguments were not new, but mirrored the very same social-democratic, Kautskyite and Trotskyite arguments that Lenin refuted long ago.

Lenin goes on to explain that the defeat slogan is a fundamental question of whether or not one stands for the principle of the class struggle or lapses into positions of class compromise and betrayal to the governments under the conditions of reactionary war.

"To repudiate the defeat slogan means allowing one s revolutionary ardor to degenerate into an empty phrase, or sheer hypocrisy.

"What is the substitute proposed for the defeat slogan? It is that of 'neither victory nor defeat' The Organizing Committee, together with Bukvoyed and Trotsky, stand on fully the same ground as David when they defend the 'neither victory'-nor-defeat' slogan.

"On closer examination, this slogan will be found to mean a class truce, the renunciation of the class struggle by the oppressed classes in all belligerent countries, since the class struggle is impossible without dealing blows at one s 'own' bourgeoisie, one s own government, whereas dealing a blow at one s own government in wartime is (for Budvoyed 's information) high treason, means contributing to the defeat of one's own country'. Those who accept the 'neither-victory-nor-defeat' slogan can only be hypocritically in favor class struggle, of 'disrupting the class truce': in practice, such people are renouncing an independent proletarian policy because they subordinate the proletariat of all belligerent countries to the absolutely bourgeois task of safeguarding the imperialist governments against defeat. The only policy of actual, not verbal disruption the 'class truce' of acceptance of the class struggle, is for the proletariat to take advantage of the difficulties experienced by its government and its bourgeoisie in order to overthrow them. This, however, cannot be achieved or striven for, without desiring the defeat of one own government and without contributing to that defeat....

Whoever is in favor of the slogan of neither victory nor defeat is consciously Or unconsciously a chauvinist; at best he is a conciliatory petty bourgeois but in any case he is an enemy to proletarian policy, a partisan of the existing governments, of the present-day ruling classes." (Ibid., pp. 278-9, emphasis as in original)

And finally, Lenin underscores that behind the defeat slogan is the paramount task of arousing hatred against one's own government and bourgeoisie.

"Hatred of one's own government and one's own bourgeoisie -- the sentiment all class conscious workers who understand, on the one hand, that war is a 'continuation of the politics' of imperialism, which they counter by a 'continuation' of their hatred of their class enemy, and, on the other hand, that 'a war against war' is a banal phrase unless it means a revolution against their own government. Hatred one own government and one s own bourgeoisie cannot be aroused unless their defeat is desired; one cannot be a sincere opponent of a civil (i.e., class) truce without arousing hatred of ones own government and bourgeoisie!'' (Ibid., p. 280, emphasis as in original)

Beyond a doubt these clear and definite principles maintain their contemporary relevance and are fully applicable to the Falklands war. But unfortunately, the Workers' Weekly gave no heed to these essential Marxist-Leninist principles. On the contrary, in the midst of the Falklands war crisis, it launched a polemic against the "splittist" and "sectarian" policy of advocating that "the main enemy is at home," and against the "dangerous and reactionary aims of the 'left' opportunists" in welcoming "defeat for British imperialism." But by rejecting the "defeat" idea, Workers Weekly was so much as announcing to the world that, while it speaks in words about the "necessity for revolution," when the crisis breaks out and when push comes to shove it will not put its words into deeds; it will not work with its full determination to take advantage of the crisis to raise the masses in revolutionary action to defeat their "own" government. In a word, by renouncing the idea of "defeat" Workers' Weekly is so much as announcing that it is not fully serious about its stated revolutionary aims.

The principle of welcoming the defeat of one's "own" government is set forth in a host of Lenin's most renowned works on war and "evolution, including "Socialism and War," "The Military Program of the Proletarian Revolution," and many others. Of particular relevance is Lenin's article "The Defeat of One's Own Government in the Imperialist War" which is a powerful polemic against the notorious Trotsky who at that time was a leading exponent of Kautskyite centrism in the Russian revolutionary movement. An examination of a series of passages from this polemic reveals in no uncertain terms Lenin's point of view on this question.

"During a reactionary war, Lenin explained, "a revolutionary class cannot but desire the defeat of its government.

"This is axiomatic, and disputed only by conscious partisans or helpless satellites of the social-chauvinists."

Lenin stressed that this principle is diametrically opposed to the "phrase-bandying Trotsky" and other "helpless satellites of the social-chauvinists" who prattled about "revolutionary struggle against war" but who rejected revolutionary action against one's own government because it facilitated its defeat in reactionary war.

"A 'revolutionary struggle against the war' is merely an empty and meaningless exclamation, something at which the heroes of the Second International excel, unless it means revolutionary action against one's own government even in wartime. One has only to do some thinking in order to understand this. Wartime revolutionary action against one's own government indubitably means not only desiring its defeat, but really facilitating such a defeat. ('Discerning reader': note that this does not mean blowing up bridges,' organizing unsuccessful strikes in the war industries, and in general helping the government defeat the revolutionaries.)" (Collected Works, Vol. 21, p. 275, emphasis as in original)

The Leninist Thesis of Linking the Struggle Against Imperialist War With the Socialist Revolution

The principles that "the main enemy is at home" and of "defeat" for one's "own" government in a reactionary war, flow from the strategic perspective. They flow from the perspective that the fight against imperialist war must be rooted in the class struggle, that it must be closely connected with the struggle of the exploited proletariat for the overthrow of the exploiting imperialist bourgeoisie -- with the socialist revolution.

These principles flow from Lenin's thesis that in "the objective situation in the biggest advanced states of Europe...progress...can be made only in the direction of socialist society, only in the direction of the socialist revolution... Therefore, "the imperialist bourgeois war, the war highly developed capitalism," Lenin concluded, "can, objectively, be opposed only with a war against the bourgeoisie, i. e., primarily civil war for power between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie...." ("The Junius Pamphlet," Collected Works, Vol. 22, p. 316, emphasis as in original)

Of course, this thesis does not mean that in every demonstration and in every popular appeal against imperialist war the revolutionaries should give civil war and socialist insurrection as the action slogans or the assessment of the present stage of the struggle. No, that would be a mockery of Lenin's profound idea. Rather it means that the revolutionaries must strive in the direction of linking the popular movement against imperialist war to the class struggle; to strive in the direction of closely connecting this movement with the cause of the proletarian revolution; and to imbue this movement with a revolutionary perspective by linking it with agitation for the socialist revolution.

Opposing imperialist war "in the direction the socialist revolution'' is a cornerstone of Lenin's theory and tactics on the fight against capitalist war. However, to our amazement, Workers' Weekly not only agitates in a spirit contrary to this principle, but it theorizes directly against this famous thesis of V.I. Lenin. Indeed, without qualification Workers' Weekly mocks the very idea of linking the struggle against war to the struggle to overthrow capitalism.

"The 'left' opportunists," Workers' Weekly polemicizes, "say that it is necessary to follow the policies they advocate in order not to 'separate the struggle against war from the struggle to overthrow capitalism.' This serves only to further expose their sinister aims. For these forces, the democratic struggle to unite the people against imperialist war. to unite the people to fight British imperialism and colonialism is 'pacifist patriotism.' Thus, by introducing their 'struggle to overthrow capitalism' AS THE BASIS OF UNITY of the anti-war movement, they strive to disunite the movement, restrict its expansion in numbers, militancy and determination and give a free hand to the imperialists to carry out their warmongering schemes." (May 29, 1982, p.6)

Here Workers' Weekly has committed a grave theoretical blunder. By arguing against the idea of not separating the anti-war struggle from the struggle to overthrow capitalism, it has given theoretical expression to what is in fact the very essence of "pacifist patriotism." It has repeated the very same "democratic" objections which Lenin refuted long ago. Let us examine these objections more closely, because there are profound ideological issues at stake here.

First of all, it is necessary to dispense with the timeworn subterfuge which our authors have tried to hide behind. Workers' Weekly argues that "by introducing their 'struggle to overthrow capitalism' AS THE BASIS OF UNITY of the anti-war movement, they strive to disunite the movement, restrict its expansion in numbers," and so forth. But this is simply a straw man and that is why Workers' Weekly feels compelled to put it in capital letters.

The question of principle at stake concerns in what direction a party must carry out its agitation and tactics: Either a party adheres to the Leninist idea of striving to connect the struggle against imperialist war to the revolutionary struggle for socialism, or a party renounces this idea and follows anti-Leninist tactics which divert the fight against imperialist war away from the direction of socialism. Either one set of tactics or the other. This is why Workers' Weekly has raised the "BASIS OF UNITY" scarecrow. It hopes to frighten the naive with the specter that socialist tactics mean splitting the movement and driving the masses away on the basis of agreement or disagreement on the necessity for socialism.

It is interesting to note that Karl Kautsky resorted to this exact same subterfuge. "The extreme lefts," Kautsky warned, "wish to 'contrapose' socialism to inevitable imperialism.... This seems very radical, but it can only serve to drive into the camp of imperialism anyone who does not believe in the immediate practical achievement of socialism." (Cited in Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 21, p. 224, emphasis is Lenin's)

Nothing could be a more monstrous vulgarization of Marxist-Leninist tactics. It is Marxism-Leninism which indicates the path for the revolutionaries to reach out and appeal to all of the diverse sectors of the masses who are stirring to life and struggle. Today, the growing worldwide ferment against imperialist war preparations poses immense tasks before the Marxist-Leninist parties. The parties must do everything possible to encourage and develop this powerful mass ferment. In advancing their slogans and tactical appeals, they must carefully study the actual level of consciousness among the masses so as to penetrate and influence this movement. But all of these slogans and mass tactics must have but one objective -- to step by step raise the consciousness of the movement towards socialist consciousness and to bring the movement step by step closer to the revolutionary socialist movement. The closer the connection with the cause of the exploited masses and the greater the consciousness of the ideal of the socialist revolution, the greater the unity, breadth, militancy and staying power of the popular struggle against imperialist war.

On the other hand, to lecture against the "dangerous" and "sinister" aim of not separating the "democratic struggle" against war from the socialist revolution is simply to preach vulgar tailism. It means leaving the movement groping in the dark without a revolutionary perspective. It means leaving the movement under the sway of the pacifist and democratic illusions spread by the social-democratic and revisionist chieftains who are doing plenty to weaken and divide the struggle against imperialist war.

Towards the popular movements against imperialist war the Marxist-Leninists must neither be sectarian nor tailist. They must pay close attention to the ideas of Lenin, who explained that:

"It is the duty of socialists to support, extend and intensify every popular movement to end the war. But it is actually being fulfilled only by those socialists who...preach revolution and transformation of the imperialist war into a civil war for socialism." (Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 22, p. 176)

But let us continue. Apart from the above subterfuge, our author's objections boil down to one point: The struggle against imperialist war is a "democratic struggle," and for this reason it must not be linked to the "struggle to overthrow capitalism" because, presumably, such a linking would be a violation of its "democratic" character.

But here again, Workers' Weekly is not polemicizing against ideas of the ultra-"left"; it is polemicizing against the very ABC's of Marxism-Leninism. The issue here is not whether the struggle against war should be defined as a "democratic struggle." Whether it is or isn't, in either case Workers' Weekly has lapsed into a serious mistake. Isn't it necessary to link up the democratic tasks of the revolutionary movement with the socialist tasks, i.e., with "the struggle to overthrow capitalism"? Isn't Britain a country of "highly developed capitalism" where "progress...can only be made in the direction of the socialist revolution." The issue is that, according to how Workers' Weekly understands "democratic struggle," when it says that the struggle against the Falklands war is a "democratic struggle," it is implying that the issue of British imperialism can be solved with a bourgeois democratic reform of the present system, a reform that leaves the monopoly bourgeoisie intact. The Falklands war revealed the hideousness, the bloodstained nature of the British imperialist bourgeoisie in striking relief, while Workers' Weekly is suggesting that the British workers and anti-imperialists should close their eyes and separate the struggle against British aggression from the class struggle and the fight to overthrow that bloodstained bourgeoisie.

Moreover, has not Marxism-Leninism set forth fundamental principles on the particular question of combatting imperialist war? It is well known that at the time of the first imperialist world war a controversy emerged between Lenin and the social-democratic renegade Kautsky on the very question which Workers' Weekly has posed. It was Kautsky who advocated opposing imperialist war with a democratic program, with an appeal for a democratic peace to be consolidated under bourgeois democratic rule. And it was Lenin who tore to shreds all the Kautskyite chatter about a democratic program for a democratic peace. Lenin exposed this Kautskyite fraud as a fig leaf for imperialism, as an attempt to drag the proletariat backwards towards the past epoch of bourgeois democratic revolutions, and to divert the masses from the tasks of the present epoch -- the socialist revolutionary tasks.

Thus against the Kautskyite "democratic peace program" Lenin set forth the proletarian revolutionary "peace program":

"Finally, our 'peace program' must explain that the imperialist powers and the imperialist bourgeoisie cannot grant a democratic peace. Such a peace must be sought for and fought for, not in the past, not in a reactionary utopia of a non-imperialist capitalism, not in a league equal nations under capitalism, but in the future,in the socialist revolution of the proletariat. Not a single fundamental democratic demand can be achieved to any considerable extent, or with any degree of permanency, in the advanced imperialist states, except through revolutionary battles under the banner socialism.

"Whoever promises the nations a 'democratic' peace, without at the same time preaching the socialist revolution, or while repudiating the struggle for it -- a struggle now, during the war-- is deceiving the proletariat. ("The Peace Program," Collected Works, Vol. 22, pp. 167-68, emphasis as in original)

The Kautskyites bitterly protested this Marxist line.

" 'That means that you have no peace program, that you are opposed to democratic demands,' the Kautskyites argue, hoping that inattentive people will not notice that this objection substitutes non-existent bourgeois-democratic tasks for the existing socialist tasks.

"Oh no, gentlemen, we reply to the Kautskyites. We are in favor of democratic demands, we alone are fighting for them sincerely for because of the objective historical situation they cannot be advanced except in connection with the socialist revolution." (Ibid., p. 164)

Clearly Workers' Weekly has lost its bearings when it counterposes its "democratic struggle" against war to the "sinister aims" of the " 'left' opportunists" who advocate not "separat(ing) the struggle against war from the struggle to overthrow capitalism." It is precisely this obscuring of the socialist perspective that has led Workers' Weekly to wander so far astray in its agitation on the Falklands war.

The Fallacy of Opposing Imperialist War From the Standpoint of the "National Interests"

At the heart of the leadership of the RCPB (ML)'s error is precisely the "Substitution of) non-existent bourgeois-democratic tasks for the existing socialist tasks.'' In particular, it has substituted the so-called "national question" of "British sovereignty" for the existing tasks of the class struggle under the banner of socialism. As a result, the leadership of the RCPB (ML) has made the British "national interests" a mainspring of its agitation and tactics.

Hence, in the fight against imperialist war as well, the tactics of the leadership of the RCPB (ML) do not hinge on the class struggle and the socialist perspective, but on the nationalist perspective of "British sovereignty rights." In this regard, the Communique of the Tenth Plenum of the CC of the RCPB (ML) of June 2, 1982 deserves careful study. This Plenum adopted the "Report on the General Line of the Party." According to the Communique:

"The Report discussed the importance of the national question in Britain, and how the struggle against the U.S. domination of Britain and the sell-out of the sovereignty rights of the British people by the British bourgeoisie is an extremely important democratic question to take up for solution. The Report analyzed that the struggle for the sovereignty rights of the workers and people is closely connected with the struggle against imperialist war and the British bourgeoisie, and represents a powerful force against imperialism and their war plans." (Workers' Weekly, June 5, 1982, p. 8, emphasis added)

This is truly an incredible thesis to be proclaimed in the "General Line" of the British Party. Not only is "the struggle (for)...sovereignty rights" declared to be "an extremely important...question to take up for solution," what is more, it is this national "struggle for sovereignty" that must be "closely connected with the struggle against imperialist war...and represents a powerful force against imperialism and their war plans."

Is it any wonder then why Workers' Weekly curses with such violent language the very idea of linking the struggle against imperialist war to "the struggle for the overthrow of capitalism"? Workers' Weekly has simply replaced the Leninist idea that it is "revolutionary battles under the banner of socialism" which represents the "powerful force against imperialism and their war plans," with the nationalist idea of fighting imperialism under the banner of "sovereignty rights"!

These "national" tactics came out in all of their patriotic glory in the course of the Falklands war. True, Workers' Weekly criticized the imperialism and chauvinism of the British bourgeoisie. However, it did so not mainly from the class angle, but principally from the national angle, bending over backwards to put the British imperialist aggression in the framework of the "betrayal of the national interests." Yes, we oppose the British imperialist bourgeoisie, Workers' Weekly speculates, because they are "the real 'enemies of Britain'"; because the bourgeoisie "sells out the sovereignty of the nation to...foreign imperialist powers"; because the capitalist offensive "bring(s) ruin and disaster to the nation"; because the "British bourgeoisie is not patriotic, it is a traitorous class," and so on and so forth. Our authors even play this national game with the ultra-raving nationalist "Iron Lady" herself. Placing themselves in the position of the most sincere and most genuine nationalists and patriots of all of Britain they ask: "What of the 'nationalism' of the Thatcher government? How 'patriotic' is Thatcher?" (Workers' Weekly, May 22, 1982)

This "national" line of agitation has a definite impact. It pounds into the reader's head that the struggle against British imperialist aggression must not be waged from a "narrow" class angle; that it must not be waged under the "dangerous" slogan that the "main enemy is at home"; that it must not be waged from the "sectarian" stand of proletarian international solidarity of the workers of Britain, Argentina and all countries against their common class enemies; and that this struggle must not be waged fully in the spirit of the famous manifesto of Marx and Engels which proclaimed that "The working men have no country."

This agitational line pounds into the reader's head that the struggle against British imperialist aggression must be waged first and foremost from the angle of the "national interests" and linked to the struggle for "British sovereignty rights."

It is self-evident that Workers' Weekly has lapsed into the profound error of trying to combat imperialism and war with a national program. Lenin warned against this very same error which was committed by the German revolutionary Marxist, Rosa Luxemburg. Luxemburg had put forth the argument that when the German opportunist leaders had voted for war credits to assist the German imperialist war effort, this endangered the fatherland. From this national standpoint she argued for a "truly national banner of liberation" and a "truly national program" to "oppose the imperialist war program."

Lenin pointed out that, "while brilliantly exposing the imperialist character of the present war..." [Rosa Luxemburg -- ed.] makes the very strange mistake of trying to drag a national program into the present, non-national, war. It sounds almost incredible, but there it is." (Lenin, "The Junius Pamphlet," Collected Works, Vol. 22, p. 313) To suggest "that the imperialist war should be 'opposed' with a national program," Lenin explained, means to urge "the advanced class to turn its face to the past and not to the future!" (Ibid., p. 315) From the theoretical angle, Lenin drew out that such a national program corresponded to the historical tasks of the earlier epoch of the national bourgeois democratic revolutions. But in the present epoch, in the developed imperialist states, Lenin stressed that progress is possible and the imperialist war could be combatted "only in the direction of the socialist revolution." (Ibid., p. 316) "The fallacy" of opposing imperialist war with a national program, Lenin declared, "is strikingly evident." (Ibid., p. 315)

Nevertheless Workers' Weekly has become deeply mired in this fallacy. It sounds almost incredible, but our authors worked with might and main to drag the so-called "national question" into the non-national, imperialist war in the South Atlantic. This blunder led Workers' Weekly to take painstaking efforts to place a clear manifestation of class interests -- British imperialist aggression -- into a contrived framework of "national interests." It led it to blunt the exposure and condemnation of its "own" bourgeoisie. It has led it to slur over the class interests and obscure the revolutionary socialist perspective. It has led it to renounce the Leninist class principles that "the main enemy is at home" and working for defeat of this "main enemy" in a reactionary war. And it has led it to adapt to petty-bourgeois nationalist prejudices.

In a word, its "national" tactics have led Workers' Weekly away from the proletarian class standpoint, towards a national liberal standpoint.

"National" Tactics Blunt the Fight Against the British Imperialist Aggressors

In line with its "national" tactics, Workers' Weekly attempted to paint a picture that the betrayal of the "national interests" was a major factor in the British imperialist aggression in the Falklands. But, as one can well imagine, this was no easy task. After all, how was it to be explained that Thatcher's aggression, which was carried out in the name of the national interests of imperialist Britain, was really a manifestation of the betrayal of the national interests? This could be accomplished only by whitewashing the aggressive, warmongering national interests of British imperialism.

This is why Workers' Weekly twisted itself up into knots trying to convince its readers that Thatcher's aggression was in reality a big U.S. imperialist plot cooked up to the detriment of Britain. This is why it puts forth the thesis that for the unfortunate British imperialists the Falklands crisis is "an unprecedented fiasco" whereas "the U.S. superpower...loses nothing in this situation." (April 10, 1982, pp. 1,8) This is why Workers' Weekly replaces concrete analysis with abstract generalities about how the United States and the Soviet Union "rule the roost" and about how "it is the two superpowers...which overall preside over the imperialist world and carry overriding weight in deciding the outcome of such conflicts as the present one." (May1, 1982, p. 2)

With such generalities about superpower omnipotence, Workers' Weekly whitewashes British imperialism which is a savage international aggressor in its own right. Far from being a U.S. plot, British imperialism invaded the Falklands for its own plunder of the potential oil resources, for its own status in the sun as a "great" imperialist marauder. From accounts in the bourgeois press, it appears that the U.S. State Department had had a wrong estimation of the British response, and that this is why in the days prior to the Argentine seizure of the islands U.S. undersecretary of state, Thomas Enders, had given Galtieri reason to believe that Thatcher would not try to take them back by force of arms. But in any case, far from simply doing the "U.S. bidding" as Workers' Weekly would have one believe, British imperialism needed no prodding to launch its task force. It hurled itself on the Falklands like a hungry wolf on its prey.

These efforts to explain the Falklands war as an expression of the betrayal of the "national interests" lead Workers' Weekly down a dead end. It inevitably leads it to tone down its condemnation of British imperialism and to turn the workers' eyes from seeing the enslaving interests and monstrous crimes of their "own" imperialist ruling class.

For example, Workers' Weekly complains that "the run down of the British 'conventional' forces... is an expression of this subservience" to U.S. imperialism. (April 10, 1982, p.6) Never mind that the propaganda about the "run down of the British 'conventional' forces" is simply a jingo fraud. Never mind that British imperialism is among the most heavily militarized powers in the Western alliance. After all, even jingo lies will do when you are clutching at straws in order to portray British imperialism as a meek little lamb, being reduced to the wretched condition of a mere "vassal state" of a foreign imperialism. (Workers' Weekly, June 5, 1982., p. 6)

Bending Before the Tempest of Bourgeois Nationalism

As a result of "national" tactics, the Falklands war also found Workers' Weekly trimming its sails before the tempest of bourgeois nationalism. In the face of the jingo hysteria of the war, Workers' Weekly performed somersaults to convince its readers that it was not on the side of the "traitors" and "enemies" of the nation. God forbid! Lest there be any mistake on this score, Workers' Weekly sung the tune in every key that it speaks for the true "patriotic forces," for the true upholders of the "national interests," and for the true champions of "British sovereignty."

But, as we have already seen, a proletarian revolutionary stand against imperialist war and chauvinism can only be a class stand. It was the duty of the class conscious vanguard of the British working class to take the jingo crusade of the bourgeoisie by the horns. This demanded working tirelessly to focus the workers' attention on their independent class interests. This demanded an unflinching and consistent struggle against the influence of bourgeois nationalism and patriotism.

Workers' Weekly, however, adapted to the line of least resistance. In effect, it attempted to ride the wave of patriotic fervor which accompanied the British war in the South Atlantic. Hence it resorted to the "national" tactics of exposing the Falklands war on the wonderfully patriotic grounds that it only brings "disgrace to the nation," that it is the opponents of the war who are the real defenders of British "national rights," etc. Workers Weekly tries to make a case for this new-found patriotism by gunning down a false target.

"One of the dangerous positions which has been raised by the 'left' opportunists," Workers' Weekly warns, "is the claim that, 'It is the duty of British socialists to always be "enemies of Britain."' With this position, the path is further opened for the bourgeoisie and revisionists to falsely present themselves as 'patriotic' and 'defenders of the nation' and to brand all opponents to their policies as 'traitors' and 'enemies of Britain.' "

Here Workers' Weekly is flailing a straw man. It is impossible to judge in what context this "enemies of Britain" claim was made or what was meant by it. And surely revolutionaries should strive to point to the class distinction between being enemies of British imperialism and enemies of the British working class. But Workers' Weekly is simply using the "enemies of Britain" claim as a scarecrow in an attempt to frighten the unwary from class tactics. It is using this scarecrow in an attempt to frighten the naive into believing that by adapting to nationalism and patriotism this will close the path "for the bourgeoisie and revisionists to falsely present themselves as 'patriotic' and 'defenders of the nation' and to brand all opponents to their policies as 'traitors' and 'enemies of Britain.' " In other words, Workers' Weekly is arguing that by adapting to nationalism it will be able to "outwit" the wily British bourgeoisie and remove the nationalist fangs from the imperialist wolves.

But this is a big mistake. With this fairy tale our authors are only outwitting themselves. Just look at the events during the Falklands war. Even the mild liberal opposition (even the "distinguished gentlemen" of the BBC for heaven's sake!) were hounded as "traitors" and "enemies" by Thatcher and the other imperialist jingos. But for a Marxist-Leninist party to speculate with nationalism under conditions of imperialist war on the grounds that this will allegedly allow them to escape from being branded as "traitors" and "enemies" is simply ludicrous. Nay more, it represents an unprincipled and dangerous concession to bourgeois nationalism. It represents adapting one's tactics to the petty bourgeoisie and labor aristocracy, which are the strata most readily infected with the nationalist and patriotic poison dished out by the imperialist ruling class.

Renouncing Revolutionary Tactics Before the Specter of Bourgeois Reaction

These same arguments which Workers' Weekly used to justify adapting to nationalism, it also used to justify renouncing revolutionary tactics before the specter of bourgeois reaction. Workers' Weekly argued in favor of replacing class tactics with "national" tactics on the grounds that the latter are an obstacle to the bourgeoisie's "attempts to implement further reactionary and repressive policies against the people under the guise of 'dealing' with 'the enemies of Britain.' " In particular, our authors condemned the idea of welcoming "defeat for British imperialism" on the grounds that this means welcoming "reactionary and repressive measures" and "facilitate(s) the monopoly bourgeoisie's preparations for fascism."

Here too the Workers' Weekly is making a serious mistake. The Marxist-Leninist class principles that "the main enemy is at home" and of welcoming defeat for this "main enemy" in a reactionary war cannot be tossed out the window on the grounds that they can be used as a pretext for reaction. To argue otherwise means to tailor one's principles and tactics to what is acceptable to bourgeois legality, to capitalist police law, in the name of depriving the bourgeoisie of "justifications for repressive measures."

The Marxist-Leninist parties must not be shaken from their principles before the specter of reaction. They must be prepared to work and put into deeds their revolutionary tactics under the most severe conditions of illegality. In regard to a serious inter-imperialist war, no one can have any illusions that the revolutionary opponents of this war will not be met by ferocious repression.

The Falklands crisis was in a sense only a practice run; the bourgeoisie bared the specter of reaction but, in the main, it did not clamp down the full weight of "wartime measures." Nevertheless, before this specter of reaction, Workers' Weekly eagerly threw overboard revolutionary class tactics in favor of non-revolutionary "national" tactics. This is hardly an honorable stand. This is tantamount to declaring well before the real crisis has arrived that one is not prepared to put his revolutionary words into deeds. This is like announcing well before hand that one is not completely serious about carrying through a determined revolutionary struggle.

Let us again return to Lenin's teachings from the days of the first imperialist world war. The social- chauvinist leaders of the Second International were dead set against revolutionary action against their "own" ruling classes. One of their principal arguments for this betrayal was that such action would bring down accusations of "treachery" and the consequent police repression against the party organizations, the trade unions, etc. They laughed aloud at the "anarchist idea" of class war against the bourgeoisie under war conditions. In his famous pamphlet The Collapse of the Second International Lenin condemned Kautsky's justifications for this kneeling before the police law in the strongest terms. Lenin pointed out that, this means that Kautsky justifies betrayal of socialism by pleading the unpleasant 'practical consequences' that follow from revolutionary tactics. Is this not a prostitution of Marxism?...

"Not only in wartime but positively in any acute political situation, to say nothing of periods of revolutionary mass action of any kind," Lenin explained, "the governments of even the freest bourgeois countries will threaten to dissolve the legal organizations, seize their funds, arrest their leaders, and threaten other 'practical consequences' of the same kind. What are we to do then? Justify the opportunists on these grounds, as Kautsky does? But this would mean sanctifying the transformation of the Social-Democratic parties into national liberal-labor parties." (Collected Works, Vol. 21, p. 255, emphasis as in original)

Lenin's Party alone stood firm on proletarian principles. At the cost of enormous sacrifices, the Bolsheviks were true to their revolutionary words and put into deeds Lenin's teachings on the struggle against imperialist war. For this the heroic Bolsheviks were mercilessly executed, imprisoned and marched off to Siberia, and branded as "German spies" and "internal enemies." But this sacrifice was not in vain. It paved the way for transforming the imperialist war into a civil war for socialism and the triumph of the earthshaking October Revolution. And to this day it remains the model of proletarian revolutionary conduct under conditions of reactionary war.

Therefore, when the Workers' Weekly argues against revolutionary tactics, against the principles of fighting against and working for defeat for one's "own" imperialist government, etc., on the grounds that this will intensify "repressive policies," we must call a spade a spade. This is an argument for "sanctifying the transformation" of Marxist-Leninist tactics "into national liberal-labor" tactics.

Liberal Arguments Against Revolutionary Tactics

In its argument against "the dangerous positions of the 'left' opportunists" and in favor of its "national" tactics, Workers' Weekly put up a smokescreen. "The principal question at stake in Britain," our authors argue, "is to mobilize the people to fight the reactionary, warmongering policies of the British bourgeoisie, to demand that it withdraw its task force, to demand that it ends its colonial, imperialist activities in the South Atlantic and hands the Falkland Islands back to the Latin American people." And on this last point on decolonization, Workers' Weekly does not fail to mention that this demand "is recognized by world progressive opinion and by the United Nations itself."

Surely, to fight warmongering and imperialist activities is a noble cause. But "the principal question at stake"posed by the Workers' Weekly polemic is with what tactics and under what slogans is this warmongering and imperialism to be fought? Is imperialism to be fought with revolutionary class tactics or with national liberal and pacifist tactics?

Indeed, in Britain there was just such a liberal opposition to the Falklands war in the "left" wing of the British Labor Party. Tony Benn and the other "left" social-democrats also protested Thatcher's warmongering, called for the withdrawal of the task force, and (of course) recognized the UN resolution on the decolonization of the Falklands. But they did so precisely because they were afraid of a military or political fiasco, of a major defeat for British imperialism.

Such a bourgeois liberal opposition to imperialism has a long tradition in Britain. For example, in his article "British Pacifism and the British Dislike of Theory" Lenin speaks of a Mr. Morel, former member of the Liberal Party and a contributor to the press of the Independent Labor Party. Mr. Morel was a leader of the Union of Democratic Control which stood for "peace, disarmament, all territories to have the right of self-determination by plebiscite, and the democratic control of foreign policy." (Collected Works, Vol. 21, p. 262) Undoubtedly UN resolutions on decolonization would have been just Mr. Morel's cup of tea. But, at the same time, Mr. Morel rejected any thought of revolutionary class action against imperialism. "All this shows," Lenin concluded, was that Mr. Morel had turned "away from the jingoist bourgeoisie to the pacifist bourgeoisie."

Lenin subjected such a liberal pacifist opposition to withering criticism. "To influence the workers and the masses in general," Lenin pointed out that "the liberal bourgeoisie (and their agents in the labor movement, i.e., the opportunists) are prepared to swear allegiance to internationalism any number of times, accept the peace slogan, renounce the annexationist aims of the war, condemn chauvinism, and so on and so forth -- anything except revolutionary action against their own government, anything in the world, if only they can come out 'against defeat.' " ("The Main German Opportunist Work on the War," Collected Works, Vol. 21, p. 272, emphasis as in the original)

These remarks of Lenin's underscore the nature of the shortcomings in the agitation of the Workers' Weekly. The leadership of the RCPB (ML) not only "came out against defeat,'' but they came out swinging with an ardent appeal for "great vigilance" against this "dangerous and reactionary" idea. And, not surprisingly, the arguments which Workers' Weekly could muster against this principle of "defeat" were simply liberal and opportunist arguments.

"These dangerous and reactionary aims of the 'left' opportunists," Workers' Weekly proclaims, "can be further illustrated by considering the basis upon which they are raising their slogans. They write, for example, 'Every defeat for British imperialism...intensifies the attacks of the Tories against the working class and accelerates revolutionary struggle.' Thus, here are these 'left' opportunists, under the guise of 'accelerating) revolutionary struggle' in Britain, hoping and working for an intensification of 'the attacks of the Tories against the working class.' For these 'left' opportunists the attacks on and restriction of the sacred and hard-won rights of the workers and people, the dangers of fascism, are nothing; on the contrary they welcome such reactionary and repressive measures! (Emphasis added)

What a frightening argument! You see how evil those "leftists" are who hope and work for "defeat for British imperialism"? They are really only "hoping and working for an intensification of 'the attacks of the Tories against the working class.' " But wait, let us examine this frightening argument more closely. Beyond a doubt, the defeat of the British armada in the South Atlantic would have been a heavy blow to the British bourgeoisie, pushing British imperialism ever deeper into crisis. And beyond a doubt such a defeat would mean the intensification of the class struggle as the bourgeoisie would inevitably try to saddle the workers with the cost of the defeat and the burden of the deepening crisis. As to whether or not such a defeat would be accompanied with "reactionary and repressive measures," this could only be determined by the resulting class struggles. Workers' Weekly, however, is simply trying to frighten its readers with the specter of this intensification of the class struggle. It is simply presenting a liberal abhorrence of the class struggle to justify renunciation of revolutionary class tactics.

From the economic standpoint, Workers' Weekly is simply echoing the arguments of the liberal philistine, whose foremost concern is defending the profits of imperialism. I must not welcome "defeat for British imperialism" because, after all, that means to "hope and work for" attacks on "the sacred and hard-won rights of the workers and people." Such is the miserable logic of the well-fed petty bourgeois or the fat labor bureaucrat who opposes defeats for his "own" imperialism out of the desire to defend what is most near and dear to his stomach -- the "sacred and hard-won" sops from the table of imperialist super-profits.

A similar liberal argument was also the source of Workers' Weekly's anger with the slogan "Victory to Argentina!" Our authors had put forward two objections of substance to this slogan. The first was a correct objection that this slogan meant to "support the Argentine military junta." But the second objection was simply liberal-pacifist muck. They opposed this slogan on the grounds that it was a "demand that more British workers and people should die on behalf of the British imperialists," whereas Workers' Weekly demanded the "withdrawal of the task force" and that the troops "should not fight."

Within a week's time, Workers' Weekly itself had come out whole hog in support of the Argentine fascists. Nevertheless, it did not change its attitude towards the "Victory to Argentina!" slogan and it continued to agitate simply for the withdrawal of British troops. In other words, even while Workers' Weekly supported the Argentine generals in the war, at the very same time, they continued to oppose the idea of defeat for the British imperialist forces on the wonderfully pacifist and liberal grounds that this would bring harm to the British soldiers. Only one of two conclusions can be drawn from this: either Workers' Weekly stands for pacifism and opposes all wars, including class wars and liberation wars; or it stands for nationalist hypocrisy and is in favor of defeats for reactionary and aggressive armies just as long as it isn't the British imperialist army.

In a sense, this ridiculous position of desiring "neither victory nor defeat" for either of the warring governments epitomizes the national-liberal stand adopted by the leadership of RCPB (ML) towards both its "own" government and that of the Argentine oligarchy.

Either the Principles of Marxism-Leninism or the Opportunism of Maoist "Three Worlds-ism"

This brings us to the conclusion of our discussion of the weaknesses of the agitation of the RCPB (ML) on the Falklands war. From the ideological standpoint these blunders add up to shortcomings in the direction of classical opportunism. Lenin summed up the ideological foundations of the opportunism which gave rise to the shameful collapse of the Second International as follows:

"Advocacy of class collaboration; abandonment of the idea of socialist revolution and revolutionary methods of struggle; adaptation to bourgeois nationalism; losing sight of the fact that the borderlines nationality and country are historically transient; making a fetish of bourgeois legality; renunciation the class viewpoint and the class struggle, for fear of repelling the broad masses of the population ' (meaning the petty bourgeoisie) -- such, doubtlessly, are the ideological foundations opportunism." ("The Position and Tasks of the Socialist International," Collected Works, Vol. 21. p. 35)

Lenin's critique of the opportunism of social-democracy must be studied and restudied by revolutionaries everywhere because it is as vital and fresh today as when it was written.

As well, if we examine more recent history it is clear that the RCPB (ML)'s shortcomings bear the hallmarks of an opportunism of a contemporary type. It was only a few short years ago that the clash between revolutionary Marxism-Leninism and "three worldist" social-chauvinism broke out in force.

Didn't Maoist "three worlds-ism" wipe out the perspective of the socialist revolution in the imperialist states such as Britain and replace it with the perspective of a democratic struggle for sovereignty? Didn't "three worlds-ism" wipe out the perspective of the class struggle and replace it with the perspective of the struggle for the "national interests"? Didn't "three worlds-ism" wipe out the perspective that "the main enemy is at home," one's "own" imperialist ruling class, and replace it with the perspective that the main enemy is one or both of the two superpowers? Were these not fundamental Marxist-Leninist principles which Maoist "three worlds-ism" betrayed, leading its followers in the imperialist countries into an open social-chauvinist alliance with their own imperialist ruling classes?

It is inconceivable to us that the leadership of the RCPB (ML) could have forgotten this ancient history of "three worldist" betrayal. In fact, it was hardly yesterday that this same organization was militantly agitating for these very same "three worldist" and social-chauvinist positions. For example, it was only seven years ago that Workers' Weekly hailed the referendum approving Britain's membership in the EEC as "an important victory for the struggle of the world's people," as a vote to "further strengthen the bloc of European monopoly capitalist countries against the two superpowers....in line with the trend growing throughout the world, of the people, nations and countries uniting to oppose the two superpowers, their hegemony and preparations for a third world war." (Workers' Weekly, "The EEC Referendum," Vol. 3, Nos. 9-10, June 21-28, 1975, p. 1, cols. 1-2) At that time Workers' Weekly was arguing against those who refused to "raise in the working class the importance of putting the short-term considerations of revolution secondary to the overall task of uniting with the world's people to oppose the two superpowers and the serious danger of another world war...." (Ibid., p. 6, col. 4)

In other words, only yesterday Workers' Weekly was arguing in favor of out-and-out "three worldist" treachery. But today it is clear that it has not learned fully the lessons of such a serious mistake. This mistake should have served the leadership of the British party as a grave warning. It should have brought home to this leadership the real danger involved in failing to firmly uphold the fundamental teachings of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin against all Maoist "three worlds-ism" and all other revisionist and social-democratic distortions. But instead, we find that today Workers' Weekly is flaunting the Marxist-Leninist principles on such basic questions as the stand towards one's "own" imperialist government and the character of the revolution in the imperialist countries. But instead, we find that today the leadership of the RCPB (ML) has fallen prey to shortcomings in its agitation and tactics which are ideologically identical to the rotten, social-chauvinist, Maoist theory of "three worlds."

The crisis over the Falkland Islands will undoubtedly be remembered as a minor affair compared to the great storms and clashes which the future holds in store. But from this it does not follow that the weaknesses which this crisis brought so clearly to the surface in the agitation and tactics of the RCPB (ML) are therefore only of minor concern. Quite the contrary. Shortcomings of this type must be faced head-on if a Marxist-Leninist party is to shoulder its responsibilities to the working class in the course of approaching great tests of history.

The Second International collapsed in the face of the then unprecedented crisis of the First World War because it had been eaten away by opportunist corrosion. This opportunist soil was allowed to accumulate as a result of the utterly rotten methods practiced by the parties of the Second International, including: fear of self-criticism; pompous revolutionary slogans and resolutions to cloak their opportunist practice; and covering up shortcomings with a deceptive show of well-being. Lenin and Stalin pointed out that such utterly corrupt methods were the fatal sin of the Second International.

The Marxist-Leninist communist parties completely reject this social-democratic legacy. That is why when we see the serious mistakes which the Marxist-Leninist party of the fraternal British working class is making, we cannot gloss over these things with phrases of official optimism. We Marxist-Leninists are duty-bound to address these questions in a forthright Leninist manner. This is the path of overcoming shortcomings. This is the path of steeling and bolshevizing the Marxist-Leninist vanguards. This is the path of tempering the militant revolutionary unity of the international Marxist-Leninist movement for the great class battles that lie ahead.

[Back to Top]

From the RCP of Britain (ML):

THE NECESSITY OF GREAT VIGILANCE AGAINST THE DANGEROUS ACTIVITIES OF THE 'LEFT'

(Below we reprint the first section of Part IV of "The Events in the Falkland Islands: A matter of grave concern for the British working class and people," Workers' Weekly, May 29, 1982.)

PART IV NECESSITY OF GREAT VIGILANCE AGAINST THE DANGEROUS ACTIVITIES OF THE "LEFT"

A further disruptive, splittist and dangerous trend is presented by the "left" opportunists. This trend promotes erroneous and "leftist" slogans and positions in order to further split the opposition which is developing against the warmongering, imperialist policies of the British bourgeoisie, to facilitate the splitting activities of the revisionists and greatly assists the attempts by the bourgeoisie and revisionists to spread maximum confusion amongst the workers and people.

The revolutionary and progressive forces must be extremely vigilant against this trend; this trend, like that of revisionism and social-democracy -- and, in fact, working hand-in-glove with them -- attempts to do great damage to the struggles of the people developing against the warmongering activities of the British imperialists and strives to divert this movement down a dangerous course.

The Attempts to Split the Movement

Opportunism is synonymous with splittism, and the "left" opportunists, like the revisionists, work to fragment and divide the movement in opposition to the British government's reactionary activities in [the] South Atlantic. In particular, as in all struggles, these "left" opportunists have raised their "own" "special" and sectarian slogans and policies and used them to try to divide the movement. From "The Main Enemy is at Home" to "Victory to Argentina" and "Forward to the World Socialist Revolution," these opportunists have entered into the movement in order to try to line up the people behind their "own" sectarian programs. The question of building and strengthening the unity of the people to fight the reactionary policies of the British imperialists is nothing, according to these "left" opportunists. On the contrary, what is "most" important, according to them, is their "special" "program" and, upon this basis, great efforts are made to fragment the movement, as well as to fuel the attempts by the revisionists to maintain their domination over the movement by labelling all opponents of their social-chauvinist policies as "splitters."

The Attempts to Fuel the Reactionary Attacks of the Bourgeoisie and Revisionists on the Progressive Forces

One of the dangerous positions which has been raised by the "left" opportunists is the claim that, "It is the duty of British socialists to always be 'enemies of Britain.' " With this position, the path is further opened for the bourgeoisie and revisionists to falsely present themselves as "patriotic" and "defenders of the nation" and to brand all opponents to their policies as "traitors" and "enemies of Britain."

One of the central tactics of the British bourgeoisie, as well as of the revisionists, is to manipulate the national question in order to carry out their reactionary policies at home and abroad. Thus, the war preparations are organized on the basis of "defending the nation"; the aggression in the South Atlantic on the basis of "defending 'British' sovereignty"; the unloading of the crisis onto the backs of the people on the basis of "making the nation 'great' again," etc. All this propaganda is aimed at hiding the fact that it is the imperialist bourgeoisie and their representatives who are the real "enemies of Britain." It is precisely these forces who disgrace the nation through their imperialist, colonial and warmongering activities abroad, through their oppression of other nations; it is precisely these forces who sell out the sovereignty of the nation, the sovereign rights of the workers and people to the U.S. imperialists and other foreign imperialist powers in order to pursue their own interests and realize maximum capitalist profits; it is precisely these forces who bring ruin and disaster to the nation and the workers and broad masses of people through their crisis policy, and preparations for fascism and war. The British bourgeoisie is not patriotic, it is a reactionary, traitorous class which manipulates the national question, which promotes the most rabid chauvinism in order to try to fool the people and line them up behind its imperialist, warmongering activities abroad and its anti-working class, anti-democratic policies at home. As Marx stated, "the chauvinism of the bourgeoisie is only a vanity, giving a national cloak to all their own pretensions."

When the revolutionary and progressive forces oppose the warmongering and reactionary policies of the British bourgeoisie in [the] South Atlantic, are they "enemies of Britain"? This is not the case! They are enemies of the British bourgeoisie and all its representatives; they are enemies of their imperialist policies abroad; they are enemies of the U.S. imperialists and their increasing domination of Britain; they are enemies of the reactionary policies of the British bourgeoisie at home. The revolutionary and progressive forces stand against and fight the real "enemies of Britain" and vigorously take up the struggle to expose their false and hypocritical "patriotism."

To suggest, as the "left" opportunists do, that "British socialists should be 'enemies of Britain' " adds weight to the attempts of the bourgeoisie to carry on its fraud of posing as "patriotic," of promoting the "common" interests of all classes within the nation and presenting itself as the "defender of the nation." It facilitates its attempts to implement further reactionary and repressive policies against the people under the guise of "dealing" with "the enemies of Britain."

The revisionists assert that they are not "enemies of Britain," while the "left" opportunists declare that they are "enemies of Britain." The revisionists and "left" opportunists thus work hand-in-glove to try to obscure the real question at stake, namely that it is British imperialism and its warmongering activities which are the enemy of the British workers and people and against whom they should intensify their struggles; the revisionists and "left" opportunists complement and utilize each other in order to try to split the movement along completely false lines and impose on it equally reactionary positions.

On the Slogan "Victory to Argentina"

The "left" opportunists have raised the slogan "Victory to Argentina" in order to realize their aim of splitting and subverting the movement. The important question at stake is the manner and the basis on which the "left" opportunists are raising this slogan.

What is the situation? It is very clear that the demand of the Argentinian people for the return of the Falkland Islands to Argentina, for the British imperialists to end their colonial rule in the area, is a just demand, a demand that is recognized by world progressive opinion and by the United Nations itself. The principal question at stake in Britain is to mobilize the people to fight the reactionary, warmongering policies of the British bourgeoisie, to demand that it withdraw its task force, to demand that it ends its colonial, imperialist activities in the South Atlantic and hands the Falkland Islands back to the Latin American people, from whom it stole them by force of arms 150 years ago. It is the struggle for these demands -- waged in direct opposition to the attempts by the revisionists and social-democrats to divert the movement into supporting a neo-colonial solution through the United Nations -- which is uniting increasing numbers of the broad masses of people against the warmongering activities of the Thatcher government and the support for these activities by all the political representatives of the bourgeoisie. Furthermore, it is well known that the progressive forces in Britain do not support the Argentinian military junta, which rules Argentina through a fascist dictatorship on behalf of the Argentinian bourgeoisie and foreign imperialism, especially that of the United States. And, finally, it is also well known that the progressive forces do not demand that more British workers and people should die on behalf of the British imperialists, but that they should not fight in this reactionary war of aggression.

Under these conditions, then, what is the aim of the "left" opportunists in raising the slogan "Victory to Argentina!" Firstly, it is to try to prevent the broadest possible unity of the people being built and strengthened on correct, democratic principles; it is to try to split the movement, spread confusion in its ranks and give ammunition to the bourgeoisie and revisionists to attack and subvert it. Secondly, it is to try to liquidate the struggle against the British imperialists and their warmongering activities, to divert the struggle into a vague, "support" movement for Argentina. Thirdly, it is to spread every kind of confusion in the ranks of the people, to try to confuse and hide the actual class questions at stake. Thus, the "left" opportunists make the question one of supporting "Argentina" and not one of supporting the Argentinian people in their struggles for their rights and emancipation in Argentina and against the Argentinian monopoly bourgeoisie and its military junta, against U.S. domination, against British colonial rule over part of their territory and against British imperialist bloody aggression. At the same time, in Britain the "left" opportunists make the issue one of being "enemies of Britain" and not of being enemies of the British imperialists.

* * * *

The "left" opportunists say that it is necessary to follow the policies they advocate in order not to "separate the struggle against war from the struggle to overthrow capitalism." This serves only to further expose their sinister aims. For these forces, the democratic struggle to unite the people against imperialist war, to unite the people to fight British imperialism and colonialism is "pacifist patriotism." Thus, by introducing their "struggle to overthrow capitalism" AS THE BASIS OF UNITY of the antiwar movement, they strive to disunite the movement, restrict its expansion in numbers, militancy and determination and give a free hand to the imperialists to carry out their warmongering schemes.

These dangerous and reactionary aims of the "left" opportunists can be further illustrated by considering the basis upon which they are raising their slogans. They write, for example, "Every defeat for British imperialism...intensifies the attacks of the Tories against the working class and accelerates revolutionary struggle." Thus, here are these "left" opportunists, under the guise of "accelerat(ing) revolutionary struggle" in Britain, hoping and working for an intensification of "the attacks of the Tories against the working class." For these "left" opportunists the attacks on and restriction of the sacred and hard-won rights of the workers and people, the dangers of fascism, are nothing; on the contrary they welcome such reactionary and repressive measures! Thus, their tactics in the movement against British imperialism are openly designed to facilitate the monopoly bourgeoisie's preparations for fascism, its fascization of the state at home. Such tactics are reactionary and serve only the bourgeoisie and its representatives and are extremely dangerous for the working class and broad masses of people.

The Necessity of Great Vigilance Against the Policies of the "Left" Opportunists

In the struggles of the people, and in particular in the present struggles of the people against the warmongering, imperialist activities of the Thatcher government, the main danger to these struggles comes from the right, from the social-democrats and revisionists. But while lighting this danger, the revolutionary and progressive forces must also retain utmost vigilance against the so-called "left" trends who use the frustration and opposition of the workers and people against the treacherous activities of the social-democrats and revisionists in order to push their semi-anarchist, semi-terrorist positions. Such policies are greatly welcomed and encouraged by the bourgeoisie in order to try to isolate and discredit the real revolutionary, progressive and democratic forces from the masses of workers and people and to provide further justifications for the adoption of increased repressive measures against the people.

[Back to Top]

On the history of the nationalist deviations of the RCP of Britain (ML):

The struggle against the theory of "three worlds" must not be forgotten

A National "Anti-Imperialist" Revolution for Capitalist Britain....................	26
Support for British Imperialist in the "World United Front" Against the Two Superpowers...........................................................................................	27
A Big "Three Worldist" Campaign in Support of the EEC............................	27
Renunciation of the Idea of a Struggle for British National Interests............	28
Why Did the Leadership of the RCPB (ML) Oppose the Struggle Against Social-Chauvinism in the U.S.?......................................................................	29
On What Grounds Did the RCPB (ML) Support the Argentine Junta?...........	29
The RCPB (ML) Resurrects the Struggle for British National Interests.........	30
The Struggle Against Maoism Must Be Carried Through to the End!...........	30

The recent war over the Falkland Islands brought out in striking relief a number of serious shortcomings in the tactics and agitation of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (ML). These shortcomings centered on deviations in the direction of adapting to petty-bourgeois nationalism. As discussed in depth in our article beginning on page 10 of this issue, the leadership of the RCPB (ML) made the serious mistake of trying to oppose the British imperialist aggression in the South Atlantic with a national program, with a struggle for British "national rights" and British "sovereignty." As well, the RCPB (ML) made the serious error of supporting the Argentine fascist generals and came out foursquare in solidarity with their ultra-reactionary nationalist cause.

In our opinion, these were not isolated mistakes of the moment. Quite the contrary. Nationalist deviations have plagued the RCPB (ML) and its predecessor organizations for more than a decade. Even on the fundamental question of whether or not the revolution in capitalist Britain is a proletarian socialist revolution or some kind of national anti-imperialist revolution, the British Party has vacillated from one position to the other over the years. The particular ideological source of these vacillations has been the gravely affected the British Party. That is why today, when we see the leadership of the RCPB (ML) again setting forth a program of struggle for British sovereignty and British national rights, and when we see them arguing the cause of the "third world" Argentine fascists, we cannot but be concerned.

In this article we review some of these historical weaknesses. The purpose of this review is not to present the static viewpoint that shortcomings of the past cannot be overcome. Rather, in our opinion, lessons from the weaknesses of the past shed a beam of light that can only assist the British Party to see the gravity of the shortcomings of the present, and assist the British comrades to overcome these shortcomings.

A National "Anti-Imperialist" Revolution for Capitalist Britain

In the early days of their formation the predecessor organizations of the RCPB (ML) -- the English Internationalists, the English Communist Movement (ML), and then the Communist Party of England (ML) -- were heavily influenced by the petty-bourgeois nationalism of Mao Zedong Thought. This even went to the extent of denouncing the "left adventurist stand" that in bourgeois-imperialist Britain the principal contradiction in society is between the working class and the capitalist exploiting class; and it went to the extent of denying that the revolution in Britain was a socialist one.

For example, in 1971 the Workers' England Weekly News, the newspaper of the English Communist Movement (ML), the predecessor of today's Workers' Weekly, carried a major article on the fourth anniversary of the "Necessity for Change Conference." (This conference was held in London in 1967. It was organized by two organizations called the Canadian Internationalists and the Irish Internationalists. Among other things, this meeting took the decision to form the English Internationalists.) This article sets forth and confirms the strategic line of the British revolution as follows:

"With respect to the question 'What is the stage of the revolution?,' there were those who took a left adventurist stand; i.e. 'left' in form but right in essence. For them there were no stages leading to the proletarian revolution. Gesticulating wildly, they talked of the 'working class' versus 'the capitalists'....

"A right capitulationist line appeared in the conference which also stood for 'no stage in the revolution.'...

"The stage of revolution in England can be characterized as MASS DEMOCRATIC in form, and ANTI-IMPERIALIST AND ANTI-FASCIST in content. Serving this stage will lead to the development of PROLETARIAN SOCIALIST REVOLUTION.'' (August 25, 1971, pp. 1, 8. capitals as in original)

Support for British Imperialism in the "World United Front" Against the Two Superpowers

This "democratic" and "anti-imperialist" "stage of the revolution" was directly linked to the Maoist and "three worldist" strategy of a "world united front." including the imperialist and reactionary forces, allegedly directed against the two superpowers. In line with this strategy, Workers England Weekly News considered capitalist Britain to be part of the "powerful World United Front against U.S. imperialism and its accomplice Soviet social-imperialism." (December 31, 1971) It waxed enthusiastic about how "the growing unity of capitalist countries in opposing U.S. domination" is "a powerful factor contributing to the defeat of U.S. imperialism." (Ibid.)

Moreover, it directly declared its support for the Conservative Heath government as a supporter, albeit a vacillating one, of the interests of the people of the world. "We, the English Communist Movement (Marxist-Leninist) support the action of the Heath Government in voting for China's entry (to the UN]. Insofar as the Heath Government supports the interests of the People's Republic of China and the people of the world we support it, insofar as it opposes these interests we oppose it. It is, in fact, an indication of the irresistible trend in the world that the Heath Government -- its hands daily stained with the blood of the heroic Irish people -- should be forced to support a just cause." (December 7, 1971, emphasis added)

Thus, as far back as 1971, the predecessor organization of the RCPB (ML) had already been adversely affected by the class collaborationist and social-chauvinist poison of Maoist "three worlds-ism."

A Big "Three Worldist" Campaign in Support of the EEC

From its national "anti-imperialist" revolution and its qualified support for the Heath government, the British Party slid deep into the quagmire of the "three worldist" marsh. For example, in the summer of 1975, the CP of England (ML) ran a big campaign to vote "yes" to keep British imperialism in the European Common Market (EEC). Let us examine the arguments that were used at that time because they bear a great deal of contemporary relevance.

In May. 1975 the National Executive of CPE(ML) issued a major statement on the forthcoming EEC referendum. (Workers' Weekly, Vol. 3, No. 4. May 17, 1975) This statement declared:

"The National Executive of the Communist Party of England (Marxist-Leninist) holds that it is the proletarian internationalist duty of the British working class to support the continued membership of Britain in the EEC. The necessity of doing so stems solely from the necessity of opposing the two superpowers. U.S. imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism. their contention for hegemony in Europe, and their plans to launch a third world war to redivide Europe between them. Accordingly, the National Executive is putting forward the slogans: 'Vote for Britain's continued membership in the EEC in order to oppose the two superpowers and their plans for a third world war!,' 'Oppose British monopoly capitalism's propaganda for great-nation chauvinism!' "

The statement goes on to point out that the "European monopoly capitalists have more and more attempted to unite to form a bloc against the two superpowers" and that it is the duty of the proletariat to support such a bloc because the two superpowers "seriously threaten smaller imperialist and capitalist powers such as those of western Europe."

As to the slogan against "great-nation chauvinism," this was simply "internationalism" of the "three worlds" variety. It was directed against the British reactionaries who opposed membership in the EEC. And it was also directed against the revisionists and "left" social-democrats. who were against the EEC. The CPE(ML) denounced "the whole legion of opportunist trends" for the "shameful" stand of putting the "short term" class and revolutionary interests of the working class before the sacred unity of the European imperialist bourgeoisie.

The statement declared:

"It was essential for the British working class to objectively ally with the British monopoly capitalist class [during World War II].... Similarly today, not to support the unity of the European capitalists against the two superpowers...amounts in practice to aiding and abetting the two superpowers under the pretext of 'opposing' British monopoly capitalism." (emphasis added)

After the referendum, Workers' Weekly hailed "yes" vote as "an important victory for the struggle of. the world's people." ("Workers' Weekly Commentary: The EEC Referendum," June 21-28, 1975) It explained this victory as follows:

"The vote is in line with the trend growing throughout the world, of the people, nations and countries uniting to oppose the two superpowers, their hegemony and preparations for a third world war. This contention between the two superpowers is more and more centering on Europe and seriously threatening the smaller imperialist and monopoly capitalist powers there. In order to oppose this threat, a number of European monopoly capitalist countries have increasingly united to form a bloc to oppose the two superpowers which itself has more recently been forced, because of the growing trend in the world today, to unite with the third world countries to a certain extent, to further oppose U.S. 'imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism."

While recognizing that the "no" vote was strongest among the industrial workers, Workers' Weekly claims that among the workers "large numbers realized that there was basically no choice but to stay in the EEC if Britain was not to become a colony of one or both of the two superpowers." (Ibid., emphasis added)

Workers' Weekly reserved its most virulent language for the "great-nation chauvinist" stand of the opportunists, who "tell the workers to vote 'No' because [EEC membership] will hold back the struggle for socialism in this country, never pointing to the international duties of the British working class...." And it also attacked the opportunists for refusing to "raise in the working class the importance of putting the short-term considerations of revolution secondary to the overall task of uniting with the world's people to oppose the two superpowers and the serious danger of another world war...." (emphasis added)

From this campaign in support of the EEC, it is clear that the British Party had gone a long way down the road of Maoist "three worlds-ism." It had gone a long way in support of British and European "second world" imperialism and in support of "second" and "third world" unity. It had gone a long way in placing the national struggle against the "threat of the superpowers and the danger of war" before the "secondary" and "short-term consideration of revolution" and socialism.

Renunciation of the Idea of a Struggle for British National Interests

After the 7th Congress of the Party of Labor of Albania, held in November 1976, the open clash between revolutionary Marxism-Leninism and Chinese revisionist "three worlds-ism" burst out on a world scale. Gradually, over a period of time, the British Party also came to see the light about the counterrevolutionary nature of the "three worlds" theory. It also began criticism of the social-chauvinist theses which the British Party had itself been campaigning for up to that time. These were positive steps.

Of particular significance, the British Party began to reject the idea of a national struggle for Britain. Indeed, the idea of a national struggle in the imperialist powers such as Britain was the cornerstone of the "three worldist" denial of revolution and socialism for these countries. This bourgeois nationalism was the springboard from which the Maoist "three worlders" leaped into an alliance with their own imperialist bourgeoisie in the name of fighting the superpowers. And it was this collaborationist treachery which later led to open support for U.S. imperialism in its rivalry with Soviet social-imperialism. Therefore it was of considerable importance that the British Party took steps to renounce this nationalist idea.

In June 1977 Workers' Weekly wrote: "The British monopoly capitalist class is firmly in the camp of 'western' imperialism headed and subservient to the U.S. imperialists.... This does not mean that there is a form of 'national' struggle against U.S. imperialism in Britain. Britain is still an imperialist power in its own right...." (Workers' Weekly, June 4, 1977, p. 4, emphasis added)

In a May Day speech that same year, a spokesman of the CPE(ML) declared that: "...in all the capitalist countries, and of particular importance to us, in those countries which are oppressor countries, whether they are superpowers or smaller imperialist countries such as Britain, the task of the Marxist-Leninists is to overthrow their own bourgeoisie. The erroneous line, inside a capitalist country, of a united front against the two superpowers...is revisionism and undermines the revolutionary struggle of the masses to defeat their own bourgeoisie. This line is in fact no different to the line of the second international." (Workers' Weekly, May 14, 1977, p. 5, emphasis added)

In 1979 the CPE(ML) produced a document entitled Presenting the Ideas of the First Congress of the CPE(ML). This document states that: "The Party totally opposes and repudiates the modern revisionist thesis...[which raises] such reactionary and social-chauvinist slogans in a major imperialist country such as Britain of 'liberating the country from U.S. or Soviet control' and 'fighting for the independence of Britain.'" (p. 17)

Subsequently, in the summer of 1979, Workers' Weekly carried an article entitled "The Followers of 'Mao Zedong Thought' in Britain Promote Straightforward National and Social-Chauvinism," as part of its series '"Mao Zedong Thought' -- A Profoundly Anti-Marxist Theory." This article points out that, to "call upon the working class to fight for its 'national' interests" is "a most dangerous line in the working class movement," and that this is "the same chauvinism of the trade union aristocrats, of the open social-chauvinists." With awkward formulations but with spirit, this article declared that: "The BRITISH NATION IS AN OPPRESSOR NATION. To raise, in whatever form, with whatever justification, the question of 'saving Britain,' of saving' this oppressor nation, objectively serves the open social chauvinists, objectively serves to create the same reactionary illusions about this 'great' British 'nation' in the working class movement, objectively serves to divert the working class to supporting the imperialist and exploitative aims of the British bourgeoisie. " (See Marxist-Leninist Journal, Theoretical Journal of the RCPB (ML), Vol. 1, No. 3, p. 26. capitals as in original)

Why Did the Leadership of the RCPB (ML) Oppose the Struggle Against Social-Chauvinism in the U.S.?

But while the leadership of the RCPB (ML) had criticized some of the main theses of "three worlds-ism" and social-chauvinism, it was not firm in its positions and lacked the necessary enthusiasm to carry forward this struggle. This was clearly reflected in the January 10, 1980 letter which the Central Committee of the RCPB (ML) addressed to our organization.

In September 1976, our organization denounced the social-chauvinist theses being put forward at that time by the "three worldist" groups in the U.S., according to which the American proletariat should "strike the main blow at the Soviet Union." For years our organization had been fighting the neo-revisionist followers of Chinese revisionism. Now a new stage of this struggle opened up with the struggle against their despicable social-chauvinism. This struggle was of immense importance for the exposure of the opportunist groups in the U.S. and for preparing the conditions for founding the Marxist- Leninist Party, an historic task which was successfully accomplished on January 1, 1980. But the Letter of the CC of the RCPB (ML) bitterly attacked this struggle.

Indeed, the leadership of the British Party cursed the principled fight that we were waging against our "own" domestic social-chauvinists in the crudest terms. It resorted to demagogy about how this struggle "tends to make social-chauvinism and not the American monopoly capitalist class the main enemy." The letter from the British Party condemned our militant struggle against social-chauvinism and for the Party on the grounds that "To raise in 1979, that the Party should be built without and against the social-chauvinists was minimally a truism." It was a "truism" because allegedly the question of social-chauvinism "was settled" in Lenin's day! Thus, the letter of the RCPB (ML) resorted to contemptuous mocking of the very idea of the contemporary relevance of the Leninist principles on the fight against social-chauvinism.

As it turns out, there was more involved in this letter than just the leadership of the RCPB (ML) disapproving of the fight our Party was conducting against Maoist "three worlds-ism" and social-chauvinism. It is now clear that the leadership of the British Party had lost enthusiasm for carrying through this struggle in its own country.

On What Grounds Did the RCPB (ML) Support the Argentine Junta?

Today, the leadership of the British Party has again lapsed into nationalist deviations. And from the ideological standpoint these deviations are identical to the outlook of Maoist "three worlds-ism." This was clearly borne out by the stands which it adopted during the war over the Falkland Islands. The Workers' Weekly did not adhere to the perspective of the proletarian class interests, the perspective of socialism and the revolutionary struggle of the toilers. On the contrary, it saw events only in the light of the national interests and sovereignty of states. It saw events from an a-class and national viewpoint all too reminiscent of infamous "three worlds-ism."

It was from this nationalist angle that the leadership of the RCPB (ML) made its about-face and came out in support of the fascist Argentine junta. For the first two months of the war, on generally correct grounds, Workers' Weekly condemned the reactionary aims of the Argentine generals in seizing the Falklands. Then, out of the blue, without a word of explanation. Workers' Weekly made a spectacular reversal and came out foursquare in support of the junta. Overnight, the fascists became glorious anti-imperialist fighters. Overnight the miserable adventure which the junta had launched to rescue its tottering dictatorship was transformed into "the Argentinian people are fighting a just struggle." This "just struggle" was even compared to the liberation wars against the fascist aggressors in the 1930's. (Workers' Weekly, June 12, 1982)

Why did Workers' Weekly have such a dramatic change of heart? It reconsidered because it discovered the "national interests" involved, namely, Argentine sovereignty over the Malvinas. It reconsidered because in the final analysis Workers Weekly was loyal to the a-class national principle: sovereignty above all -- the cause of the proletariat and peoples be damned.

This is precisely what is meant when Workers Weekly justifies hailing the adventure of the Argentine fascists on the grounds that "the character of the regime has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Argentina has completely just and rightful claim for the return of its territory." (Workers' Weekly, June 26, 1982) In other words, who cares if the purpose of the seizure of the Malvinas was only to strengthen the hand of a pro-imperialist and nazi-like dictatorship? Who cares if it had the objective of diverting the storm of popular struggle against the fascist, imperialist and capitalist yoke? Who cares about the emancipation of the multi-million strong Argentine proletariat anyway?

After all, such a trifle as "the character of the regime and system in Argentina has absolutely nothing to do with "the matter, because there is a far higher and more sacred ideal at stake -- the "completely just and rightful claim" over a cluster of windswept and barren islands lying hundreds of miles off Argentine shores. So let us sacrifice the workers and revolutionaries to the tender mercies of fascism; let us sit and applaud the "just and rightful" and totally miserable military adventure of the Argentine hangmen.

No, this is not Marxism-Leninism. This is simply crude apologetics for the ultra-reactionary nationalism for which the Argentine fascists are so well known. This is simply "three worldist" dogma which tries to line up the workers and the oppressed peoples behind the "anti-imperialist" and "nationalist" pretensions of the reactionary, capitalist-land- lord, and pro-imperialist regimes of the so-called "third world." In fact, the "three worlders" have been arguing for years that "the character of the regime and system...has absolutely nothing to do" with their support for the "just and rightful claims" of the likes of the late Shah of Iran, Marcos of the Philippines, Pinochet of Chile, or the Argentine generals.

The RCPB (ML) Resurrects the Struggle for British National Interests

But the errors in the direction of nationalism did not stop with support for the "third world" heroes of the Argentine junta. The Falklands war also brought out, in all of its patriotic glory, the struggle for the British national interests. Incredible as it may seem, Workers' Weekly attempted to oppose the British imperialist aggression from a patriotic and nationalist standpoint: that the war is a manifestation of the "betrayal of the national interests" to U.S. imperialism; that the British bourgeoisie "sell(s) out the sovereignty of the nation...to the U.S. imperialists and other foreign imperialist powers"; that "the British bourgeoisie is not patriotic, it is a... traitorous class"; and so forth and so on.

On the basis of such "national" tactics, in the midst of the Falklands war Workers Weekly vehemently condemned the "sectarian" slogan "The Main Enemy Is at Home." It did so on the grounds of "fighting all imperialism...headed by the two superpowers...and opposing the growing and grave danger of inter-imperialist war." It did so despite the fact that this slogan is a fundamental Leninist concept dividing the proletarian revolutionaries from the social-chauvinists, "three-worldist" and other revisionists and opportunists. It did so despite the fact that renouncing this slogan is tantamount to returning to the old arguments for "putting the short-term considerations of revolution secondary to the overall task...to oppose the two superpowers and the serious danger of another world war."

Meanwhile, the so-called "national question" of "British sovereignty" began to be ballyhooed in the pages of Workers' Weekly as though someone had rediscovered the wheel. The struggle for British "national rights" and "sovereignty" began to be placed in the center of the agitation as though it were the miracle cure for the danger of imperialist war and many other of life's ills.

Indeed, this line of a national struggle was a central part of the "Report on the General Line of the Party," which was adopted by the Tenth Plenum of the Central Committee of the RCPB (ML). According to the June 2, 1982 communique from this plenum, the adopted "Report on the General Line of the Party" discussed the "national question in Britain" -- that is the struggle for "sovereignty rights" -- and declared that this is "an extremely important democratic question to take up for solution." (Workers' Weekly, June 5, 1982)

The Struggle Against Maoism Must Be Carried Through to the End!

The shortcomings which have become so evident in the agitation and tactics of the RCPB (ML) during the Falklands war cannot fail to be a cause for concern. As we have seen, the petty-bourgeois and Maoist nationalism had a major impact on the British Party from the time of its formation. This Maoist deviation brought the British comrades a series of fiascoes and threatened the elimination of any revolutionary character of their Party. However, the British comrades eventually saw the danger of the "three worldist" and social-chauvinist positions that they had adopted and, for a time, pulled back.

The RCPB (ML) should have learned a profound lesson from this experience. It should have placed before itself the task of waging an uncompromising ideological and political struggle against Maoism and Maoist nationalism and "three worlds-ism." It should have carried the struggle against social-chauvinism through to the end.

But instead, by January 10, 1980, when the struggle was anything but over, the leadership of the RCPB (ML) was lecturing to our Party that the struggle against social-chauvinism was a "settled" question since Lenin's time. But instead by the spring of 1982, the leadership of the RCPB (ML) has lapsed into nationalist deviations that are ideologically identical to Maoist "three worlds- ism." But instead, today it is deviating in the direction of the very same nationalist program that only two short years ago the most important documents of the RCPB (ML) itself were condemning as nothing less than social-chauvinist and revisionist treachery to the working class.

From this it can only be concluded that the Maoist and nationalist deviations of the leadership of the RCPB (ML) are serious and deep-rooted. They cannot be overcome by looking the other way and allowing them to fester. No, the RCPB (ML) should squarely face these shortcomings. It should examine closely its own historical struggle and the lessons that must be drawn from the grave errors of the past. This is the Marxist-Leninist and militant road of overcoming the shortcomings of the present.

[Back to Top]

The "three worldist" deviation of the CP of Canada (M-L) and the military adventure of the Argentine generals

The stand of the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) in supporting the Argentine junta in the recent bloodletting over the Falkland/Malvinas Islands has shown once again the ugly results of their Maoist deviations.

This was a reactionary war on both sides. The bourgeoisies of Britain and Argentina dispatched their workers to butcher each other for no higher objective than to defend the colonial occupation of the islands by British imperialism, on the one side, and to bolster the fascist rule of the Argentine capitalist oligarchy on the other side. The interests of the working class and the revolution demanded that Marxist-Leninists oppose this reactionary war and encourage the workers of both countries to fight against their "own" respective bourgeoisie.

But the CPC (M-L), which has never shaken off the petty-bourgeois nationalist prejudices of the "three worlds" theory, came out foursquare on the side of the Argentine generals. This bloodstained regime is the chief agency of the imperialist plunder of the Argentine masses and a linchpin of imperialism throughout the region. Yet the CPC (M-L) embellished the junta's phoney claims to be waging an "anti-colonial" and "anti-imperialist" war and urged the workers to line up behind the generals, in the name of defending "national sovereignty."

This stand shows where the CPC (M-L)'s crusade against the ideological struggle, where their objections to carrying through the fight against Mao Zedong Thought, has led them. They remain prey to the revisionist concepts of the "three worlds" theory and have ended up sacrificing the workers' struggles at the altar of the fascist executioners.

Painting the Argentine Junta in Liberation Colors

A basic tenet of "three worlds-ism" is its penchant for losing sight of the revolution in the dependent and neo-colonial countries and, instead, promoting the "third world" governments as the liberating anti-imperialist force. The "three worlders" embroil themselves in every petty squabble between the imperialists and the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nations. A mere word of reactionary nationalist demagogy uttered by a "third world" regime is enough to send the "three worlders" into ecstasy, while the struggles of the oppressed masses count for nothing. With such a view, over the years the Chinese revisionists and their followers have supported and tried to prettify even the most bloodstained regimes such as that of the Shah of Iran, the brutal military dictatorship of Pakistan, the CIA-installed Mobutu regime in Congo-Kinshasa (Zaire), the Pinochet regime in Chile and so on. This same "three worldist" error has led the CPC (M-L) to come out in support of the fascist junta in Argentina.

In this case, the CPC (M-L) actually admits that the Argentine junta is fascist and even that it has been the basis for the plunder of the toiling masses of Argentina by the U.S., British and other Western imperialists. The CPC (M-L) tells us, with the military adventure into the Falklands, the Argentine regime has suddenly become a fighter against "imperialism and colonialism" and the defender of the "Argentine nation." The CPC (M-L) reports, "The imperialists...who are now exerting all-sided military, economic and political pressure against Argentina are the very ones who supported the regime in Argentina until it acted against the British colonial occupiers. The fact that they are now all exercising sanctions against Argentina is evidence that their support for the fascist regime there is because it facilitated their plunder and domination of the country while as soon as the regime took an action which claimed the right of Argentina against imperialism and colonialism they acted against it." (Peoples Canada Daily News, June 7, 1982, p. 2, emphasis added)

Here an obvious question arises. The Argentine junta represents the rule of the Argentine oligarchy of industrialists and landlords. It is notorious the world over for its systematic torture and murder of tens of thousands of workers and other toilers who have been fighting against the oligarchy and the imperialists. The regime not only supports the imperialist plunder of the Argentine masses, but it is also a linchpin of imperialism throughout the region. Only days before it invaded the Falklands it was negotiating with U.S. imperialism to send its troops to back the fascist junta in El Salvador against the revolution there. Furthermore, it is well known that the junta's support for imperialism involves its own strivings to enslave other peoples. The Argentine bourgeoisie's political and economic tentacles have long extended beyond its borders, and it has often proclaimed its dreams of becoming the dominant power in the continent. How can such a regime suddenly become the defender of the Argentine people against imperialism? This question needs an explanation, but the CPC (M-L) nowhere even tries to explain it.

Instead, the CPC (M-L) tries to slip around the question. The British imperialists, they tell us, supported the regime for imperialist aims and went to war with the junta for imperialist aims. This is unquestionably true. But it does not explain how the Argentine fascists who have been ardent supporters of imperialism are suddenly fighters against imperialism. The CPC (M-L) cannot explain this paradox, and indeed does not even try to explain it, because it is not true.

The Argentine junta went to war with Britain to save itself from the struggle of the Argentine toilers, to divert the workers' struggle into a campaign of "national unity" against the foreign enemy. Comrade Lenin once pointed out:

"The bourgeoisie of the oppressed nations persistently utilize the slogans of national liberation to deceive the workers; in their internal policy they use these slogans for reactionary agreements with the bourgeoisie of the dominant nation...; in their foreign policy they strive to come to terms with one of the rival imperialist powers for the sake of implementing their predatory plans...." ("The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination (Theses),'' Collected Works, Vol. 22, p. 148, emphasis added)

The Argentine junta is precisely trying to deceive the workers with nationalist rhetoric. Instead of combating this deception, the CPC (M-L) has taken the regime at its word.

In fact, the CPC (M-L) actually tries to create the impression that the military adventure of the junta is on a par with the mass revolutionary struggle of the toilers of El Salvador, Guatemala, etc. The CPC(M- L) writes, "While it is the inalienable right of the peoples to rid their countries of colonial and neo-colonial domination and to expel the foreign occupiers, British imperialism and its allies are turning truth on its head and are calling Argentina the 'aggressor.' This is typical imperialist logic whereby the oppressed peoples who stand up for their rights against foreign domination, aggression and intervention are called the 'aggressors,' 'terrorists,' 'extremists,', 'violent,' etc. Today the patriots fighting against the savage terror of the U.S. imperialist-backed fascist regimes in El Salvador and Guatemala are called 'terrorists' and 'violent,' the Palestinian people fighting for their homeland are called 'terrorists' as are the Irish patriots, while the Soviet occupiers of Afghanistan describe the Afghan people fighting to drive them out as 'bandits.' '' ( PCDN, June 7, 1982, p. 1) With such bombastic arguments as this, the CPC (M-L) tries to make us forget that the Argentine junta is one of the most notorious fascist butchers of the people. We are to forget that this regime is a noisy supporter of the fascist regimes in El Salvador and Guatemala, a defender of Israeli zionism, and so forth. We are not even to suspect that in the Falklands war the Argentine junta is out for its own aims against the interests of the Argentine toilers. Rather, the junta should be considered as "patriots" fighting "foreign domination, aggression and intervention." Such is the topsy-turvy "three worldist" logic by which the CPC (M-L) tries to prettify the Argentine generals.

It is important to note that the CPC (M-L) has not only fallen prey to the nationalist rhetoric of the Argentine generals but it also seems to believe that other reactionary regimes in Latin America have had their eyes opened by the Falklands war. Speaking of a recent U.S. imperialist naval maneuver in the Caribbean, the CPC (M-L) reports, "However, this year, at least half a dozen countries which have participated in these war exercises in previous years, including Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela, are refusing to take part. This is a consequence of the exposure of U.S. imperialism's claim to be the greatest defender of sovereignty of the Latin American countries from interference from outside the Americas, as a result of its open and very active support of British imperialist aggression against Argentina....This greatly exacerbated U.S. imperialism's isolation in the region, such that even many of the regimes propped up by it do not want to openly support it.'' (PCDN. June 29, 1982)

It is true that U.S. imperialism is becoming increasingly isolated. The struggles of the toiling masses of El Salvador and Guatemala, for example, are inspiring the masses throughout the region to step up the struggle against their own reactionary regimes. Staring crisis in the face,, the reactionary regimes are sparing no effort to stamp out the popular struggles of the masses. But the CPC (M-L) wants to paint the solidarity of these regimes with the fascists in Argentina in anti-imperialist colors. For the CPC (M-L) every maneuver of the regimes becomes an opportunity to promote them, to portray them, in a typically "three worldist" fashion, as moving away from U.S. imperialism.

Negation of the Internal Class Contradictions

The Marxist-Leninists put great emphasis on the struggle of the oppressed nations against the yoke of imperialism and colonialism, considering it a component part of the world revolution. By the same token, the Marxist-Leninists always view this struggle from the angle of the interests of the workers and exploited masses. Lenin, in his famous theses on the national and colonial questions drafted for the Second Congress of the Communist International, emphasizes:

"...the Communist Party, as the avowed champion of the proletarian struggle to overthrow the bourgeois yoke, must base its policy, in the national question too, not on abstract and formal principles but, first, on a precise appraisal of the specific historical situation and, primarily, of economic conditions; second, on a clear distinction between the interests of the oppressed classes, of working and exploited people, and the general concept of national interests as a whole, which implies the interests of the ruling class; third, on an equally clear distinction between the oppressed, dependent and subject nations and the oppressing, exploiting and sovereign nations.... "("Preliminary Draft of Theses on the National and Colonial Questions," Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 145, emphasis added)

"Three worlds-ism" on the other hand, blurs the distinction between the interests of the toilers and the ruling classes. It negates the internal class contradictions in the dependent countries, it forgets about the revolution, and from this angle can see no other force against imperialism but the empty posturing of reactionary regimes.

Following this "three worldist" perspective, the CPC (M-L) can apologize for the Argentine junta only by trying to obscure and hide the struggles of the Argentine masses. Indeed, from what is said in the numerous articles in the PCDN on the Falklands war. one would think that the workers and other toiling masses of Argentina don't exist. In one of the rare occasions when the CPC (M-L) even mentions the "Argentine people" it denounces anyone who dares support the mass struggle in Argentina on the grounds that "it is up to the people of a country to sort out their affairs." (PCDN, June 8, 1982, p.2)

On one occasion, however, the CPC (M-L) does mention the struggle of the Argentine people against fascism. But here the struggle is raised only to oppose it, to lecture that the workers must subordinate their struggle to the military adventure of the generals. The June 8 PCDN writes, "Thus, when it comes to the struggle of the Argentine people against fascism and for democracy, the British imperialists consistently stand against the democratic rights of the people.

"The elimination of colonialism and of all foreign domination is precisely a fundamental condition for the Argentine people to exercise their sovereign and democratic rights."

In this statement, as with much of their writing on the Falklands war. the CPC (M-L) uses the British imperialists as a foil. They write as if they are exposing the British imperialist demagogy that the colonial aggression is aimed at defending democracy. But the CPC (M-L) is actually lecturing the workers and all those who are defending the workers against the Argentine junta. If we bring this statement down from the high sounding and excruciatingly vague language of the sophist, it means simply that the military adventure of the junta (which the CPC (M-L) calls the "elimination of colonialism") will somehow bring democracy, or at least create the conditions for democracy, for the Argentine people.

This is just a "three worldist" absurdity. The Argentine people have been fighting against dependence on foreign imperialism for some time now and any concrete examination of that struggle will show that it has been expressed through the battles of the toiling masses against the Argentine regime. Argentina is a fairly developed capitalist country. The proletariat is the most numerous section of the working population. Twice as many people work in manufacturing than in agriculture, and even in agriculture the farm laborers predominate. Under such conditions the socialist revolution of the proletariat is on the agenda. In Argentina the struggle against foreign imperialism and against the military dictatorship is closely bound up with the struggle for socialism.

But the CPC (M-L) fails to study the question concretely, it fails to clearly distinguish between the interests of the toilers and the interests of the bourgeoisie, and it falls into empty preaching about the "sovereign rights of the nation" which inevitably leads them to prettify the ruling classes. By embellishing the nationalist rhetoric of the junta and calling on the workers to subordinate their struggle to the junta's military adventure, the CPC (M-L) is endorsing, not a struggle against imperialist domination, but a struggle against the Argentine toilers.

Petty-Bourgeois Nationalism

The CPC (M-L) tries to obscure its support for the Argentine generals by claiming that the junta is not the issue and then escaping to abstract generalities about the "sovereign rights of nations." We are told, "Its [British imperialism's -- ed.] aggression now is not an act against the junta as such but against the sovereign rights of the Argentine nation." (PCDN, June 8,1982) And what are these sovereign rights? "The Malvinas are historically and geographically a part of Argentina and Argentina had every right to defend its sovereignty and independence and expel the British occupiers." (PCDN, June 8, 1982) The CPC (M-L) repeats this phrase over and over again in all of its articles on the Falklands as if it will exorcise the demon of its support for the generals. But this sermon does not justify their stand, it only proves that they are following a petty-bourgeois nationalist perspective.

It is undeniable that the Falkland Islands are rightfully a part of Argentina. But does this mean that the junta is not the issue, or more, that the military adventure of the generals deserves support? Every Marxist-Leninist, indeed every serious democrat, will answer this question with an unreserved No! The Falklands are a secondary question in the Argentine people's struggle against the yoke of imperialism. Among other things, these islands are a tiny part of Argentina's territory and do not even have an Argentine population. The colonial occupation of the Falklands is not the cause of Argentina's dependence on imperialism, and the claim on the islands must be subordinated to the struggle of the toilers against the military junta and its imperialist backers.

This seems quite simple. But the CPC (M-L) can't grasp it. It sees the entire question from the angle of abstract rights, from a formal point of view. The Malvinas belong to Argentina, they reason, so any struggle for the islands is just, no matter how much damage it does to the cause of the people.

This petty-bourgeois nationalist perspective becomes all the more clear if we look back to the April 5 issue of PCDN, In April, right after the junta seized the islands, the CPC (M-L) came out to denounce it as an unjust war on both sides. But take a look at their reasoning: "No one can seriously believe that the fascist Argentine generals who sell out their country to the U.S. and other foreign imperialists and who savagely repress the working people are actually interested in liberating an island archipelago inhabited by 1,800 sheep farmers of British origin." (PCDN, April 5, 1982)

Isn't this amazing. In April the CPC (M-L) could not believe that the junta was really fighting for the Falklands. In June, the CPC (M-L) changed their stand with no explanation other than that "Argentina is exercising its legitimate right to rid its territory of colonial occupation." (PCDN, June 7, 1982) It seems that CPC (M-L) became convinced that the generals do indeed want to "liberate" the islands, and because of this the junta's brutal rule over the people is no longer an issue. Nor is the decades-long struggle of the Argentine toilers against the fascist rule of the oligarchy and U.S. imperialism an issue. No, for the CPC (M-L) the only issue is that the Malvinas belong to Argentina and everything else be hanged. The CPC (M-L) has become trapped in its quest for "sovereign rights" and it cannot see the overriding interests of the toilers or their struggle against the capitalist oligarchy and imperialism.

It is of some interest to look closer at the April 5 PCDN because it reveals the petty-bourgeois nationalist outlook that prevailed even when the CPC (M-L) was opposing both sides in the Falklands war and that leads them to dangerous stands against the interest of the working class. The CPC (M-L) criticized both the Argentine bourgeoisie and the British imperialist bourgeoisie for their "anti-national and anti-working class policies" and for "selling out the sovereignty of the nation." It concluded that "The imperialists and reactionary bourgeoisie are only interested in their own class interests to which they sacrifice the interests of the nation and in pursuit of which they are all too eager to use the people as cannon fodder."

Here it can be seen that the CPC (M-L), from the outset, viewed the Falklands conflict solely from a nationalist angle. In the phrase about the "anti-national and anti-working class policies," the stress was on the "anti-national" part. The CPC (M-L) is trying to redefine the concept of the "national interests" of Argentina and Britain to be synonymous with the interests of the proletariat, and then CPC (M-L) thrusts the struggle for "national interests" and the defense of "national sovereignty" to the fore. But this means they obscure the class questions; take the heat off the bourgeoisie; in fact, subordinate the proletariat to the bourgeoisie.

CPC (M-L) constantly preaches that the bourgeois ruling classes in countries such as Britain and Argentina (to say nothing of Canada) are "anti-national" and put their class interests over their national interests. Although CPC (M-L) does not say so in so many words, the impression is created that the working class, on the contrary, must elevate the national interest over the class interest. But Leninism teaches that "the general concept national interests as a whole...implies the interest the ruling class..." ("Preliminary Draft Theses on the National and the Colonial Questions," Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 145) The task of a proletarian party is to expose the real class interests that lie behind the empty, nationalist demagogy. The proletariat, to organize itself as a revolutionary force, must subordinate its national interests to the class struggle, the revolution and proletarian internationalism. This is basic, but CPC (M-L) is obscuring the class questions behind petty-bourgeois nationalist rhetoric.

We also see that the petty-bourgeois nationalism of the CPC (M-L) has led it to not only support the fascist Argentine generals, but also to introduce the defense of"British sovereignty" into the question of British imperialism's present aggression over the Falklands. It wrote that "The British imperialist bourgeoisie is also anti-national and anti-working class and it also sells out the sovereignty of the nation for dollars -- selling out also mainly to the U.S. imperialists." The CPC (M-L) did not continue to draw conclusions from this. But raising this issue can have no other effect than weakening the struggle against British imperialism. The sad results of such agitation can be seen in the case of the RCP of Britain (ML), which based its work on the Falklands conflict on this idea. (See p. 10.)

Of course, this view which puts the "national interests" to the fore is compatible with an internationalism of sorts, the international solidarity of all those who regard the "national sovereignty" of their capitalist bourgeoisie as the main issue, but who recognize the right of the petty-bourgeois nationalists of other countries to put their "national interests" in the first place too. This is the "internationalism" of Kautsky, who wrote in the midst of World War I that:

"It is the right and duty of everyone to defend his fatherland; true internationalism consists in this right being recognized for the socialists of all nations, including those who are at war with my nation." Lenin commented on this sarcastically: "True internationalism, we are told, means that we must justify German workers firing at French workers, and French workers firing at German workers, in the name of 'defense the father land'!'' (Both Kautsky's statement and Lenin's reply are in "The Collapse of the Second International," Collected Works, Vol. 21, pp. 219-220) This is the "internationalism" of narrow-minded petty-bourgeois nationalism, which undermines the work of uniting the workers for their common struggle against the capitalist world.

[Back to Top]

On the 4th Congress of CPC (M-L):

Once again on Canadian imperialism and the Maoist deviation of the leadership of the CP of Canada (M-L)

CPC (M-L)'s New Book -- An Empty Vessel Making a Big Din............................................	39
Negating Canadian Imperialism...............................................................................................	39
Canada Is Not a Colony But a Major Imperialist Power in the Present-Day World................	41
Is Canada Turning More and More Into a Vassal State?..........................................................	41
On the Strategic Perspective of the Canadian Revolution........................................................	43
The Arguments Denying Canadian Imperialism......................................................................	44
A) The heavy foreign investment in the Canadian economy does not negate the strength of the Canadian capitalists..........................................................................................	45
B) The facts about Canada's indebtedness...............................................................................	47
C) A ludicrous argument about Canada's international trade...................................................	48
D) Canada's partnership in the Atlantic Alliance does not make it a vassal state....................	49
Petty-Bourgeois Nationalism Replaces the Marxist-Leninist Class Standpoint......................	49
Petty-Bourgeois Nationalism Overlooks a "Trifle" -- Proletarian Internationalism...............	52
The Leadership of CPC (M-L) Has Revived the Absurdities of "National Bolshevism"........	54

Over the last two years, we have pointed out that behind the full-scale war launched against our Party by the leadership of the Communist Party of Canada(Marxist-Leninist) lies their Maoist and liquidationist deviations which pose a great danger to CPC (M-L) itself. In the period since its Third Congress in 1977, CPC (M-L) claims to have repudiated Maoism; but the truth is that, behind the cover of lip service to the repudiation of Maoism, the leadership of CPC (M-L) has fought hard to preserve their Maoist blunders. This has once again been confirmed by the recently held Fourth Congress of CPC (M-L).

The reports published by CPC (M-L) on this Congress indicate that it was marked by a series of irregularities. In April when the Congress was publicly announced, CPC (M-L) stressed very heavily that its central feature was the Political Report. And Peoples' Canada Daily News announced in its first Weekly Edition on April 3 that this Report would begin to be published starting in No. 3 of the Weekly Edition. But almost five months have passed by, and not a single document has been released from the Congress. Moreover, it was reported in PCDN that the Congress did not even get to vote on the Political Report. Instead it voted on a resolution from the "Commission on the General Line of the CPC (M-L)" which said that "the Commission had studied the Report...considered the Report to be consistent with the general line of the Party and proposed that it be adopted." (PCDN, Weekly Edition No. 1, April 3, 1982)

Of course, this is not the first time that CPC (M-L) has demonstrated such irregularities at its congresses. We can attest from our participation as a fraternal delegation at their Third Congress that major parts of the Political Resolution published afterwards were never discussed or voted on at the Congress itself These major parts of the Resolution included, among other things, the decision to disband all previously authorized basic units and committees of the Party, presumably to reconstitute them later. There were also gross irregularities manifested at the Special Congress in 1978.

Although the absence of documents makes it difficult to make a complete judgement of the Fourth Congress, the recent publication of a book by Comrade Hardial Bains, First Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPC (M-L), makes it possible to get a good idea of some of the key stands of this Congress. The first volume of this book, The Necessity for Revolution, was released around the time of the public announcement of the Fourth Congress. Indicating the connection between the line of the Congress and this book. PCDN carried in its April l0 edition a statement from a participant at the Congress that the "concrete analysis of the conditions of the revolution in Canada, summed up in the Political Report of the Central Committee to the Congress, submitted by Comrade Bains (is) fully documented in the new book The Necessity for Revolution." (PCDN, Weekly Edition No. 2, p. 8, col. 1)

The book was originally promised in two volumes, the first giving CPC (M-L)'s analysis of the conditions of Canada, and the second containing their elaboration of various questions of the strategy and tactics of the Canadian revolution. But although it was declared in April that Volume II would be "off the press very shortly," ads for it are no longer being printed in PCDN. It seems to have met the same fate as the documents of the Fourth Congress.

Although a complete picture of the Fourth Congress has to wait till some time in the future, depending on when (and if) the documents are ever published, the first volume of Hardial Bains' book gives ample proof that on various fundamental questions of the strategy of the Canadian revolution, the Fourth Congress has fully preserved the serious Maoist deviations of that party.

These questions include the assessment of the basic character of Canada and the stage of revolution in that country. From their earliest days, CPC (M-L) and its predecessors have denied that Canada is an imperialist country in its own right, using the pretext that American monopoly capital is a major exploiter and oppressor of the working people of Canada. Instead they have depicted Canada as a colony or neo-colony of the U.S., likening it to the dependent and colonial or neo-colonial countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America. This assessment of Canada has been used to deny that in Canada the main contradiction is between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. It has been used to negate the socialist character of the revolution. Instead, CPC (M-L) has painted the revolution in Canada in national liberation colors, presenting it as some sort of non-socialist anti-colonial revolution or as in an anti-imperialist non-socialist stage prior to some future socialist revolution.

Such positions are not Marxist-Leninist. They represent a Maoist deviation. It may be recalled that it was Maoism and its product, the "three worlds" theory, which grossly distorted the strategy of the revolution in the so-called "second world" imperialist countries of Europe, Japan and Canada. It negated the socialist revolution in these countries under the slogan that the main enemy of the working people of these countries was not the ruling domestic bourgeoisie but foreign imperialism. (For a fuller discussion of CPC (M-L)'s deviations on this question and their relation to Maoist "second world-ism," see the article "Against Mao Zedong Thought!," Part Two, in The Workers' Advocate, August 25, 1980.) It should also be noted that while CPC (M-L)'s petty-bourgeois nationalist position on the strategy for the Canadian revolution owes much of its inspiration to Maoism, this position is also common to the pro-Soviet revisionists of the "Communist Party of Canada" and the mainstream of Canadian social-democracy, who believe in a national struggle for independence as a precondition for socialism in Canada.

CPC (M-L) also adopted the ''three worldist" theses on the character of the Canadian revolution, but it gave the application of this theory in Canada an extreme twist of their own. Certain Maoist groups in Canada were quite willing to give lip service to recognizing Canada as an imperialist country even as they asserted that the main struggle was for the defense of Canadian independence and sovereignty from the two superpowers. But CPC (M-L) actually preferred to paint Canada in "third world" colors by denouncing the idea of Canadian imperialism. After the "three worlds" theory came under fire from the world's Marxist-Leninists, CPC (M-L) added their own "profound" criticism that one of the main problems with "three worlds-ism" was that it placed Canada among the imperialist countries of the "second world"!

The Maoist blunders of the leadership of CPC (M-L) have been enshrined in all its previous congresses and major documents. The Fourth Congress too has preserved this position intact. In fact, to a large part, the basic purpose of The Necessity for Revolution is to try to back up this untenable position. In this article, we will examine the falseness of Hardial Bains' arguments denying Canadian imperialism and negating the socialist revolution, As well, at the end of this article is attached an appendix of reference material from the major historical documents of CPC (M-L) showing that this Maoist deviation runs as a common thread through the entire history of that party.

CPC (M-L)'s New Book -- An Empty Vessel Making a Big Din

CPC (M-L) has accompanied the release of this book with the flourish of trumpets. Wild claims have been printed in PCDN that this book is "not only an extremely important ideological-political work for the Party and the Canadian revolution but also a definite contribution to the entire International Marxist- Leninist Communist Movement."

Such claims cannot be lightly passed over. Irrespective of the question of the Fourth Congress, such hefty claims about the significance of this book would by themselves call for a close look at it. But we have to admit that our reading of this book does not bear out these extravagant claims one bit. In fact, it brings to mind the old tale of the emperor and his new clothes.

Despite all the pompous declarations, the book is worthless, no, actually harmful, to the revolutionary and Marxist-Leninist movement. One can throw around the phrase "necessity for revolution" a thousand and one times, as the book does, but it is utterly empty when the book shows nothing of the actual processes that are paving the way for the revolution, speaks not a word about the actual class struggle, nor discusses the character of the revolution or the concrete tasks facing the workers and Marxist-Leninists.

In fact, the book is an expression of complete charlatanism. It is based on no original research but contains mainly a haphazard repetition of various pieces of statistical information from the government of Canada. Many of these pieces of data are worthless, others are simply listed with no conclusions drawn, and some are used to "prove" such earthshaking discoveries that "the proletariat and other working people make up the vast majority of the population of Canada." The author tries to use the data to back up his Maoist blunders on the character of Canada, and for that purpose he is downright dishonest with his use of the information. He juggles facts, highlights certain things while obscuring others, and so forth. But even so, facts are stubborn things and, if put together in a scientific manner, they end up refuting all his basic theses.

Negating Canadian Imperialism

In the 1920's and the 1930's, the Communist International recognized Canada as an imperialist country. It held that the Canadian bourgeoisie pursued a policy of imperialist domination and steered a line definitely in its own interests. This stand was linked to a general recognition that the British Dominions, like Canada, could not be classified alongside the colonies like India, etc. Rather, in the Dominions, capitalist development reproduced among the white population the class structure of the metropolis while wiping out the native population. The Dominions thus were given equal, or nearly equal rights, within the given imperialist system.

The Comintern also strongly criticized deviationist positions in the Communist Party of Canada which denied the need to prepare for a socialist revolution under the pretext that Canada first needed to realize full independence from the British Empire or the U.S. The Comintern declared that "the revolution in Canada is a proletarian revolution and that the demand for 'Canadian independence' is wrong on principle because it removes the eyes of the Canadian workers from their real enemy, the Canadian capitalists, abroad to America and Britain."

One would think that in the present period, when the Canadian bourgeoisie is much stronger than in the 20's and 30's, the conclusions of the Comintern would be more valid than ever. One would at least think that the leadership of CPC (M-L), who claim to be outstanding theoreticians, making even contributions of worldwide significance, would explain why they disagree with the assessment of the Comintern about such a fundamental question. But they have consistently refused to deal with the assessment of the Communist International and have instead revived the worst traditions of the "independentist" deviators that attacked the Communist Party of Canada from within.

Indeed. CPC (M-L) from its earliest days has tried to establish a special reputation for itself with its vociferous denunciations of the idea that Canada is an imperialist country where the main contradiction is between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. For instance, the Political Report of April 1970, the founding document of CPC (M-L), characterized Canada as a "neo-colony of the U.S. imperialists" and went so far as to call the ruling Canadian bourgeoisie a "comprador bourgeoisie." It explicitly placed the "contradiction between the working class, the laboring masses of both the urban and rural petit-bourgeoisie, and the capitalists" in a secondary position with respect to its view of the principal contradiction, that "between U.S. imperialism and its lackeys, the Canadian compradors, and the Canadian people." (CPC (M-L) Documents -- Political Reports 1970 and 1973, p. 11)

The last full congress of CPC (M-L), the Third Congress in March 1977, described Canada as "like a colony." It denounced the idea of calling "Canada an imperialist power with the main contradiction being that between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat" as a position of "opportunist sects." (Political Resolution of the Third Congress of CPC (M-L), pp. 17-18) In line with these views on the character of Canada, CPC (M-L) has consistently denied that the revolution in Canada is a proletarian socialist one.

However, in recent years, the leadership of CPC (M-L) has adopted the maneuver of evading any direct statements on the question of the existence of Canadian imperialism, while maintaining their deviationist positions intact. Thus, unlike many documents of the past, Hardial Bains' new book never openly opposes the idea that Canada is an imperialist power. Instead it tries to confuse the less than careful reader with various remarks which appear at first sight to be characterizations admitting the existence of Canadian imperialism. For instance, it even acknowledges that there is an "imperialist bourgeoisie" among the Canadian capitalists. But never, not once, does the book, or for that matter, anything in the pages of PCDN ever openly, directly and unequivocally state that Canada is an imperialist country.

This is no unconscious slip of the pen, but a calculated evasion in order to fully preserve their blunders, while throwing a few sops in the direction of their critics who accuse them of denying Canadian imperialism. This is further proven by the fact that CPC (M-L) has not ceased to paint Canada as a colony, attributing to it features which are applicable only to many of the dependent and neo-colonial countries. The basic thesis of The Necessity for Revolution is that:

"...Canada is a virtual colony of the United States, and in a very real sense can be considered as the 51st American state." (p. 106, emphasis added)

Hence, the stand of the Fourth Congress, as presented in this book, is fully consistent with the longstanding positions of CPC (M-L). Indeed, by presenting Canada as a "virtual colony" and as the "51st American state," their stand is more extreme than ever. It should be noted that their shift in formulations, such as their acknowledgment of an "imperialist bourgeoisie" and so forth, do not at all rectify the basic problem of their deviationist line. In fact, even if they were to concede to calling Canada an imperialist country, it would not solve the problem so long as they continued to deny that the main contradiction in Canada is between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie and to deny that the Canadian revolution is socialist. As we have already noted, this would only mean climbing from a "third worldist" stand on Canada to a "second worldist" position which admits that Canada is imperialist but still denies the class struggle and the socialist revolution.

In later sections of this article, we will examine the particular arguments made in The Necessity for Revolution which justify their painting Canada as a colony of the U.S. But at the outset, we would like to make it clear that the issue at stake here is not whether U.S. imperialism exploits and oppresses the working people of Canada. There is no question about that. Indeed, our Party has consistently opposed the U.S. imperialists' trampling over the masses around the world, both in the dependent and neo-colonial countries and in the developed capitalist nations.

The issue at stake in this examination of CPC (M-L)'s stand is what is the real nature of Canadian society, what position does the Canadian bourgeoisie hold in the exploitation and oppression of the Canadian people, and the implications for the class struggle and the revolution in that country. While firmly opposing U.S. imperialist oppression in Canada, our Party does not believe that the Marxist-Leninists and workers of the U.S. should acquiesce to painting petty-bourgeois nationalism in Marxist-Leninist colors or give our support to the stepped-up strivings of the Canadian imperialists in their rivalry with U.S. imperialism. Taking the heat off the Canadian bourgeoisie, one of U.S. imperialism's main allies in the world, is no service to the struggle against U.S. imperialism. Rather, our solidarity is with the struggle of the Canadian proletariat for emancipation, the struggle against the capitalist class, which is the fight that leads to the overthrow of U.S. imperialist oppression of Canada as well.

Canada Is Not a Colony But a Major Imperialist Power in the Present-Day World

In his book, Hardial Bains tries his best to dishonestly juggle the statistical information to depict Canada as a colony. But despite these efforts, he fails to obliterate certain basic facts about the Canadian bourgeoisie which make it incontrovertibly imperialist. Indeed, one only has to intelligently put together a series of facts that Bains himself provides to prove that one is dealing here with no poor lamb, no mere colony, but one of the major imperialist countries in the modern world.

All the essential features which Lenin described as characteristic of imperialism are operating with full force in Canada.

First, take the question of the monopolization of the economy, which Lenin described as economically the main thing in the process of the emergence of imperialism in a country. Hardial Bains devotes a whole chapter of his book on this issue. He reports that the level of concentration of the capitalist enterprises in Canada is high even in comparison with other major imperialist countries. He writes: "In 1975, for instance, the largest 100 firms in Canada accounted for 35 percent of domestic assets, a higher level of concentration than in the U.S., West Germany, Japan, Sweden and France." (p. 51) He also describes the massive existence of state monopolies in the Canadian economy. Thus monopoly is the dominant feature of the Canadian economy.

Second, in Canada just as in other imperialist countries, we encounter the phenomenon of the monopolistic position of a handful of banks which dominate the entire country and are powerful centers of capital. In this regard, Bains admits:

"In Canada, the process of concentration in the field of banking is extremely advanced, to the point where there are only 11 domestic chartered banks in the entire country, with about 7,400 branches in every community, large and small.

"... Together the 'big five' banks account for more than 90 percent of the assets of all the banks.

"The biggest of the Canadian banks are considered large even by international standards. The 'big five' are all ranked among the top 300 banks in the world, and the three biggest Canadian banks are ranked in the top 50." (pp. 69-70)

Third, Canada is involved in the export of capital and draws super-profits from the plunder of the land and labor of the dependent and neo-colonial countries. The Canadian bourgeoisie is a prominent diner at the banquet table of big imperialist robbers who have divided up the capitalist world among themselves. Capital from Canada is exported to both developed capitalist countries and to underdeveloped ones. With respect to the latter. Bains remarks:

"Canadian direct investment in the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America, while very small compared to U.S. investment there, is nevertheless large by international standards. In 1976, for example, Canada ranked fifth among all the exporters of capital for direct investment to these countries, behind the U.S., Japan, West Germany and Britain." (p. 172)

Of course, Bains tries to weaken this acknowledgment with the assertion that a "significant feature of the capital which leaves Canada for other countries is that a portion of it is itself controlled from abroad, mainly from the U.S." (p. 175) But he himself provides the figure that this portion is merely 15% of all capital exports, and only 12% of that exported to the poor countries. A significant feature, indeed!

While Bains refuses to give much detail on the plunder carried out by the Canadian bourgeoisie in Asia, Africa and Latin America, he nevertheless does acknowledge that heavy concentrations of Canadian direct investment can be found in such countries as Indonesia, the Philippines, Brazil, Bermuda, Jamaica, etc. He also acknowledges that besides direct investment, Canadian capital is also exported by the Canadian banks, which have operations in almost every country of the world. As well, the Canadian government also exports capital in the form of credits and foreign "aid."

Clearly, even from this brief survey, it is apparent that the thesis negating Canadian imperialism is absurd.

Is Canada Turning More and More Into a Vassal State?

Besides denying Canadian imperialism, another one of CPC (M-L)'s favorite themes is that U.S. domination is increasing more and more over the country, that the "national question" is heightening, and so forth. Nevertheless, in his book, Bains gives a series of facts which demolishes this thesis as well, and shows instead that Canadian imperialism is actually strengthening itself vis-a-vis the other imperialist powers.

Bains is even forced to acknowledge that the major imperialist powers themselves recognize Canada as one of their own. He writes:

"It is not a coincidence that in 1976, Canada joined the 'Big Seven' -- the private club of the leading imperialist countries in the world, the other members of which are the U.S., West Germany, Britain, France, Italy and Japan." (p. 118)

As to how the U.S. and others let in a mere "colony" like Canada among them, Bains does not bother enlightening us.

One of the chief examples of the strengthening of Canadian imperialism is that from the mid-1970's, the export of direct investment from Canada has surpassed that coming into the country. Thus, by comparing figures for inflow and outflow of direct investment for the years 1975-79 given in Bains' book, we find that $1.66 billion came into Canada while $6.11 billion went abroad from the country, (p. 118) In other words, for over half a decade now, Canada is a net exporter of capital for direct investment.

As well, the Canadian bourgeoisie is fighting hard to defend and extend its share of markets, both at home and abroad, in the midst of the world economic crisis. Bains remarks that "The Canadian bourgeoisie, which is so dependent upon foreign trade, and which is feeling the adverse effects of the heightened competition for shrinking markets, is actively participating in these [i.e., inter-imperialist -- ed.] battles for markets and girding itself for those which are looming. It sees its positions threatened not only in the foreign markets, but in the domestic market as well...." (pp. 158-59)

At home, the Canadian bourgeoisie has been taking a series of steps to strengthen itself vis-a-vis the foreign-controlled companies. Bains points out that during the mid-1970's "the federal government established its Foreign Investment Review Act and agency (FIRA) with the declared aim of restricting foreign direct investment in Canada to that which was of 'significant benefit' to the economy." (p. 119) There is also the Canadianization policy of the Trudeau government which seeks to increase the domestic control of the energy industry.

Even while admitting that these policies serve the "imperialist ambitions" of the Canadian bourgeoisie, Bains tries to fit these facts into his schema that Canada is just a colony and U.S. domination is increasing. Never mind how impossible this task is. He writes:

"The bourgeoisie claims that its program to 'buy back' foreign-owned companies in the energy sector is lessening the U.S. domination over Canada, is an indication of Canada's growing 'independence,' and so on. However, this 'Canadianization' is merely the exchange of one form of domination for another; that is, domination through outright ownership for domination through indebtedness." (p. 124)

To give the impression that the Canadianization of the energy sector is just being financed through foreign debt, Bains gives the example of the government of Ontario acquiring 25% of a U.S.-owned oil company for $650 million, the funds coming from a loan from the same American company. But the truth is that this is not a typical example; in fact, a great part of the financing for takeovers in the energy industry has come from Canadian finance, not the foreign banks. For instance, when Dome Petroleum of Canada acquired Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Co. from Conoco last year for $3.5 billion, most of the financing came from four major Canadian banks.

Moreover, Bains' argument that there is no difference between domination through ownership and domination through debt is absurd, especially in the Canadian situation. He is simply trying to explain away the fact that the Canadian capitalists will step up their control of some part of the economy when they consider it to be vital to their interests. Canadian history has seen many cases when the bourgeoisie has bought out foreign-controlled corporations. And where foreign debts have been incurred, over time they have been paid off, and full control has passed into the hands of the Canadian imperialists.

The growing strength of Canadian imperialism is not a recent phenomenon. This is the historical path the Canadian bourgeoisie has long been pursuing. Of course this is not a straight road and has various zigzags. For example, because of the current depth of the economic crisis and the flattening out of world oil prices, the policy of Canadianization of the energy industry has run into certain problems. But this does not negate the general historical trend.

On the Strategic Perspective of the Canadian Revolution

The basic socio-economic character of a country is of immense importance in determining the strategy and tactics of the revolution. Thus the distortions of CPC (M-L) on the character of Canada provide the basis for their deviations on the perspective of the class struggle and revolution in Canada.

As we have seen, Canada is an imperialist country of highly developed capitalism. It has powerful productive forces and the economy is heavily monopolized. Indeed, the degree of concentration and the size of state monopolies are among the highest among the developed capitalist countries. Large- scale production is the order of the day and the socialization of production is extremely advanced. There is a proletariat of over eight million workers in this country of 24 million. About 40% of the working class belong to the industrial proletariat.

Clearly, in such a country, the character of the revolution can only be a proletarian socialist one which involves political power passing into the hands of the working class. This is not to say that the revolution is of a socialist character only in the major imperialist countries, for even among certain of the dependent countries, such as Argentina, the socialist revolution is on the agenda. Still, the highly developed imperialist character of Canada makes it certain that there can be no question whatsoever of the socialist nature of the revolution.

Of course, in Canada just as in other countries, the struggle for socialism inevitably takes up various political questions, such as the struggle against the oppression of the Native people and the people of Quebec, the fight against NATO, and so forth. As for the exploitation of the Canadian workers by foreign monopoly capital, this too can only be resolved through the socialist revolution. Indeed, the struggle against U.S. imperialist oppression is either a fraud or else a nationalist struggle for the ambitions of Canadian imperialism unless it is linked to the class struggle and the socialist revolution.

Preparation for the socialist revolution means putting the class struggle, the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, to the forefront. It involves training the proletariat in a spirit of irreconcilable hostility towards one's "own" bourgeoisie and against capitalism in general. It includes consistent exposure and struggle against all the oppression carried out by one's "own" bourgeoisie, including its national oppression at home and imperialist robbery abroad. This does not deny fighting the exploitation and oppression of U.S. imperialism but using this question to instill class hatred among the proletariat against capitalism and the bourgeoisie. It must not be used to infect the proletariat with the poison of nationalism but with the spirit of solidarity with the workers abroad, and in particular with the workers of the U.S., in the common struggle against U.S. and Canadian imperialism.

But the leadership of CPC (M-L) does not adhere to this stand. From their earliest days, they have painted the revolution in Canada as if Canada is a colony and not an imperialist country. They have given the revolution a non-socialist and nationalist character. For example, the founding document of CPC (M-L) declared that the stage of revolution in Canada was a "mass democratic anti-imperialist revolution," the completion of which was necessary to prepare "the material conditions" for the proletarian revolution. (Documents -- Political Reports 1970 and 1973, pp. 10-12) In 1971-72, CPC (M-L) even launched the slogan to "Get Organized for National War Against U.S. Imperialism!" The Second Congress of CPC (M-L) in 1973 did not rectify the problem but reaffirmed the line on the "mass democratic anti-imperialist revolution."

The Third Congress in 1977 made certain shifts in formulations and slurred over the question of ascribing a definite character to the revolution. Nevertheless it preserved their deviation intact by explicitly denouncing "the theory of the one-stage revolution" (i.e., the socialist revolution) as "trotskyite sophistry and windbaggery." (Political Resolution of the Third Congress of CPC (M-L), p. 20) In addition, CPC (M-L) promised in its Third Congress to carry out their revolution hand in hand with the "vacillating and temporary ally of the proletariat." the national bourgeoisie, which they prettified in the most shocking terms.

From all indications, the Fourth Congress has preserved CPC (M-L)'s basic positions on the strategic perspective of the class struggle and revolution in Canada. Just as on the question of the character of Canada, the book The Necessity for Revolution preserves their Maoist deviation on the revolution while hiding behind a cloud of evasive rhetoric. Like the Third Congress, it avoids giving a definite character to the revolution. In addition, to throw dust in the eyes of the reader, Hardial Bains even has an escape clause about the "transformation of capitalism into socialism" which is sprinkled here and there. But this is merely a generalized ultimate view, while the immediate question that is stressed is the national struggle.

Indeed, the book stresses over and over again that the main aim of the struggle in Canada is national. This is of course the logical consequence of their painting Canada as a colony. Thus, the thrust of the denunciation of the Canadian bourgeoisie is that it is anti-national, traitorous, and so forth. Time and again, it is stressed that the proletariat must take up the "national question" for solution (by which they do not mean the national oppression by the Canadian bourgeoisie of the Native people, of Quebec, etc., but the issue of U.S. imperialist oppression). This stress on the national struggle has gone so far that in the public rally announcing the Fourth Congress, the leadership of CPC (M-L) even gave the call to "defend and extend" the sovereignty of the nation! PCDN wrote:

"He [Hardial Bains -- ed.] concluded with an inspiring appeal to all of the members and supporters of the Party, and to the proletariat and revolutionary masses to defeat the plans of the bourgeoisie for fascism and war, to defend and extend the existing rights and freedoms of the people and the sovereignty of the nation and to advance with confidence and audacity toward revolution." (April 10, 1982, p. 3, col. 1, emphasis added)

But Canada already has national sovereignty. Not in the ethereal sense dreamed of by petty-bourgeois nationalists who believe sovereignty will solve all the problems of exploitation, avert war and usher in the millennium, but in the sense that all the imperialist countries have sovereignty. Of course, the Canadian working people are enslaved by international capital and exploited by U.S. imperialism. The way to chop off the tentacles of foreign capitalist oppression is not to work for the mirage of perfect sovereignty under capitalism, but to help smash the chains of world capitalism by taking up the class struggle and overthrowing one's "own" bourgeoisie through the socialist revolution.

Giving the struggle in Canada a nationalist character is tantamount to spitting on the most basic Marxist-Leninist principles on the national question. The Marxist-Leninist classics have made it amply clear that in a fully developed capitalist-imperialist country like Canada, a country which has attained its political sovereignty, where the national bourgeoisie includes and is led by the imperialist bourgeoisie, the national liberation movement is a thing of the past. Consequently, raising the national program for such a country leads to whitewashing the imperialist national bourgeoisie and can lead towards an alliance with the bourgeoisie. In this respect, Stalin wrote:

"What is the basic premise of the Comintern and the Communist Parties generally in their approach to the questions of the revolutionary movement in colonial and dependent countries?

"It consists in a strict distinction between revolution in imperialist countries, in countries that oppress other nations, and revolution in colonial and dependent countries, in countries that suffer from imperialist oppression by other states. Revolution in imperialist countries is one thing: there the bourgeoisie is the oppressor of other nations; there it is counter-revolutionary at all stages of the revolution; there the national factor, as a factor the struggle for emancipation, is absent. Revolution colonial and dependent countries is another thing: there the imperialist oppression by other states is one of the factors of the revolution; there this oppression cannot but affect the national bourgeoisie also; there the national bourgeoisie, at a certain stage and for a certain period, may support the revolutionary movement of its country against imperialism; there the national factor, as a factor in the struggle for emancipation, is a revolutionary factor.

"To fail to draw this distinction, to understand this difference and identify revolution in imperialist countries with revolution colonial countries, is to depart from the path of Marxism, from the path of Leninism, take the path of the supporters of the Second International." (Stalin, "Joint Plenum of the Central Committee and Central Control Commission of the CPSU(B) (July 29-August 9, 1927," Works, Vol. 10, pp. 11-12)

Here Stalin was arguing against the Trotskyites who negated the national factor in the Chinese revolution. But the argument equally applies to the Maoists and others who try to give a petty-bourgeois nationalist character to the socialist revolution in imperialist countries.

Theoretically, of course, it cannot be ruled out that, under certain conditions, progressive national liberation struggles could arise in an imperialist country. In this century, we have seen imperialism give birth to the monstrous German Nazi fascism which sought to completely destroy entire nations, including imperialist ones like France. Under such conditions, progressive anti-fascist national liberation wars did emerge in Europe during the Second World War. But even under such conditions, the Marxist-Leninists and revolutionary proletariat are duty bound to stick firmly to the class point of view and to strive to develop the anti-fascist liberation struggle towards the proletarian socialist revolution. To do otherwise means lapsing into right opportunism and betrayal of socialism.

But the situation in Canada cannot be compared to the Nazi-fascist enslavement during the 30's and 40's. Nor is the overall world situation like that which existed during the Second World War. This highlights the profound character of the deviation of the leadership of CPC (M-L).

The Arguments Denying Canadian Imperialism

In the next several sections, we will proceed to examine Hardial Bains' major arguments behind the description of Canada as a mere colony of the U.S. These include:

A) A substantial section of the capital invested in the Canadian economy is foreign, mainly American. It is claimed that this gives the U.S. corporations "leading positions in all sectors of the Canadian economy."

B) Canada has a sizable debt to the financiers abroad, again mainly in the U.S. Bains makes the claim that Canada is the most indebted country in the entire world and uses Canada's indebtedness to suggest that this makes it just like the dependent and neo-colonial countries.

C) He also asserts that Canada's trade relations with the U.S. are just like the unequal and enslaving trade relations characteristic between the imperialist metropolises and the underdeveloped countries.

D) Canada is linked with U.S. imperialism through political and military pacts such as NATO and NORAD (North American Air Defense Command), in which the U.S. exercises a dominant position. This is supposed to turn Canada's national sovereignty into a myth.

We have studied each of these arguments closely. We have taken note of the information Bains provides, as well as researched the facts he distorts or entirely omits. From this, as we shall show', it is quite clear that each of these arguments, if examined intelligently, ends up smashing the entire bogus thesis of denying Canada's imperialist character.

A) The heavy foreign investment in the Canadian economy does not negate the strength of the Canadian capitalists

Let us begin with the argument about foreign investment. In fact, it is on this question that the leadership of CPC (M-L) has historically staked its main case for treating Canada as a colony of the U.S. The same is true of Bains' latest book. There is of course no question that foreign capital is substantial in the Canadian economy. But does this mean that U.S. capital dominates "all sectors of the economy"? Does it negate the existence of Canadian imperialism? The facts do not prove this to be so.

One of the striking things about Hardial Bains' approach to the economy is that he takes a microscope towards foreign capital while looking at Canadian capital through the wrong end of a telescope. Thus his book literally overflows with data on the foreign capitalist penetration of the country. It includes data on the extent of foreign capital in the economy as a whole, its distribution in the various sectors of the economy, in the different branches of manufacturing, in the regions and cities of the country, and so on. But he does not take a similar approach to the character of Canadian capital. However, if one looks at all the facts, including what the author slurs over or omits entirely, one discovers that while there is substantial involvement of U.S. capital in Canada, nevertheless there remains a fairly strong Canadian monopoly bourgeoisie which controls most of the commanding heights of the economy and which rules Canada.

Above all, it should be noted that it is the Canadian bourgeoisie that controls the greatest part of the economy. This may get missed if one allows oneself to get buried in the detail provided in Bains' book. According to his own figures:

"Altogether, the foreign-controlled enterprises account for more than a third of total sales, more than 30 percent of the assets, nearly 40 percent of equity and nearly 45 percent of profits of all non-financial enterprises." (pp. 74-76)

In other words, the Canadian capitalists control about two-thirds of total sales, almost 70% of the assets, etc.

There is no truth in the assertion Bains makes that "the U.S. multinational corporations...have captured leading positions in all sectors of the Canadian economy." (p. 105) The fact of the matter is that the Canadian capitalists have long had a consistent strategy of keeping tight control of certain key sectors of the economy, such as banking and the infrastructure, while allowing foreign capital to expand in certain other sectors. Thus, in manufacturing, oil and gas, and mining, foreign control accounts for the greater part of the^e sectors. According to the most recent government statistics, foreign control (both U.S. and otherwise) accounts for 56% of the assets in manufacturing. 74% in oil and gas, and 60% in mining. But it should not be overlooked that, even in these sectors, there are sizable Canadian corporations, such as Noranda in mining, Petro-Canada and Dome in petroleum; and in a series of branches of manufacturing, there are dominant Canadian companies, such as Massey- Ferguson, Moore Corp., Abitibi-Price, etc. And as we have already noted, the Canadian bourgeoisie has been attempting to increase its control over the sectors which are heavily foreign-controlled.

But in a series of key sectors of the Canadian economy, it is the Canadian bourgeoisie which is overwhelmingly dominant. These include finance, utilities, transportation and trade. For instance, foreign control only accounts for 1% of the assets in railroads and 4% in utilities.

Most significant is the Canadian bourgeoisie's control over the financial sector. It must be remembered that it is the banks and finance capital generally which are the characteristic institutions of imperialism. As Lenin observed:

"As banking develops and becomes concentrated in a small number of establishments, the banks grow from humble middlemen into powerful monopolies having at their command almost the whole of the money capital all the capitalists and small businessmen and also the larger part of the means of production and of the sources of raw materials of the given country and in a number of countries. This transformation of numerous humble middlemen into a handful of monopolists represents one of the fundamental processes in the growth of capitalism into capitalist imperialism..." (Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, Ch. II)

Of the top 25 financial institutions (banks, mortgage and trust companies), the Canadian-controlled institutions account for $395 billion out of the $402 billion total assets, a full 98%. And of the top 15 insurance companies, Canadian companies controlled 84% of the total assets. ("Canada's Top 500 Companies," Canadian Business, July 1982)

Among the large financial institutions, the Canadian banks are worth taking special note of. They are no small fry but powerful centers of finance. The biggest five of the chartered banks control among themselves $313 billion in assets. Even Hardial Bains is forced to acknowledge their size and strength, as we have already noted. While he notes this feature of the Canadian economy only in passing and obscures its real significance, it is the banks which provide the nexus of power of the Canadian imperialist bourgeoisie. The banks not only dominate finance, but also draw tribute from industry, commerce, government, foreign countries, etc.

Such facts hardly go to prove that Canada is a mere colony. Instead, they show that, while foreign capital has heavily penetrated the manufacturing and resource extraction sectors, there remains a powerful Canadian monopoly bourgeoisie which is based in finance, utilities, trade and transportation and with smaller representation in industry and resources. Not only has the Canadian capitalist class put its mainstay in finance, trade, utilities and transportation, but it has also jealously guarded this base against foreign encroachment. For instance in the mid-60's when foreign firms tried to expand their takeovers of insurance companies they were prevented from doing so. Also there are strict restrictions on foreign capital penetrating the banking sector. Meanwhile, Canadian capital has entered into an alliance with foreign capital in other sectors and has historically encouraged them to invest in industry and resource extraction. In recent years, as we have seen, the Canadian bourgeoisie has been stepping up its efforts to expand its control over these sectors as well.

The fact of the matter is that the investment of foreign capital in a country does not determine whether or not it is an imperialist power. The imperialism of a country depends on other things, such as whether it has its own strong finance capital, whether its economy is highly monopolized, whether it exports capital and participates in the plunder of the oppressed peoples, and so on. And Canada fulfills all these characteristics of an imperialist country. To be sure, the large amount of U.S. capital in the country makes U.S. imperialism a big exploiter of the workers of Canada and gives it certain economic levers over Canada, but this is not sufficient to turn Canada into something other than an imperialist power.

This is of course not the first time the world's Marxists have encountered an imperialist country with large amounts of foreign capital in it. We have already referred to the historic line of the Comintern on Canada itself. But an even more famous example is imperialist Russia at the time of World War I. The History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks) described Russia in these terms:

"That Russia entered the imperialist war on the side of the Entente, on the side of France and Great Britain, was not accidental. It should be borne in mind that before 1914 the most important branches of Russian industry were in the hands of foreign capitalists, chiefly those of France, Great Britain and Belgium, that is, the Entente countries. The most important of Russia's metal works were in the hands of French capitalists. In all about three quarters (72 percent) of the metal industry depended on foreign capital. The same was true of the coal industry of the Donetz Basin. Oilfields owned by British and French capital accounted for about half the oil output of the country. A considerable part of the profits of Russian industry flowed into foreign banks, chiefly British and French. All these circumstances, in addition to the thousands of millions borrowed by the tsar from France and Britain in loans, chained tsarism to British and French imperialism and converted Russia into a tributary, a semi-colony of those countries." (p. 162)

Indeed, Russia's dependence on foreign capital was so great that a tremendous section of the banking capital of Russia was owned by foreign banks, as Lenin pointed out in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. He described that, of the "working capital" of the big banks, more than three-fourths belonged to banks that were merely subsidiaries of the foreign banks, mainly of France and Germany. (Chapter III) But none of these facts about the huge claws of foreign capital in Russia, which were even more extensive there than in Canada today, made the Russian Marxists cease considering Russian as an imperialist power or led them to call for a national struggle against foreign capital.

B) The facts about Canada's indebtedness

It is well known that one of the prominent features of many of the dependent and neo-colonial countries of the world is that they are heavily in debt to the financiers in the imperialist centers. For example, countries like Mexico. Brazil and Argentina have built up staggering debts to the foreign banks and governments, to say nothing of the smaller and weaker dependent and neo-colonial countries. These debts place the economies of these countries in a very precarious situation. The world economic crisis has made it even more difficult to repay these debts, and the burden of these debts is constantly being increased on the shoulders of the poor working masses who are already exploited to the bone as it is.

Several years ago, the leadership of CPC (M-L) discovered that the Canadian state too is indebted to the financiers abroad, and especially in the U.S. Voila! To them, this was convincing proof that Canada was a weak dependent country, just like the underdeveloped countries. The Third Congress of CPC (M-L) thus declared that Canada "is one of the biggest debtor countries in the world." Hardial Bains' book echoes this position and goes so far as to claim that Canada has "the largest absolute debt" in the world, (p. 166)

So much confusion has been created on this issue that there is much to be cleared up. Let us start with the size of Canada's debt.

No, Canada does not have the largest absolute debt. When one commonly speaks of a country's debt abroad, one means the debt incurred by the state. For example, this is what one means when one refers to Mexico's foreign debt of $81 billion. According to the latest edition of the Canada Yearbook published by Statistics Canada, the comparable figure for Canada was $20.6 billion at the end of 1976, the latest year for which figures are given. This included $16.8 billion from the provincial governments and their agencies, $2.7 billion from municipal governments, and the rest from the federal government. Although the federal government has a far larger debt than its share of the foreign debt indicates, it is mainly owed to the financiers at home.

But Bains makes the claim that Canada's debt is much higher, that it stood at $48.5 in 1976 and at $69 billion at the end of 1979. (pp. 115-116) How does he come up with such high figures? The fact is, he is straight-up dishonest with his figures. When he talks of Canada's debt, he does not mean what is meant be everyone else, i.e., the debt of the state. Instead he uses the figures for Canada's "net international indebtedness.'' This is a complicated figure, published by the government to help keep track of a country's overall balance of payments situation, but it has nothing to do with what Canada actually owes abroad as debt. What it amounts to is that Bains adds on to Canada's debt a part of the assets in the Canadian economy owned by foreign capital. But foreign ownership of part of the Canadian economy is a different matter and we have already discussed this. To bring this into the discussion on Canada's debt shows that Bains wants to skin the same ox twice.

While Canada's debt burden is heavy, it is by no means sufficient to convert Canada into either a "banana republic." or a Mexico, or even a Poland. Moreover, to get an idea of the intensity of the yoke of foreign debt on a country, one must judge it in reference to the size and strength of a country's economy. Thus, compared to its gross national product, Mexico's foreign debt comes to a staggering 59% while in Canada's case it was about 11 % in 1976.

The leadership of CPC (M-L), however, has latched onto the question of Canada's foreign debt as a big discovery which allegedly proves all their theses denying Canadian imperialism. At their Third Congress in 1977 they especially tried to make a big deal out of it. And they have not stopped doing so in the years since.

But Canada's debt does not negate its status as an imperialist. Canada too exports capital, especially to the poor countries where there is a shortage of capital and super-profits can be made. The Canadian economy is marked by parasitism and the explosion of all sorts of paper securities. Among the bourgeoisie, a stratum of idle parasites has long existed who live by "clipping coupons," so to speak, drawing tribute from financial manipulations and the exploitation of the working masses of the poor countries.

While Canada is an imperialist country, yes, it too is indebted to foreign finance capital. But what kind of big discovery is this on the part of the CPC (M-L) leadership? Creditor-debtor relations are by no means uncommon among the imperialist countries themselves. For instance, take the situation after World War I. Lenin wrote then of the relations between the different powers of the victorious Entente:

"What are the debtor-creditor relations that have developed between the principal powers? I shall convert pounds sterling into gold rubles, at a rate of ten gold rubles to one pound. Here is what we get: the United States has assets amounting to 19,000 million, its liabilities are nil. Before the war it was in Britain s debt. In his report on April 14, 1920, to the last congress of the Communist Party of Germany, Comrade Levi very correctly pointed out that there are now only two powers in the world that can act independently, viz., Britain and America. America alone is absolutely independent financially. Before the war she was a debtor;she is now a creditor only. All the other powers in the world are debtors. Britain has been reduced to a position in which her assets total 17,000 million, and her liabilities 8,000 million. She is already half-way to becoming a debtor nation. Moreover, her assets include about 6,000 million owed to her by Russia....Krasin...representative of the Russian Soviet Government...made it plain to...the British Government's leaders, that they were laboring under a strange delusion if they were counting on getting these debts repaid....

"In regard to France...her assets amount to 3,500 million, and her liabilities to 10,500 million! And this is a country which the French themselves called the world's money-lender...notwithstanding victory, France has been reduced to debtor status." (Lenin, "Report on the International Situation and the Fundamental Tasks of the Communist International, July 19, 1920," Collected Works, Vol. 31, pp. 219- 220)

The fact that, in the post-war situation, America alone was a creditor country, showed the relative strength and financial preponderance of U.S. imperialism among the big powers. It showed that the U.S. had enriched itself during the war even at the expense of its allies. The weight of this tribute fell on the shoulders of the working masses of Europe, who were saddled with increasing burdens of taxes by the European imperialists to pay back these debts. But the Marxist-Leninists did not conclude from this situation that such countries as Britain and France had ceased to be imperialist powers. It is well known that the strategic perspective of Lenin, Stalin and the Communist International for Western Europe was the socialist revolution and not national struggle against the foreign bourgeoisie.

C) A ludicrous argument about Canada's international trade

Similar to his argument that Canada is a debtor country just like the underdeveloped countries, Hardial Bains also makes the outrageous claim that Canada's trade relations with the U.S. are metropolis-colony type of relations. He writes:

"The enslaving and unequal character of the trade between the imperialist countries and those of Asia, Africa and Latin America is clearly seen in the composition of the merchandise trade of these poor and backward countries. On the balance of trade, these countries each year run up enormous deficits. The prices paid for their main export commodities -- almost exclusively raw materials -- are relentlessly driven down by the imperialists, who are the main purchasers of these goods, while at the same time, the prices demanded by these same imperialists for the manufactured goods desperately needed in those countries are incessantly rising. Canada's trade with the United States has the same characteristic, i.e. heavy reliance upon the export of raw materials, and import of manufactured goods, while at the same time, the Canadian bourgeoisie enriches itself from this same unequal trade it conducts with the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America." (pp. 148-149, emphasis added)

This is an absolutely ludicrous comparison. This argument alone proves how empty his whole thesis about Canada being a colony really is! Nevertheless, for the sake of our author or anyone else who is uninformed about the character of Canada, we will explain a few elementary things.

For one thing, the Canadian economy is not a backward economy but a modern industrial economy. Canada's trade is therefore not based on one or two primary products but reflects a diversified economy. Its exports in 1979 included 32% of manufactured finished products and an additional 30% of fabricated materials. Meanwhile, for the vast majority of the poor countries, their exports are made up of an overwhelming preponderance of raw' materials, and the range of products exported is very narrow, one or two or three products often providing 75% or more of a country's trade. Moreover, it should be noted that Canada's trade generally shows a surplus while the poor countries constantly run up huge deficits.

Considering that Canada is an industrialized country, the fact that its exports also include a large share of raw materials does not indicate that its trade is colonial. The fact of the matter is that Canada is a country richly endowed with resources, both agricultural and mineral. The U.S. too is a substantial exporter of raw materials -- does that make the U.S. a non-industrial country or make it a victim rather than a perpetrator of unequal trade? Of course not. It can hardly be forgotten that certain raw materials give enormous power to the imperialist countries; the U.S. for instance is very well known for using its wheat and other food exports as a weapon to dominate other countries. Canada too has strategically important raw materials, such as wheat, uranium, etc. which give it political leverage over other countries.

At the same time, it cannot be said that all is equal with regard to the trade between Canada and the U.S. An enormous part of Canada's trade, about 70%, is with the U.S., making the Canadian economy closely dependent on the American economy. As well, Canada remains dependent on the U.S. for a number of important manufactured goods, especially in the sphere of machinery. The unequal relations reflected here are unequal relations between two developed capitalist economies which are closely integrated. To compare these relations with the relations between imperialism and the underdeveloped countries is absurd.

D) Canada's partnership in the Atlantic Alliance does not make it a vassal state

Besides the economic exploitation of the working people of Canada, there is also the issue of Canada being tied to U.S. imperialism through various political and military treaties, such as NATO and NORAD. Canada is a close partner of the U.S. in the Atlantic Alliance. And there is no question that, in this alliance, the U.S. imperialists exercise hegemony. This alliance between Canada and the U.S. is a serious problem for the Canadian people. Among other things, it means that the Canadian people can be pulled into war or other adventures for the imperialist ambitions of U.S. imperialism.

But does that turn Canada into a vassal state or a colony of the U.S.? By no means. The secondary position which Canada has in relation to the U.S. is not something peculiar to Canada but a general feature of imperialist blocs and alliances. An imperialist power can be economically and financially dependent on a stronger power, it can be tied to that power through treaties, but this does not transform the first country into a colony. Such a situation does not obliterate the fact that within the alliance, the weaker country maintains its own imperialism, its own ruling class and its own interests and ambitions.

Once again, let us return to imperialist Russia before the October Revolution. The Russian government, both that of the Tsar and the bourgeois regime that came to power in February-March 1917, was not only economically dependent on Anglo-French capital but tied to it through numerous political and military pacts. While it is true that all this enchained Russia, it did not make it any less of an imperialist country. Examine the attitude Lenin adopted towards this situation:

"Russia is waging this war with foreign money. Russian capital is a partner of Anglo-French capital. Russia is waging the war in order to rob Armenia, Turkey and Galicia.

"Guchkov, Lvov and Milyukov, our present ministers, are not chance comers. They are the representatives and leaders of the entire landlord and capitalist class. They are bound by the interests of capital. The capitalists can no more renounce their interests than a man can lift himself by his bootstraps.

"Secondly, Guchkov-Milyukov and Co. are bound by Anglo-French capital. They have waged, and are still waging, the war with foreign money. They have borrowed billions, promising to pay hundreds of millions in interest every year, and to squeeze this tribute out of the Russian workers and Russian peasants.

"Thirdly, Guchkov-Milyukov and Co. are bound to England, France, Italy, Japan and other groups of robber capitalists by direct treaties concerning the predatory aims of the war. These treaties were concluded by Tsar Nicholas II." (Lenin, "Letters from Afar," Collected Works, Vol. 23, p. 335)

In the above passage, Lenin was discussing the chief reasons why the bourgeois government of Russia could not get the country out of the imperialist war. Thus, even while pointing out how the Russian bourgeoisie was bound closely with Anglo- French capital, Lenin put to the forefront the fact that it was a class question, not a national question. He exposed that Russia was a partner of Anglo-French capital, that it had its own predatory aim of seizing several territories, and so forth. As is generally known, Lenin did not conclude that the issue for the toiling masses in Russia was to fight for national independence and sovereignty against the foreign enemy, but that the revolution had to be carried forward against the bourgeoisie. In this and subsequent articles on the provisional government, Lenin pointed out that no capitalist government could secure a democratic peace, but the socialist revolution was necessary and power had to pass into the hands of the workers and poor peasants.

This general principle applies to Canada as well. The fact remains that Canadian imperialism is a partner in the Atlantic Alliance and participates in Washington's imperialism, not just to help the interests of U.S. capital but mainly for its own rapacious aims which coincide in many respects with those of U.S. imperialism. Canada remains one of the wolves in the Western imperialist pack, a weaker wolf and not the leader, but a wolf just the same.

Petty-Bourgeois Nationalism Replaces the Marxist-Leninist Class Standpoint

If there are so many facts and arguments which make an ironclad case verifying the existence of Canadian imperialism, how can the leadership of CPC (M-L) stick to its utterly untenable position? The answer lies in the fact that they do not adhere to the Marxist-Leninist analysis of imperialism, but base themselves on a petty-bourgeois nationalist outlook instead. Indeed, in reading Bains' The Necessity for Revolution one is struck by the crude and vulgar spirit of petty-bourgeois nationalism that permeates it from beginning to end.

It is a basic feature of capitalism to be international. In its imperialist stage, this feature is tremendously extended. The imperialist world involves a complexity of relations, and since it is in the very nature of capital to strive for maximum profit, imperialism gives rise to a series of relationships of dependence and domination. But there are different types of domination. There is the colonial type of domination, seen in the basic division in the imperialist world between imperialist oppressor nations and the poor oppressed nations. As well the law of the jungle exists even among the imperialist and developed countries. Among them, too, capital gets exchanged, debts are incurred and enslaving political alliances get established. However, these things do not negate the fact that the relatively weaker imperialist countries remain imperialist just the same.

CPC (M-L)'s style of petty-bourgeois nationalism, however, refuses to recognize this reality. In the petty-bourgeois nationalist scheme of things, since Canada is "contaminated" by foreign economic and political influences, it is no longer an independent imperialist country but a mere colony. This is at heart a reactionary concept because from this scheme of things, CPC (M-L) concludes that the task for the toiling masses is to work towards a refined national sovereignty rather than to wage the class struggle leading to the socialist revolution against capitalism.

Let us take a look at some examples of the petty- bourgeois nationalism of the leadership of CPC (M-L). To begin with, take their efforts to obscure the existence and strength of the Canadian bourgeoisie. We have already noted that Bains tries his best to obscure the strength of Canadian capital by diverting attention towards the foreign capitalists. This is taken very far. He goes so far as to deny that the Canadian corporations, the very bedrocks of the Canadian bourgeoisie, are really Canadian. He asserts:

"Even those companies which are considered to be quintessentially 'Canadian' often have substantial blocs of foreign, mainly U.S. capital, such that they too are effectively controlled from abroad." (p. 72)

In Bains' mind, the mere existence of foreign capital in Canada has made it impossible for there to be any Canadian capital. Thus if a Canadian company has any stocks owned by foreigners, or it borrows some money from foreign banks, or even does business with foreigners, then its Canadian character is automatically suspect. It is worth examining some of Bains' efforts to deny the existence of Canadian companies, for it exposes the complete dishonesty and charlatanism of his petty-bourgeois nationalism.

One of the Canadian companies that Bains claims is "effectively controlled from abroad" is Canadian Pacific Ltd. (CP). How? Because it "had 35% foreign ownership." (p. 72) Now this is quite a discovery on Bains' part! It is true that ownership of 35% of a company's shares, if held by a single bloc of capitalist interests, could give them control. But does Bains offer any proof that in the case of CP, this is actually so? Of course not. He simple argues on general grounds based on petty-bourgeois nationalist logic.

But really, this is a preposterous claim on Bains' part. Canadian Pacific is indeed the quintessence of Canadian capital; it is a major tool of Canadian imperialism. The Canadian bourgeoisie has made every effort to keep CP out of the control of U.S. capital. As for its stock ownership, the controlling blocs of CP's stocks have always been kept in Canadian hands. Today, for instance, the largest single bloc of its stocks is the 11% held by Desmarais' Power Corporation, while the other main blocs are also held by Canadian monopoly capitalists. Clearly, you have to live on the moon to argue that CP is not Canadian! Canadian Pacific was established as a railway company by the Canadian capitalist class shortly after Confederation in 1867. It was a linchpin of the Canadian bourgeoisie's efforts to consolidate its home market by building a transcontinental railroad of its own. Rivalry with the American transcontinental railroads was a big factor as well. Since those beginnings, Canadian Pacific has developed over the last century as one of the most powerful Canadian corporations, with holdings not only in railroads but also in land, resources, airlines and many other areas. Today it is the largest private corporation in Canada.

While the argument about CP is itself a real gem, the first prize for Bains' efforts to deny the Canadian character of Canadian capital must go to his argument about the Canadian banks. The banks are where the center of power of Canadian finance capital lies, the biggest single refutation of Bains' fairy tale about a weak, colonized Canada. No doubt, this must bother him to no end. So he ventures forth with this sally:

"Another such sector is finance, in which foreign capital has been subject to legal restrictions. But there is a close relationship and 'personal link-up' between the financial magnates of Canada and the U.S., to the point that it is extremely difficult to ascertain what is Canadian capital and what is foreign (especially American) capital, where the one begins and the other ends. An example of the 'personal link-up' between the finance capitalists from the U.S. and Canada is seen in the web of interlocking directorships held by the members of the boards of directors of the Canadian banks. The Royal Bank, for instance, has a director who also sits on the board of General Motors, which is controlled by the Rockefeller and du Pont interests in the U.S.... In fact, almost all the directors of the big banks in Canada also sit on the boards of least one company which is foreign-owned or foreign-controlled." (pp. 77- 78)

What an incredible understanding our author shows of the capitalist economy! We wouldn't be too surprised if, say, a bourgeois nationalist came upon the fact that the Royal Bank of Canada, Canada's No. 1 bank, has one if its directors on the board of GM in the U.S., and he exclaimed: "My God, the Yanks have taken over the pride of our country. Is there anything left which is Canadian?" But such an attitude is not only absurd, it has nothing in common with Marxism-Leninism. It is well known that the banks are the most powerful centers of capital, that they strive for domination and extend their tentacles everywhere. But according to Bains, the fact that the Canadian banks have their directors also on the boards of foreign-controlled corporations is supposed to prove not the strength of Canadian banking capital, but that it is hard to determine who controls the banks!

Bains clearly does not adhere to the Leninist analysis. Rather, his moans and groans about not being able to see where the capital of one country begins and that of another ends show graphically that what he is looking for is some kind of "pure and national" capital, untouched by contact with foreigners. Unfortunately, this is a futile search. The merger of capital is a basic feature of capitalism. Contrary to the nationalist prejudices of the author, this does not mean that there is no Canadian capital with its own character and interests.

All these attempts to deny that Canadian capitalism is really Canadian are only the latest version of the longstanding view of CPC (M-L) that Canadian imperialism cannot exist because monopoly capitalism in Canada is itself really a foreign import and not an indigenous product. As the Third Congress put it: "Monopoly capitalism in Canada developed by importing massive amounts of foreign capital and it did not develop as a result of the indigenous merger of industrial and banking capital." (Political Resolution of the Third Congress of CPC (M-L), p. 19)

This is absurd. The issue in whether a country is imperialist is whether the merger between banking and industrial capital took place; it is irrelevant how "indigenous" this process was. But even there, the leadership of CPC (M-L) is simply lying. The Canadian banks were launched in the early 1800's. In the latter half of the century, industrial capital also emerged, although it was relatively weak. By the turn of the century, the Canadian industries had been consolidated as profitable joint-stock companies, whereupon they were brought under the control of the financiers. A prominent example of this process was the emergence of the iron and steel industry. Simultaneous with this process, foreign capital also established itself in manufacturing.

CPC (M-L)'s history of capitalist development is based on a completely nonsensical schematic view of how countries take the road of development into modern industrial and imperialist countries. The fact of the matter is that in imperialist countries generally, there is a merger of native banking and industrial capital, while foreign capital is also involved, to a greater or lesser degree. The fact that in Canada there was a greater involvement of foreign capital does not rule out the emergence of imperialist finance capital.

In order to bring out the absurdity of CPC (M-L)'s petty-bourgeois nationalist schematism on how capitalism develops, we would like to give the following analysis from Stalin:

"History up to now knows three ways of the formation and development of powerful industrial states.

"The first way is the seizure and plunder of colonies. That was the way Britain, for example, developed. After seizing colonies in all parts of the world, she for two centuries squeezed 'extra capital' out of them for the purpose of strengthening her industry, and eventually she became the 'workshop of the world....

"The second way is the military defeat of one country by another and the imposition of indemnities upon the defeated country. Such was the case with Germany, for example. After defeating France in the Franco-Prussian war, Germany squeezed an indemnity of 5,000 millions out of France and poured this money into the channels of her own industry...

"The third way is for a capitalistically backward country to grant concessions to and accept loans from capitalistically developed countries on enslaving terms. Such was the case with Tsarist Russia, for example. She granted concessions to and accepted loans from the Western powers on such terms and thereby imposed upon herself the yoke of a semi-colonial existence, which, however, did not preclude the possibility of her eventually emerging on the road of independent industrial development, not, of course, without the aid of more or less 'successful' wars, and of course, not without plundering neighboring countries....

"It would be wrong to think that in real life each of these paths of development is necessarily travelled in its pure form, and is absolutely isolated from the others. Actually, in the history of individual countries those paths often intercrossed and supplemented one another, presenting an interwoven pattern. An example of such an interweaving of paths is provided by the history of the development of the United States of America. That is explained by the fact that, notwithstanding all the differences between them, those diverse paths of development have certain features in common, which bring them close to one another and make their interweaving possible: firstly, all lead to the formation of capitalist industrial states: secondly, all presuppose an influx from outside of 'extra capital,' obtained in one way or another, as an essential condition for the formation of such states. It would be still more wrong, however, on these grounds to confuse those paths, to jumble them together, failing to understand that, after all, those three paths of development imply three different modes of formation of industrial capitalist states, that each of these paths puts its own special impress upon the complexion of those states." ("Questions and Answers -- speech delivered at the Sverdlov University, June 9, 1925," Works, Vol. 7, pp. 198-200)

As Stalin indicates, there is no one "pure" way in which countries take the road of development into industrial countries. He notes that capitalist countries can acquire the "extra capital" needed for development in a variety of ways. Canada has its own particular features in this regard. It took out loans from abroad, just as the U.S. and Russia did, for example. And it also established a tariff wall to protect itself from foreign industry simply dumping goods in the home market, which ended up encouraging foreign capital to invest in manufacturing facilities inside the country. At the same time, Canada used both World Wars to enrich itself heavily and for many decades has also drawn super-profits through its own exports of capital abroad. The precise character of the path Canada took does not fit CPC (M-L)'s nonsensical schemas about "indigenous" development, so they completely negate the emergence of Canada as an imperialist country.

Another example of CPC (M-L)'s petty-bourgeois nationalism is its attitude to the question of political independence and sovereignty. It is generally recognized that political independence and sovereignty refers to the question of state independence. In the real world of imperialism, of course, this is subordinate to the interests of capital. Finance capital establishes its domination worldwide. Even among the countries which are centers of finance capital, the stronger ones lord it over the weaker ones. From this situation, the Marxists have always drawn the conclusion that the issue for the proletariat in the developed capitalist countries is to struggle against capital, while petty-bourgeois nationalism calls instead for working towards a refined and "pure" national sovereignty. Marxists can and do expose the dragging of the domestic bourgeoisie behind the vile plans of another, stronger bourgeoisie to show how' ugly both bourgeoisies are. but they use this exposure to show how capitalism ties a country to the crimes of world imperialism and to advocate the need for socialist revolution against one's "own" bourgeoisie.

To sum up, it is clear that on one question after another, the leadership of CPC (M-L) abandons the Marxist-Leninist class standpoint and replaces it with a vulgar spirit of petty-bourgeois nationalism. Everything about the character of Canadian society is looked at with an outlook based on a "pure" and "refined" conception of the nation and nationalism. Thus, when they look at the Canadian economy, they do not find a "pure" national capitalism but an economy closely intertwined with foreign capital. And when they examine the Canadian state, they find that it too does not fulfill their preconceived notions of an ethereal national sovereignty.

From this assessment, CPC (M-L) sets up the task to struggle for the fulfillment of their conception of national sovereignty. And like true petty-bourgeois nationalists, they paint the utopia that this sovereignty will solve all sorts of ills, get rid of exploitation, create a balanced economy, avert war and assure peace, prosperity and progress. The national struggle thus becomes the vehicle to usher in this millennium while the class struggle and the fight for socialism are pushed aside.

Petty-Bourgeois Nationalism Overlooks a "Trifle" -- Proletarian Internationalism

Marxist-Leninists do not lament the internationalization of the world economic and social life brought about by capitalism. Instead they draw the paramount conclusion that this means that the workers too must unite internationally, in a common struggle against world capitalism. And this is where the reactionary character of Bains' petty-bourgeois nationalism comes forth so strikingly. What with all his talk about the inter-penetration of U.S. and Canadian capital, one would think that a Marxist-Leninist would draw the conclusion, that, for the emancipation of the proletariat, the unity of the workers of the U.S. and Canada is one of the most important things. But this is not mentioned a single time in his book.

Diametrically opposed to the petty-bourgeois nationalism of Bains stands the internationalist approach of Marxism-Leninism. Contrast any of Bains' prejudices with the stand of Lenin:

"The unity of the workers of all countries is a necessity arising out of the fact that the capitalist class, which rules over the workers, does not limit its rule to one country. Commercial ties between the different countries are becoming closer and more extensive; capital constantly passes from one country to another. The banks, those huge depositories that gather capital together and distribute it on loan to capitalists, begin as national institutions and then become international, gather capital from all countries, and distribute it among the capitalists of Europe and America. Enormous joint-stock companies are now being organized to set up capitalist enterprises not in one country, but in several at once; international associations of capitalists make their appearance. Capitalist domination is international. That is why the workers' struggle in all countries for their emancipation is only successful if the workers fight jointly against international capital. That is why the Russian worker's comrade in the fight against the capitalist class is the German worker, the Polish worker, and the French worker, just as his enemy is the Russian, the Polish, and the French capitalists." (Lenin, "Draft and Explanation of a Program for the Social-Democratic Party," Collected Works,Vol. 2, p. 109)

Far from training the Canadian proletariat in the Marxist spirit of internationalism, the leadership of CPC (M-L) has for many years inculcated an unhealthy spirit of nationalism, which has often ended up as outright chauvinism against the American workers and revolutionaries. For example, consider the struggle between Marxism and opportunism. It is quite well known that both are international trends which have their own class base in every capitalist society. But for years, CPC (M-L) has tried to paint opportunism in Canada as a phenomenon imported from abroad, especially from the U.S.

The same attitude finds its expression today in the way they agitate against the New York-based Guardian Angels (a reactionary "anti-crime" vigilante outfit) organizing in Canada. CPC (M-L)'s agitation is being run on a straightforward nationalist appeal. Far from making any class distinctions between American reactionaries and American proletarians coming into Canada, CPC (M-L)'s press is carrying ultra-chauvinist anti-Marxist appeals against "U.S. assimilation"! Needless to say, not a word is mentioned about uniting with the American workers in struggle against the common class enemy.

But Bains' petty-bourgeois narrow-mindedness does not stop at blindness towards the internationalization of the proletarian struggle that results from the worldwide nature of capitalism. It has also led him to the most petty-minded parochialism. In his book, he goes to the extreme of bemoaning the migration of workers that is brought about by capitalism. The chapter of his book on "The Proletariat and the Working People" begins with a series of lamentations about "stability...in terms of residence in the communities of their forefathers (being) an unknown phenomenon" and how "Each year hundreds and thousands of workers and their families move from one region to another," and so forth. (pp. 244-47) While Marxists recognize that it is capitalist exploitation which forces workers to move and that there is sometimes pain and sacrifice involved in the process, how can proletarian revolutionaries nevertheless be blind to the fact that migration also advances the conditions for the united struggle of the working class against capitalism? Bains is completely silent about this aspect of the question. But contrast this parochial approach of Bains to the broad outlook of Lenin's in the following remarks on workers' immigration between nations, which, needless to say, involves far greater pain and sacrifices than migration within a country:

"Hundreds of thousands of workers thus wander hundreds and thousands of versts. Advanced capitalism drags them forcibly into its orbit, tears them out of the backwoods in which they live, makes them participants in the world-historical movement and brings them face to face with the powerful, united, international class of factory owners.

"There can be no doubt that dire poverty alone compels people to abandon their native land, and that the capitalists exploit the immigrant workers in the most shameless manner. But only reactionaries can shut their eyes to the progressive significance of this modern migration of nations. Emancipation from the yoke of capital is impossible without the further development of capitalism, and without the class struggle that is based on it. And it is into this struggle that capitalism is drawing the masses of the working people of the whole world, breaking down the musty, fusty habits of local life, breaking down national barriers and prejudices, uniting workers from all countries in huge factories and mines in America, Germany, and so forth." (Lenin, "Capitalism and Workers' Immigration," Collected Works, Vol. 19, p. 454)

It should not be thought that CPC (M-L)'s petty-bourgeois nationalism allows it to take a consistent stand against national oppression. Unfortunately, it does not measure up to this elementary standard of democracy. This is especially where the national oppression by one's "own" bourgeoisie is concerned. For example, because CPC (M-L) denies Canadian imperialism, it does not carry out a firm opposition to the Canadian bourgeoisie's plunder and oppression in the Caribbean, Africa, Latin America, etc. At home, they tend to overlook the fight against the national oppression of the Quebecois people, for instance. One of the most shocking things about Hardial Bains' book is that while the author tries to come up with every quibble and concoction to present U.S. oppression as the main thing in Canada, in this book of 318 pages there are only a couple of merely passing references to the oppression of Quebec!

CPC (M-L) has in fact never been able to take a principled Marxist-Leninist approach to the question of Quebec. In the late 60's and early 70's, its Maoism led it towards an accommodation with petty-bourgeois nationalism in the general mass movement. So much so that they organized separate parties in Quebec and Canada! and they gave the line that the stage of revolution in Quebec was for national liberation.

When they abandoned this line, they veered in the direction of liquidating the struggle against national oppression altogether. At times, this has been done under the banner that the chief struggle for the workers in both Quebec and Canada was the fight against U.S. domination of Canada. At other times, an economist argument has been given that the oppression of the Quebecois is only a matter of exploitation. For example, in response to an opportunist group which raised the slogan of "absolute equality of languages and nationalities," the leadership of CPC (M-L) polemicized:

"They have advanced the slogan of the 'absolute equality of languages and nationalities' at this time, at this historical juncture, when in the capitalist countries, the issue of the 'absolute equality of languages and nationalities' is not an important issue. The issue is the struggle against exploitation. That is the central issue, whether it is the exploitation of a nation or a class." (Speech by Hardial Bains at New Year's Meeting in Montreal, January 1, 1980, printed in PCDN, January 4, 1980)

But this is to make a travesty out of Leninism. In an important passage Lenin wrote:

"The Marxists' national program... advocates, firstly, the equality of nations and languages and the impermissibility of all privileges in this respect (and also the right of nations to self-determination, with which we shall deal separately later); secondly, the principle of internationalism and uncompromising struggle against contamination of the proletariat with bourgeois nationalism, even of the most refined kind." ("Critical Remarks on the National Question," Collected Works, Vol. 20, p. 27)

On other occasions, the leadership of CPC (M-L) counterposed the demand for equality of languages and nationalities to the right to self-determination. This too is a mockery of Leninism.

In sum, they have no principled stand on Quebec. While tomorrow they may flip-flop again, today their petty-bourgeois Canadian nationalist deviation has led them in the direction of Canadian great-nation chauvinism on the question of Quebec.

The Leadership of CPC (M-L) Has Revived the Absurdities of "National Bolshevism"

In the final analysis, CPC (M-L)'s denial of Canadian imperialism and its substitution of the struggle for socialism with a nationalist program carries with it the danger of heading towards an alliance with the Canadian bourgeoisie. The fact of the matter is that nationalism against the U.S. multinationals is the official policy of the Canadian government. Behind this stands the imperialist ambitions of the Canadian bourgeoisie to strengthen itself against its other imperialist rivals. When CPC (M-L) raises the call to "defend and extend national sovereignty," they cannot avoid echoing the bourgeoisie.

In fact, in the past CPC (M-L) has openly welcomed the bourgeoisie as an ally in its non-socialist revolution. From its founding document through its Third Congress, CPC (M-L) called for an alliance with the "national bourgeoisie." In recent years, as a cover-up job, they have redefined the "national bourgeoisie" as the "middle bourgeoisie," still portraying alliance with it as decisive for carrying out the revolution. They have never bothered to define this "middle bourgeoisie." However they have themselves strongly indicated that this "middle bourgeoisie" is really their "national bourgeoisie" since they have theorized that in Canada the national bourgeoisie cannot exist as a big bourgeoisie.

But everyone knows that the national bourgeoisie, in an imperialist country like Canada, includes and in fact is led by the imperialist big bourgeoisie. Thus, even while their theories about "middle bourgeoisie" are wrong in and of themselves, they have really been prettifying the Canadian imperialist bourgeoisie and, in effect, opening the door for alliance with it.

These positions of CPC (M-L) bring to mind the opportunism of a trend in the German communist movement after World War I which Lenin and the Comintern characterized as "National Bolshevism."

This trend arose in the post-war conditions where the victorious imperialist countries imposed enslaving terms on the defeated countries. The terms of the Versailles peace treaty imposed a brutal enslavement on Germany. The country was broken apart; it was robbed of its coal, bread, its merchant fleet, etc. It was forced to pay staggering indemnities to the victorious imperialists. The great weight of these policies was of course transferred by the German bourgeoisie onto the shoulders of the working masses. However, despite such extremely enslaving conditions, Lenin and the Communist International did not cease considering the German bourgeoisie as the main enemy of the German workers. They pointed to the socialist revolution and Soviet power as the only path for the salvation of the country.

Under these conditions, however, an opportunist trend arose in the German communist movement which placed the question of the oppression of the Versailles system to the fore of the struggle of the German proletariat. In his work "Left-Wing" Communism -- An Infantile Disorder, Lenin referred to: "...the preposterous absurdities of 'National Bolsheviks' (Lauffenberg and others), who have gone to the length of advocating a bloc with the German bourgeoisie for a war against the Entente, under the present conditions the international proletarian revolution." (International Publishers, New York, 1940, Ch. VIII, p. 57)

The Executive Committee of the Communist International also vigorously condemned this poisonous stand:

"War against the Entente is the alpha and omega of the policy of Lauffenberg and his comrades. It may be that war with Entente capitalism will become a necessity for Soviet Germany if the workers in the Entente countries should not come quickly enough to the help of a victorious proletariat in Germany. But should this war have to be fought the German proletariat will find it more than ever necessary to defeat the German bourgeoisie, for the German bourgeoisie, the German counterrevolution, notwithstanding all the hymns of hate against France and England, will make common cause with Entente capital against the German proletariat.... Lauffenberg and Wolffheim are spreading the poison of the illusion that the German bourgeoisie could, out of nationalist hatred, become allies of the proletariat. If the proletariat were to be befooled by this idea they would become cannon fodder for German capital which under the flag of the sham Soviet republic, would use the proletariat for war against the Entente and then discard the cloak and openly re-establish capitalist rule." (ECCI, "Open Letter from the ECCI to the Members of the German Communist Labor Party," June 1920)

Of course, the oppression of Canada by U.S. imperialism cannot be compared to the much heavier oppression of Germany by the Entente. Thus, the condemnation of "National Bolshevism" highlights even more strongly the seriousness of the deviation of the leadership of CPC (M-L).

In the final analysis, the strategy of a national revolution in Canada serves to divert the fire of the class struggle of the Canadian proletariat away from their main enemy, Canadian imperialism, to dreams of a perfect national sovereignty under capitalism. This severely blunts the edge of the struggle against the Canadian bourgeoisie. As we have seen in this article, the nationalist program of CPC (M-L) adds up to a gross embellishment of the Canadian bourgeoisie, whose crimes in Canada and abroad are glossed over.

Moreover, this policy of preaching that the main struggle in Canada is for national sovereignty is fraught with extremely serious dangers such as falling into an accommodation, or an outright alliance, with the bourgeoisie. They themselves have a hard time distinguishing it from the nationalist program of the Trudeau government, which is the program of the Canadian bourgeoisie to strengthen its imperialist positions at home and abroad. And as we have noted, this Maoist deviation is closely adapted to the politics of the pro-Chinese "three worlders," the pro-Soviet revisionists and the mainstream of social-democracy in Canada.

Finally, it is important to emphasize that CPC (M-L)'s nationalist deviation does not in any way help the fight against U.S. imperialism either, because, by blunting the struggle against Canadian imperialism, it leaves intact one of the main pillars of the imperialist Atlantic Alliance.

[Back to Top]

Reference Material on CPC (M-L)'s Nationalist Strategy (1969 - 1982)

The Maoist deviations of the leadership of CPC (M-L) run through their entire history. In this article, we focus on their petty-bourgeois nationalist deviations on the Canadian revolution. From their earliest days, CPC (M-L) and its predecessors have depicted Canada in colonial terms, denied the existence of Canadian imperialism and set forth a non-socialist nationalist program for the Canadian revolution. Below we document this history from major historical documents of CPC (M-L).

1969

The original predecessors of CPC (M-L) were the Canadian Internationalists. This group held that it was not the Canadian bourgeoisie but U.S. imperialism which was the main enemy of the Canadian people. This view was further spelled out when the Canadian Internationalists founded the Canadian Communist Movement (Marxist-Leninist), the immediate forerunner of CPC (M-L), in the summer of 1969. The general program of this organization was described in the following remarks introducing the first issue of CCM(M-L) newspaper, Mass Line.

"MASS LINE is the revolutionary Canadian newsweekly of the proletariat for the entire working class. It is a mass paper dedicated to the defeat of U.S. imperialist domination of Canadian economics, politics and culture, the establishment of the People's Democratic Republic of Canada under the leadership of the proletariat and preparing material conditions for the establishment of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. In other words, MASS LINE is dedicated to serve the Democratic Revolution which is anti-imperialist in content and mass democratic in form....

"MASS LINE must be anti-imperialist in content because the chief enemy of our people is U.S. imperialism.... The first and foremost task of all people in Canada apart from a small minority of comprador Bourgeois and Bureaucrat Capitalists is to defeat U.S. imperialism. This is also the task of the proletariat.... MASS LINE must avoid two opportunist lines: the 'Right' wing opportunist line and the 'Left' wing opportunist line. In the main, these two tendencies are most dangerous because the two are taking the proletariat away from its principal enemy. MASS LINE must rigorously stand against this 'one-step' revolution which amounts to no revolution at all." (Mass Line, "Introducing Mass Line," Vol. 1, No. 1, July 16, 1969, p. 2, emphasis added)

1970

Indeed, it was on the basis of this analysis of the character of Canada and this orientation for the revolution that CPC (M-L) was founded. The founding document of the party, the Political Report of CPC (M-L), April 1970, elaborated this position as follows:

"Canada is a capitalist country under the complete domination of U.S. imperialism and its lackeys, the Canadian compradors. The Canadian compradors have completely submitted to the interests of the U.S. imperialists, and run the economics, politics and culture of their country for the sole purpose of serving their masters. The Government of Canada under Trudeau, as well as his predecessors, has been, and is, the government of national betrayal. In this respect Canada can be called a neo-colony of the U.S. imperialists.... Canada is a dominion of England only in name. For all intents and purposes, Canada is a country subjugated by the U.S. imperialists, and any forward march in Canada means the elimination of the national oppression and the building of material conditions for proletarian revolution....

"There are four basic contradictions inherent in Canadian society:

"Contradiction 1. Contradiction between U.S. imperialism and its lackeys, the Canadian compradors, and the Canadian people. This contradiction is the principal one, and will necessarily lead to an anti-imperialist revolution. Without the resolution of this contradiction, all the other contradictions will not be resolved. The Canadian working class will profit most from such a revolution and is, in the final analysis, the genuinely anti-imperialist class, and is the main force as well as the leading force of the anti-imperialist revolution.

"Contradiction 2. Contradiction between the working class, the laboring masses of both the urban and rural petit-bourgeoisie, and the capitalists. This contradiction will necessarily lead to a proletarian revolution with the establishment of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. But without the working class leading the anti-imperialist revolution, the material conditions will not be prepared for the establishment of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. In this respect, for the duration of the period of mass democratic anti-imperialist revolution, this contradiction takes a secondary position.... not to emphasize the dominant features of the anti-imperialist socialist revolution, and not to mobilize the Canadian people to the maximum against the principal enemy, is to make a serious ultra-left error....

"Contradiction 3. Contradiction between the Comprador bourgeoisie and the national bourgeoisie. and amongst the Compradors themselves. This is a contradiction in the enemy camp.... Some elements of the national bourgeoisie may want to fight the imperialists, and they must be called upon to do so, and their real features as vacillating elements exposed to the broad masses of the Canadian people...." (CPC (M-L) Documents -- Political Reports 1970 and 1973, pp. 10-12, emphasis added)

These views have remained the basic positions of CPC (M-L), although over the years, various formulations have been adjusted.

1971

It should be noted that the Political Report of April 1970 kept the door open for allying with "some elements of the national bourgeoisie." This stand and the general line of a national struggle for Canada contain the danger of leading to accommodation with the ruling bourgeoisie of Canada, which in fact heads up the national bourgeoisie of the country. Lo and behold, when the Canadian government took a stand which CPC (M-L) thought was a stand against U.S. imperialism, they came forward with acclamations of support. On the occasion of the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and Canada, CPC (M-L) wrote:

"Canada is dominated by the U.S. imperialists, and its people exploited and repressed. The U.S. imperialists tried their best to keep the Canadian people away from building ties with China, but it has all failed. The Government of Canada and the PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA have established diplomatic relations which is a great blow to the big-brother policies of the U.S. imperialists. Not only has the Canadian Government established diplomatic relations with China, but it has also raised many questions of Canadian sovereigntywith the U.S. imperialists and has taken steps to safeguard this, which goes to show that the Canadian Government to this extent, is responding to the deep sentiment of the Canadian people to oppose U.S. imperialism. With this policy the Canadian Government is contributing towards the world-wide anti-imperialist front against U.S. imperialism." (MASS LINE. Vol. 2, No. 43, April 18. 1971, emphasis added)

In May 1971, CPC (M-L) held their First Congress. This Congress adopted the Constitution of the Party which confirmed that it was the "mass democratic anti-imperialist revolution" which was on the agenda for Canada. The ramifications of this line on the membership of the Party w as also spelled out:

"Proven renegades, enemy agents, those who persist in following the bourgeois reactionary Right and 'left' opportunist line...counter-revolutionary slogans of 'anti-capitalist' and 'one-stage' revolution...must be cleared out of the Party and not re-admitted." (Constitution of CPC (M-L),'' Mass Line, Vol. 2, No. 45. June 13, 1971, emphasis added)

In other words, they wrote the socialist revolution completely out of their party constitution.

In May 1971, CPC (M-L) also launched the Provisional Committee of the Canadian People's United Front Against U.S. Imperialism (CPUF). This Committee issued a "National Petition for a People's Canada" on November 11, 1971. This Petition included the following statement:

".. .we call upon all classes of society to:

A. Resolutely take up the task of preparing for National War Against U.S. imperialism..." (People 's Canada Daily NewsRelease, April 12, 1972, p. 6, emphasis added)

Among the activities of the Provisional Committee of the CPUF was to "prepare conditions for calling the Canadian People's Congress." To carry this out, they declared a plan to call "various national forums, each geared to a particular section of the society." Ten such forums were planned. The tenth was for: "Native capitalists -- completely Canadian, independent and non-monopoly capitalists." (Ibid.) This program shows that CPC (M-L)'s call for a national revolution in Canada envisaged an alliance with the national bourgeoisie.

1972

On July 1, Confederation Day, 1972, CPC (M-L) released a document called the Communist Manifesto for Canada and Quebec (First Draft). This document further elaborated its vision of what attitude a "communist government" established by CPC (M-L) would take towards various sections of the Canadian bourgeoisie. It declared:

"7) The basic cell of the Communist Government, the REVOLUTIONARY COMMITTEE, will be comprised of representatives from various classes with the main and majority force coming from the working class, allied force coming from the intellectuals and the rural and urban petty-bourgeoisie and the minority force coming from the non-monopoly, pro-communist capitalists.....

"9) The Communist Government will put an end to all foreign-controlled monopoly capitalist enterprises without any remuneration and without any demand that they pay back that which they have already extracted and stolen from Canada and Quebec....

"10) The Communist Government will curb all Canadian monopoly capitalist class enterprises, take over those which supported the foreign imperialists and opposed the proletarian revolution and let others maintain their enterprises with the conditions of a strict control on prices and profits....

"13) The Communist Government will encourage all non-monopoly enterprises (already in existence) to carry on, but will oppose the exploitation of the working people through these enterprises as well as oppose these enterprises becoming monopolies." (Communist Manifesto for Canada and Quebec (First Draft), pamphlet published by CPC (M-L), p. 6 emphasis added)

This is a graphic exposure of the non-socialist character of CPC (M-L)'s perspective for the revolution. CPC (M-L) promised to let the non-monopoly capitalists carry on their activities (how they are to do this without exploitation, only CPC (M-L)'s theoreticians know). Mind you, this was not a plan for the step-by-step expropriation of all capitalist property but a plan for long-term coexistence with the non-monopoly bourgeoisie. Nowhere did CPC (M-L) spell out its perspective for the eventual expropriation of all the means of production. Furthermore, the Communist Manifesto for Canada and Quebec even promised these bourgeois a share of power in the organs of political power. What is more, this softness towards the bourgeoisie was even extended to the Canadian monopolists! CPC (M-L) only pledged to take over the property of the monopolists who supported the foreign imperialists, while letting the other monopolies remain.

Within a few months, though, CPC (M-L) adjusted their line and promised to give even the monopoly capitalists a share of the political power! This was put forward during their participation in the 1972 federal elections. PCDN wrote:

"In place of Parliament we must have a PEOPLE'S CONGRESS. It should be convened on the basis of majority control. 80% of its members should come from the working class, 15% representation should go to small businessmen, farmers and fishermen, while the monopoly capitalist class should have less than 5% of the membership." (PCDN, Vol. 2, No. 2, September 26, 1972, emphasis added. The description of this scheme was also published in CPC (M-L)'s 1976 pamphlet On Unity of Marxist-Leninists, p. 37)

1973

The Second Congress of CPC (M-L) was held in March 1973. It reaffirmed the positions of the founding document of CPC (M-L) on the character of Canada and the nature of the revolution. Its basic analysis of Canada included:

"The four basic contradictions in Canada are the following:

"1. The main contradiction is between U.S. imperialism and its lackeys in Canada and the vast majority of the Canadian people. This is the leading contradiction and is playing the decisive role in the movement of society forward.

"2. The second contradiction is between the Canadian monopoly capitalist class and the working class of Canada. This contradiction, although it is the most basic and fundamental contradiction, is expressing itself in the struggle between the U.S. imperialists and the Canadian lackeys on the one hand, and the Canadian people on the other. It is the basic task of the proletarians to organize against the U.S. imperialists and their lackeys and to lead that struggle. As the struggle develops and matures, the proletariat will gain experience as well as the support of the masses and this will lead to the defeat of U.S imperialism; then the contradiction between labor and capital will be the principal one and will become decisive. National struggle against U.S. imperialism is class struggle of the proletariat against the Canadian monopoly capitalist class during the period of preparation for the proletarian revolution.

"Contradiction number one is an antagonistic contradiction and will only be resolved through revolutionary war against U.S. imperialism and will lead to anti-imperialist revolution. Contradiction number two is also an antagonistic contradiction and will lead to revolutionary civil war against the monopoly capitalist class. It will lead to proletarian revolution...." (CPC (M-L) Documents -- Political Reports 1970 and 1973, p. 45-47, emphasis added.)

The Second Congress also spelled out CPC (M-L)'s view of how capitalism developed in Canada. It denied the existence of an indigenous development of capitalism in Canada and painted the Canadian bourgeoisie as merely comprador elements. It explained:

''Canada is a capitalist society. The basis of building capitalism in Canada has, in the main, always been external. Capital accumulated outside the country has been brought into Canada in the form of investments, and it is this imported capital which constituted the backbone of the capitalist economic system. This situation has always remained the same. To date, the sources of capital are. in the main, the foreign investors. No enterprise in Canada of any caliber is established without the involvement of foreign capital. Because of the Canadian capitalists' dependence on foreign capital, there exists in Canada today a foreign-dependent capitalist system....

''At the present, there are two types of capitalists:

"Those who are still enjoying the colonial privileges -- basically known as compradors -- and those who are managers of the U.S. imperialist branch plants -- basically known as bureaucrat capitalists....

"The comprador and bureaucrat capitalists not only import large amounts of foreign capital. but they also assist the foreign imperialists, especially the U.S. imperialists, in the export of capital to other countries. Their basic nature of middle-man remains....

"The entire production in Canada is geared toward foreign use....

"Politically, Parliament is the tool of foreign expansion into Canada...." (Ibid., pp. 47-49)

1975

The leadership of CPC (M-L) opened this year with a ringing affirmation of their position on the question of the main contradiction in Canada. In a major speech delivered by the Chairman of CPC (M-L), Hardial Bains, which was later published as a pamphlet, they declared:

"...our Party has analysed the situation and we are so far agreed that there are two contradictions in this country. (We are also discussing the existence of a third contradiction but have not yet reached any conclusions on this point.)

"The first contradiction is between U.S. imperialism and the monopoly capitalist class, on the one hand, and the masses of the Canadian people on the other. When we speak of the masses of the Canadian people, we mean not only the Canadian working class but include a large section of the petit bourgeoisie and even some sections of the bourgeoisie. This means that we must participate in those struggles waged by the Canadian people. One of the struggles which is decisive on this front is the struggle against the U.S. imperialist dominations of Canada....

"The second contradiction is between the proletariat, on the one hand. and . the bourgeoisie. on the other. The proletariat will succeed in leading the struggle against the bourgeoisie only if it mobilizes the largest majority of the Canadian people against the main enemy." (Usher in the First Year Last Quarter of the Glorious Twentieth Century, p. 29, emphasis added)

Immediately following this speech, CPC (M-L) launched a big polemic against an opportunist group called the Revolutionary Student Movement of Quebec (MREQ) (This group was one of the predecessors of the pro-Chinese "three worldist" Workers Communist Party of Canada.) A central feature of this polemic was on the question of the character of Canada and the nature of the main contradiction in Canadian society. In this polemic. CPC (M-L) opposed MREQ from right opportunist positions and not from positions of Marxism-Leninism.

The MREQ was quite willing to give lip service to recognizing Canada as an imperialist country and to the main contradiction in Canada being that between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie while supporting the "three worldist" thesis of defending Canadian independence against the two superpowers. But, instead of fighting "three worlds-ism," CPC (M-L) went with hammer and tongs against the correct idea about the principal contradiction. This entire polemical effort of CPC (M-L)'s made mincemeat out of the Marxist-Leninist views on a whole series of questions. The crux of the issue w as stated as follows:

"...MREQ simply states that the principal contradiction is between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. This completely distorts Lenin's theory of the highest stage of capitalism. Only during the period of competitive capitalism is this the case. In the era of finance capital, of monopolization, of creditor countries parasitizing on the overwhelming majority of countries, then all classes, and strata of society exclusive of the handful of monopoly capitalists in each country dominated by imperialism, have an objective interest in overthrowing imperialism." (PCDN, Vol. 5, No. 15, January 17, 1975, emphasis added )

Elsewhere in this polemic, CPC (M-L) further spelled out. their "class analysis" of the forces that stand against imperialism. Here CPC (M-L) spelled out that in its view not only the petty bourgeoisie but even "medium-sized factory owners" were Canadian workers. They wrote:

"...a vast army of Canadian workers employed in the circulation of goods and services, in government offices, educational institutions, in small businesses as owners, even as medium sized factory owners -- all these working masses are bled in a thousand and one ways every time they turn around by the all pervasive, all ensnaring web of finance capital." (PCDN, Vol. 5, No. 8, January 9, 1975)

This entire polemic of CPC (M-L)'s showed that while they basically adhered to the ideas of the "three worlds" theory, they gave the application of this theory in Canada a twist of their own. While acknowledging Canada as part of the "second world," CPC (M-L) pointed out that within the "second world" there are countries like Canada which are really closer to the "third world." Thus wrote:

"We boldly declare that the two superpowers are the main enemies of all the world's peoples, and that the broadest united front of Third World countries, Second World countries and the working class of the two superpowers should be forged to "shake off" these imperialist monsters and utterly destroy them.

"We do not think it assists the Canadian revolution to dogmatically assert that our country falls into such and such a category....

To simply assert dogmatically that 'Canada is in the Second World' teaches us nothing....

"Clearly, then, our country is different from Second World countries like Britain, France, Japan, Germany -- even from smaller ones like Holland, Denmark, and Sweden; but like that of Australia. We are a dependent, capitalist country dominated by U.S. imperialism. The majority of the Canadian people, the workers, small producers, large sections of the lower middle class, professionals, civil servants, and even sections of the national bourgeoisie are all forced to pay tribute to the rentier parasites who make up the financial oligarchy in the United States, and thus objectively all have a common enemy, U.S. imperialism." (PCDN, Vol. 5, No. 15, January 17, 1975, p. 3)

But wait. In describing Canada in "third worldist" terms, CPC (M-L) did not fail to keep the door open even to sections of the monopoly capitalists. PCDN declared:

"In fact what Mao Tsetung is talking about in his article is the possibility of the people's revolution against imperialism making an alliance with the comprador monopoly capitalist class (Chiang Kai Shek) on a temporary basis to fight a common invader (Japan). Possibly sections of the Canadian monopoly capitalist class would join an alliance with the Canadian people's anti-imperialist front if U.S. imperialism should invade Canada. But that is not an item on the immediate political agenda." (PCDN, Vol. 5, No. 21, January 24, 1975, p. 3, emphasis added)

One very interesting feature about this polemical series of CPC (M-L)'s is that here they openly admitted that, even if Canada were an imperialist country, they would still not recognize the main contradiction as between the proletariat and bourgeoisie. After all, they had already explained, class struggle is a thing of the past, a phenomenon only of the period of competitive capitalism! Thus PCDN wrote:

"According to MREQ, the principal contradiction in Canada is between the 'bourgeoisie and the proletariat.' Is this not the same line given by NDP and the revisionists, the anarcho-syndicalists, and the opportunists as well as the trotskyists and neo-trotskyists?...

"MREQ peddles the theory that Canada is itself an 'imperialist' country. Even if for the sake of argument we concede that this is so, the struggle between the ' bourgeoisie and the proletariat' still cannot be considered as the main struggle. But we do not concede that Canada is an imperialist country." (PCDN, Vol. 5, No. 13, January 15, 1975, reprinted in the pamphlet On Unity of Marxist-Leninists, pp. 157-58, emphasis added)

1977

This year marks a turning point. On a world scale, the struggle between Marxism-Leninism and "three worlds-ism" had burst out in full force. This included repudiation of "second worldist" conceptions of national revolutions in the imperialist countries of Europe, Japan and Canada. The basic cornerstones of CPC (M-L)'s deviations on the strategy of the Canadian revolution were being denounced. Here was an opportunity for CPC (M-L) to rectify. But instead CPC (M-L) held its Third Congress in March 1977 to whitewash its errors and carry forward the line of national revolution in a more refined form. This Congress they declared as the "congress of the victory of Marxism in Canada"!

Reaffirming the basic views of the First and Second Congress on the character of Canada, the Third Congress declared:

"8. The Third Congress of the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) affirms the political thesis advanced by the First and Second Congresses that in Canada there are three major contradictions:

"a) A contradiction between U.S. imperialism and the Canadian monopoly capitalist class, and the Canadian people;

"b) There is a contradiction in the camp of U.S. imperialism and the Canadian monopoly capitalist class, amongst various monopoly groups; and

"c) There is a contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

"This analysis cuts across all the confusion generated by the opportunists on this question.... Other opportunist sects call Canada an imperialist power with the main contradiction being that between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Both types of opportunists make no distinction between:

"a) colonies proper and other colonies;

"b) monopoly or big bourgeoisie and national bourgeoisie;

"c) dependence and independence; and "d) oppressor state and oppressed state." (Political Resolution of the Third Congress CPC (M-L), pp. 17-18, emphasis added)

The Third Congress described the development of capitalism in Canada in the following way;

"Monopoly capitalism in Canada developed by importing massive amounts of foreign capital and it did not develop as a result of the indigenous merger of industrial and banking capital.... The Third Congress of CPC (M-L) considers the Canadian state to be part and parcel of the world imperialist system of states -- it is an oppressor state. At the same time, the Third Congress advocates that Canada is like a colony, its capitalism is a dependent capitalism and its state is dominated by U.S. imperialism." (Ibid., p. 19, emphasis added)

In their pseudo-class analysis, CPC (M-L) again affirmed their petty-bourgeois nationalist conceptions of the national bourgeoisie in Canada. It wrote:

"9. The social base of reaction in Canada is the reactionary bourgeoisie, that is the big bourgeoisie, that which is solely Canadian and that which is simply an extension of the U.S. big bourgeoisie. The big bourgeoisie controls and monopolizes everything and is quite distinct from the national bourgeoisie. The opportunists make no distinction between the big bourgeoisie, the bourgeoisie which controls the main means of production and expropriates the surplus value, and the national bourgeoisie, which is extremely weak and incapable of fighting the big bourgeoisie.... To these opportunists, the meaning of the term 'national bourgeoisie' refers to a capitalist or monopoly capitalist who is Canadian. To them, the term 'national bourgeoisie' does not mean the bourgeoisie which has only the home market and produces for the home market. Such a 'national bourgeoisie' cannot exist in Canada as the big bourgeoisie because of the entire historical development of Canada." (Ibid., pp. 19-20, emphasis added)

This is complete gobbledygook. CPC (M-L) asserts that only the big bourgeoisie expropriates the surplus value! So what does the rest of the bourgeoisie do -- exploit the workers for the good of the nation? Here CPC (M-L) is again dreaming of their pro-communist bourgeoisie. According to their petty-bourgeois nationalist conception, the bourgeoisie based on the home market does not exploit the Canadian workers but is virtually a candidate for sainthood.

Besides, their definition of the "national bourgeoisie" is just as absurd. In an imperialist country like Canada, the national bourgeoisie is in fact led by the big imperialist ruling bourgeoisie. As for the question of being based on the home market, this does not even distinguish between Canadian and foreign capital; after all. many indubitably Canadian capitalists produce for export while many foreign corporations in Canada produce solely for the Canadian market.

From this entire analysis of Canada, CPC (M-L) naturally reaffirmed its nationalist strategy for the revolution. While the formulations were slightly adjusted, the basic ideas of the non-socialist anti-imperialist revolution remained the same:

"10. The social revolution in Canada is against both the U.S. imperialists and the reactionary bourgeoisie and against the capitalist system. ... Another sect advocates that the struggle against the 'bourgeoisie' is the main struggle while the struggle against the two superpowers must be subordinated to it. These opportunists do not recognize the fact that... the bourgeoisie in Canada is divided between the big bourgeoisie and the national bourgeoisie.... The proletarian revolution is a thoroughgoing and protracted revolution against the big bourgeoisie, against the foreign imperialists and against all exploiting classes. This is why the proletariat must lead this revolution stepwise through stages, firmly completing one stage as a prelude to the next. The theory of the one-stage revolution is merely trotskyite sophistry and windbaggery.There is nothing of substance in it." (Ibid., p. 20, emphasis added)

While evading the question of giving a definite character to the revolution, CPC (M-L) of course did not forget to denounce "one-stage revolution." As to the non-socialist content of their strategic aims, they spelled this out in fairly clear terms:

"35. The strategic aims of the Party are:

"1) Overthrow of the rule of the reactionary bourgeoisie, the bourgeoisie composed of the monopoly bourgeoisie of Canada and that of the big bourgeoisie which is a mere extension of U.S. imperialism in Canada;

"2) Overthrow of the U.S. imperialist domination of Canada....

"5) ...the new state...will expropriate all national and international big monopoly capitalists, expropriate the traitorous bourgeoisie, suppress the reactionary elements and embark on the socialist road." (Ibid., pp. 67-68)

While giving lip service to "embarking on the socialist road," CPC (M-L)'s strategic aim only envisaged expropriating the "big monopoly capitalists" and the "traitorous bourgeoisie." These ideas are reminiscent of the theses of the 1972 Communist Manifesto for Canada and Quebec. Moreover, just as the 1972 document had talked of giving a share of the power to the "pro-communist bourgeoisie," CPC (M-L)'s Third Congress again lavished outrageous praise on the national bourgeoisie, who it declared as a "temporary ally" of the proletariat. A fine socialism indeed that marches hand in hand with the national bourgeoisie! Mao himself would have been so proud!

The Third Congress states:

"39. Vacillating and temporary allies of the proletariat: Certain sections of the non-monopoly bourgeoisie, the national bourgeoisie who are patriotic, those who are pro-communist or are not anti-communist, those who have the interests of the nation in mind against the reactionary bourgeoisie, those who are opposed to the shifting of the burden of the economic crisis onto the backs of the proletariat [Here again we have the bourgeoisie that doesn't exploit workers -- WA], those who are opposed to the fascization of the state and are against the war preparations and are opposed both to Canada remaining in the camp of imperialism or joining the camp of social-imperialism, those who are sympathetic and friendly to the socialist countries and other independent countries and generally support the national liberation movement of the nations and people of Asia, Africa and Latin America, and who take a democratic stand favoring the proletariat." (Ibid., p. 69)

One thing to note is that these pronouncements were being made at a Congress of CPC (M-L) which claimed to be against the revisionist "three worlds" theory. Clearly, to them repudiation of "three worlds-ism" did not mean rectifying their historical deviations on the character of Canada and the revolution. In fact, one of their major complaints against the "three worlds" theory with respect to Canada was that Canada had been placed in the "second world." This, they claimed, had masked the U.S. domination of Canada, i.e., covered up its character as more like a "third world" country. Thus the Third Congress wrote:

"The complex situation that prevails on the world scale leads certain opportunists to draw conclusions that are altogether unwarranted. They place Canada into the 'second world' in order to mask the character of the Canadian state, which is. that it is dominated by U.S. imperialism." (Ibid., p. 38)

Indeed, throughout 1977, the struggle of the Marxist-Leninists on a world scale intensified against the counter-revolutionary theory of "three worlds." But while claiming to be waging this struggle. CPC (M-L) fervently refused to draw the implications of this struggle for the line on the Canadian revolution. They continued their polemical salvos against the Marxist-Leninist principle that in a country such as Canada the main contradiction is between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Thus, the Fifth Consultative Conference of CPC (M-L) in November 1977 declared:

"On the question of the 'main contradiction' in Canada, the revisionists and opportunists of all hues made a big hullabaloo that the main contradiction is between the 'bourgeoisie and the proletariat' and advanced the reactionary slogan 'class against class.' This slogan 'class against class' may look very revolutionary but it is on this question the utter putrefaction and bankruptcy of revisionism and opportunism of all hues is exposed. First, these individuals and groups do not consider that 'material conditions are ripe for revolution.' If this is the case then what is this nonsense about 'class against class'? What is the content of the sophism 'class against class'? Comrade Stalin points out that 'a new period, that of direct assault on capitalism' has already arrived, but for the revisionists and opportunists, 'the material conditions' are still not ripe for revolution. Furthermore, the entire history since the Great October Revolution is the history of the direct assaults of the working class on capitalism which created the world of socialism and of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Are we to suppose that the entire era has undergone such changes that from the 'new period, that of direct assault on capitalism,' it has been metamorphosed into 'the old period of preparation of the working class for revolution'?...

"Thus the slogan 'class against class' is merely a ruse, a posture to fool the innocent and excite the naive. The tactics of the proletariat are not 'class against class' but the proletariat overthrowing the rule of the bourgeoisie by mobilizing all who can be mobilized on the basis of a political program which will solve the crisis facing the society as a result of the contradictions inherent in the capitalist system.... Thus the tactics of the proletariat are not 'class against class' in the abstract and sophistic sense the revisionists and opportunists of all hues present, but the proletariat leading all oppressed sections of the society against its main enemy. The main enemy of the proletariat and people in Canada is the reactionary bourgeoisie and U.S. imperialism.... The correct Leninist analysis of the concrete conditions in Canada is that the main contradiction in Canada is between the reactionary bourgeoisie and the Canadian people...." (Documents of the Fifth Consultative Conference of CPC (M-L), pp. 39-40, boldface emphasis added)

What is this tirade if not a bitter attack on a fundamental idea of Marxism? The slogan "class against class" is viciously denounced as reactionary, a sophism, and so forth. But the fact of the matter is that this slogan simply embodies the basic idea of waging the class struggle against the capitalists. And as a slogan it was advanced by the Communist International. Comrade Stalin himself denounced those who opposed the slogan as deviating in the direction of social-democracy. He observed:

"Under capitalist conditions, the Right deviation in communism signifies a tendency, an inclination that has not yet taken shape, it is true, and is perhaps not yet consciously realized, but nevertheless a tendency of a section of the communists to depart from the revolutionary line of Marxism in the direction of Social-Democracy. When certain groups of Communists deny the expediency of the slogan 'class against class in election campaigns (France!, or are opposed to the Communist Party nominating its own candidates (Britain!, or are disinclined to make a sharp issue the fight against 'Left' Social-Democracy (Germany), etc., etc., it means that there are people in the Communist Parties who are striving to adapt communism to Social-Democratism." (Stalin, "The Right Danger in the CPSU(B)," Works, Vol. 11, pp. 233-34)

The leadership of CPC (M-L) tries to counterpose the slogan "class against class" to the issue of the nature of the present epoch and the fact that the proletariat has allies in the revolution. But this is ridiculous. To counterpose these things is only to put forward, in a slightly refurbished form, the same thesis CPC (M-L) elaborated in 1975: that "class against class" or the idea that the main contradiction is between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is something applicable only in the period of pre-monopoly capitalism, while in the imperialist epoch, the struggle is one of all classes, including "medium-sized factory owners," except a tiny handful of monopolists.

1978

In April-May 1978, CPC (M-L) held a "Special Congress." The only public document this congress released was the new Constitution of the Party. While this too did not spell out any precise characterization of the stage of revolution, like the Third Congress it did not fail to denounce the "ultra-left" idea of the struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. It said:

"[CPC (M-L)] has also persisted in opposing the ultra-left who slander the step-wise development of revolution consistent with the historical conditions, deny the existence of the U.S. imperialist bourgeoisie right here in Canada and who, under the sophism that the struggle is between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, deny the struggle against the U.S. imperialist bourgeoisie in Canada and deny that the struggle of the proletariat is both against the big bourgeoisie of Canada and the U.S. imperialist bourgeoisie operating in Canada and against the U.S. imperialist domination of Canada...." (PCDN, Vol. 8, No. 123, June 5, 1978, emphasis added)

1979

In November 1978, the Third Plenum of the CC of CPC (M-L) denounced Mao Zedong Thought as anti- Marxist-Leninist. But it did not elaborate any serious critique of Mao Zedong Thought. On New Year's eve, December 31-January 1, 1979. the chairman of CPC (M-L), Hardial Bains, gave a major speech "Usher in the Year of Stalin." This speech attempted to give some of CPC (M-L)'s views on Mao Zedong Thought but was marked, among other things, by a great deal of confusion. This showed that CPC (M-L) was not serious about repudiating its grave Maoist deviations, but was taking the approach of slurring them over and maintaining them with yet another twist in formulations.

Take the question of Canadian imperialism, over which CPC (M-L) fought bitterly for years. Bains had this to say:

"The opportunists have launched a 'debate' for several years now as to whether or not Canada is an imperialist country. They accuse CPC (M-L) of not considering Canada as an imperialist country and then they 'demolish CPC (M-L)' by saying that Canada is an imperialist country. But the fact of the matter is that CPC (M-L) has never considered this question of whether Canada is imperialist or not as an important question to resolve, as CPC (M-L) has always considered Canada as monopoly capitalist where state monopoly capitalism prevails." (PCDN, Vol. 9, No. 6, January 6, 1979, p. 4, col. 2, emphasis added)

What a distortion of history! For years, CPC (M-L) fought viciously over the question of Canadian imperialism, as we have observed in the previous sections of this article. And they are still fighting today. But in 1979, they claim that they never considered this an important issue to sort out! What rot! Irrespective of their claim about history, to take such an attitude towards whether or not one's bourgeoisie is imperialist is to take a cavalier attitude to Marxism-Leninism. Not to fight the imperialism of one's "own" bourgeoisie is to embellish it and cover over its plunder and oppression of the working masses at home and abroad.

Next we move to the question of the nature of the revolution. Bains declared:

"Our Party has always put forward the correct view that the present stage of proletarian revolution is to forcibly overthrow the political, economic, military and cultural power of monopoly capital, to throw U.S. imperialism out of Canada and to end the war preparations and the participation of Canada in any imperialist war. This is the stage and the target of revolution. This means that the proletariat must mobilize all the toiling masses as well as small producers of both city and countryside and the middle bourgeoisie in order to complete this stage of revolution. Those who give the line of one-stage revolution are opposed to the mobilization of allies to complete this stage of revolution." (Ibid.)

Here, while calling it a "proletarian revolution," Bains still maintains his opposition to the socialist character of the revolution by counterposing one- stage revolution to the question of the allies of the proletariat. And it is an interesting proletarian revolution indeed which occurs with an alliance with what CPC (M-L) calls the "middle bourgeoisie." Indeed, the mobilization of this "middle bourgeoisie" is painted as a decisive feature of their scheme for revolution. Later in his speech, Bains notes:

"The immediate task for the Party is to take its program to the people for implementation, in order to end the rule of monopoly capitalism; in order to bring about the changes that are necessary.... The proletariat's mission is to isolate the monopoly capitalists to the maximum and hit them. Under the monopoly capitalist system, there is not only the domination by the monopolies, but there is also free competition. Side by side there are large numbers of non-monopoly sections of small producers of both the city and the countryside. The program of the proletariat is to make this section, that is, the small and middle bourgeoisie, the reserve of the proletariat against the big bourgeoisie: against monopoly capital. If the proletariat fails to mobilize, fails to rally forces under its own banner, then the bourgeoisie will be able to hoist the banner of fascism and war, and the proletariat will be disarmed." (PCDN, Vol. 9, No. 13, January 15, 1979, p. 3, col. 4, emphasis added)

It should be noted that what CPC (M-L) is calling the "middle bourgeoisie" is merely a new name for their "national bourgeoisie" of the years past. Of course, they never define concretely who is it that they are speaking of. But in fact, for them, the term "middle bourgeoisie" refers to all capitalists based on the home market, no matter how large and rich they may be, because by petty-bourgeois nationalist logic, such capitalists cannot exist as a "big" or "monopoly" bourgeoisie. Indeed, CPC (M-L)'s assessment of the big bourgeoisie is that it is composed only of a handful, or more precisely, only 45 families. As they put it in their election program in April 1979,

"The representatives of the rich, of the tiny minority of some 45 families, the multinationals, and the financial oligarchs...." (PCDN, April 23, 1979)

CPC (M-L)'s "middle bourgeoisie" must then refer to the bourgeoisie below these 45 families. Then it is simply a code word for prettifying all the capitalist exploiters except for a tiny handful of top financial usurers and U.S. executives. It is this bourgeoisie which is being painted as "decisive" for the fate of the revolution!

Finally, it should be noted that even while giving lip service to the repudiation of Mao Zedong Thought, CPC (M-L) did not repudiate its anti-Marxist views on the main contradiction in Canada. Hardial Bains spoke on this:

"The opportunists say that in capitalist-revisionist countries like Canada, the contradiction is between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, but this is only a particle of the truth because in the capitalist-revisionist countries there exists more than just the proletariat and the bourgeoisie." (Ibid.)

Here we have the timeworn thesis of CPC (M-L) that to recognize that the main contradiction is between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is to forget the allies of the proletariat. But this is a mockery of Marxism. Marxism has always recognized that the proletariat stands for mobilizing all the oppressed against the exploiters; this has never stood in contradiction to organizing on the basis of the struggle of class against class. Indeed, we have seen time and time again, that under the hoax of "allies" CPC (M-L) has its eyes not mainly on the non-proletarian laboring masses, but especially the "national bourgeoisie" or "middle bourgeoisie." This is the section they regard as decisive for the victory of the revolution. With this conception of allies, it's not surprising how CPC (M-L) rejects class against class -- it certainly frightens away the national bourgeoisie!

1980

Once again the new year was launched with a major speech by the chairman of CPC (M-L), Hardial Bains, putting forward in ever sharper terms the decisiveness of the need to mobilize the "middle strata" behind the program of the proletariat. He said: "We stand face to face with the reactionaries in Canada and on the world scale, in the sense that the imperialists, and the reactionary bourgeoisie of this country, the revisionists and opportunists of all hues, are united together to mobilize the proletariat behind their own aims, while CPC (M-L) stands in opposition to them to mobilize the middle strata behind the aims of the proletariat. We go into the 1980's with this as the central task for the proletariat to accomplish." (PCDN, January 3, 1980, p. 2, col. 2, emphasis added)

By "middle strata," CPC (M-L) simply meant their "national bourgeoisie" or "middle bourgeoisie." One could not mistake who was being referred to. Only a few weeks later, during CPC (M-L)'s campaign for the federal elections Hardial Bains made it perfectly clear:

"As far as the economic content of our slogan is concerned -- expropriate monopoly capital without compensation -- the rich create all kinds of confusion. They float some anarchists to put up all sorts of airs and say they don't want the rich or any of the capitalists at all. For them it is not just a matter of expropriating the monopoly capitalists -- they want to expropriate everyone. If the Marxist-Leninist Party advocated the expropriation of everyone, it would merely assist the monopoly capitalists in their counter-revolutionary activity, which is why they have these organizations, such as 'In Struggle' and the so-called 'Workers Communist Party.' Their raison d'etre is to confuse the masses of the people as to who really is the enemy. For instance, in Nicaragua a very big struggle was going on against fascist Somoza but that struggle did not make much headway until the time fascist Somoza, because of his own interests, attacked the middle bourgeoisie in Nicaragua. When the middle bourgeoisie deserted the big bourgeoisie, then the cause of the revolution advanced. To give the slogan that all capitalists should be expropriated is to antagonize the middle bourgeoisie, instead of making the middle bourgeoisie a temporary reserve of revolution, they are thrown onto the side of the rich where they have a lot of ability to cause trouble in the workers' movement. The fact is that amongst the middle bourgeoisie are those who do not like monopolization because they suffer from it. Many of the middle bourgeoisie have been ruined because of monopolization, as well as some of them still have feelings for democratic and progressive ideals, some of them oppose war, they do not want to fight on the side of the U.S. imperialists or any other imperialists, etc. To give the slogan to expropriate all the capitalists is counter-revolutionary....

"We should oppose both the slogans which say Expropriate All Capitalists -- that is skipping a stage of revolution -- as well as which propose terrorism....'' (Speech delivered by Comrade Hardial Bains at Election Rally in Montreal, February 17, 1980, printed in PCDN. February 19, 1980, p. 4, col. 3-4, emphasis added)

In this passage, we see the same themes that are found throughout the history of CPC (M-L). There is the same scandalous prettification of the "middle bourgeoisie" and the same adulations on this section as decisive for the fate of the revolution. In order to do this, Bains compares the struggle in Canada with the Nicaraguan revolution. This shows that he is still presenting Canada as a "third world" country and painting the Canadian revolution as an anti-imperialist democratic revolution. This is nonsense, for the Canadian revolution is a proletarian socialist revolution.

Moreover, even Bains' reading of the facts about Nicaragua is ridiculous. To say that the struggle there was not making much headway until the "middle bourgeoisie" joined in is to trample on the revolutionary masses who fought for years on end to organize the revolution. The fact is, the revolutionaries were on the verge of victory when the camp of the bourgeoisie split up and a section deserted Somoza. Besides, who is Bains glorifying here? It is these "middle bourgeois" sections who have tried to undermine the revolution from the right.

As for the issue of "expropriating all capitalists," this is a straw man. It is one thing for the socialist revolution to carry through its program of expropriation of private property in stages, but it is quite another kettle of fish to think that one will not "antagonize the middle bourgeoisie" by promising not to expropriate it! This is a travesty of the Marxist-Leninist conception of the strategy and tactics of the socialist revolution. Instead it is a manifestation of Maoist, modern revisionist and social-democratic conceptions. In his work Eurocommunism Is Anti-Communism, Enver Hoxha exposed the essence of such an approach towards the exploiters:

"In a long tirade, at the 22nd Congress of the FCP, Marchais goes so far as to say that the accusation of allegedly wanting to eliminate the wealthy, levelled against the French revisionists, is without foundation. Considering it a slander, he declares openly that they want. private property to exist, want the middle bourgeoisie to exist with all its property and want the landed peasantry to exist; that they want to nationalize all the common state assets and to have all these administered by the people. Social-democracy also defends these capitalist structures which Marchais defends. In this instance he has the right to be angry with those who accuse him of not being one hundred per cent loyal to the bourgeoisie like his social-democratic brothers." (Proletarian Internationalism edition, p. 62)

1982

We have now come to the end of our review of the historical documents of CPC (M-L) which spell out their deviationist views on the nature of the Canadian revolution. Since 1980, CPC (M-L) has not issued any major documents explaining their strategy. Nevertheless, their daily agitation in PCDN and the recently released book The Necessity for Revolution prove that their conceptions remain the same.

[Back to Top]

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

How the Leadership of the RCPB (ML) Joined the War on Our Party.........	69
An International Factionalist Conspiracy.....................................................	72
A Self-Proclaimed "International Trend".....................................................	77
In Conclusion................................................................................................	83

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 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 "the 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.

[Back to Top]

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.]

[Back to Top]

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

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.

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.

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)

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.

[Photo: First page of the Letter of the National Executive Committee of the Marxist-Leninist Party, USA to the Central Committee of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist), March 17,1980.]

[Back to Top]

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)).

[Photo: Photo of the Letter of the Central Committee of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist- Leninist) to the Central Committee of the Marxist-Leninist Party, USA, August 21,1980.]

[Back to Top]

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.

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.

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.

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 PL A. 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.

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.

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.

[Photo: First page of the Letter of the Central Committee of the Marxist-Leninist Party, USA to the Central Committee of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist), February 5,1981.]

pacifist bourgeoisie.

Lenin subjected such a liberal pacifist opposition to withering criticism. "To influence the workers and the masses in general, '' Lenin pointed out that "the liberal bourgeoisie (and their agents in the labor movement, i. e., the opportunists) are prepared to swear allegiance to internationalism any number of times, accept the peace slogan, renounce the annexationist aims of the war, condemn chauvinism, and so on and so forth -- anything except revolutionary action against their own government, anything in the world, if only they can come out 'against defeat.' "("The Main German Opportunist Work on the War," Collected Works, Vol. 21, p. 272, emphasis as in the original)

"Hatred of one 's own government and one s own bourgeoisie -- the sentiment all class conscious workers who understand, on the one hand, that war is a continuation politics'

"To repudiate the defeat slogan means allowing one s revolutionary ardor to degenerate into an empty phrase, or sheer hypocrisy.

"What is the substitute proposed for the defeat slogan? It is that of neither victory nor defeat'The Organizing Committee, together

with Bukvoyed and Trotsky, stand on fully the same ground as David when they defend the 'neither victory'-nor-defeat slogan.

be hypocritically in favor class struggle,

of 'disrupting the class truce': in practice, such people are renouncing an independent proletarian policy because they subordinate the proletariat of all belligerent countries to the absolutely bourgeois task of safeguarding the imperialist governments against defeat. The only policy of actual, not verbal disruption the 'class truce. ' of acceptance of the class struggle, is for the proletariat to take advantage of the difficulties experienced by its government and its bourgeoisie in order to overthrow them. This, however, cannot be achieved or striven for, without desiring the defeat of one own government and without contributing to that defeat....

Whoever is in favor of the slogan of neither victory nor defeat is consciously unconsciously a chauvinist; at best he is a conciliatory petty bourgeois but in any case he is an enemy to proletarian policy, a partisan of the existing governments, of the present-day ruling classes." (Ibid., pp. 278-9, emphasis as in original)

[Back to Top]