The Workers' Advocate

WORKERS OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE!

NEWSPAPER OF THE CENTRAL ORGANIZATION OF U.S. MARXIST-LENINISTS

Volume 9, Number 11

December 5, 1979

P.O. BOX 1192 CHICAGO, IL. 60611 25¢

[Front page:

SUPPORT THE IRANIAN REVOLUTION AGAINST U.S. IMPERIALISM! The Shah must be punished for his crimes! Down with Carter's war hysteria against the Iranian people!;

Carter and the monopolies will never subdue the auto workers;

CONDEMN THE GOVERNMENT-ORGANIZED FASCIST MASSACRE IN GREENSBORO!;

Chicago Conference Gives Call to Advance the Struggle Against U.S. Imperialism's Nuclear Program]

IN THIS ISSUE

SUPPORT THE IRANIAN REVOLUTION AGAINST U.S. IMPERIALISM!

Carter and the monopolies will never subdue the auto workers

CONDEMN THE GOVERNMENT-ORGANIZED FASCIST MASSACRE IN GREENSBORO!

Chicago Conference Gives Call to Advance the Struggle Against U.S. Imperialism's Nuclear Program

The provocations and blackmail of the U.S. imperialists cannot bring the Iranian people to their knees!

No to Concessions! Wage Mass Struggle against Chrysler!

J.V. Stalin's Work Will Live on Through the Centuries

STEEL MONOPOLY CAPITALISTS, NOT IMPORTS, ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LOSS OF JOBS

ANACONDAS "ABSENTEE CONTROL PROGRAM":

Fascist labor discipline is part of the capitalists' productivity drive

Down with low wages and brutal working conditions at Leviton sweatshop!

Socialism alone is that economic-social order which overcomes every difficulty and makes the people happy

Albania's 35th Anniversary of Liberation Enthusiastically Celebrated

Great Victory of the Bolivian People

There is not an ounce of anti-revisionism in the inter-imperialist rivalry between Beijing and Moscow

Further collaboration between Chinese and Italian revisionists

"Three worldists" are on the path of merger with social-democracy

"Mao Zedong Thought" - A Profoundly Anti-Marxist Theory

"The Party Is the Most Precious Thing"

U.S. neo-revisionism as the American expression of the international opportunist trend of Chinese revisionism - Part VI

MAO, BROWDER AND SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY

"The Marxist-Leninist Party Is Our Leader"

THE SOCIAL-DEMOCRATS ARE STRIKEBREAKERS

On Barry Weisberg's MLOC/"CPUSA(ML)"

Against Social-Democratic Infiltration of the Marxist-Leninist Movement

A Statement that couldn't stand the light of day

Resolution of Chicago Anti-Nuclear Conference

SUPPORT THE IRANIAN REVOLUTION AGAINST U.S. IMPERIALISM!

The Shah must be punished for his crimes!

Down with Carter's war hysteria against the Iranian people!

The revolutionary people of Iran have launched a new tidal wave of anti-U.S. imperialist struggle. The immediate demands of this great struggle are for the extradition of the tyrannical fascist Shah from his refuge in the U.S. provided for him by Carter. The Shah must be tried and justly punished for his heinous crimes against the Iranian people. The Iranian people are also demanding the return of the billions of dollars the Shah robbed from the people. They are fighting the counter-revolutionary plots of U.S. imperialism against their struggle for freedom and independence. The Iranian working masses and youth in their hundreds of thousands have taken to the streets of Teheran and other cities to condemn U.S. imperialism and demand the extradition of the Shah. To the loud cries of " DEATH TO AMERICAN IMPERIALISM!", "DEATH TO CARTER!", and "DEATH TO THE SHAH!", the hated flag of U.S. imperialism, the stars and stripes, is being burned in the streets along with effigies of Carter and his friend the Shah, the bloodstained assassin of the Iranian people.

This courageous stand of the Iranian people has sparked a new and powerful outburst of the popular struggle against U.S. imperialism in many parts of the world. In many countries, from the Philippines to Kuwait, the U.S. embassies and consulates have been besieged by angry demonstrators with the embassies in Pakistan and Libya being sacked and burned to the ground. Far from "isolating" the Iranian people as the imperialist news media claims, a massive wave of protest has swept the Middle East, South Asia and elsewhere, manifesting the sentiments of the people against U.S. imperialism and their solidarity with the heroic people of Iran.

The hatred of the people for U.S. imperialism has also been demonstrated in the streets of cities across the U.S. The ultra-imperialist "patriotic" campaign of war hysteria against the Iranian revolution launched by the Carter administration has been a fiasco. Despite the mountains of rabid chauvinist anti-Iranian propaganda being dished out by the U.S. government and the monopoly capitalist media mills, the so-called "wave of American patriotism" in support of U.S. imperialism has turned out to be little more than a bunch of government-organized fascist elements waving flags. It is very telling that the biggest of the pro-imperialist demonstrations were actually made up of State Department employees or of the employees of the imperialist banks on Wall Street!

And where these state-organized "patriots" try to demonstrate they are opposed.

At the universities, for example, when the authorities try to create a platform for the Young Republicans, Zionists and other fascists to spew their rabid chauvinist trash, these meetings have been turned into mass denunciations of the crimes of the Shah and his U.S. imperialist patrons.

Many thousands of copies of COUSML leaflets in defense of the Iranian revolution have been distributed among the people including right in the midst of the so-called "backlash" demonstrations. Everywhere the people are manifesting a strong sentiment of opposition to U.S. imperialism and the Shah of Iran who is universally despised as a monstrous criminal. And the solidarity of the American people with the just cause of the Iranian people has been demonstrated in the continuing mass actions and protests across the country of both Iranian nationals and Americans against the U.S. government and for the extradition of the Shah.

While the wrath of the people against U.S. imperialism all over the globe is boiling over, all the imperialists and reactionaries of the world are rushing headlong to U.S. imperialism's aid. As the farce presently taking place in the United Nations shows, all the imperialist and social- imperialist big powers have taken the side of U.S. imperialism against the just demands of the Iranian people. This includes the Soviet social-imperialists who have participated in the plunder of Iran with the aid of the Shah and who have long ago joined the camp of imperialism against the revolution. It also includes the Chinese social-imperialists who in the past embraced the fascist assassin the Shah as their close "comrade" and who have formed a counter-revolutionary alliance with the U.S. imperialists, supporting its warmongering activities down the line. Thus, both Moscow and Beijing have come out openly in support of Carter, condemning the so-called "illegal" measures taken by the Iranian people. The only country which has taken a principled revolutionary stand against U.S. imperialism and in support of the Iranian people's revolutionary cause is the People's Socialist Republic of Albania, the only genuine socialist country, the only country which upholds Marxism-Leninism and the principles of proletarian internationalism in both words and deeds, a loyal fighter for the cause of the people.

The new upsurge of the Iranian people's struggle is a continuation of the revolutionary movement which overthrew the bestial regime of the Shah a year ago. The powerful insurrection of the Iranian workers, peasants, and youth which crushed the despised monarchy of the Shah was a powerful blow to world imperialism. It was a terrifying catastrophe for all the imperialists and reactionaries because it was a real people's revolution. It was a revolutionary uprising in which the popular masses in their tens of millions played a role, hurling themselves into the struggle for their liberation.

All of the imperialist and social-imperialist powers were shaken by this revolution, but in particular, it was a major defeat for U.S. imperialism which had invested a great deal in the Shah's bloodstained regime. For a share of the loot, the Shah had sold out the land and labor of the Iranian people lock, stock and barrel to the U.S. imperialists. The result was untold suffering to the people and enormous super-profits for the Wall Street bankers and U.S. imperialist oil corporations and a personal fortune of billions for the criminal Shah. Moreover, the Shah's regime was turned into a savage policeman and a strategic base for the protection of U.S. imperialist interests not only in Iran but throughout the oil rich Middle East. For example, the Shah was the Israeli Zionists' close ally in the Middle East in its aggression against the Arab peoples, and it was the Shah's army that was dispatched by imperialism to put down the popular struggle of the people of Oman.

For this reason, U.S. imperialism has not and cannot become reconciled with the big loss it has suffered with the overthrow of its loyal puppet, the Shah. This is why the Carter government is harboring this bloodsoaked criminal in the U.S.

It was the notorious multi-billionaire David Rockefeller of the Chase Manhattan Bank and Exxon oil, with the help of his errand boy Henry Kissinger, who brought the Shah to the U.S. Recently Rockefeller made a statement to the effect that he had no "ulterior motives" in bringing the Shah into the U.S. but only did so out of "humanitarian concerns" to save the life of a sick man who is also his "close friend". But what actually "concerns" Mr. Rockefeller is the billions of dollars of super-profits to be lost by the Chase Manhattan Bank which continues to be one of the main payrollers of the murderous Shah and which had massive investments in Iran. Rockefeller's only other "concern" is for the oil supplies and markets of Exxon which was one of the principal plunderers of Iranian oil. And it is out of these same "concerns" -- that is for dollars and oil -- that the chief flunkey of the U.S. imperialist financiers, Mr. "human rights" Carter, has taken the fascist Shah firmly under his wing.

While the neo-colonial positions of U.S. imperialism and the other imperialists were powerfully shaken with the overthrow of the "American Shah", these positions were not destroyed. The bloody claws of U.S. imperialism have not been withdrawn from the flesh of the Iranian people. U.S. multinational corporations continue their plunder of Iran and U.S. imperialism still has its agents and henchmen there. Many of the SAVAK agents and military officers and other gangsters loyal to U.S. imperialism remain in operation. It is clear that the New York bankers and the imperialist oil corporations are dreaming of a restoration of the Shah. And it is also clear that the Carter government has launched a whole series of hostile and provocative actions, including harboring the Shah, with the sole aim of strengthening the positions of imperialism and the counter-revolution in Iran. Carter's aim is to put down the Iranian revolution in order to restore Iran to its previous position of a complete neo-colonial slave of U.S. imperialism.

Using the seizure of the U.S. embassy as a pretext, the Carter administration is whipping up a massive campaign of war hysteria against the Iranian people. Allegedly, Carter's only interest is in "saving the lives" of the American hostages in the U.S. embassy.

But this is a hoax.

U.S. imperialism is not interested in "protecting lives", American or otherwise, but in protecting its super-profits, no matter how much or whose blood is spilled. In fact, countless times in the past the imperialists and colonialists have resorted to this same hoax of "protecting" their nationals to justify intervention against the oppressed nations. Using this device the U. S. imperialists invaded the Dominican Republic in 1965. And full-scale war was launched against Viet Nam after fabricating the "Tonkin Gulf incident" in 1964 in which the U.S. imperialists fraudulently claimed that their ships had been harassed off the coast of Viet Nam in order to create hysteria about "protecting American lives".

And likewise today, behind the rabid jingoist demagogy about "American citizens", the U.S. imperialists are carrying out an all-out propaganda campaign for stepped-up imperialist intervention and aggression against the people of Iran. Carter has dispatched two aircraft carriers, the Midway and the Kittyhawk, and other warships to the Arabian Sea off the coast of Iran. There is a big commotion in Washington about military and economic blockades against Iran. And every day the White House issues another threat, both veiled and open, to send U.S. military forces to invade Iran and drown the revolution there in blood.

Carter justifies these criminal warmongering provocations with the absurd claim that it is the Iranian people that are allegedly the "terrorists" who have "violated international law". But this hypocritical and demagogic propaganda is only so much the worse for Carter and U.S. imperialism. It is only further demonstrating before the whole world just who are the real international criminals and terrorists. It is arrogant U.S. imperialism which, as a matter of course, topples entire governments through bloody CIA-organized coup d'etats, not only in Iran but also in Chile, in Nicaragua and Guatemala, in Greece, in the Congo, in Cambodia and countless other countries. And it is U.S. imperialism which holds whole nations hostage with its notorious "gunboat" diplomacy. It is the Nixons and Carters who have declared that the oppressed people all over the globe must either submit to the "interests" of U.S. imperialism or face extermination at the hands of its superpower military arsenal. Such was the nature of the barbaric "police action" of U.S. imperialism in Korea and the hitlerite U.S. war of aggression in Viet Nam. It is these same U.S. imperialist gentlemen of "international law" who have declared in advance that in the event that the control by the U.S. imperialist corporations of the Middle East oil supplies is challenged by the people who rightfully own this oil, that they will not hesitate to take "military action". For this very purpose, Carter and his Pentagon generals have assembled a 120,000 man special invasion force trained in desert warfare. And presently, in the "Iran crisis", Carter has filled the coastal waters off Iran with some 19 warships, one of the biggest naval flotillas assembled since World War n, in preparation for "punitive military action" and the "retaliation" bombing of Iran for the so-called "crime" of standing up to U.S. imperialist blackmail and provocations.

No, it is not the heroic people of Iran, but the U.S. imperialist barbarians that live by the imperialist law of the jungle, that subjugate and dominate the oppressed nations and people all over the globe through naked aggression and bloody terrorism. Just look at the crimes perpetrated by U.S. imperialism against the Iranian people under the rule of the fascist Shah.

When the hated Shah was driven out of the country by the people in 1953, it was the U.S. imperialists that through the CIA organized a bloody coup against the Mossadegh government and brought the Shah back to power. And since that time, the U.S. government armed the Shah to the teeth with tens of billions of dollars of the most up-to-date means of mass murder and torture to prop up his medieval regime. Iran was turned into a land where the people faced coldblooded massacres and countless executions at the hands of the Shah's assassins. It was a land of dungeons and torture chambers where hundreds of thousands of workers, peasants and youth were left to rot or be tortured by the Shah's henchmen. Tens of thousands of martyrs were gunned down in the streets of the cities of Iran by the Shah's soldiers in the last year alone of the Shah's barbaric rule.

Of course, the Shah did not commit these monstrous crimes on his own but was only doing the bidding of his U.S. imperialist masters, the greatest international savages of them all. The Shah's infamous SAVAK agents and other torturers and executioners were to a man trained by the U.S. experts in their bloody work. Not only did the U.S. corporations own and control the economic lifelines of the country, but also the hoards of U.S. CIA agents and spies, military officers and military bases strangled the sovereignty of the Iranian people.

It was the U.S. imperialists who made the tyrannical and fascist law in Iran. It is only this sort of "international law" which U.S. imperialism recognizes and is today threatening the Iranian people with military invasion for violating. This, of course, is only a further demonstration of the thoroughly criminal and terroristic nature of U.S. imperialism. In response to the most legitimate and simple demand that the U.S. government return the Shah so that he can be tried and punished for his hitlerite crimes, the Carter administration has unleashed a saber-rattling barrage of threats of military devastation against the Iranian people. But not only that, it was U.S. imperialism which was the main instigator and accomplice of these inhuman crimes of the Shah in the first place!

The Carter administration and the imperialist news media are whipping up their anti-Iranian campaign by burning pictures of Khomeini and portraying the revolution in Iran as the work of Khomeini and his government. However, this propaganda is aimed at confusing the real situation and U.S. imperialism's real objectives. Clearly, the U.S. imperialists are plotting for the return to power of the Shah and for the triumph of the most savage reaction in Iran. For this purpose it has activated the CIA, the remnants of SAVAK and other agents to undermine the Khomeini government and even to assassinate a number of Khomeini's associates. However, this does not mean that U.S. imperialism is not also prepared to come to terms with Khomeini against the popular revolution. The imperialist news media has deliberately exaggerated the role of the clergy to obscure the fact that it is the Iranian working class, peasantry and youth who are the real forces of this revolution. It was the working masses who suffered the terrible exploitation and oppression under the boot heel of the Shah. And it was the heroic working class with the oil workers playing a crucial role and the other toilers and the revolutionary youth who, under political slogans against imperialism and for democratic freedoms, carried out the glorious insurrection which toppled the medieval monarchy.

Furthermore, since the Khomeini government usurped power in the wake of this insurrection, it has more and more come into open conflict with the interests of the broad masses of the Iranian people. Khomeini and his regime have shown that they do not want to continue the revolution, to thoroughly smash the positions of U.S. imperialism and the other imperialists and social-imperialists, and to resolutely liquidate the remnants of the fascist monarchy and expand the freedoms for the people. On the contrary, Khomeini and Co. have shown their willingness to defend the positions of imperialism and reaction. This is why Khomeini has executed only a small handful of the fascist generals and torturers who must be punished while taking brutal measures to suppress the Marxist-Leninist communists, the working class and the progressive people and wages war against the working masses of Kurdestan and other nationalities.

Thus, notwithstanding the enormous fuss about Khomeini, it is the forces of the working class and the other toilers and the youth which have struck real terror into the imperialists and reactionaries. It is these forces which are carrying forward the revolutionary struggle for genuine freedom and independence, rallying under the banner of the Workers' and Peasants' Communist Party of Iran. It is against these forces, the revolution in the first place, that U.S. imperialism has mounted its raving and hysterical anti- Iranian crusade.

As for the imperialists' propaganda that the struggle of the Iranian people is a question of "religious fanaticism", this too is being used to throw sand in the eyes of the people to obscure the real issue. Clearly, it has not been religion, but progressive aspirations for emancipation from imperialism and medieval fascist reaction which have motivated the working class, the peasants, women and youth of Iran to shed their blood in their heroic struggle. Furthermore, according to all the politicians and lackeys of U.S. imperialism, for the oppressed and exploited people to rise up without fear of the automatic weapons and tanks of the dictators and take a courageous stand for their genuine freedom and independence, this is so-called "fanaticism" and "crazy". In other words, when the people of Iran carry out a revolution and fight uncomprisingly and heroically against U.S. imperialism, for the overthrow of the slavery of the medieval Shah and his foreign masters, this is the so-called "fanaticism" which U.S. imperialism abhors. Meanwhile, U.S. imperialism considers it oh so "reasonable" to threaten military action on behalf of the Shah, to wage war to defend its sacred super-profits and to enslave entire nations in order to rob and plunder the people.

As part of U.S. imperialism's crusade against the Iranian revolution, the Carter administration has also unleashed a diabolical campaign of fascist terrorism and deportations against the Iranian nationals resident in the U.S. Carter has ordered Attorney General Civiletti to round up approximately 65,000 Iranian students to be fingerprinted, photographed and interrogated for their political views. And Carter has ordered that any of the Iranian nationals who the immigration authorities happen to declare lacks the proper papers are to be deported. Already some 1,500 students have been singled out for deportation.

Besides this, Carter is giving his open blessings of "understanding" to the various fascist, Zionist, warmongering and lumpen elements that have been recruited by the State Department and the government authorities across the country to savagely attack the Iranian nationals -- the so- called "American backlash". This is an open attempt on the part of the government to intimidate and terrorize the progressive Iranians from raising their voices against the crimes of U.S. imperialism and the fascist Shah. The government and the news media are trying to whip up a nazi-like pogrom atmosphere, cheering the fascist beatings of anyone who even "looks Iranian". These despicable attacks on the Iranian nationals is a criminal outrage against both the Iranian and the American people and are being condemned as such everywhere.

All of these frenzied and warmongering activities of U.S. imperialism against the Iranian revolution are a big exposure of the "human rights" mask of U.S. imperialism. Carter, Rockefeller, Kissinger and the others pose as great "humanitarians" and "defenders of human rights" and "peace". But every passing day shows that these people are defenders of the fascists and the hangmen of the people. They are saber-rattling gangsters, preparing to drown the people in a sea of blood. U.S. imperialism, no matter what mask it wears, remains a ferocious and savage enemy of the independence and freedom of the people.

In response to the blackmail and dangerous provocations of U.S. imperialism, the heroic people of Iran have taken a courageous stand. The popular and democratic revolution in Iran has struck and is continuing to strike heavy blows to imperialism and reaction. World imperialism is locked in a life and death struggle with the proletariat and people fighting for their national and social liberation. Imperialism is in a savage frenzy because it is on its deathbed. And it is the people who will triumph in the end. Recent events in Iran, in Nicaragua and elsewhere show that the working class and people of all countries have taken up the task of settling accounts with the fascists, dictators, tyrants and imperialists and social-imperialists and the exploiters and oppressors once and for all.

The revolutionary struggle of the people of Iran is a great inspiration for the exploited and oppressed everywhere. The Workers' Advocate salutes the firm stand of the Iranian people against our common enemy, U.S. imperialism.

At the same time we vehemently condemn U.S. imperialism for its barbaric crimes against the working masses of Iran and for harboring the Shah, who must be returned to Iran where he can be tried and duly punished for his heinous crimes. The American working class and people will never be convinced to support U.S. imperialist intervention and blackmail against the Iranian revolution just as the American people in their millions stood up against the U.S. war of aggression in Indochina. This warmongering and flag waving hysteria is only serving to arouse in the American people and the Iranian people and the people of the world even greater hatred and resolve in their struggle against the U.S. imperialist criminals.

[Photo.]

[Photo: The picture shows a portion of a march of 500 people to denounce U. S. imperialism's campaign of war hysteria against the Iranian people, held on November 28 at the University of Washington in Seattle. The banner in the photograph reads "Down with U.S. Imperialism's Attacks Against the Iranian People!" and was carried by the contingent of the Seattle Branch of COUSML. The students and other progressive people marched right through the middle of a handful of reactionaries, drowning out their racist and fascist slogans against the Iranian people and smashing their feeble attempt to hold a counter-rally. The progressive people shouted "Fascists Love the Rich!" after soundly thrashing a reactionary who made a frenzied attempt to attack the COUSML banner. Actions such as these in support of the Iranian people are taking place all across the country.]

[Back to Top]

Carter and the monopolies will never subdue the auto workers

The ongoing struggle between the 750,000 auto workers and the GM, Ford and Chrysler monopolists remains a major obstacle confronting the Carter administration in strengthening its system of wage-cutting controls against the entire working class. Prior to the beginning of the auto contract negotiations, the Carter government announced that it would begin a new phase of its wage control program by October of this year.

And late in September, in the middle of the auto contract struggle, the Carter administration and the leaders of the AFL-CIO, the UAW and the Teamsters agreed to a "National Accord" which put the top trade union hacks on a tripartite pay board to implement the wage controls offensive of the monopoly capitalist exploiters. Yet now, in December, Carter has still been unable to launch the next phase of his savage wage controls. The fact that the announcement of the next phase is already two months overdue cannot be separated from the opposition and resistance of the workers.

To pave the way for developing even harsher wage controls, Carter and his crew of wage-cutting "inflation fighters" put utmost importance on suppressing the auto workers and stopping them from waging a vigorous fight for their demands in defiance of the government's wage guidelines. To smash the auto workers' resistance and to use this example to demoralize other sections of the working class, the Carter government in coordination with the "Big 3" auto billionaires and the top UAW bureaucrats, launched a massive campaign of lies, deception, pressure and force against the auto workers' resistance. Particularly through the treachery of UAW president, Douglas Fraser, and the other top UAW bureaucrats, a sellout contract was forced onto the workers first at GM and Ford. This contract has meant cuts in real pay, no COLA for pensioners, more overwork and increased job elimination. Furthermore, in the Chrysler contract, utilizing the monstrous swindle of demanding that the workers sacrifice to "save Chrysler" from its financial difficulties, the UAW arch-sellouts forked over to Chrysler over $400 million of "concessions" in delayed wage increases, pension fund contributions, etc. In return for this colossal treachery, Fraser, the social-democratic labor traitor supreme, was given a seat on the Chrysler board of directors.

But Carter, the auto magnates and the UAW bureaucrats have not been able to impose these sellout contracts without a fight. The workers have been overwhelmingly opposed to the sellout contracts. In the plants across the country Fraser was denounced, the top UAW bureaucrats were shouted down at union meetings, and a number of small scale walkouts and other actions took place. Even though the sellout contracts mean cuts in the workers' real wages, from fear of mass strikes breaking out the auto billionaires had to give the workers wage increases which did go beyond Carter's 7% wage-cutting guidelines. And the Chrysler billionaires did not achieve the "wage freeze" they were striving for. Because of the fight put up by the auto workers, the monopoly capitalists and their government have not been able to gain support among the workers for their class collaborationist schemes like having Fraser join the Chrysler board of directors or like the "National Accord". Nor have they been able to use the suppression of the auto workers to demoralize other sections of the working class.

The Carter administration and the money-grubbing auto magnates are not satisfied with this situation, and they have decided to go further in attacking the auto workers. Recently Alfred Kahn, Carter's chief "inflation fighter", has announced that his Council on Wage and Price Stability (COWPS) is going to investigate the auto contracts for violations of the administration's wage-cutting guidelines. Also the Carter administration and the Congress are threatening to scrap the Chrysler contract and demand even more "concessions" from the Chrysler workers. The Senate Banking Committee has just submitted legislation to "save Chrysler" by granting $1.25 billion of loan guarantees to the Chrysler billionaires on the condition that they freeze the Chrysler workers' wages completely over the next three years. Of course, the newest member of the Chrysler board, Doug Fraser, has already indicated that he is willing to reopen the contract to impose more devastating wage cuts on the workers if it "becomes necessary" to "save Chrysler" -- that is, necessary to save the profits of the rich.

Thus the auto workers' struggle continues and even the contracts are still not settled. And this struggle is a major front of struggle between the capitalist offensive of wage controls, productivity drives, and massive job elimination, and the workers' resistance to this offensive. As the developments at Chrysler demonstrate, the rich and their labor traitor hirelings are striving to push the auto workers to the wall in an attempt to make an example to the whole working class that it must knuckle under and "sacrifice" to pay for the economic crisis of the monopoly capitalist exploiters.

THE COUSML CONTINUES ITS VIGOROUS WORK TO ORGANIZE THE RESISTANCE OF THE WORKERS TO THE OFFENSIVE OF THE AUTO MAGNATES AND CARTER'S WAGE CONTROLS

At the beginning of the contract negotiations, Fraser and co. promised their rich masters that there would be "no opposition" to the UAW leaders' plans to sell out and betray the workers' interests. But Fraser failed to deliver on his promise. Across the country the auto workers have demonstrated their overwhelming opposition to this betrayal. And the work of the COUSML has been in the forefront of this opposition. The auto workers are seething with rage and in many plants have carried out various actions in defense of their vital interests. The COUSML has been carrying out vigorous all-sided work to bring into this struggle Marxist-Leninist consciousness and organization and to neutralize the subversion of the UAW social-democrats and their opportunist hangers-on. The COUSML has been carrying out vigorous agitation explaining to the workers their great strength and the need to overcome the sabotage of the UAW hacks. Countless discussions have been held with the workers on how to defend the workers' interests and the overwhelming conclusion is that the path of active mass struggle is the only way to fight the attacks of the rich as opposed to the path of surrender, of submitting to "sacrifices" and "concessions" to the capitalist exploiters. In this work, over 135,000 copies of the special issues and special bulletins of The Workers' Advocate on the auto workers' struggle have been distributed in southeastern Michigan alone.

To rally the opposition against the sellout of the Chrysler workers, the COUSML issued papers and popular leaflets which cut through the lies of the bourgeoisie and the UAW leaders in order to clarify that: "The Issue Facing the Chrysler Workers Is Not to 'Save' Chrysler, But to Step Up the Struggle Against It!" In Detroit, the COUSML comrades and the militant workers distributed over 50,000 copies of this literature among the Chrysler workers, both inside the plants and at the plant gates, as well as at the union meetings. The slogans of this campaign have been broadly popularized among the masses of workers, winning widescale sympathy and support: "No Concessions!"; "Fight the Layoffs, Plant Closings, Wage Cuts, Overtime and Speed Up!"; "There are No Common Interests Between the Workers and the Exploiters!"; "Defeat Fraser's Sellout Contract!"; "Take up Mass Action Against the Chrysler Billionaires!" Stickers with these slogans appeared on time clocks, tow-motor trucks and in the locker rooms, and posters were put up making the puppet Fraser a laughing stock. At union halls and plant gates on voting days a bright red COUSML banner was raised denouncing the contract and calling for mass struggle against Chrysler. Through these actions and other means the COUSML aroused the workers to struggle in defense of their vital interests. The COUSML also correctly utilized the UAW's ultra-corrupt ratification process for the struggle.

As everyone knows, the ratification process in the UAW is designed from top to bottom to suppress the workers from having their say. In the ratification and "informational" meetings the labor traitors used every demagogical and fraudulent maneuver in the book to ram the contract down the workers' throats. The workers have a great deal of experience with the fascist and dictatorial methods of the UAW bureaucrats. Because of the cynical hatred they harbor for the trade union officialdom and also because of the UAW hacks' own efforts to keep the workers away, the majority of the workers did not attend the union meetings. As the workers correctly pointed out, the vote on the contract had been decided in the Chrysler board rooms and all there was left for the UAW officials to do was to prudently stuff the voting boxes. Thus, no one was very surprised when voting results were announced of two or even three to one in favor of the contract in plants where the solid majority of the workers was determined to fight Fraser's sellout. Nevertheless, the COUSML explained that it was necessary to fight in the ratification meetings for the purpose of combatting the demagogy and subversion of the UAW chiefs and to agitate for the line that the workers must take matters into their own hands and take up mass action against the attacks of the rich. And the COUSML also called on the workers to vote against the contract so as to not give Fraser a free hand in running the voting as he pleased and to make it even more difficult for him to claim that there was "unanimous approval" for his sellout. Conducting a fight at the ratification meetings was used as a further means to arouse the workers for direct struggle against the Chrysler slave drivers.

The UAW big shots wanted to use the ratification meetings to give long-winded speeches pleading the plight of the Chrysler monopoly and threatening the workers with ruin if they didn't give in. Nevertheless, in several meetings the tables were turned on the UAW hacks. At Eldon Gear and Axle, for example, the union meeting was turned into an overwhelming condemnation of the UAW betrayal. At other meetings too the workers expressed their outrage, declaring that the "sacrifices" being imposed on them did nothing to "save jobs" and that the only job the contract protects is Fraser's new seat on the board of directors! Thus, instead of showings of "overwhelming support" for Fraser's sellout, such meetings were a demonstration of the opposition and resistance of the workers. The labor traitors had to change their tune from boasts of "overwhelming approval" to nervous claims of "grudging acceptance".

At the meeting at Local 212, UAW Vice President Marc Stepp made an appeal against the "band of dissidents who handbill at every plant and even at this meeting". After Stepp, Regional Director Ken Morris chimed in that "it's the UAW that fights for the interests of the working class, not those bands of dissidents." These remarks were met with moans of disbelief and disgust. Right before the workers' eyes the UAW bureaucrats were defending the most outrageous betrayal of the workers' interests. At the same time, it was clear to the masses of workers that the Marxist-Leninists are firmly on their side. It is the COUSML that has been in the forefront of the struggle for defense of the vital interests of the working class.

DOWN WITH THE UAW'S SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC BETRAYAL OF THE WORKERS!

Fraser and co. pose as "militant fighters for the working class" and even like to be known as "socialists". But in fact they are the worst belly- crawling strikebreakers and saboteurs of the workers' movement. Fraser and the UAW leadership are the principal social-democratic lackeys of the bourgeoisie within the working class movement. As "left"-wing allies of the Democratic Party, these scabs are in reality the advanced guard of the monopoly capitalist offensive to make the workers pay for the economic crisis through wage controls and wage cuts, productivity drives and massive unemployment.

Therefore, in the center of the work of the COUSML in the auto workers' struggle has been the systematic struggle against the UAW's social-democratic politics of class collaboration. Fraser and the UAW have worked feverishly to undermine the workers' struggle under the basic social- democratic premise of the alleged "common interests" between the working class and the capitalist exploiters. Under the hoax of "equality of sacrifice", Fraser wants to soften up the workers' resolve so that they will passively sacrifice their jobs and submit to devastating wage cuts so that the GM, Ford and Chrysler moneybags can stuff their pockets with greater profits. And in the name of "saving Chrysler", Fraser wants the Chrysler workers to get down on their knees and be ruined to save the Chrysler bloodsuckers and the profits of the banks behind them.

In the wake of Fraser and the UAW leaders followed the revisionists and opportunists of all hues. These elements are the mere tail of the social- democrats. This is why, in the main, the revisionists and opportunists have been nowhere to be found among the auto workers in the face of the attacks of the rich. For their part, the pro-Moscow revisionists of Gus Hall's "CPUSA" are locked in wedded bliss with their "brother Fraser". The pro-Beijing neo-revisionists of Klonsky's "CP(M-L)" eventually came out to one of the Chrysler ratification meetings only to distribute a leaflet in praise of Fraser's social-democratic "Progressive Alliance". According to these social-chauvinists, this alliance of social-democratic trade union chiefs, sold-out traitors to the oppressed nationalities and bourgeois liberals, was launched by Fraser to "combat the offensive of big business"! (See article page 6.) And one group of opportunists, a tiny social-democratic sect which likes to pose as "Marxist-Leninist", really outdid themselves in coming to the defense of Fraser's strikebreaking and betrayal. Barry Weisberg's MLOC/"CPUSA(M-L)" has not come near to the auto workers' struggle, but from the top of Mt. Olympus they lectured the workers that they are in a too "weak position" to even think of fighting the "powerful" auto monopolies. And they have gone to the extent of threatening the workers that struggle against the Chrysler monopolists "is out of the question at the moment due to its instability. A strike might break the company and put 101,000 workers on the street."! (See Unite!, August 15, 1979)

Thus, it has been only the COUSML as an organized national force, that has carried out a vigorous fight against the social-democratic sabotage of the UAW bureaucrats. This work of the COUSML in the auto workers' struggle is directed at utilizing the economic struggle to organize the working class. In particular, this work is directed at overcoming the enslaving influence of social- democracy within the working class movement. In this way the workers can be mobilized on the basis of the Marxist-Leninist line of revolutionary struggle against the offensive of the rich to make the people pay for the crisis and for the overthrow of the monopoly capitalist system.

[Photo: COUSML comrades carry out vigorous discussion with auto workers on how to step up the struggle against the Chrysler billionaires.]

[Back to Top]

CONDEMN THE GOVERNMENT-ORGANIZED FASCIST MASSACRE IN GREENSBORO!

On Saturday, November 3, in Greensboro, North Carolina, as about 100 people were gathering for a demonstration against the Ku Klux Klan, they were attacked by an armed gang of klan and nazi gangsters. With the full protection and cooperation of the police, these fascist assassins murdered five people in cold blood and wounded ten others.

What a fine example of "human rights" this is! The events in Greensboro show that the only "rights", the only "democracy" ensured by the state power in the U.S. are the rights of monopoly capital, the freedom for big capital and its agents to exercise a growing fascist dictatorship over the people. This government-organized act of fascist terrorism against the working class and oppressed people has aroused the deepest indignation of all progressive people. The people will not swallow this growing fascism. Everywhere the progressive people are vigorously denouncing this atrocity.

The demonstrators were murdered for participating in a protest against the violence of the KKK. The KKK is a medieval creation of the southern slave owners for carrying out terrorism against the black people and the working people as a whole. The KKK openly advocates genocide against the black people and stands for the most barbaric slavery for the entire working class and people. For over a hundred years the KKK has carried out lynchings and other acts of brutal terrorism against the people. The KKK is a gang of fascist storm troopers who happen to wrap themselves in the confederate flag of the slave owners instead of the swastika of the Nazi Third Reich. This is demonstrated by the fact that the murders in Greensboro were carried out by klansmen and nazi Hitler worshippers together.

Moreover, the so-called "democratic" U.S. government actively supports these fascist gangs and gives them a free hand to carry on their racist, fascist and terroristic activities. The government authorities, the police, the courts, etc., demagogically proclaim the "rights" and "freedoms" of these fascist gangs to organize their attacks on the people. However, when the people take a stand and take action against these gangsters, the "rights" and "freedoms" of the people to oppose these racists and fascists are nowhere to be found. Of course, a genuinely democratic government could never tolerate the existence of the Ku Klux Klan and the nazi gangs. But American so-called "democracy" and "human rights" is only a shell under which the government actively organizes the racist and fascist gangs and utilizes them to shoot down peaceful demonstrators in cold blood. This is the truth of the matter as clearly revealed by the events of the Greensboro murders

In the first place, the government took extraordinary measures to disarm and set up the demonstrators for attack. The government passed a special ordinance specifically prohibiting participants in this demonstration from carrying guns to defend themselves. Also, two days before the demonstration the police showed a copy of the demonstration permit to the klansmen with the time and place it would assemble, which had not been made public. The day of the demonstration the police were at the scene to do reconnaissance. When the klan was scheduled to appear, all the police cars promptly withdrew two blocks from the scene. The klansmen arrived together in a caravan which had been escorted into town by the police. All of them came from towns two to three hundred miles from Greensboro, brought in especially for the occasion. The fascists quickly took out their weapons, including automatic rifles, from the trunk of a car and distributed them among about a dozen fascist gangsters who proceeded to methodically assassinate the demonstrators at point blank range. This shooting is reported to have lasted less than two minutes. After being away for about four minutes, just long enough for a number of the assassins to escape from the scene, the police returned as promptly as they had left. Immediately the police began arresting not just the fascists, but demonstrators as well on charges of "inciting to riot" and "obstructing police"! Afterwards, the government set to work right away to release as rapidly as possible the 12 fascist animals who had been arrested. For example, the police received videotapes from the television crews that had filmed the entire atrocity. Shortly thereafter, the District Attorney announced that "scientific" evaluation of this film demonstrated that it was "impossible to determine" which fascist killed which of the people demonstrating, and therefore it will be a "very difficult case" to get a conviction on the murder charges placed against the klansmen and the nazis!

From these facts, among a host of others, it is clear that this bloody atrocity was a premeditated act, orchestrated and defended from beginning to end by the government authorities.

In an effort to disassociate the government from these fascist murders and to make it appear that the government will do something against the fascist gangs, the Carter administration has ordered the Justice Department to make an investigation of the Greensboro events and the activities of the KKK throughout the country. Carter and the Democratic Party claim that they are the "friends of the workers and the minorities", and with this call for an investigation, Carter is again trying to paint his administration in "democratic" and "anti-fascist" colors. But this is a most shallow hoax. How can the very government which has activated these fascist gangs as a striking force of terror and murder against the workers and oppressed nationalities, now turn around and "investigate" and bring to justice the true fascist criminals? They cannot. The "investigations" of the U.S. government have never led to any action against fascism. They only create the impression of a promise to take action. That the KKK and nazis are fascist terrorists and murderers of the oppressed nationalities and workers is a fact well known to the broad masses of the American people. This needs no further investigation. Any truly democratic government would simply crush these fascist gangsters. But this Carter will never do. Furthermore, the Carter investigation is a cover for the stepped-up fascist activities of the government itself. Every indication is that the conclusion of Carter's investigation will be that the source of the fascist murders is not the racist and anti-working class policies of the KKK and nazis; nor will the government and its support and organizing of these fascist gangs be blamed. No, Carter's investigation is trying to "prove" that the source of the fascist murders in Greensboro is not fascism at all, but is due to the "extremists". That is, the government wants to shift the blame onto all the progressive people who resolutely stand up to fight against the racist and fascist attacks on the American people. This conclusion has already been widely trumpeted by the monopoly capitalist news media and many government officials, and it marks the opening of another fascist campaign by the government against all of the progressive and revolutionary fighters. The government has launched a two-pronged attack. On the one hand, in the name of open reaction, they have organized the KKK and nazi assassins to attack and gun down demonstrators. And on the other hand, under the guise of opposing "extremism", the government is directly suppressing anti-fascist struggles of the people. Already under this signboard of suppressing "violent clashes of extremists" the government has outlawed or severely restricted progressive demonstrations and other mass actions.

Carter's investigation and the government's campaign against "extremists" shows once again that in the United States fascism is being organized under the guise of "democracy" and on the basis of the liberal-labor politics of the Democratic Party. Because of the powerful progressive and anti-capitalist sentiments of the American people, the monopoly capitalists cannot develop fascism under the banner of the swastika and open ^reaction, but must carry out their racist and anti-working class offensive under a thin veil of bourgeois democracy. Carter was put into power in 1976 not because the bourgeoisie had abandoned the fascist program of Richard Nixon, but precisely because Carter's deceptive mask of "pro-labor" liberalism was absolutely necessary to impose Nixon's fascist measures. Carter campaigned on the promise of reforms for the workers, equality for the oppressed nationalities, human rights and peace. And under these promises, Carter has carried out all of Nixon's fascist programs and in even more savage form. Carter has organized one energy shortage after another to jack prices up sky-high and to prepare for war. He has organized wage controls to cut the wages of all the workers. He has striven to suppress the workers' strikes, for example, with his use of the Taft-Hartley Act to outlaw the coal miners' strike and to send troops against them. Under the Carter government one attack after another has been launched against the black people, against other oppressed nationalities and immigrants.

Most recently Carter has called for the deportation of Iranian nationals resident in the U.S. and he has launched an hysterical warmongering campaign against the Iranian revolution. All of these fascist actions are the work of the human rights preacher, Carter, the self-proclaimed "friend of labor and the minorities". They show that despite the "democratic" and "pro-labor" rhetoric of the Carter administration, the U.S. government is the principal instrument of the rich in carrying out an all-sided fascist offensive against the working class and people.

The despicable murders by the fascist assassins in Greensboro is another manifestation of the growing fascism by the U.S. monopoly capitalist class. The monopoly capitalists are beset with a deepening and all-sided crisis and are faced with the rising struggle of the American workers and toiling masses and the revolutions and national liberation struggles of the people all over the world. In this situation the monopoly capitalists are instituting fascism to suppress the struggle of the working class and people, to shift the burden of the economic crisis onto their backs and to prepare a quiet home front so that the bourgeoisie has a free hand to launch new wars of aggression. This campaign of reaction is being carried out by the entire monopoly capitalist class. That is to say, all sections of the big bourgeoisie are participating in this reactionary offensive against the working masses and no section is in any way opposed to it. Both the "liberal" and "conservative" millionaires, the Democratic and Republican capitalist politicians, the "ultra-right" and social-democratic labor traitors -- all sections of the reactionaries are united in their drive to smash the rising proletarian movement. The state apparatus itself, which represents the collective will of the capitalist class and which is the principal instrument of the savage dictatorship of the bourgeoisie over the working class and working masses, is being fascized, becoming more reactionary and is the primary vehicle of the growing fascist offensive against the American working class and toiling masses.

But the significance of the Greensboro events does not lie solely in the exposure of the fascist offensive of the monopoly capitalists and their government. The fascist murders in Greensboro have also raised a storm of indignation of the working class and people against the fascist gangs and against the government which has supported and organized them. The American people are not willing to take these fascist attacks lying down. Wherever the KKK and nazis have raised their head, the workers and other progressive people have risen up in protests and have waged active resistance against their attacks. Wherever the government has tried to float fascist mass movements, as with the anti-busing movement and the anti-Iranian hysteria, the progressive and revolutionary people have come out onto the streets to fight the fascists and have smashed up these reactionary movements and sent the storm troopers of the bourgeoisie running for a hiding place. The monopoly capitalists are instituting fascism in an effort to overcome their crisis, but their fascist attacks are only landing them in more difficulty. Because in the active resistance developing against these attacks, the working class, the oppressed nationalities and all the democratic masses are marching forward, steeling and tempering themselves in struggle, and preparing themselves for the decisive battle which will smash this growing fascism and destroy its source, the monopoly capitalist system.

[Back to Top]

Chicago Conference Gives Call to Advance the Struggle Against U.S. Imperialism's Nuclear Program

On November 3, a conference against U.S. imperialism's nuclear energy program was held in Chicago. The conference was organized by the Chicago Branch of the Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninists and anti-nuclear activists in the Chicago area. It was held under the slogans: "No! To U.S. Imperialism's Nuclear Energy Program!" and "Step Up the Fight Against the Nuclear Program of U.S. Imperialism!" The conference was completely against the U.S. nuclear program. It analyzed this program as a program of imperialist war preparations, a program of neo-colonial enslavement and the monopolization of world energy resources, as a program of wild profiteering and criminal poisoning of the people. The conference held that the U.S. nuclear program must be eliminated lock, stock and barrel. It took the position that it is necessary at this time to step up the fight against the U.S. nuclear program.

The conference was attended by many activists from the Chicago area. The Marxist-Leninists and other activists attending the conference participated in the anti-nuclear struggles in the Chicago area, especially the struggle against the Zion nuclear power plant in north-eastern Illinois. As well, many of these same activists had participated in the movement against U.S. aggression in Indochina, against the warmongering armaments show held in Rosemont, Illinois, against the attempts to reintroduce the military draft and against the recently formed aggressive and warmongering U.S.-China alliance. This composition reflected the close relation between the movement against the U.S. nuclear program and the movement against U.S. imperialist war preparations and aggression.

This conference was held at a time when the anti-nuclear movement is growing by leaps and bounds, experiencing a big upsurge of mass participation after the near catastrophe at Three Mile Island. The conference was also held at a time when there are attempts being made to divert the anti-nuclear movement away from opposing the U.S. nuclear program and instead turn it into a movement to support Carter's energy program of alternatives and conservation, that is, attempts to liquidate the anti-nuclear movement by turning it into a movement for a patriotic union with the oil monopolies to solve the problems faced by U.S. imperialism. The conference played an important role in alerting the activists to this problem and rallying the people to take up the path of mass revolutionary struggle as the only way to step up the fight against the U.S. nuclear program.

In the conference serious and informative presentations were made. These presentations prepared by the Marxist-Leninists of the COUSML and the anti-nuclear activists went into all aspects of the U.S. nuclear program. The presentations addressed and analyzed the origins of the U.S. nuclear program in the imperialist ambitions of the U.S. to dominate the world and in its all-round war preparations. The issues of the wild profiteering of the oil and energy monopolies, the role being played by the government in this profiteering, as well as the criminal poisoning of the people which has been occurring since the inception of the U.S. nuclear program, were also addressed. The conference as well heard a presentation on the U.S. nuclear program as a program of the monopolization of world energy resources and as an instrument of neo-colonial plunder and enslavement. A presentation addressed the issue of the entire energy program of U.S. imperialism and its relation to the nuclear program. In a concluding speech the conference addressed the important issue of how to advance the movement against U.S. imperialism's nuclear program. It pointed out the need to take up mass revolutionary struggle, the drawing into conscious life and struggle of the masses of people, as the only path forward for the anti-nuclear movement.

In the course of the discussions, the conference denounced the government whitewash of the near nuclear catastrophe at Three Mile Island and condemned the recently released report of the Presidential Commission on Three Mile Island. The conference supported and hailed the militancy and determination of the anti-nuclear movement as manifested by the anti-nuclear activists at Seabrook, New Hampshire. As well, the conference vigorously denounced the attacks of the state throughout the country against the anti-nuclear movement, including the arrest of activists at Seabrook. The conference condemned the activities of the various left-wing Democratic Party hacks who are attempting to liquidate the anti- nuclear movement by tying it to the coattails of the Democratic Party and attempting to divert the movement from a movement against the U.S. nuclear program into a patriotic movement for conservation and alternative sources of energy to help U.S. imperialism out of its difficulties.

The conference passed a resolution embodying its analysis of the U.S. nuclear program, the stand of the conference against it and the need to step up the fight against the U.S. nuclear program. The participants saw that the basic aspirations of the anti-nuclear movement have always been to scrap the entire nuclear program and that it is necessary to consciously develop this aspiration.

In this light the thorough and scientific discussions held at the conference played an important role in assisting the movement to develop its consciousness and militancy, in assisting the movement to resist the attacks of the state and in assisting the movement to defeat the attempts of the left-wing hacks of the Democratic Party to liquidate the anti-nuclear movement. Since the conference thousands of resolutions of the conference have been disseminated in the Chicago area among the masses of people and the many anti-nuclear groups. To further assist in advancing the anti- nuclear movement the documents are being published now. It is hoped that they will play a further role in advancing the movement forward.

[Back to Top]

The provocations and blackmail of the U.S. imperialists cannot bring the Iranian people to their knees!

[Zeri i Popullit masthead.]

(The following was broadcast by Radio Tirana on November 24, 1979, and transcribed by People'sCanada Daily News, organ of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist- Leninist).)

The mass anti-imperialist, anti-American demonstrations, writes the newspaper Zeri i Popullit, are continuing throughout the streets and squares of Iran. American flags are being burnt along with effigies of the Shah and Carter. Iran has proclaimed that it will no longer sell oil to the United States of America, that it will not accept dollars from anyone for the export of oil, and it has demanded that transactions for Iranian oil must not be handled by American banks.

All these correct and sovereign acts, which strengthen the independence of Iran and deal blows to the rapacious and hegemonic policy of American imperialism, have been hailed by all the freedom-loving people and anti-imperialist forces in the world. At the same time, refusing to reconcile itself to the new state of affairs in Iran and to the loss of its neo-colonialist privileges, American imperialism is using military provocations and blackmail against Iran, broadly employing threats, blackmail and economic blockades against it. On different pretexts, the chieftains of Washington are stressing that they will take military action against Iran if it refuses to submit to Washington's demands, if it persists as it is doing to defend its legitimate aspirations for freedom and national independence.

In the waters of the Gulf of Oman, the warships of the Seventh Fleet, including the aircraft carrier Midway, are demonstrating their force, exerting open pressure on the Iranian people to force them into capitulation. In this way, American imperialism is once again implementing its notorious gunboat policy and is seeking to impose its superpower dictate against the Iranian people. The American imperialists are also activating their obedient tool Israel against Iran, this gendarme of the United States of America in the region of the Middle East. The Minister of Defense of Tel Aviv stated openly that only military action can solve the problem. During his tour of the United States of America, the old agent of American and British imperialism, the rabid anti-Arab and Zionist Moshe Dayan, after he stated that he was happy to hear that Washington is threatening Iran, also offered on this occasion Israel's full support, even proposing to put at the service of this adventure the airfields and ports of Israel, the Sinai and elsewhere. American intervention, he stated, is the only solution.

Apart from the threats and blackmail, continues the newspaper further on, American imperialism is hatching up different incidents and provocations to discredit and sabotage the just cause for which the Iranian people are fighting, to isolate the Iranian people from their allies and fraternal peoples who express solidarity with their struggle and support it. It is the agents of America who recently caused provocations at a mosque in Mecca, where many believers were killed and wounded. At a press conference, the spokesman for the State Department, Hodding Carter, tried to present this provocation as an incident of a religious character, in which Iran is implicated.

The aim of the American imperialists is to divide the Arab countries from Iran, to arouse a feeling of mistrust in these countries and the just struggle of the Iranian people.

Through such provocations, by inciting religious struggles, they hope that they will curb the wave of anti-Americanism which is rising in the Middle East and throw the people of that region into conflicts. The problem of religious prejudices is a problem which has to do only with the consciousness of the people. Hence, the imperialist enemies must not be allowed to transform this into a question of conflicts and splits of the peoples. The common enemy of the peoples of the Middle East, the Arabs and Iranians, no matter of what sects, Moslem or Christian, are the American imperialists and other imperialists who try to enslave and plunder them. Their enemies are also the Soviet social-imperialists who try to use the situations in service of their interests.

Involved in the game of the superpowers, social-imperialist China of Hua Guofeng and Deng Xiaoping, who have received and farewelled the Shah and other members of the imperial family of the Pahlavis as honored guests, this time too, has lined up on the side of American imperialism and against the people of Iran, broadly publicizing the statements of Carter and the generals of the Pentagon.

The courageous Iranian people, who have suffered, who have shed their blood, and been plundered to the bone, by the Shah, by American imperialism and others, will not be suppressed.

They wage a just struggle, their demands are legitimate. They are not deceived by the hypocritical claims of the chiefs of American imperialism who justify themselves that they have allegedly given shelter to the Shah for reasons of ''humanism". The Shah is a criminal who must render full account for his crimes, for mass tortures and murders, for the hunger and misery of an entire people. This "humanity" of Washington is a false humanity, is a humanity of the criminal for the criminal. The hangman Reza Pahlavi must be handed over to the Iranian people together with the wealth which he has plundered and accumulated from the toil, blood, sufferings of the workers, people and the whole working people of Iran.

The Albanian people, writes Zeri i Popullit, organ of the Central Committee of the Party of Labor of Albania, in conclusion, express their solidarity with the people of Iran and fiercely condemn the hostile and aggressive activity of the United States of America towards Iran. We are convinced that no threat or blackmail, no military adventure, can divert the courageous and brave people of Iran from their struggle for their legitimate rights.

[Back to Top]

No to Concessions! Wage Mass Struggle against Chrysler!

Reprinted below is part of the text of the Special Bulletin of The Workers' Advocate, November 4, 1979:

The Chrysler workers are overwhelmingly opposed to the disgusting sellout contract negotiated by Fraser and the top UAW hacks. Everywhere the workers are ridiculing Fraser, condemning the contract and calling for action. For example, at the Lynch Road Assembly Plant, workers denounced the fact that the only job the contract protects is Fraser's new job on the Chrysler board of directors, and they declared that "If we don't eat, then Iacocca don't eat either!" At the Dodge Main plant, workers put out a leaflet which showed that the job elimination and overloading of jobs will only get worse with this contract and that it's "absolutely necessary to vote against the contract." Workers at Jefferson Assembly Plant were outraged that the SUB fund is still left weak, and they proclaimed that Chrysler has pushed the workers too far and that now the workers must fight. At the Chrysler Tank Plant too, workers were outraged and they condemned the wage cuts and called for wildcat strikes. The workers at Mack Avenue Stamping Plant called Fraser every name in the book and declared that even if the UAW bureaucrats tampered with the contract votes, they will strike anyway. At these and Chrysler plants throughout the country, the workers are fighting mad. With such overwhelming outrage and opposition by the workers, the only issue is to organize to defeat Fraser's sellout contract and to take mass action against the Chrysler billionaires.

NO CONCESSIONS! TAKE UP MASS STRUGGLE AGAINST CHRYSLER!

The only way the workers can defend their jobs and fight against the wage cuts and overwork is by taking up mass struggle against Chrysler. Giving "concessions" to "save" Chrysler will not preserve the workers' jobs or their livelihood. The loss of the workers' jobs is basically due to the productivity drive of the auto billionaires. By sacrificing to let Chrysler step up its productivity drive -- to eliminate "inefficient plants", combine jobs, speed them up, and maintain long overtime hours -- means the workers won't preserve their jobs but will lose even more. In fact, workers' sacrifice has very little to do with ensuring whether Chrysler lives or dies. But it has everything to do with ensuring that Chrysler's banks continue to rake in their huge interest payments and that Chrysler's top executives continue to live like kings. The workers cannot defend their jobs by sacrificing for Chrysler, but only by using the company's present difficulties to step up the mass struggle against Chrysler.

The majority of the Chrysler workers are against the sellout contract and they want to take up mass action against the Chrysler billionaires. But Fraser and the top UAW bureaucrats are using every trick in the book to betray the workers and sabotage their resistance. The workers must break through the obstacles the UAW hacks are putting in their way. And the masses of workers can certainly do this. Just look at the workers from the Caterpillar tractor company. The top UAW bureaucrats couldn't stop them from striking. 23,000 Caterpillar workers went on a wildcat over a month ago against the no-strike dictate of the UAW hacks. And after a month the UAW was forced to endorse their struggle and an additional 17,000 Caterpillar workers came out on strike. And since November 1st, 35,000 International Harvester workers have also joined the struggle, so that now 75,000 farm implement workers are waging a vigorous strike to defend their own interests. This strike proves that despite all of Fraser's sabotage, the workers can take matters into their own hands. And it proves that even if only a section of the workers begin the strike, they will get the support of many more workers and will initiate an even broader struggle. The Chrysler workers are over 110,000 strong. And they are boiling over with anger against the betrayal of Fraser and the other top UAW bureaucrats. Certainly the Chrysler workers can and must overcome the sabotage by the UAW hacks and launch direct mass struggle against the Chrysler billionaires.

The workers should also vote no against the sellout contract and use this form of struggle as one of the ways to organize the direct mass actions against the Chrysler billionaires. Fraser and the other UAW bureaucrats are notorious for stuffing the ballot boxes in their favor so they can demoralize the workers and oppose as "illegal" any mass resistance. That is why the workers cannot and do not have any faith in voting on the contracts, and why taking up mass action directly against the monopoly capitalists is the only sure way to defend the workers' own vital interests. Nevertheless, Fraser should not be given a free hand to run the contract voting as he pleases. By mobilizing masses of workers to vote against the contract, it makes it more difficult for Fraser to make the lying claim that he has overwhelming support for his sellout.

Furthermore, by voting against the sellout, by going to the voting meetings and using them as a platform to denounce the contract and call for mass struggle, and by using every opportunity in the plants and at the union meetings to further arouse the mass of workers, they will be more and more rallied together and determined to wage the mass struggle against the Chrysler billionaires.

The Chrysler billionaires, the UAW bureaucrats and the Carter government have launched a vicious attack against the Chrysler workers. With this contract they want to make the Chrysler workers an example for the entire working class that the workers must kneel down before the dictate of the rich. But the monopoly capitalists and their UAW top trade union lackeys have pushed the Chrysler workers too far. They are fighting mad and their anger is turning to determined mass struggle against the Chrysler billionaires.

NO CONCESSIONS!

FIGHT LAYOFFS, PLANT CLOSINGS, WAGE CUTS, OVERTIME, AND SPEEDUP!

THERE ARE NO COMMON INTERESTS BETWEEN THE WORKERS AND EXPLOITERS!

DEFEAT FRASER'S SELLOUT CONTRACT!

TAKE UP MASS ACTION AGAINST THE CHRYSLER BILLIONAIRES!

[Cartoon.]

1979: YEAR OF STALIN

[Back to Top]

J.V. Stalin's Work Will Live on Through the Centuries

(The following article is reprinted from AlbaniaToday, No. 2 (39), 1978.)

Twenty-five years have gone by since the day when the heart of J. V. Stalin, the outstanding leader of the Bolshevik Party and the Soviet state, the proletariat of the world and the international communist movement, ceased to beat. His name and work will always serve as a brilliant inspiring example and a battle flag for all true Marxist- Leninist parties, for the proletariat and the peoples who are fighting for freedom and independence.

The question of the attitude towards Stalin remains an important question of principle and a line of demarcation which divides the true Marxist-Leninists and revolutionaries from the renegades and revisionists of every shade, the revolutionaries from the counter-revolutionaries.

All the betrayers of Marxism-Leninism, the revolution and socialism, including the Trotskyites, Yugoslav revisionists, Togliattists, Euro-communists and other opportunists of every hue have attacked J.V. Stalin with the hatred that characterizes them.

What need had the group of Khrushchov and all the other revisionists of these attacks against Stalin? They needed and still need them, as our Party has stressed, in order to attack Leninism, to prepare the ground for the revising of Marxism-Leninism and to disseminate their opportunist views and course concerning the most important question of the present day development of the international communist movement in the world. In fighting Stalin, the modern revisionists rejected all the revolutionary heritage of the international proletariat and communism.

In order to put their revisionist platform into practice, N. Khrushchov and his group fabricated their fiendish theses of the fight against ''Stalin's cult of the individual and its consequences", and against "stalinist dogmatism". However, the figure of Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin is the figure of the great revolutionary and Marxist-Leninist. As the loyal disciple of Lenin, and continuer of his work and thought, which he carried further forward, Stalin fought with determination for the implementation of the great principles of victorious Marxism-Leninism throughout the whole of his life. On the basis of the new experience of the socialist construction in the Soviet Union relying on its own strength, he made important new theoretical generalizations and developed Marxism- Leninism on the building of socialist society in many matters of principle. On the basis of the new revolutionary experience of the international proletariat and world development in his own time, he elaborated the questions of the strategy and tactics of the international communist and workers' movement, the national liberation movement, etc., in a creative manner.

Stalin maintained Marxist-Leninist stands regarding the question of the revolution. He regarded the violent revolution as a universal law. In struggle with all the enemies of Leninism, Stalin defended the Leninist theory of the proletarian revolution and developed it further.

The life and work of Stalin are also a brilliant example of a consistent internationalist revolutionary. Stalin has great merits for the contribution he made to the development and strengthening of the communist, revolutionary and liberation movement throughout the world, both at the time of the Comintern and also later. The merit of discovering and denouncing the first manifestation of modern revisionism in power, Yugoslav revisionism, which was fighting the revolution and Marxism-Leninism with zeal, belongs to Stalin.

J.V. Stalin defended and further developed Lenin's teachings on the Party of the proletariat, on its leading role in the proletarian revolution and in the construction of socialism and communism.

Stalin linked the victory of the proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat with the leading role of the true revolutionary party of the proletariat. Only such a party, the party of the new type, is capable of organizing and leading the proletarian revolution and building communist society. By attacking Stalin, today's revisionists of all shades, with their theories about the party as an "ideological factor", "the party of the whole people", permitting the existence of two lines within the party, and so on, are attacking the Leninist doctrine on the party, and denying the leading role of the Marxist-Leninist party in carrying out the proletarian revolution and the construction of socialist and communist society. Today, the revisionist parties have turned into bourgeois and fascist parties, which have slipped completely into the positions of social-chauvinism, as comrade Enver Hoxha pointed out at the 7th Congress of the PLA.

J.V. Stalin was a resolute and indomitable fighter against imperialism. He not only defended the Leninist theory on imperialism, but he also developed it further, in conformity with the new conditions and phenomena of that time. Stalin always called for vigilance against imperialism and its chiefs, for a proletarian class stand towards it. Stalin considered imperialism as the sworn enemy of the socialist system. From this he recognized the danger of the imperialist encirclement and the necessity for the socialist countries to struggle against it. By attacking Stalin, the modern revisionists of all hues wanted to open the way to the dissemination of their views on the change in the nature of imperialism, that it had allegedly become "peaceful", to views about so-called peaceful coexistence a la Khrushchov, about peaceful competition and all-round collaboration with American imperialism, and so on.

In accusing Stalin of "dogmatism", the revisionists of all shades have rejected the fundamental teachings of Marxism-Leninism, because to them it is precisely these teachings that are dogmatism.

Whether they are or are not, all of them have made and are making great efforts to justify their abandonment of the essential thesis of Marxism-Leninism on the seizure of power by violence, through the revolution, in order to spread the illusion of transition to socialism in peaceful, parliamentary, bourgeois, democratic and other such ways. As the historic 7th Congress of the PLA stressed, "The specific national roads to socialism" which they advertise, in fact, simply indicate the various roads followed by revisionist parties to betray socialism, to undermine the revolution and to split the proletariat, to sabotage the people's liberation struggle.

The betrayers of Marxism-Leninism, the revisionists of all shades and descriptions, also level charges at Stalin over his stand towards Yugoslav revisionism, which they describe as a "victim" of the "gross mistakes" of J.V. Stalin. In this manner, the Khrushchovite renegades group, unilaterally rejected the very correct conclusions of the Information Bureau in regard to Yugoslav revisionism, which emerged as an opportunist ideological trend and as a political practice to undermine socialist society and the true communist parties from within. All those who embarked on the road of revisionist betrayal and capitalist degeneration, have found and still find ready-made concepts and "tested ways" in Yugoslav revisionism. "First the Khrushchovites and then the Togliattists and others", stressed comrade Enver Hoxha at the 7th Congress of the PLA, "have been inspired by Yugoslav revisionism, and found support and encouragement in it to fight socialism and the Marxist-Leninist ideology."

Shamelessly distorting the reality, the revisionists accuse Stalin of stifling democracy, while they consider the historic period when J. V. Stalin was at the head of the Bolshevik Party as a period of despotism and crimes. Their aim has always been to cancel out and throw mud at this period, to discredit the socialist system and the dictatorship of the proletariat, to disguise and justify their counter-revolutionary course.

But facts are stubborn things and they confirm the contrary. J.V. Stalin fought with determination to defend and strengthen the dictatorship of the proletariat in the Soviet Union, for the ceaseless extension of socialist democracy. He regarded the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat as a question of the fundamental content of the proletarian revolution, as its indispensable weapon to crush the resistance of the overthrown exploiters and to consolidate the victories achieved, in order to carry the proletarian revolution through to the complete and final victory of communism. The bitter experience of the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and other countries, proves that any weakening of the dictatorship of the proletariat is coupled with dangerous consequences for the fate of the revolution and socialism. By attacking Stalin, the revisionists of the former socialist countries smashed the dictatorship of the proletariat and restored the bourgeois dictatorship. Today, the Soviet Union has become a center of the counter-revolution, an aggressive, neo-colonialist and warmongering imperialist superpower. The bourgeois revisionist dictatorship, represented by the stratum of bureaucrats and the new Soviet capitalists, makes the law everywhere. Meanwhile the revisionists in the capitalist countries have completely removed the dictatorship of the proletariat from their program, as Marchais did at the 22nd congress of the French revisionist party. The other "Eurocommunists" of the type of Berlinguer, Carillo, etc., have done the same thing.

In his time, Khrushchov, after discharging all his heavy artillery against Stalin, sometimes also said something in praise of him, purely for demagogic purposes. And Brezhnev has continued to use this tactic.

Once again in recent times, in the Soviet press or in the speeches of the revisionist leaders, Stalin has been mentioned in passing, for example on the 23rd of February this year in a speech by the Minister of War of Soviet social-imperialism himself. But does this mean that the question of Stalin has been put in order? Not at all! The beautiful words they may pronounce on Stalin are nothing but demagogy to mislead the Soviet people, to oppose their discontent. But they dupe only the naive and satisfy only the sentimental. A truly principled stand towards Stalin means that the 20th, 22nd and other congresses of the Soviet revisionist party, must be rejected, that the revisionist line must be rejected in all fields, that Khrushchovism and the whole gang ruling in the Soviet Union today must be got rid of. All this, of course, can be achieved only by overthrowing the capitalist regime by means of the violent proletarian revolution and by restoring the dictatorship of the proletariat. There is not and cannot be any other way.

Today, 25 years have gone by since the day of J.V. Stalin's death. He is alive no longer, but his name and work are immortal. This work lives on and will always live on in the heart of the proletariat of the world. It is embodied in the revolutionary activity of our Party of Labor, of the Marxist-Leninist parties which are fighting for the triumph of the proletarian revolution, socialism and communism. Today, in commemorating the 25th anniversary of Stalin's death, our Party and people together with the workers, revolutionaries and the peoples of the whole world, express their unwavering conviction that, under the banner of Marxism-Leninism and with even greater confidence in their own strength, they will steadily march forward towards the complete construction of socialism.

[Photo: Stalin and Lenin, March 1919]

[Back to Top]

STEEL MONOPOLY CAPITALISTS, NOT IMPORTS, ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LOSS OF JOBS

(The following article is reprinted from BuffaloWorkers'Voice, organ of the Buffalo Branch, Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninists, October 23, 1979.)

In recent weeks, a debate has been raging in Western New York over Governor Carey's veto of the ''Buy American Steel" bill. The critics of Carey's veto range from the steel monopoly capitalists and politicians on the local and state level to the AFL-CIO Council, and of course the biggest critic is the United Steelworkers of America. The USWA claims that the ''Buy American Steel" bill would have helped to save and create jobs for steelworkers in Western New York. This current debate is part of the big national chauvinist campaign which the USWA bureaucrats have been carrying on for years to blame foreign imports for the loss of American workers' jobs.

Ever since the late summer of 1977, the big steel capitalists have been launching one attack after another on the steelworkers, laying off and firing thousands such as the 3,500 at Bethlehem's Lackawanna plant, and closing down whole plants such as Youngstown Sheet and Tube's Campbell Works in Ohio. Just recently, new plans were announced to shut down two U.S. Steel plants in Illinois which will affect over 1,000 workers, and 615 more workers were laid off at Bethlehem's Lackawanna plant. The big labor traitors of the USWA would like to divert the struggle of the steelworkers against these attacks with their hysterical campaign that''steel imports steal jobs". They are calling upon the steelworkers to get behind the big steel capitalists' demands for import restrictions. Most of all they want to shift the blame away from the big steel capitalists whose rationalization of the steel industry and vicious productivity drive are leading to the loss of steelworkers' jobs. The U.S. steel billionaires are gripped with a severe overproduction crisis and are engaged in a fierce rivalry with foreign steel billionaires for world markets. They are seeking to strengthen their economic position by shifting the burden of the crisis onto the backs of the workers. Through the productivity drive and rationalization of the industry, the same amount of steel is produced by fewer workers, at a cheaper cost to the steel capitalists. Further, the capitalists are using their government to assist them both in making the workers pay for the crisis and in contending with foreign steel capitalists and governments for markets. Carter's program to ''help the steel industry", introduced in 1977, is both a program for import restrictions and a program for rationalization of the steel industry and increased productivity, a big attack on the steelworkers. In short, it is the American steel capitalists, not imports, who are responsible for the loss of steelworkers' jobs.

While the vicious attacks on the steelworkers have continued unabated, in fact steel imports have decreased substantially in the past year.

But the big capitalists and the labor traitors of the USWA are still trying to pull off the hoax that imports are the cause of the loss of jobs!

As long as the capitalists rule in the U.S. they will attempt to saddle the workers with the burden of every crisis. The rotten national chauvinist line of the labor bureaucrats is intended to keep the workers from defending their class interests by resisting these attacks and rising in revolt. It is intended to turn the U.S. workers against their fellow workers of other countries who are also facing the same kind of vicious attacks from the same capitalist imperialist enemy. It is intended to turn the workers into slaves for the capitalists' economic rivalry and prepare them to be cannon fodder in imperialist war. In order for the steelworkers and all workers to defend even their most elementary interests they must repudiate this rotten national chauvinist line. They must wage mass resistance struggles against the attacks of their "own" capitalists and their "own" government and prepare for mass revolutionary struggles to make the rich bear the burden of all their crises and to overthrow the monopoly capitalist dictators in the U.S. altogether.

[Back to Top]

ANACONDAS "ABSENTEE CONTROL PROGRAM":

Fascist labor discipline is part of the capitalists' productivity drive

(The following article is reprinted from BuffaloWorkers' Voice, organ of the Buffalo Branch, Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninists, October 23, 1979.)

The Anaconda capitalists have recently come out with a new "Absentee Control Program".

This program consists of a point system applied to various "charges" concerning lateness and absenteeism, with a series of penalties ranging from warning to firing for any worker who accumulates too many points. This absentee point system is an attempt by the company to impose fascist labor discipline on the workers. It is an attack which has been met with vigorous denunciation by the Anaconda workers and which deserves the contempt of the whole working class.

The "Absentee Control Program" is a part of the whole offensive of the Anaconda capitalists against the workers, which has at its center a vicious productivity drive. It has been introduced at a time when the capitalists are trying to impose overtime, speedup, job combinations and other productivity measures on the workers. Through this productivity drive the capitalists seek to get more and more work out of the workers and sweat more and more profits out of them in the process, to line their already filthy rich pockets. In order to carry out this productivity drive with a minimum of resistance from the workers, they seek to impose fascist labor discipline as part of their offensive. The company openly does propaganda that the absentee point system is necessary to solve serious "production problems". This fascist labor discipline, imposed through programs like the absentee point system, seeks to deprive the workers not only of all their time and energy to slave away at work, but also to deprive them of their will and independence.

The fascist desire of the capitalists is for complete obedience and subservience from the workers. On the job, the capitalists demand that the worker is always at work, that he should not think and should do nothing but slave away. Away from the job, the capitalists want the workers to have no thought other than of returning to work everyday and on time, that his whole existence centers on working for the capitalist, even to the extent where workers dare not get sick for fear of being sacked.

The absentee point system has been imposed on the Anaconda workers with the collaboration of the USWA trade union bureaucrats. In fact, the stated policy of the USWA International leadership is to support the vicious productivity drive of the capitalists. A 1975 pamphlet published by the USWA points out, "To help the industry become more competitive worldwide and thus extend job opportunities at home, the Union reexamined its position of a traditional time honored refusal to collaborate with management to operate production facilities more efficiently. In this the Union had to overcome rank and file aversion to 'productivity' because this term had always been equated with speedups, job elimination and other ruthless management tactics which wage earners deeply resented." And so the USWA bigwigs openly admit that their aim is to "help" the big capitalists, and to do so first and foremost by undermining any resistance by the workers to the vicious productivity drive. What an exposure of the treachery of these labor bureaucrats! In fact, the experience of the Anaconda workers shows that the productivity drive does mean all the things the rank and file "equated" it with -- "speedups, job elimination, and other ruthless management tactics" (such as the absentee point system).

The Anaconda workers are refusing to bow down to the dictates of the capitalists' absentee point system. They have not been taken in by the company's lies. They are refusing to accept the path of class collaboration and are continuing to develop their struggles against the absentee point system and the whole productivity drive of the capitalists.

[Back to Top]

Down with low wages and brutal working conditions at Leviton sweatshop!

(The following article is reprinted from Rhode Island Worker, newspaper of the Providence Branch of the COUSML, October 19, 1979.)

Hourly workers and pieceworkers at Leviton are faced with extremely low wages and brutal working conditions on a daily basis. The low wages paid to Leviton workers are becoming increasingly harder to live with in the face of skyrocketing inflation. With prices rising at an annual rate of 14%, workers' purchasing power in the U.S. is falling rapidly, declining 3.4% in the first six months of 1979 alone. Wages are so notoriously low at Leviton, that when Congressman Beard got jobs for GE workers at Leviton, the workers told him it would be better to collect unemployment.

Not only does Leviton pay low wages, but through job combination (making one worker do the job of two or more) and speedup they are able to increase their profits tremendously. Through the "incentive" system pieceworkers are forced to speed themselves up, because the base rate is simply not enough to live on. Speedup in turn threatens health and safety, causing workers to get their fingers smashed in unsafe machinery, etc. As well, workers are forced to work in conditions of extreme overcrowding and oftentimes without heat in the winter and without air conditioning or even fans in the summertime.

WAGES OF PIECEWORKERS

The majority of pieceworkers presently start out with a base rate of $3,00 to $3o 20 an hour. Although the company constantly promotes the idea that pieceworkers can make lots of money, the bare facts prove otherwise. There are a handful of workers who can make double their rate, or $6.00 to $7. 00 an hour, which is relatively high. However, this is mainly workers who have been working at the same job for years on end. But what happens to these so-called high rates of pay when the company suddenly runs out of parts, or the machinery breaks down, or you've worked so hard and fast that the company has stockpiled goods and removes you from the job or lays you off ? The high wages go down the drain -- with absolutely no consideration by the company to this loss of wages. And everyone knows that the capitalists systematically limit the amount of money these workers can make.

These workers, along with the workers whose average daily pay only amounts to $30.00 a day are wearing themselves out to "earn extra money". First of all, the rates are set so high that the only way to achieve over and beyond the rate is through intense sweating, skipping coffee breaks, working up to the very last minute before going home, working and timing yourself almost every minute of the entire day. A pieceworker, to make this "extra" money, literally has to become a mechanized extension of the machinery, putting tremendous strain on body and mind, resulting in exhaustion.

HOURLY PAID WORKERS

For hourly paid workers low wages are the rule as well. Some examples (out of innumerable ones that could be cited) show this. The wages paid to certain floorboys is one example. Their current starting wage is only $4.03 an hour. Not only is this not enough to live on, especially considering the fact that the majority of floorboys are men, but all the workers who are served by them know how hard they work. The work is very heavy, the departments in which they work are invariably short-handed, with the result that they usually must work nonstop the entire day to keep production going. Another example is the toolmakers. They currently get a maximum of $7.09 an hour. Compared to the wages paid to toolmakers in other factories, they are way below the average. Toolmakers at such places as Bulova, Speidel and Rau Fastener, just to name a few, are now making $8.60 an hour.

The total gain of the workers' wages over the last five years has in no way kept up with the rising cost of living. In this five year period, wage increases have only averaged approximately 7.5% a year. And the added cost of living increases have been totally inadequate to "make up" for inflation. A blatant example is the COLA that workers received in 1978 -- a grand total of 4¢ an hour! Even the big jump to 14¢ an hour COLA this year was still a pitiful amount. An extra $5.60 a week can barely buy one package of meat for a family! The government's Consumer Price Index, which the COLA formula is based on, actually minimizes the burden placed on workers by soaring prices, not taking into account the particularly staggering price increases for food, fuel and other necessities.

LEVITON WORKERS MUST FIGHT FOR HIGHER WAGES AND AGAINST CARTER'S WAGE CONTROLS

It is very clear that the wages that Leviton workers are presently getting are barely enough to survive on. In 1980, when the new contract is negotiated, Leviton is sure to try to impose Carter's wage controls on the workers. The line is already being spread that the workers can't fight for higher wages or defy Carter's wage controls, so they had better be satisfied with getting some benefits instead! This is a myth that must be rejected. In January of this year, workers at American Insulated Wire in Pawtucket and Northeast Cable Co. in South Attleboro -- two companies owned by Leviton -- fought vigorously against the 7% guideline of the government and were able to win 11% wage increases. The AIW workers, the majority of whom are Portuguese and other immigrant workers, were the first workers in New England to go out on strike in defiance of Carter's wage guidelines. They carried out this militant struggle in spite of all the attacks the company used to try to force a maximum 7% increase down the workers' throats. The company used all sorts of demagogy about the "patriotic duty" of workers to take cuts in pay to supposedly "fight inflation" and threatened that higher wages would spell disaster for the wire industry because it is a "depressed industry", etc.

It is entirely just and absolutely necessary that workers at Leviton carry out the struggle for higher wages. It is impossible to live with the wages the workers now get and real wages will continue to decline in the face of soaring inflation. While workers' real wages continue to get eaten up by inflation, the capitalists' profits are continuing to soar. Workers at Leviton must join the workers all over the country who are defying Carter's wage controls and fighting for higher wages.

[Back to Top]

Socialism alone is that economic-social order which overcomes every difficulty and makes the people happy

From the speech of Comrade Enver Hoxha at the rally on the occasion of the elimination of the consequences of the earthquake in Albania

Follows excerpts from the speech of the First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Party of Labor of Albania, Comrade Enver Hoxha, delivered October 19, 1979 at the grand rally organized in Bahcallek of Shkodra on the occasion of the successful completion of the work for the elimination of the aftermath of the April 15th earthquake of this year:

Dear Comrades, Sisters and Brothers, of the district of Shkodra and of the whole of Albania,

The successful conclusion of the construction work in the districts of Shkodra, Lezha, Mirdita, Dibra, Kruja, Mati, Puka and Tropoja, which were gravely damaged by the powerful earthquake of the 15th of April this year, is for all our people, Party and me myself an indescribable joy.

In no country of the world have the consequences of a great misfortune like this been liquidated within a record time, as it occurred in our socialist country.

We are a small country and a people few in number. But what characterizes the Albanian people is the great, exemplary force and resistance for the defense of the homeland and the defense of their lives. History has proved this force and stoicism of the Albanian people.

In the modern times, too, the Albanian people have suffered many calamities. The foreigners strove to liquidate them as a people and as a nation and to smash them as a living and active unit. They strove and did truncate the country; they strove to wipe out even the customs, to bastardize the culture and language as well, but in vain.

IN NO COUNTRY OF THE WORLD, WHERE EARTHQUAKES HAVE FALLEN, HAVE EVER BEEN BUILT WITHIN FIVE MONTHS SO MANY HOUSES THAT 100,000 RESIDENTS MOVE IN

Sisters and Brothers,

Never before, in no country of the world, where earthquakes have fallen and continue to fall have ever been built within five months so many dwelling houses that a population, equal to that of two big cities, such as Durres and Vlora taken together, move in, that is, to re-shelter about 100, 000 residents in modern, better houses than they had previously.

In other countries, where the bourgeoisie and capital rule, unfortunately the earthquakes constitute, as you might have heard, a terrible calamity, which causes grave wounds to the affected who fail to heal them for a long time.

In the capitalist and revisionist countries, when such disasters occur, the governments in power hold out their hands and beg, wherever the can and as much as they can, aids in money, covers, clothing, medicine and everything necessary and despite this, the poor affected again remain in misery, on highways. While our socialist country, just as it has coped with the previous earthquakes, liquidated also the consequences of this very destructive earthquake with its own forces, stretching its hand to nobody, accepting no aid at all from whoever it might have come.

THE NEW MODERN HOUSES ARE PERSONAL PROPERTY OF THE FAMILIES THAT WERE LODGED IN THEM AND THE STATE WILL RECEIVE NO COMPENSATION, NO TAX AND NO RENT AT ALL FROM THEM

The state of the dictatorship of the proletariat, our socialist society, with the Party of Labor at the head, with their inexhaustible economic possibilities and reserves, with the strength of the generous spirit of the undaunted people, quickly conquered the earthquake, constructed everything destroyed, schools, houses of culture, creches and kindergartens, maternity homes, roads, water pipelines and many other necessary objects, and granted them to their brothers and sisters of the areas that suffered this misfortune.

The families that moved in the new modern houses are in festivity today, are joyful and happy, are proud of their beloved Party, for their powerful state power.

All these beautiful houses are personal property of the families that were lodged in them, to whom we wish to eternally enjoy them. The state of the proletarians will receive no compensation, no tax and no rent rt all from them. This is, brothers and sisters, comrades and friends,what socialism means, what the dictatorship of the proletariat means, what the triumph of socialist revolution over the internal and external, capitalist enemies, means. This is the line of our Party, which expresses the will and interests of the people and of the socialist homeland. This correct line, which is guided by the always triumphant doctrine of Marxism-Leninism, is enriched, developed, defended and preserved crystal clear by the Albanian communists, by our people.

This is the vitality of our socialist order, of the great strength and stability of our socialist country.

The capitalists and the revisionists are shouting themselves hoarse about ''humanitarian feelings" and ''the rights of man", but facts go to show that in the countries where they rule there is neither humanism nor freedom; there misery reigns supreme for the people, the working class, the peasantry. There millions are unemployed who die from diseases and of hunger. Everywhere strikes, anarchy, inflation, criminality, demonstrations exist; everywhere clashes take place with the people's bloodsuckers, everywhere innumerable worries and disturbances exist for the working people, because the regimes in power are unable to solve them. In these countries, man's life is never sure.

The contrary happens in our socialist country. The people fight, work and live happily. With each passing day and year their life improves. Here there is no unemployment! taxes do not exist any more; there are no price rises or inflation; and such vital needs as medical service and education are guaranteed free of charge. The house rent is so small that the others elsewhere hardly believe this truth, but facts and our reality speak for themselves.

It is its people and not the foreigners that have built this beautiful and flourishing socialist Albania. It was built neither by the Yugoslav Titoites, nor by the Soviet revisionists, nor by the Chinese revisionists. Our socialist country and regime have always been a thorn in the side of U.S. imperialism, the capitalist countries of the world, the Soviet revisionists, the Chinese revisionists and all other revisionists. All these enemies have striven in one thousand and one ways to damage us, to enslave us. But it is not easy to enslave a people like ours, that has demonstrated their bravery through the centuries, which is demonstrating it even today and will constantly demonstrate it in every moment of their life, through the fierce principled struggle they are waging together with the Party and state power to expose all those who have striven and are striving to damage them.

SOCIALIST ALBANIA WILL ALWAYS KEEP ALOFT AND UNSTAINED THE BANNER OF MARX, ENGELS, LENIN AND STALIN

Let the peoples, the revolutionary and progressive people, our Marxist-Leninist comrades, have unflinching confidence that socialist Albania will always keep aloft and unstained the banner of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin. This year we will magnificently celebrate the centenary of Joseph Stalin's birth, this glorious Marxist-Leninist, this great proletarian revolutionary, who is honored and respected by all the peoples and the progressive world, with the exception of the enemies of socialism.

LET THE SUCCESSES ACHIEVED INSPIRE US FOR FRESH VICTORIES

Workers and cooperativists, young men and women and other working people all over Albania, This year, we will celebrate the glorious jubilee of the 35th anniversary of the liberation of the homeland and of the triumph of the people's revolution. Therefore, in honor of this jubilee we are faced with the great and constant task to get down to work, to shed sweat and to mobilize all the spiritual and mental forces in order to carry into effect all the set tasks, be they in the economic, political or defense fields. Let us work so that our people's economy makes constant progress and becomes stronger, so that our defense potential increases and our socialist homeland becomes impregnable from any enemy. None of the Albanians should forget that all these possibilities for the improvement of the life were created through work and struggle. We must think for the present, but also for tomorrow; therefore let us over-fulfill the plans, increase the reserves and put the interests of the people, the interests of the socialist homeland above everything. The Albanian people should judge every job they make and every political stand they adopt with this aim: the Party, the people and the socialist homeland above all.

Once again brothers and sisters of Shkodra and of all the cities and villages ruined by the strong earthquake of the 15th of April, I wish you to live happily in the new houses, pass a happy and beautiful life in them together with your children, whom we must bring up brave and loyal fighters of the Party, whom we must temper and make resolute, industrious and modest men as our people themselves are. Under the example of our immortal people in centuries let us kindle in the hearts of the young generation the purest feelings of freedom, independence, of the love for one another and, first of all, of the boundless love for the Party of Labor of Albania, for the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Let us make our children ardent internationalists so that, when need will require, they will throw themselves into the fire to constantly defend the borders of the homeland, the proletarian revolution, and the anti-imperialist, national liberation wars.

Long live the Party.

Long live the people.

[Back to Top]

Albania's 35th Anniversary of Liberation Enthusiastically Celebrated

[Photo: The photograph shows the spirited public meeting held in Chicago on December 1 to celebrate the 35th anniversary of the liberation of Albania. The COUSML also organized meetings in New York, Boston, San Francisco and Seattle to mark this great occasion. Over 400 revolutionary people participated in these meetings. They listened attentively to speeches elaborating on the tremendous significance of socialist Albania, which is the shining example of the emancipation of the working class and the cause of socialism for the entire world. All of the meetings were characterized by the militant spirit of those in attendance, which was reflected in the enthusiastic singing of revolutionary songs about socialist Albania and about the revolutionary struggle in the U.S.

The meetings were the culmination of a vigorous campaign of propaganda and agitation conducted by COUSML and its supporters throughout the country. Posters proclaiming "Socialist Albania Marches Forward! Glory to Socialism!" were plastered throughout many large cities, and tens of thousands of copies of a special issue of The Workers' Advocate devoted mainly to Albania were distributed in the communities, universities and factories. The American people warmly received this work to popularize the existence of genuine socialism in Albania and the glorious achievements made by the Albanian people, under the leadership of the Party of Labor of Albania, since the liberation of their country from the clutches of imperialism 35 years ago.]

[Back to Top]

Great Victory of the Bolivian People

[Zeri i Popullit masthead.]

Under the title ''Great Victory of the Bolivian People", the newspaper Zeri i Popullit publishes an article which reads:

As is known, almost two weeks ago the Colonel Natush Bush advented to power through a military coup d'etat, proclaiming himself at the same time president of the republic. Like all the fascist dictatorships, that of Colonel Bush's, through frenzied demagogy and overt terror, did its utmost to consolidate its positions. Having seized power disregarding even the most elementary rules of the bourgeois democracy, this junta proclaimed itself as champion of the "strengthening of democracy". Despite this, the Bolivian people were neither deceived nor subdued.

Right after the coming in a putschist way of the fascist armymen to power, very powerful protest movements of the masses of the people burst out in the country. The trade unions proclaimed a general strike on a national scale. Manifestations under the slogan "The united people is never subdued!" burst out in the cities of the country. The fascist military junta tried to suppress the people's revolt through fire and steel. The roads of La Paz and other cities were drenched with the blood of the anti-fascists, democrats, revolutionary workers and students, Marxist-Leninist militants of the Communist Party of Bolivia (Marxist-Leninist). Three hundred fifty people were killed by the military forces in the service of the dictatorship and more than 1,000 others were wounded from the ranks of the demonstrators within a few days. The prisons were filled as a result of the arrests made by the usurpers of the power in order to force the people to submit to them. But the fascists were unable to cope with the determination of the laboring masses. Neither the demagogy nor the savage criminal terror, nor mass stationing of tanks in front of the presidential palace managed to save them. "I", Colonel Bush stated, while earth was sliding under his foot, "won't resign... we will not take any step backward. '' But despite the wishes of the darkest Bolivian reactionaries, their representative could not face up to the people's indignation.

The Bolivian people, the working class with its spinal cord -- the miners, anti-fascists and democrats, through their resolute struggle overthrew the military dictatorship of Natush Bush. His fascist coup d'etat did not win but was defeated in the face of the united force of the working class and the broad masses of the people which bravely faced the tanks and bayonets of the fascist putschists. This shows the invincible force of the people, and when they are united there is no violence and terror which can subdue them. And now after achieving this great victory over the coup d'etat they are showing a lofty example of heroism and determination to defend the freedom and democratic rights.

The events in Bolivia show that the destiny of the people cannot be determined by the superpowers, either U.S. imperialism or Soviet social-imperialism, but it is determined by the peoples themselves, who are becoming ever more conscious of their rights and strength. They once a- gain show that the revolution is a question taken up for solution.

The situation in Bolivia is constantly characterized by grave and profound political and economic crisis, by the aggravation of irreconcilable class contradictions, the intensification of the efforts and struggle of the working masses against the savage double exploitation, of the local oligarchy sold out to the foreigners and U.S. imperialism. It is difficult to find any other country in the world where there have been perpetrated so many coups d'etat as in this country of Latin America. Since the proclamation of independence in August 1825 until now, there have been hatched up 187 coups d'etat and there have existed different constitutions. Present in many of these successive coups d'etat has been the hand of U.S. imperialism which has plundered the great riches of tin, silver, antimony, tungsten, oil and gas Bolivia is rich in. The Bolivian people have drawn important lessons from the history of their country, from the tragic events in Chile to be always vigilant.

The Albanian people have always followed with sympathy the efforts and the struggle of the Bolivian people against the oppression and exploitation by home reaction and U.S. imperialism. They hail the victory of the people's democratic forces of Bolivia which courageously opposed the reactionary coup d'etat and won. They wish the Bolivian people realize their just aspirations, for which they have constantly fought and have shed blood and are confident that they will forge ahead the struggle for democratic power.

(The above article is taken from Albanian Telegraphic Agency News Bulletin, November 20, 1979.)

[Back to Top]

There is not an ounce of anti-revisionism in the inter-imperialist rivalry between Beijing and Moscow

According to a recent U.S. imperialist news report from Beijing, the Chinese leaders are preparing to declare that the bourgeois-revisionist Soviet Union should no longer be called a ''revisionist country', as Beijing has done in the past, but should be described as a ''socialist country". This report is a further indication of the extent of the disgusting revisionist betrayal of Marxism- Leninism and socialism by the Chinese revisionists, a betrayal which is both open and complete.

Today, the revisionist dictators in Beijing are pursuing an openly social-imperialist policy under the signboard of a struggle against the so-called ''most dangerous superpower", Soviet social-imperialism. To achieve its own plans for carving out China's own imperialist sphere of influence Beijing has formed an open warmongering alliance with U.S. imperialism and has emerged as a fierce enemy of the people and the revolution in all countries. Nevertheless, the lackeys and scribblers in the pay of the Beijing revisionists attempt to portray the policies of Deng Xiaoping and Hua Guofeng as ''principled" and "Marxist-Leninist" and even "anti-revisionist" policies. According to their demented social-chauvinist propaganda, the policy of getting in bed with U.S. imperialism and inciting an inter-imperialist war against the so-called ''main danger", Soviet social-imperialism, is simply an extension of the struggle against Soviet modern revisionism! And anyone who refuses to toe this Chinese line of betrayal is branded as a ''Khrushchovite revisionist"!

But no amount of bluster from the social-chauvinist lackeys of Beijing can hide the fact that the Chinese revisionist policy is a completely pragmatic policy guided by the new Chinese emperors' own dreams of world domination. And every day reality shows that the contradiction between Beijing and Moscow is not in any way a struggle over principles. It is not a struggle between socialism and capitalist social-imperialism and still less between Marxism-Leninism and modern revisionism. This contradiction is nothing but a quarrel between revisionist gangsters and counter-revolutionaries, between two social-imperialist states which are guided by a common modern revisionist ideology. Thus, today Deng and Hua, who have joined the dance of imperialist alliances, have linked arms with Carter and U.S. imperialism, but tomorrow or the day after it would surprise no one if they embraced Brezhnev and Kosygin as their ''old comrades". Possibly the Chinese line will zigzag in the direction of the policy championed by the Communist Party of China and Deng Xiaoping in the first half of the 1960's of a ''united front against U.S. imperialism including the Soviet revisionists". Or maybe the Beijing revisionists will adopt the Titoite policy of having no declared enemies in the world as pursued by their Yugoslav and Romanian "comrades". These ultra-revisionist states are simply for a promiscuous ''free love" with everybody, the U.S. imperialists and Soviet social-imperialists, the fascists and Zionists, all at once. Such turns in the Chinese pragmatic policy cannot be ruled out because there are no ideological obstacles whatsoever in the way of such developments. There is not an ounce of genuine "anti-revisionism" in the Chinese line.

A glaring exposure of the fraudulent "anti-revisionism" of the Chinese leaders was provided by a New York Times article of November 10 written by Fox Butterfield, one of the army of U.S. imperialist journalists in Beijing. According to Butterfield, in connection with the month long secret high level talks going on in Moscow between the Chinese and Soviet leaders, "the Chinese Communist Party has circulated an important document to officials that concludes that the Soviet party should no longer be viewed as revisionist. " The source of this document of open confession of revisionist bankruptcy is reported to be the "Academy of Social Sciences, considered the chief braintrust for the senior Deputy Prime Minister, Deng Xiaoping. " Reportedly the Chinese have "reevaluated" their previous characterizations of the Soviet Union, coming to the decision that "the Soviet Union is still socialist", only suffering from "revisionist tendencies". Butterfield alleges that "the two sides have discussed the issue in Moscow and have decided in theory that they can agree that both are socialist states, though with different national characteristics. " And furthermore, they agreed that "neither country will attack the other's ideology any further or question the legitimacy of the other's system"!

Of course, this is only the reporting of a hack U.S. imperialist journalist. But both the fact that the Chinese have been in Moscow hatching up secret conspiracies against the revolution and the fact that the Chinese have taken this course of the open and complete renunciation of Marxism-Leninism and the struggle against modern revisionism are well-known to the world. For example, it is a notable fact that the Chinese press in recent years has even dropped the use of the phrase "Soviet revisionism", alluding to the Soviets only as "hegemonists" or "that superpower on the offensive" and so forth. Obviously even the phrase "revisionism" has become an embarrassment to the Chinese leaders whose revisionist line is as blatantly anti-Marxist-Leninist as that of their Soviet counterparts.

The Chinese revisionist arsenal with its theory of "three worlds" and based on "Mao Zedong Thought" has borrowed heavily from the arsenal of anti-Marxist theories of the Soviet revisionists. Both Chinese and Soviet revisionism justify their own social-imperialist policies and strive to prettify imperialism and reaction and liquidate the revolution. There is no difference in content, for example, between Khrushchovite "peaceful coexistence" and the "three worldist" "united front with U.S. imperialism" of the Chinese revisionists. Both justify collaboration with U.S. imperialism against the revolution under the guise that American imperialism has become "reasonable", "peace-loving" or "the less dangerous superpower". Nor is the Chinese theory of the "objectively progressive third world" any different from the Soviet theory of "non-capitalist development". Both of these are designed to liquidate the revolutionary struggles of the proletariat and oppressed people for national and social emancipation and to write off the revolution by assigning "leadership" of these struggles to the reactionary bourgeois and feudal ruling cliques who are in fact agents of imperialist neo-colonialism. Thus the Chinese paint butchers like the Shah of Iran and Pinochet of Chile in liberation colors just as Khrushchov called Nehru, the reactionary flunkey of imperialism and the exploiting classes, the "Lenin of India". On these and every other cardinal question of principle concerning the revolution, the Chinese revisionist position ends up on the same anti-Marxist-Leninist side as that of their Soviet revisionist fellow travellers in betrayal.

Of course, this evolution of the Chinese line did not occur overnight. From the very outset of the struggle against modern revisionism, first with the Titoites and then with the Khrushchovites, the Chinese leaders always took a vacillating and conciliatory position. Mao Zedong and co. never waged the struggle against Soviet revisionism consistently and from the positions of Marxist-Leninist principles. When Mao did take stands against the Khrushchovites he only used Marxism- Leninism as window dressing, as a ruse. In practice he fought from non-Marxist and even national chauvinist positions, fighting not for the victory of Marxism-Leninism but for the Chinese' own peculiar non-Marxist theories and nationalist interests. A manifestation of this fact is that from the outset the Communist Party of China pursued the line of uniting with one group of revisionist traitors to fight another. The Chinese, for example, united with the Romanian, Yugoslav, Italian and other arch-revisionist traitors in the name of the fight against Soviet revisionism. In recent years the Chinese ties with these lackeys of U.S. imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism have been strengthened and even the ultra-revisionist "Eurocommunists" are being openly wined and dined in Beijing as the "comrades" of the Chinese leaders.

The middle road of conciliation of modern revisionism charted by Mao Zedong has gone completely bankrupt and the Communist Party of China has fallen with both feet into the positions of the Soviet, Yugoslav and other revisionists. This highlights the absolute necessity that the ideological struggle against modern revisionism of all hues must be waged relentlessly, mercilessly and from a Marxist-Leninist direction. As Comrade Enver Hoxha and the Party of Labor of Albania, loyal defenders of Marxism-Leninism and implacable enemies of all revisionism, have pointed out:

"... there can be no middle road. The 'golden mean' is the line of the reconciliation of opposites, which can never be reconciled. Nor can the middle road serve to disguise the deviations from Marxist-Leninist principles, because, if the fight against revisionism is not inspired by ideological motives, but only by certain economic and political motives on a national chauvinist basis, it is a mere bluff which is short-lived. Those who uphold this line in their stand toward the renegades from Marxism-Leninism are themselves in danger of slipping, sooner or later, into the positions of the latter...." (History of the Party of Labor of Albania, pp. 603-604)

[Back to Top]

Further collaboration between Chinese and Italian revisionists

(The following article is reprinted from Workers'Weekly, organ of the Central Committee of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist), August 25, 1979.)

Recently there has been further development of relations between the Chinese revisionists and the Italian revisionists of the "Communist" Party of Italy. For example a delegation of journalists from the "C"PI recently paid a 15-day visit to China. The Italian delegation was headed by Claudio Petruccioli, the deputy editor of the Italian revisionist newspaper, l'Unita. The news agencies report that Petruccioli was very warmly received by the Chinese revisionists. Petruccioli has suggested that his visit would speed up relations between the two parties and could be "a prelude to another visit, a political one", by a higher ranking revisionist chieftain. The visit of this Italian revisionist delegation to China follows recent initiatives from the Chinese revisionists to develop closer ties with the Berlinguer revisionists.

In March of this year, China's ambassador to Rome attended the Congress of the Italian revisionist party, and then several Italian capitalists with links with the Berlinguer revisionists attended the Canton Trade Fair.

The Italian revisionist party is one of the chief advocates of "Eurocommunism". It has long since abandoned the revolutionary principles of Marxism-Leninism and taken up the counter-revolutionary class-collaborationist theory of "historic compromise", of collaboration with the reactionary political forces of Italian monopoly capital to preserve class peace and the decaying capitalist system in Italy.

The Italian revisionists have long since been exposed as enemies of the Italian and international proletariat. They are the most zealous defenders of "European unity" -- that is, the Europe of the monopolies -- and are supporters of NATO. Where they have held power, in various of the civic administrations in Italy, they have been responsible even for the violent suppression of mass protest struggles of the workers, students, etc.

Up until January of this year, they had even joined openly with the Christian Democrats to form the government, and their resignation from the government was motivated solely by the desire to have more influence for themselves in the cabinet.

The Chinese social-imperialists are striving to strengthen ties with the Berlinguer revisionists in service of their hegemonic ambitions. They see in the Berlinguer revisionist party a staunch backer of the "United Europe" of the monopolies, and for that reason they want to develop relations. They see in the Berlinguer revisionist party an advocate of the expansion of the aggressive NATO bloc and for that reason want to develop relations. They see in the Italian revisionist party a party which defends the interests of Italian monopoly capital and the exploitative capitalist system in Italy, and for that reason they want to develop relations. In short the development of relations between the Italian and Chinese revisionists is being carried out to serve counter-revolutionary ends -- to further strengthen the unity of the monopolies of the "second world" behind U.S. imperialism's global strategy in rivalry with Soviet social-imperialism, to strengthen China's ties with capitalist Europe and to suppress the revolutionary struggle of the Italian proletariat and people for the overthrow of the monopoly capitalist system of exploitation and wage slavery.

[Back to Top]

"Three worldists" are on the path of merger with social-democracy

Recently the social-chauvinists of "CP(M-L)" again pledged their loyalty to the cause of class collaboration by endorsing UAW President Douglas Fraser's social-democratic coalition, the Progressive Alliance. The flag-waving patriots of ''CP(M-L)" are already notorious for advocating that the workers give up their revolutionary struggle and instead unite with the U.S. monopoly capitalists to "strike the main blow" at the Soviet social-imperialists. Now,, with their lavish praise of the Progressive Alliance, it can be seen that these followers of Chinese revisionism are on the path of merger with social-democracy. In glowing terms they state that: "Just last year, United Auto Workers President Douglas Fraser was complaining about what he called the 'onesided class war' being waged by big business against the working people. Then in January he initiated the Progressive Alliance, a coalition of labor and civil rights groups, to combat the offensive of big business." (The Call, "UAW Workers Foot the Bill -- Fraser's $400 Million Seat", Nov. 5, 1979) With these words the ''CP(M-L)" expresses their love and respect for the labor traitor Fraser on the ridiculous grounds that his social-democratic coalition, the Progressive Alliance, is an opponent of the vicious capitalist offensive against the working class.

The Progressive Alliance is a coalition composed of bourgeois liberals, trade union bureaucrats and Afro-American opportunists ("liberals, labor and minorities"). Fraser was instrumental in its formation and is the leading spokesman and organizer of it today. These social-democrats belong to the "left wing" of the Democratic Party. Their expressed purpose is to pressure the Democratic Party to implement its own program. This is a hoax. The Democratic Party administration of President Carter has been implementing its program all along: a program of starvation, fascism and war, including soaring oil prices, devastating wage cuts, savage racial discrimination, and MX missiles. Fraser's Progressive Alliance is based on covering up these crimes of Carter's Democratic Party administration and on pushing the fraud that the Democratic Party can solve the problems of the workers if only its "reforms" are really implemented. Fraser and his gang are desperately attempting to convince the workers to support Carter and his anti-working class offensive, and to have faith in the politics and program of the Democratic Party. They are doing so precisely at a time when the workers are turning away from the Democratic Party with disgust and when Carter is wailing about a "crisis of confidence" in his administration and the capitalist government as a whole.

Douglas Fraser recently imposed blatantly sellout contracts on the auto workers, earning even more of their hatred and contempt. This puts "CP(M-L)" in an unpopular position among the workers, having just praised Fraser to the skies as someone who ''combat(s) the offensive of big business". So in the very same article they criticize Fraser, although very politely, for accepting a seat on the board of directors of the Chrysler billionaires for services rendered.

They mention Fraser's "ideology of so-called 'common interests' between labor and capital". And after Fraser's gigantic sellout of the auto workers, "CP(M-L)" claims to have experienced a revelation: "Now the real meaning of Fraser's version of a 'progressive alliance' becomes evident. What he really wants is an alliance between a section of the top labor leaders and the biggest, most reactionary representatives of big business at the expense of the workers."

Let's take a look at this doubletalk. "CP(M-L)" criticizes Fraser for joining Chrysler's board of directors and for thus concluding an alliance of "labor leaders" and "big business" to the detriment of the workers. So far so good. But wait a minute! Previously we saw that they praised Fraser when "he initiated the Progressive Alliance... to combat the offensive of big business" against the workers. Either Fraser is a traitor to the working class or he is not. In fact, he is a traitor. "CP(M-L)" actually praises Fraser, supports his coalition, the Progressive Alliance, and supports its efforts to mobilize the workers to have faith in the Democratic Party. This shows that the class collaborationist politics of "CP(M-L)" lead directly to support for the Carter administration and its all-round attacks on the working class.

"CP(M-L)'s" criticism of Fraser is simply a smokescreen to hide their agreement with his identical politics of class collaboration. For example, "CP(M-L)" only criticizes "Fraser's version" of a "progressive alliance" with the class enemy, admitting that they are not opposed to class collaboration in general. And this is why "CP(M-L)" did not lift a finger to oppose Fraser and the top UAW hacks when they were recently forcing scandalous sellout contracts on the auto workers. Their criticism of Fraser is sham.

At most, it is simply a dogfight over who can best betray the workers' interests.

The "CP(M-L)'' is on the path toward merger with the social-democrats. This shows that their politics are liberal-labor politics. Their politics are becoming indistinguishable from those of the Progressive Alliance, which express the anti-working class views of the alliance between the imperialist liberals of the Democratic Party and the soldout labor bureaucrats. This "liberal- labor" politics is the politics of class collaboration, of striving to turn the working class movement into a plaything in the hands of the rich. Liberal-labor politics is totally opposed to the workers taking the path of revolutionary mass struggle against the class enemy. Instead it advocates that the workers sit around dreaming of the paradise that will come into being, if the Democratic Party "liberals" ever get around to implementing their lying promises. It is the politics of utter betrayal of the proletariat in the service of the monopoly capitalists.

"CP(M-L)" is following in the footsteps of Earl Browder, arch-revisionist traitor to the American proletariat and one of the architects of liberal-labor politics in the U.S. Starting in the mid-1930's, Browder advocated that the workers abandon the path of mass revolutionary struggle and instead reduce their movement to begging the Roosevelt Democrats for supposed reforms. Browder took the formerly revolutionary CPUSA down the path of revising Marxism and merging with social-democracy. Browderism was a forerunner of modern Khrushchovite revisionism.

The Khrushchovite revisionists also took up the ideological position of social-democracy, and their followers set upon the path of fusion with the social-democratic parties. And this is the path being followed by the Chinese revisionists too. The social-chauvinists of "CP(M-L)", the followers of Chinese revisionism, are moving toward merger with social-democracy. The "CP (M-L)" has inherited the yellow banner of their mentor Browder, and are advocating a "progressive alliance" with the Democratic Party. They are on their knees before the social-democrats.

[Back to Top]

"Mao Zedong Thought" - A Profoundly Anti-Marxist Theory

Followers and Propagators of "Mao Zedong Thought" in Britain Stand on the Side of imperialism and Capitalism

(The following article is excerpted from Workers'Weekly, organ of the Central Committee of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist), June 9, 1979.)

The struggle which has unfolded throughout the international Marxist-Leninist communist movement in the last few years to defend the purity of Marxism-Leninism and to deepen and broaden the struggle against all forms of revisionism has been and is continuing to be a most crucial struggle for Marxist-Leninists in each country. It has further exposed the schemes and aims of the various brands of modern revisionists to liquidate, in the service of imperialism, the revolutionary movement and revolutionary parties; it has cleared out many opportunists that have been, for a number of years, lurking in the communist movement, and it has made the Marxist-Leninist parties even more consolidated and tempered on a sound Marxist-Leninist theoretical basis.

At this time, while never forgetting the important struggle against Khrushchovite revisionism, Titoite revisionism, ''Eurocommunism" and Second International social-democracy, a most important task for Marxist-Leninists is the exposure and criticism of Chinese revisionism and its source and center -- the anti-Marxist trend of "Mao Zedong thought".

"Mao Zedong thought", a theory which has nothing to do with Marxism-Leninism, has had serious consequences for the development of the revolutionary movement and the revolutionary parties in many countries. But the criticism and exposure in the international Marxist-Leninist communist movement of this anti-Marxist theory -- the Party of Labor of Albania playing a most crucial and forefront role in this exposure -- has given the revolutionary forces in each country a tremendous impetus. It has, for example, exposed the activities of various sham Marxist-Leninists who have been attempting to nestle in the international and national communist movements to attempt to hamper and liquidate their forward march. In Britain, for example, the present-day followers and propagators of "Mao Zedong thought" have been, for a number of years, causing considerable disruption and confusion in the workers' and communist movement. They have done their utmost to hamper the work of rebuilding the genuine Marxist-Leninist party in Britain, to revise the basic Marxist-Leninist line on all fundamental questions and to bolster up the Khrushchovite, Titoite and other opportunists' promotion of reformism, worship of spontaneity and trade unionism in the working class movement. The struggle which has unfolded on an international plane, and also here in Britain by our Party, in recent years against revisionism and opportunism of all hues, especially against the Chinese revisionists, has drawn the clearest lines of demarcation between the genuine Marxist-Leninists -- the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist) -- and the sham ''Marxist-Leninists", the neo-revisionists. In the last two years all of these neo-revisionist trends have fully and openly exposed their anti-Party, anti-Marxist-Leninist activities of the last thirteen years or so, by openly coming out against Marxism-Leninism, by openly adopting revisionism as their guiding principles and theory. As the revolutionary struggle internationally and nationally has matured and as the struggle to defend the purity of Marxism-Leninism has advanced, so the ''Marxist-Leninist" mask of these neo-revisionists has been ripped away to reveal their true colors, to reveal their basic modern revisionist nature. Firstly, there occurred the open exposure of a host of "pre-party" and ''pre-action" "Marxist-Leninist" collectives and groups, who all came forward in the 1976-77 period to adopt the reactionary and counter-revolutionary "three worlds" theory. Then, more recently, the so- called Communist Party of Britain (Marxist- Leninist), an old economist, neo-revisionist and trade unionist organization, advanced the thesis that "It is a greater calumny to pretend that non- Marxist, counter-revolutionary ideas stem from the works of Mao Zedong. Those who do so would be ideologically happier with the pro- Bukharin group of western intellectuals. " (TheWorker, August 10, 1978) In other words, according to the "C"PB(M-L), Mao Zedong was a "great" Marxist-Leninist, his anti-Marxist theories should be the guiding "science" for Marxist-Leninists. All the revolutionary forces which are correctly and scientifically, from a Marxist-Leninist standpoint and outlook, criticizing and exposing the revisionist nature of "Mao Zedong thought" are, according to the "C"PB(M-L), treacherous opportunists and renegades of the Bukharin type. Thus the "C"PB(M-L), faced with the momentum of the international proletariat and the struggle to defend the purity of Marxism-Leninism, has been caught red-handed, has been caught dearly holding onto an out-and-out revisionist theory. Its attempts to nestle in the communist movement with its "anti"-"three worlds" theory, its "anti"-Khrushchovite revisionism, have been exposed. Its days of paying lip service to Marxism-Leninism have become numbered with its coming out openly to defend the anti-Marxist Mao Zedong and to defend the anti-Marxist theory and practice of "Mao Zedong thought".

This open exposure of these neo-revisionists represents a victory for Marxism-Leninism, a victory for the British and international proletariat, a victory for the international communist movement and a victory for the determined and concrete work and stand of the RCPB(M-L).

THE HISTORY OF THE REBUILDING OF THE MARXIST-LENINIST PARTY IN BRITAIN HAS BEEN A HISTORY OF STRUGGLE AGAINST THESE NEO-REVESIONIST FORCES

In the late 1940's and early 1950's, Khrushchovite revisionists usurped power and leadership in the then revolutionary party of the proletariat --- the Communist Party of Great Britain -- which had been, since its foundation in 1920, a genuine revolutionary party of the proletariat. In 1952, this revisionist clique launched their "British Road to Socialism", which represented the culmination of their disintegration and betrayal of the Communist Party and its Leninist principles. This program represented an open betrayal of Marxism-Leninism, of the cause and interests of socialism and the revolution. The Party was quickly liquidated as a revolutionary proletarian party and turned into a reformist bourgeois party, a "left"-wing prop of the "Labor" Party. Every single principle of Marxism- Leninism was destroyed, revised and distorted and instead social-democratic and modern revisionist ideas were promoted in the working class movement.

Within the now revisionist party of Great Britain sharp struggle was waged by a number of anti-revisionist elements against this betrayal and liquidation, hi 1963, recognizing that there was no longer any possibility of changing the Party back into a revolutionary party, these elements, led by Michael McCreery, split from the revisionist party and established the Committee to Defeat Revisionism and for Communist Unity. This committee, under the leadership of McCreery, in two years' work reestablished all of the basic international and national Marxist- Leninist lines. It opposed Khrushchovite revisionism; it opposed the "peaceful and parliamentary" road to "socialism"; it reestablished the necessity to build the Party in the heart of the proletariat. Unfortunately in 1965 McCreery died and, following this, the anti-revisionist elements of the CDRCU betrayed the task and responsibility that history had put on their shoulders to now rebuild the Party. Instead they began to form numerous little groups and made their main, and in fact only, activity doing more "theoretical preparation". They refused to respond to the demands and needs of the proletariat to unite and develop practical programs in order to rebuild the Party.

The main leaders of these groups developed close contact with the Chinese revisionists, and, closely following the theories and ideas of Mao Zedong, further consolidated their line, stated that there was "no revolutionary situation in Britain" (the self-same line of Hua, Deng and Co. today), that there were no conditions to unite to build the Party, that there were no conditions in any of the mass movements of the working people to develop revolutionary practical work and programs, and that the program for the "Marxist-Leninists" was to form numerous educational- type groups to carry out the "study" and "theoretical preparation" which they alleged was necessary before any thought could be given to the task of building the Party and developing revolutionary actions and programs. This line was promoted by the Chinese revisionists and its followers throughout the world in this period; so much so, that in one European country they told the Marxist-Leninists who had just formed their Party to dissolve it and form small theoretical-type study groups. From this period to date, while slight changes were made to their line to attempt to maintain some credence in the working class movement, this continued to be the basic program of all these "pre-party" and "pre-action" groups and organizations.

In 1967, there was a second "split" from the revisionist party. This "split" was led by R. Birch, a leading labor aristocrat and member of the Central Committee of the revisionist party, who had not supported the revolutionary split of 1963, taking another four years to "understand" the revisionist nature of the "C"PGB. This split and its leadership made immediate close contact with the Chinese revisionists and, with their full backing, set up the so-called Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist). This organization, while paying lip service to Marxism-Leninism, to anti-Khrushchovite revisionism (and later to anti-"three worlds" theory) was, from its outset, an economist, trade unionist and neo-revisionist organization. It never split from revisionist lines on any fundamental question, whether on trade unionism, on the promotion of chauvinism in the working class movement, on bowing to spontaneity, on opposition to (or reducing to a very secondary role) the need of Marxist-Leninist theory to guide the proletariat, on labelling political struggles (such as the anti-racist, anti-fascist struggle or the struggle to oppose U.S. imperialist aggression in Viet Nam) as "diversions from the economic struggle", on opposition to building a genuinely Bolshevik-type party, or on its vacillatory stand towards various forms of revisionism, etc. While "opposing" Khrushchovite revisionism in some of its aspects, while "opposing" the "pre-party" line of the groups, this was and has always since been, from the standpoint of its own neo-revisionist line and practice.

For over twelve years, these neo-revisionist groups managed to nestle in the communist movement in Britain, posing as "genuine" Marxist-Leninists, as "genuine" anti-revisionists, as "genuine" revolutionaries, and, in doing so, attempted to seriously hamper the work of rebuilding the party, the work of arming the working class with socialism, with Marxism-Leninism, the work of leading the struggles of the working class on a revolutionary basis, guiding them towards the socialist revolution. They attempted to cause serious confusion, both nationally and internationally, as to the correct Marxist-Leninist line, the existence;.and line of the genuine Marxist-Leninist forces and the path forward for the working class.

In August 1967, in London, the Historic Necessity for Change Conference was held at which the advanced sections of the revolutionary youth and student movement, together with the revolutionary forces -- represented by the Internationalists -- from Ireland, Canada and America attended.

All of the anti-revisionist groups were invited to participate in the Conference in order to attempt to resolve the burning problem of rebuilding the Marxist-Leninist center in Britain. To a man these groups either simply did not attend, or participated from the standpoint of attacking the revolutionary forces on various grounds and promoting their treacherous thesis that there were "no conditions" for the formation of the Marxist-Leninist party, for the anti-revisionists uniting to develop the practical programs to solve this crucial task. It became pitifully clear that there were no forces in Britain that were willing to or capable of uniting to rebuild the Marxist-Leninist center and the revolutionaries who participated in the Conference took the solemn decision that it was upon their shoulders that this task was placed. At the end of the Conference the organizational form for the establishment of a Marxist-Leninist center was brought about with the formation of the English Internationalists. Through its own efforts and programs, through the spirit and revolutionary sentiment and determination of the working class and people and through the fraternal assistance of the Marxist-Leninist forces and organizations and parties abroad, this Marxist- Leninist center grew from strength to strength.

In March 1972 the organizational, political and ideological conditions had been created for the formation of the proletarian party in England, the Communist Party of England (Marxist-Leninist).

In March 1979, the internal and external conditions had been created for implementing the line of the Party on the need for establishing a Marxist-Leninist Party for the entire British proletariat and, with the changing of the Party's name to the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist), the crucial process of rebuilding the Marxist-Leninist Party for the entire British working class and people had been gloriously achieved.

Where does Mr. Birch stand today ? He stands in open support of an out-and-out revisionist. He stands with and in the labor aristocracy. He stands with the most reactionary chauvinist ideas and concepts of the British bourgeoisie. He stands against the PLA and socialist Albania and against the developing unity of the international Marxist-Leninist communist movement.

DEEPEN THE STRUGGLE AGAINST ALL FORMS OF REVISIONISM, DEEPEN THE STRUGGLE AGAINST "MAO ZEDONG THOUGHT" AND ITS FOLLOWERS AND PROPAGATORS IN BRITAIN

Messrs. Birch and "pre-party" collectives have been caught red-handed. Their activities over the past twelve years or so have been finally exposed for all to see. Their "Marxist-Leninist" mask has "suddenly" disintegrated. They have been exposed as not standing on the side of the proletariat, on the side of Marxism-Leninism, on the side of revolution, but on the side of opportunism, the bourgeoisie and the capitalist system.

[Workers' Weekly masthead.]

[Back to Top]

"The Party Is the Most Precious Thing"

Recently, the Canadian Cultural Workers' Committee, under the leadership of the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist), produced a record album entitled "The Party Is the Most Precious Thing, and other Canadian Revolutionary Songs". The songs on the album, which are performed with great strength, clarity and beauty, have as their subject matter a number of important issues of the Canadian and world revolutionary movements. The songs "Here Is the Rose -- Now Dance!", "Song of the Third Congress" and the title song "The Party Is the Most Precious Thing", for example, deal with the history of the CPC(M-L), the struggle to defend the purity of its Marxist-Leninist political line and the ongoing task of building and strengthening the party.

These songs express the Marxist-Leninist truth that the party is the highest form of the class organization of the proletariat and that it is the duty of all Marxist-Leninists to cherish and protect the party. These songs are very inspiring to us U.S. Marxist-Leninists and they arrive just as we are in the midst of the campaign to found the Marxist-Leninist Party, U.S.A. The founding and the constant strengthening of the party is the measure of the progress of the proletariat.

The question of sternly fighting against the revisionists and all those who distort the principles of Marxism-Leninism is taken up in the song, "Inevitable Struggle Has Broken Out!" Songs such as "Death to the Traitors!" express the great hatred the Canadian working class and people have for their class enemies as well as their determination to overthrow them and establish a new Canada free of exploitation and oppression. Of note also are such songs as "Workers of All Countries, Unite!" and "Oh Albania, Red Star that Burns Bright". These songs are a stirring tribute to the common struggle of the world proletariat against imperialism and all reaction. They hail the great role of the shining beacon of socialism and heroic bastion of world revolution, the People's Socialist Republic of Albania. Through such songs the deep proletarian internationalist spirit of the Canadian proletariat and its Party are clearly seen.

The cultural work of the CPC(M-L) is a big defeat for the cultural aggression of U.S. imperialism in Canada. In Canada and around the world, the U.S. imperialists promote the most decadent, backward and ugly "culture" which they bombard the people with day and night through their control of the media, schools, "the arts", etc. With this cultural aggression the U.S. imperialists try to mobilize the people to take up their reactionary plans for exploitation and oppression, make them dispirited and disoriented and steer them away from the path of revolution. But today, because of the work of the CPC(M-L), the Canadian proletariat is consciously developing the new culture in opposition to the culture of the imperialists and reactionaries. The new culture inspires the masses with revolutionary optimism and reflects the correct Marxist-Leninist political line of the CPC (M-L) on the vital questions of the Canadian and world revolution. It is a culture revolutionary in both form and content. In this way, the new proletarian culture cuts through the darkness of the culture of the rich billionaires and helps fulfill the deep aspirations of the Canadian people for genuine democracy, independence and socialism.

[Back to Top]

U.S. neo-revisionism as the American expression of the international opportunist trend of Chinese revisionism - Part VI

MAO, BROWDER AND SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY

(Mao Zedong and the American ultra-revisionist Browder supported each other and shared a common platform of social-democracy)

The U.S. neo-revisionist trend has two roots. This trend represents in essence the merger of two traditions:

a) Chinese revisionism and "three worlds-ism"

and

b) American Browderite liberal-labor and social-democratic politics.

These two trends have proved capable of merging themselves very snugly into a single harmonious, if utterly corrupt, whole. Investigation shows that this is because Mao Zedong Thought and its offspring, the theory of "three worlds", are saturated with theses reminiscent of the social-democracy of the Second International. These two traditions of Browderism and Chinese revisionism have not only merged recently, they have merged before in the mutual support of Mao Zedong and the ultra-revisionist Browder. And today the Chinese leadership is openly following in the footsteps of the arch-renegade and traitor Browder as shown in the development of the warmongering U.S.-China alliance.

Below we reproduce a speech prepared by the editorial staff of The Workers' Advocate as the COUSML contribution to a study session on Mao Zedong Thought.

*****

As part of the great struggle of the world's Marxist-Leninists against Chinese revisionism, a struggle which requires the demolition of the revisionist myth of Mao Zedong Thought, we would like to share with you part of some investigation which COUSML has recently carried out. This work further demonstrates the fact that Mao Zedong Thought has nothing in common with Marxism-Leninism, and that this revisionist "Thought" stands on common ground with the extreme social- democratic opportunism of the notorious American revisionist Earl Browder.

Mao Zedong Thought is an eclectic amalgam of assorted anti-Marxist-Leninist ideologies. Mao Zedong Thought has borrowed heavily from the doctrines of Kautsky and the Second Yellow International as well as from the later revisionist betrayers of communism: Bukharin, Browder, Tito, Khrushchov, etc. Thus, this so-called "Thought" is imbued with a number of basic theses which are classically social-democratic and right opportunist in character.

It is well known that Mao Zedong's sycophants in the U.S., the "three worldist" revisionists, are clustered into a number of extreme right opportunist sects, thoroughly imbued with the liberal-labor and reformist politics of the imperialist labor aristocracy. In essence these opportunists belong to two traditions: a) They comprise a contingent of the international opportunist trend of Chinese revisionism, based on the anti-Marxist-Leninist dogmas of the "three worlds" theory and Mao Zedong Thought; and b) They are the true heirs to the mantle of Earl Browder, faithful adherents to Browderite American great-power chauvinism and social-democratic liberal-labor, reformist politics and ideology. Furthermore, examination of these two revisionist traditions shows that they have common features; that the revisionism of Browder and that of Mao Zedong have appreciated each other in the past and converge on common revisionist positions and share a common historical development.

Browderism emerged within, and set about seriously corroding, the Communist Party of the U.S.A. in the mid-1930's, in the same years that so-called Mao Zedong Thought triumphed within the Communist Party of China. Browder was the most despicable renegade to the American working class. It was under Browder that the Party of the proletariat, the CPUSA, was disbanded in 1944 and Browderism also emerged before and during World War II in a number of other parties in the western hemisphere and elsewhere. Browderism fully matured as a revisionist distortion of Marxism-Leninism under the conditions of the emergence of U.S. imperialism as the most powerful imperialism and the undisputed leader of the imperialist camp. And this revisionism was particularly tailored and constructed to serve the global plans of U.S. imperialism for complete world domination.

The contemporary convergence of Mao Zedong's theory of "three worlds" and the revisionism of Browder is obvious and glaring. They share in common their adaptation to the Counter-revolutionary global ambitions of U.S. imperialism in particular. Browderism obliterates the fundamental contradiction between capitalism and socialism; denies the class struggle; writes off the revolution and demands that the proletariat and oppressed people seek salvation under the so- called "democratic" slavery of U.S. imperialism. So too with Mao's anti-Leninist theory of "three worlds". The formation of the contemporary U.S.-China alliance -- justified by the "three worlds" theory -- is one of Browder's pet dreams come true. Undoubtedly, Browder's specter was dancing over both of the Nixon-Mao tete-a-tetes. For his part, Mao sought the counter-revolutionary U.S. -China alliance for the realization of his own dream, to turn China into a powerful social- imperialist state.

MAO'S SEARCH FOR A U.S.-CHINA ALLIANCE DID NOT BEGIN IN 1971 OR 1972

But our investigation shows that Mao's search for this alliance did not begin in 1971 or in 1972.

On the contrary, during the Second World War and after its conclusion, Mao Zedong turned to U.S. imperialism for salvation. And the ever pragmatic line and policy pursued by Mao and the Communist Party of China coincided with the revisionist line and policy of Browder at that time too.

The examination of this all too revealing chapter in the chaotic development of the CPC provides further insight into the social-democratic features and the revisionist essence of Mao Zedong Thought.

During World War II besides a pro-Chiang Kaishek lobby, a pro-Mao Zedong lobby emerged within the U.S. State Department, within the U.S. military departments, and inside and outside the Senate and other government bodies. The State Department men appointed to the Chinese embassy during the first years of the war were among those who sought a "realistic" approach to Mao. The advocates of this policy held that not only Chiang Kai-shek, but also Mao Zedong could be turned into a useful instrument of U.S. imperialist policy in China and Asia. John Service, deputy to the U.S. ambassador and then attached to U.S. military headquarters, was, according to the U.S. ambassador to China, the U.S. imperialists' "governmental authority on Chinese Communism". (see Lost Chance in China: The WorldWar II Dispatches of John S. Service, p. xvii)

In 1944, after long and intimate discussions with Mao and the other leaders of the CPC in Yenan, Service wrote his superiors that it was not only the Kuomintang but also the Chinese Communists who "are friendly to the United States and look to it for the salvation of the country, now and after the war", adding that "the parallel with Yugoslavia has been drawn before but is becoming more and more apt. " (Ibid., pp. 164-65)

And, in fact, a survey of Mao's writings at the time shows that Mao did indeed look to U.S. imperialism for salvation. This is also confirmed by the reports and interviews provided by the U.S. imperialist diplomats and journalists in contact with the CPC leaders -- including those diplomats and journalists favored by the Chinese leaders themselves and used by them as spokesmen, for example, Edgar Snow, John S. Service, etc. It is also the case that Mao was more than eager to play the role of a Chinese Tito. In particular, Mao Zedong agreed with Earl Browder about the prospects for the emergence of a democratic capitalist China under the wing of U.S. imperialism.

In no uncertain terms, Mao Zedong told the Americans that the Communist Party of China preferred U.S. imperialism and its system of "democracy" as opposed to a "one-party dictatorship" and "the type of communism practiced in Russia". According to Service, Mao considered a U.S. land invasion of China absolutely necessary for the liberation war against Japan, stressing that "We think the Americans must land in China" and that "any contact you Americans have with us Communists is good". (Ibid., p. 304) As for the socialist Soviet Union, Mao told the Americans:

"The Russians have suffered greatly in the war and will have their hands full with their own job of rebuilding. We do not expect Russian help.

"Furthermore, the KMT because of its anticommunist phobia is anti-Russian. Therefore KMT-Soviet cooperation is impossible. And for us to seek it would only make the situation in China worse. China is disunified enough already!" (Ibid., p. 306)

As Mao expressed it, since the Soviet Union was ravaged by the war, the hopes of the CPC had to be placed on the rising star of U.S. imperialism, its military might and its all powerful dollar.

Regarding the ideological position of the CPC, the so-called "greatest Marxist-Leninist" Mao told the American journalists in 1944:

"We accept critically the long tradition of China -- inheriting that which is good and rejecting that which is bad. We do the same with things coming from abroad. We have accepted such things as Darwinism; the democracy exemplified by Washington and Lincoln; the eighteenth-century philosophy of France; the materialism of Fuerbach; Marxism from Germany; and Leninism from Russia. We accept anything from abroad that can be good for and useful to China. We reject bad things, such as Fascism. Such things as the type of Communism practiced in Russia are not to be adopted in China, for the conditions in China are not ripe. Conditions are not present for the introduction of Communism. " (Ibid., p. 256)

Such is the anti-communist sophistry and eclectics which Mao cooked up to serve his American guests. This is the crystalization of the real meaning of Mao's slogan "make foreign things serve China". This is a frank confession on Mao's part as much as to say that: I am an unbridled pragmatist. If it is good and useful to China, I will take it. A little French philosophy here, a little German Marxism there, a dash of Leninism from Russia (only for red coloring of course), and the democracy exemplified by the American capitalists, blended with a heavy dose of "traditional Chinese" doctrines is just the kind of stew which will nourish the future Chinese imperialist state. As for the present, we accept American "democracy" and we will go in for the U.S. imperialist's anti-communist propaganda and declare that we reject bad things such as fascism and "the type of communism practiced in Russia". Such is the frank opportunism of Mao Zedong Thought.

MAO ZEDONG FORESAW A BOURGEOIS DEMOCRATIC FUTURE FOR CHINA IN WHICH U.S. IMPERIALISM WAS TO PLAY A MAJOR ROLE

For Mao, like Browder and all the revisionist apologists of U.S. imperialism, so-called American democracy was their ideal. As Browder expressed it:

"The Party goal of socialism was defined as an organic continuation of Jeffersonian democratic principles. " (Browder Talks!, "Why I am not a Communist", 1952)

That is to say that the emancipation of the exploited and oppressed can be realized through the extension of so-called "American democracy" as if the so-called "American democracy" of the 20th century was not completely subordinated to the interests of the parasitic financial oligarchy, and was not the ever more hollow shell of the savage dictatorship of monopoly capital, as if the "organic continuation" of "American democracy" had not proved to be political reaction all along the line, a characteristic feature of imperialist "democracy". And Mao, like Browder, "overlooked" the fact that even the democracy of Washington and Lincoln, while a model of the bourgeois democracy of the 18th and 19th centuries, nevertheless represented the rule of the exploiting classes, the dictatorship of the capitalist and slave owning minority.

Thus at the time of the departure of the U.S. Vice President Wallace from China after a tour, on July 4, 1944, the Communist Party of China's newspaper, Liberation Daily, carried an editorial declaring:

"Democratic America has already found a companion... in the Chinese Communist Party.... The work which we communists are carrying on today is the very same work which was carried on earlier in America by Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln; it will certainly obtain, and indeed has already obtained, the sympathy of democratic America. " (see Schram, Mao Tsetung, pp. 225-26)

Mao Zedong took this same theme even further, advising the American military observers that: "Every American soldier in China should be a walking and talking advertisement for democracy .... After all, we Chinese consider you Americans the ideal of democracy." (LostChance in China: The World War n Dispatchesof John S. Service, p. 303)

Thus, Mao Zedong was not steering along the Marxist-Leninist road of the uninterrupted revolution; of carrying out the anti-imperialist bourgeois democratic stage of the revolution as a necessary preparation for the immediate transition to the socialist revolution. This means, in effect, to turn the anti-imperialist, democratic struggle into a means to transform China into a modern capitalist state. Not only that, within the bourgeois democratic future which Mao foresaw for China, U.S. imperialism was to play a major role.

In an interview with Service, Mao assured the Americans that:

"The policies of the Chinese Communist Party are merely liberal....

"Even the most conservative American businessman can find nothing in our program to take exception to.

"China must industrialize. This can be done -- in China -- only by free enterprise and with the aid of foreign capital. Chinese and American interests are correlated and similar. They fit together, economically and politically....

"The United States would find us more cooperative than the Kuomintang. We will not be afraid of democratic American influence -- we will welcome it. " (Ibid., p. 306-07)

This line of Mao's was elaborated in a more theoretical way to Service by a member of the CPC Politbureau, Po Ku, the founder and director of Liberation Daily, and according to a note in Mao's Selected Works (Vol. 3, p. 222, 1965 ed.), working directly under Mao's leadership. Po Ku explained to Service Mao's line as follows:

"But to try to transplant to China all of Marx's description of the society in which he found himself... and the steps (class struggle and violent revolution) which he saw would be necessary for the people to escape from those conditions, would not only be ridiculous, it would also be a violation of our basic principles of realistic objectivism and the avoidance of doctrinaire dogmatism.

"China at present is not even capitalistic. Its economy is still that of semi-feudalism. We cannot advance at one jump to socialism. In fact, because we are at least two hundred years behind most of the rest of the world, we probably cannot hope to reach socialism until after most of the rest of the world has reached that state.

"First we must rid ourselves of this semi-feudalism. Then we must raise our economic level by a long stage of democracy and free enterprise. What we Communists hope to do is to keep China moving smoothly and steadily toward this goal. By orderly, gradual and progressive development we will avoid the conditions which forced Marx to draw his conclusions of the necessity (in his society) for class struggle: we will prevent the need for a violent revolution by a peaceful planned revolution.

"It is impossible to predict how long this process will take. But we can be sure that it will be more than thirty or forty years, and probably more than a hundred years .... " (Ibid., pp. 311-12)

In short, a century or more of "free enterprise" so-called was the avowed program of the Communist Party of China according to the "basic principles of realistic objectivism" as elaborated by Po Ku. On the other hand, "doctrinaire dogmatism", that is to say Marxism-Leninism, which demands the uninterrupted transition to the socialist revolution -- without going through a "long stage" of raising the economic level and "free enterprise" -- must be avoided like the plague. Only Browder could express himself more clearly in favor of capitalism than Po Ku.

As Browder cynically put it:

"... we declare in advance our understanding that the democratic-progressive camp to which we adhere will adopt the defense of 'free enterprise', that we understand this term as a synonym for capitalism as it exists in our country, and that we will not oppose it nor put forth any counter-slogans." (Teheran: Our Path in Warand Peace, Browder, 1944, p. 71)

MAO S REPORT TO THE 7th CONGRESS OF THE CPC AGREES WITH BROWDERISM

The defenders of Mao Zedong may object that we are being unfair to attribute this scandalous opportunism to Mao and the CPC on the say so of State Department officials and bourgeois journalists. However, after over 35 years of circulation, the accuracy of these interviews and documents have yet to be challenged and even Mao Zedong's friends and admirers quote Service and the others favorably as a reliable source. The "friend of China" Han Suyin, for example, not only freely uses Service's accounts as a source of "Mao's thoughts" and praises these accounts as "entrancing", but she even enthusiastically carries pictures of Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai with Service, Barret, and the other emissaries of U.S. imperialism. (Han Suyin, The Morning Deluge, p. 428) Moreover, more importantly, the accuracy of these documents are wholly confirmed by the official documents of the CPC at the time, not only in theLiberation Daily but also in the works of Mao Zedong. Of particular significance here is Mao Zedong's political report to the 7th Congress of the CPC held in 1945, otherwise known as his article "On Coalition Government". At the 7th Congress, "Mao Zedong Thought" was formally placed in the Constitution of the Communist Party of China as the theoretical guide to all the Party's work. And the anti-Marxist-Leninist nature of this Mao Zedong Thought is particularly revealed in Mao's political report which elaborates his opportunist strategy and tactics.

In this report, Mao Zedong pontificates:

"It would be a sheer illusion to try to build a socialist society on the ruins of the colonial, semi-colonial and semi-feudal order without a united new-democratic state, without the development of the state sector of the new-democratic economy, of the private capitalist and the cooperative sectors...." (Mao Zedong, Selected Works, Vol. III, p. 233)

(It should be noted that in the original 1945 translation, the phrase "state sector of the new-democratic economy" is completely absent, leaving only the plan for "the development of a broad private capitalist and cooperative economy". (TheFight for a New China, New Century Publishers, New York, 1945, p. 38) But in either case this anti-Leninist concept reads the same.) Mao goes on to lecture against "some people (who) fail to understand why, so far from fearing capitalism, Communists should advocate its development", that "indeed, we have too little capitalism". Mao even attempts to claim that this opportunist line is required by the Marxist laws of social development, that:

"From our knowledge of the Marxist laws of social development, we Communists clearly understand that under the state system of New Democracy in China it will be necessary in the interests of social progress to facilitate the development of the private capitalist sector of the economy...." (Mao Zedong, SelectedWorks, Vol. III, p. 233)

This system of so-called "New Democracy" which ensures "the growth of private capital and the protection of private property", was the central ingredient of the "general program" elaborated at the 7th Congress of the CPC. And Mao proclaims that this "general program of New Democracy will remain unchanged throughout the stage of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, that is, for several decades." (Mao Zedong, SelectedWorks, Vol. III, p. 235)

Thus, it is obvious that Po Ku, by way of Service's interview, elaborated Mao Zedong's revisionist position exactly. We will leave it to the defenders of Mao Zedong Thought to accuse us of attributing to Mao, Po Ku's desire for capitalist development for "more than a hundred years".

Oh no, Mao only sought capitalist development for "several decades"!

As mentioned, Mao's 7th Congress Report provides a relatively systematic elaboration of the anti-Marxist-Leninist strategy and tactics of Mao Zedong Thought on a whole series of cardinal questions of the revolution. Nevertheless, to get the full flavor of the completely shameless opportunist nature of this report it is necessary to compare the well-doctored current edition with the original translation of 1945. In both editions Mao describes how over a number of years under so-called New Democracy, that is, with the growth of the capitalist economy, China will be transformed into an industrial country, how the ''Communists are ready to fight for this objective in cooperation with all the democratic parties and industrial circles throughout the country", and how "both labor and capital will work together to develop industrial production." (Mao Zedong, Selected Works, Vol. III, p. 253) This is clear enough. But at this point an entire major paragraph has been, edited from the original text, a paragraph of particular importance to Mao's strategy for China's development. The missing paragraph reads as follows:

"Large amounts of capital will be needed for the development of our industries. They will come chiefly from the accumulated wealth of the Chinese people, and at the same time from foreign assistance. We welcome foreign investments if such are beneficial to China's economy and are made in accordance with China's laws. Enterprises profitable to both the Chinese people and foreigners are swiftly expanding large-scale light and heavy industries and modernizing agriculture, which can become a reality when there is firm internal and international peace, and when political and agrarian reforms are thoroughly carried out. On this basis, we shall be able to absorb vast amounts of foreign investments. A politically retrogressive and economically impoverished China will be unprofitable not only to the Chinese people but also to foreigners." (The Fight for a New China, Mao Zedong, New Century Publishers, New York, 1945, p. 62, emphasis added)

This too is crystal clear. Mao was for carrying ; at the democratic revolution not for the purpose of clearing the path for socialist revolution and development in China, but to clear the way for "several decades" of bourgeois capitalist development in general and for the absorption of "vast amounts of foreign investments" in particular --. to make China profitable not only for the Chinese capitalist exploiters but for the foreign imperialist plunderers to boot!

Mao argued that it was only the CPC with its system of "New Democracy", and not the KMT with its stifling bureaucracy, etc., which could guarantee the highest return on the investments not only of the Chinese bourgeoisie but also those of the foreign bankers and other imperialist sharks. And which imperialists Mao had his eye on is demonstrated by two other paragraphs cut from the original text. The first expresses gratitude to Britain and particularly to the United States "for their sympathy with the Chinese people and their help". And the second starts with a quotation from the U.S. imperialist President: "The late President Roosevelt once said that the world had shrunk. In fact, the American people, once thought by the Chinese people to be living very far away, are now our next door neighbors. " (Ibid., p. 68)

And finally, there is another set of important passages omitted from the original text, passages which could have been lifted from Browder's revisionist testament Teheran: Our Path in War and Peace. Speaking of the Anglo-American-Soviet alliance on the war; Mao declares that with "this all-decisive condition, finally demonstrated at the Crimea Conference (Browder's Teheran -- Mao's Yalta ! (Crimea))...,The whole aspect of the world has changed since this condition made its appearance. " (Ibid., p. 7) "We are in a totally new situation." (Ibid., p. 8) "International problems are to be solved by conferences led by the three or five major nations: internal problems of the various nations will have to be solved, without exception, in accordance with democratic principles." (Ibid., p. 7)

From these declarations at the 7th Congress of the CPC, the fundamentally opportunist positions which the Chinese leadership had come to at the time were unmistakable. Mao Zedong Thought, this ideology without any Marxist-Leninist backbone, this ideology which formed the basis for extreme zigzags and deviations in the political line of the ( PC, had brought the CPC to the edge of the social-democratic revisionist, capitulationist abyss of the arch-renegade. Browder. Here it should be pointed out that while Mao Zedong had no appreciation for the work of the great Leninist Stalin nor for that of the Comintern which made invaluable contributions to the development of the Chinese revolution, there is evidence that Mao highly appreciated the renegade Browder. At the time that the American communists overthrew Browder's leadership and reconstituted the Party in 1945, Mao Zedong used the occasion to acclaim Browder as his "comrade". According to the original text of Mao's message to the CPUSA as it appeared in the Liberation Daily (but edited out of the later edition) Mao went out of his way to lavish Browder with the praise that: "in his past activity, Comrade Browder has rendered many services to the struggle of the Chinese people, which deserve our gratitude." (See Schram, Political Thought of Mao Tsetung, p. 425) Moreover, the opportunist positions of the CPC were not missed by Browder himself who recognized in the Chinese leadership an ally for his revisionist-imperialist course.

IN THE "WISDOM OF MAO ZEDONG" BROWDER RECOGNIZED AN ALLY FOR HIS REVISIONIST-IMPERIALIST COURSE

Browder was an unabashed champion of U.S. imperialism's crusade for the domination of the entire world. His work "Teheran" actually gives detailed encouragement to the American imperialists to "establish the primacy of the foreign market for America's immediate post-war economic perspective" (Browder, Teheran: Our Path inWar and Peace, p. 77) and carries a chart on the billions of dollars of "new markets" to be conquered by U.S. imperialism in the various corners of the globe. Browder explained this enthusiasm for U.S. imperialism with the absurd hoax that American capitalism "retains some of the characteristics of a young capitalism. " (Ibid., p. 70) Thus, Browder's vision was for "big capital" to "subordinate its operations to a broadly conceived and definitely planned program of national and international expansion of well-being for all" (Ibid., p. 73, emphasis as in original) -- that economic development under the tutelage of U.S. imperialism would be the salvation of mankind.

It is from this standpoint that Browder hailed the Chinese Communists as "America's most reliable friends in China. " (Ibid., p. 27) "The chief consideration" according to Browder "is that America... must have enormous post war markets for its products, for which Asia provides the chief potential. These markets must be on a scale never before dreamed of... (and the seizure of these markets) is a life-and-death necessity for the prevailing American way of life. " (Ibid., p. 47) Browder lectured the U.S. imperialists on the need to adopt a neo-colonial policy: "A policy directed toward realizing a great market in Asia for American products must be directed... toward abolishing the colonial system and its replacement by a system of free, self-governing, unified nations...independent, self-governing nations provide expanding markets. " (Ibid., p. 48) And like Service, and like Mao, Browder considered the CPC the best instrument of American imperialist interests in China, pointing out that: "It is a demonstrable fact that the economic policies characteristic of 'Kuomingtang' China today are operating to defeat America's interest in an expanding Chinese market, while the economic policies of 'Communist' China are those most favorable and conducive to an expanding market. '' (Ibid. , p. 48)

Indeed, Browder, who had worked in China with the CPC and who always maintained a special concern for the Chinese situation, was quite a- ware of the political complexion of the Chinese communists. As Browder had assured the U.S. imperialists in 1942: "The Chinese Communist Party accepts the perspective of a capitalist development of China, not only now but for an indefinite future. " (Browder, Victory and After, p. 189-90)

And after Browder's expulsion from the CPUSA in the course of Browder's open fight to justify his extreme revisionism against so-called "dogmatic" Marxism-Leninism, Browder became an ardent champion of the "wisdom of Mao Zedong".

In 1949 Browder delivered a lecture entitled "Chinese Lessons for American Marxists". In this rabidly anti-Marxist-Leninist speech, Browder made the argument that the "brilliant Mao" was victorious in China because he pursued the same policies which Browder had always advocated, whereas the American communists were weak, not because of Browderite liquidationism as they claimed, but because Browderite revisionism had been rejected and the "wisdom of Mao Zedong" had not been correctly assimilated. Among other points, Browder elaborated the following "Chinese lessons".

The "most important Chinese lesson for American Marxists", according to Browder's lecture, is the necessity to create a "national Marxism" for each country. The "good Marxist policy in China" and the "successful leadership... epitomized in the person of Mao Tsetung", Browder attributed to Mao's "'China-ization' of Marxism". Browder cites approvingly a 1943 speech of Zhou Enlai's according to which: "The twenty-two years of the history of our Party have proved that in all these years Comrade Mao Tsetung's policy has been to develop a particular line for Chinese Communism, to China-ize Marxism and Leninism". And Browder elaborates on Zhou Enlai's thesis with extensive quotations from Mao's political report to the 7th Congress of the CPC ("On Coalition Government") drawing the "lesson" that: "American Marxists, having repudiated the very concept of 'Americanizing' Marxism, have imprisoned themselves in dogmatism."

Browder explains that "Mao Tsetung taught the Chinese Communists that they must not copy unthinkingly any other country, or adopt unthinkingly any other cultural system" -- that is to say should not "adopt unthinkingly" the "cultural system of Marxism-Leninism and socialism! Once again quoting extensively from Mao's 7th Congress Report, Browder points out that "Mao Tsetung specifically repudiated the idea that the Chinese Communists intend, now or in the future, to copy the Soviet Union" in establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat and building socialism. And Browder waxes particularly enthusiastic about Mao's "uniquely Chinese application of Lenin's teachings about the 'progressive' character of capitalist economic forms, in preparing for socialism -- and even in building socialism -- in his concept of a " 'new capitalism' in China". As Browder put it: Mao "did not hesitate to speak of the necessity of 'harmony' as well as struggle between the workers and private Chinese capitalist employers"; and "rounded out the concept of the 'new democracy' " which "promote(s) the free development of private capitalist economy" over a "prolonged period...of over scores of years".

Furthermore, Browder finds in Mao an ally for his arch-revisionist thesis of the "path of Teheran" in post-WWII international relations.

Browder cites Mao's thesis of the "all-decisive condition, finally demonstrated at the Crimea Conference" ensuring the "new world order" of permanent peace, democracy and harmony guaranteed by three or five powers. And Browder concludes that just as the rejection of Browder's "Teheran" thesis is responsible for the "failures" of "dogmatic" Marxism, "Mao's sound and correct judgements led the Chinese Marxists to victory". Browder's only remorse was that Roosevelt's "wisdom" did not also prevail and therefore U.S. imperialism failed to "preserve China as a Friend of America with cooperative relations". And Browder places the blame for this on "dogmatism", that is the rejection of the "clear and definite judgements of Mao Tsetung", by the CPUSA. Thus, it is clear from Browder's revisionist ravings of the time that, while Browder actually exaggerated the extent to which Browder- ism had in fact been repudiated by the CPUSA, Browder was acutely aware of the political nature of the "wisdom of Mao Zedong".

MAO'S PIPE DREAM OF A DEMOCRATIC CAPITALIST CHINA UNDER THE WING OF U.S. IMPERIALISM PROVED IMPOSSIBLE

History shows that this path advocated by Browder and Mao -- the path of a democratic capitalist development of China under the umbrella of U.S. imperialism's military and economic power after the war -- proved impossible. As Leninism teaches, any idea of imperialism facilitating the democratic emancipation of the colonies is nothing but a sinister illusion propagated by the imperialists and their lackeys. Despite the promises of Browder and Mao that the CPC would be the best instrument of capitalism and U.S. imperialist interests in China and Asia, the pro-Chiang Kai-shek lobby triumphed over the pro-Mao lobby in the U.S. State Department. Unlike the situation in Yugoslavia, in China U.S. imperialism had in place Chiang's well-armed and massive armies. Hence, as U.S. imperialism stepped into the shoes of Hitler, Tojo and Mussolini at the conclusion of the war and launched its barbarous crusade against communism and the revolution in order to enslave the entire world, the Americans armed Chiang Kai-shek to the teeth and hurled him against Mao Zedong's forces. As a point of information it was the "great democrat" Roosevelt, and not Truman, who threw the pro-Mao lobby out of the U.S. State Department. This is contrary to the claims of Mao who, like Browder and the other apologists of U.S. imperialism, acclaimed Roosevelt as the one who "refrained from adopting a policy of helping the Kuomintang to undertake armed attacks on the Chinese Communist Party." (Mao Tsetung, Selected Works, Vol. Ill, p. 285) In fact, for the entire 12 years of Roosevelt's presidency, U.S. imperialist policy had consistently backed Chiang Kai-shek's ceaseless armed attacks on the liberation forces. Furthermore, while it was the Roosevelt administration which was linked to the pro-Mao lobby (the State Department and military men who wanted to combine support for Chiang with a "realistic approach" to Mao) it was also Roosevelt who initiated the purge of these elements and their replacement with Patrick Hurley and his policy which led to the war of extermination against the Chinese communists.

Even after the fierce Civil war in which the liberation forces triumphed and the bloodstained fascist Chiang Kai-shek clique was routed despite massive U. S. imperialist intervention, Mao Zedong and co. still harbored the idea of an alliance with U.S. imperialism. As Zhou Enlai appealed to the Americans in 1949, "China (is) still not (a) communist country, and if Mao's policies are correctly implemented (it) may not be so for (a) long time. " (The New York Times, "The Peiping Cable", August 13, 1978) As far as our investigation goes, it was only the Korean War that brought to a conclusion these first attempts at a U. S.-China alliance. As Mao himself points out, before the Korean War Stalin did not trust the Communist Party of China and thought that they would follow the same traitorous road as the renegade Tito. (See Mao Tsetung, Selected Works, Vol. V, p. 304)

This chapter in the chaotic development of the Communist Party of China, this extreme opportunist zigzag, is but further testimony to the fact that Mao Zedong was a bourgeois democrat; that Mao, as a leader of a so-called Marxist-Leninist communist party of the proletariat, was in fact a wily revisionist. It is another demonstration of the fact that Mao Zedong Thought converges with the extreme opportunist theses; even with Browderite revisionism and social-democracy. The opportunist positions of the CPC at the conclusion of WWII cannot be attributed to some quirk of history, to an aberration due to the complex situation of the times. No. Behind these deviations lie definite ideas, a definite theoretical system. The truth is that Mao Zedong's opportunist political report to the 7th Congress of the CPC is fully consistent with Mao Zedong Thought. The truth is that the theoretical fabric of Mao Zedong Thought, when examined in light of the doctrine of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, is woven with a whole series of yellow threads, with blatantly social-democratic and right opportunist theses.

Let's examine one such yellow thread, one of Mao's "immortal contributions", his so-called theory of "New Democracy".

MAO ZEDONG'S THEORY OF "NEW DEMOCRACY" IS THE OPPOSITE OF THE MARXIST-LENINIST THEORY OF UNINTERRUPTED REVOLUTION

Mao Zedong dressed up his theory of "New Democracy" to appear as if it were in accord with the Marxist-Leninist theory of the "new democracy", that is, the national democratic revolution of the new type; that in the era of imperialism and the proletarian revolution, the national liberation movement of the oppressed peoples is no longer the reserve of the bourgeoisie but has become inseparably linked with the world proletarian revolution and socialism. But this was a hoax. The actual theory of Mao Zedong was that of the great barrier between the democratic and socialist revolutions. While Lenin stressed that under the conditions of imperialism the oppressed nations can ensure their genuine freedom and independence only with the establishment of socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat, and that the proletariat and people can bring the revolution to the socialist stage through the bourgeois democratic revolution of the new type; Mao, on the other hand, advocated the opposite. Mao wanted to stop the Chinese people's revolution of a new type halfway, to drag it back towards the bourgeois democratic revolution of the old type, dreaming pipe dreams of a non-socialist independent Chinese state on a middle road, independent of both imperialism and socialism.

Mao Zedong elaborated the idea that only in the industrially advanced countries is it possible to set up the socialist system and the dictatorship of the proletariat, whereas "in the revolutions of all colonial and semi-colonial countries" it is necessary to go through a historical period of so-called New Democracy, including a long period of democratic capitalist development as a precondition for the transition to the socialist revolution. Mao did not believe in the capacity of the proletariat to lead the toilers in a backward country such as China in socialist revolution, socialist construction and socialist industrialization. Instead, since in China "modern industry constituted only about 10% of the total output of the national economy", Mao held that "to raise her backward economy to a higher level, China must utilize all the factors of urban and rural capitalism that are beneficial and not harmful to the national economy and the people's livelihood; and we must unite with the national bourgeoisie in common struggle." (Mao Zedong, Selected Works, Vol. IV, "On the People's Democratic Dictatorship", p. 421)

This "Thought" of Mao's, however, is not in the least original or new but is a basic tenet of the revisionism of the heroes of the Second Inter-, national, an idea held by the Russian Mensheviks which was theoretically demolished by Lenin as early as 1905. It is a basic social-democratic dogma which the Great October Socialist Revolution demolished in practice, demonstrating before the entire world that the working class, in alliance with the toiling peasantry, can in fact build a modern socialist economy and industry without the capitalists and exploiters, even on the ashes of a ruined backward peasant country such as tsarist Russia. Moreover, there is the brilliant example of socialist industrialization in tiny Albania. Before liberation, feudal-bourgeois Albania was the most backward country in Europe. Albania had been reduced to a semi-colony of Italian imperialism and remained virtually without industry. While in China, according to Mao, industry constituted 10% of the national economy, in pre-liberation Albania "industry represented only 4.5% of all national economy". (See TheSocial Class Structure of the Working Class inAlbania, Tirana, pp. 20-21) But the backwardness of Albania's economy in no way blocked the Albanian working class and people from embarking on the triumphant road of the socialist revolution and from resolutely expropriating and eliminating the capitalist and landlord exploiting classes. The incontestable evidence of this fact is that today, 35 years after liberation, the Albanian working class, cooperativist peasantry and people's intelligentsia, on the basis of their own efforts, have successfully transformed Albania into a flourishing and modern, industrial- agricultural, socialist country. These glorious achievements of socialist Albania are yet further proof of the correctness of Leninism and the total bankruptcy of the dogmas of social-democracy and of Mao Zedong's dogma of "New Democracy".

To revise Leninism, Mao Zedong resorted to simple sophistry. Mao Zedong points to the fact that China is capitalistically undeveloped and the bourgeoisie is also weak and undeveloped. So what does Mao Zedong conclude from this? That therefore "the national bourgeoisie is of...great importance"!, that the bourgeoisie should be treated like a sacred cow, propped up and taken under the wing of the Chinese communists till the next millenium.

MAO'S CONCEPT OF CHINESE SOCIETY AS "BIG IN THE MIDDLE AND SMALL AT BOTH ENDS"

In fact, the entire policy of "New Democracy" is not directed in the first place towards the multi-million army of the revolutionary Chinese proletariat, nor towards the toiling peasantry, but towards what Mao himself describes as the weak and flabby so-called "national bourgeoisie".

Take for example, Mao Zedong's slogan that "Chinese society is big in the middle and small at both ends", and therefore "the Communist Party cannot solve China's problems unless it wins over the masses of the intermediate classes and unless it enables them to play their proper role." (Mao Zedong, Selected Works, Vol. II, p. 466) This sounds reasonable enough until you realize which classes Mao is actually referring to. A footnote to the text claims that here Mao is only referring to the fact that the proletariat and the reactionary landlords and big bourgeoisie were a minority of China's population. But this is a shallow hoax as clearly seen by an examination of what Mao considered "middle" or "intermediate" classes. According to Mao, "the winning over of the middle forces is an extremely important task for us", as "The middle forces carry considerable weight in China and may often be the decisive factor in our struggle." And just what are these "middle forces" ? Mao's writings are consistent to the effect that: "Winning over the middle forces means winning over the middle bourgeoisie, the enlightened gentry and the regional power groups"; that there are "three distinct categories" that make up "the middle forces"; the ''national bourgeoisie", the ''enlightened gentry who are the left-wing of the landlord class", and "regional power groups" with "most of the leaders of the regional power groups belong(ing) to the big landlord class and the big bourgeoisie". (Ibid., pp. 423-24) In fact, whenever Mao refers to ''middle forces" he refers only to the capitalist and landlord classes. What was "big" in Mao's eyes was not the vast army of Chinese toilers with the proletariat in the center but the small minority of the exploiting classes.

The point here is that Mao Zedong made great play with the fact that China was a peasant country with a vast intermediate strata in order to trumpet the ''great importance" of the Chinese exploiters and denigrate not only the significance of the Chinese proletariat, but also to belittle the weight of the other, non-proletarian, laboring classes. Hence, in Mao's formula that the ''middle forces carry considerable weight in China", it must be kept in mind that nowhere in Mao's writings are these toilers described or referred to as ''intermediate" or ''middle" classes. Mao is not speaking of the vast army of hundreds of millions of non-proletarian toilers. He is not speaking in the first place of the poor peasantry and farm laborers, the rural semi-proletariat, who by themselves, according to Mao's own figures, comprised a majority of China's population.

The proof of the pudding is in the text where Mao places his slogan "big in the middle and small at both ends". Here Mao is arguing against those communists advocating "a so-called state power of the workers, peasants and urban petty bourgeoisie" and who want to abandon the "united front policy" of the "three thirds system" of political power. So what is this "three thirds system"? Mao explains:

"Places in the organs of power should be allocated as follows: one-third to the Communists, representing the proletariat and the poor peasantry; one-third to the left progressives, representing the petty bourgeoisie; and the remaining one-third to the middle and other elements, representing the middle bourgeoisie and the enlightened gentry" (Ibid., p. 427)

And to make it clear who these other elements might be, Mao explains that any representative of the exploiting classes "who are not actively opposed to the Communist Party must be drawn into participation both in the government and in the people's representative bodies,... Even a small number of right-wingers may be allowed to join the people's representative bodies"! (Ibid., p. 445) So the question is what kind of "people's representative bodies" are these where the vast majority of the "people", that is the workers and peasants are allowed only one-third of the power and where the other classes are propped up and guaranteed a two-thirds majority in complete disproportion to their actual political or numerical strength? The only imaginable explanation for this absurd "three thirds system" is to be found in Mao's idea that the so-called middle forces were in fact "the decisive factor in our struggle" -- that is to say, the small minority of exploiters was put in the middle of Mao's strategy of "New Democracy".

MAO S THEORY OF "NEW DEMOCRACY" IS A SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC THEORY OF BOURGEOIS DEMOCRACY - NOT PROLETARIAN DEMOCRACY

Some of Mao Zedong's noisier sycophants such as the "RCP,USA" are raising a hue and cry that the accusations against Mao are unjust, that in "essence" Mao's "New Democratic" state is a "form of the dictatorship of the proletariat" and the "New Democratic" system is not capitalist but socialist. The best answer for ignoramuses of this sort is to tell them to go back and read the works of their master more carefully. Referring back again to the article "On Coalition Government", Mao emphatically stresses that:

"a new-democratic state based on an alliance of the democratic classes is different in principlefrom a socialist state under the dictatorship ofthe proletariat... throughout the stage of New Democracy China cannot possibly have a one- class dictatorship and one-party government and therefore should not attempt it.... For a long time to come there will exist a special form of state and political power, a form that is distinguished from the Russian system...."

Also in his article "On New Democracy" Mao explains that:

"a third form of state must be adopted in the revolutions of all colonial and semi-colonial countries, namely, the new-democratic republic....

"Thus the numerous types of state systems in the world can be reduced to three basic kinds according to the class character of theirpoliticalpower: (1) republics under bourgeois dictatorship; (2) republics under the dictatorship of the proletariat; and (3) republics under the joint dictatorship of several revolutionary classes." (Mao Zedong, Selected Works, Vol. II, p. 350)

Obviously, Mao's idea of "New Democracy", a separate "basic kind" of state "different in principle from a socialist state under the dictatorship of the proletariat" cannot possibly be reconciled with the opposite idea of being "in essence the dictatorship of the proletariat".

So what kind of animal did Mao Zedong have in mind? Was Mao proposing a form of the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry? No, this is obviously not what Mao had in mind when he attempts to shield himself with the slogan "dictatorship of several revolutionary classes". Such a democratic dictatorship in Mao's distorted vision which did not properly distinguish the working class from the peasant classes would also be a violation of his laws against one class dictatorship. Or was Mao's conception of "New Democracy" some other transitional form to bring the revolution uninterruptedly to the dictatorship of the proletariat, to one-class dictatorship and one-party government? No, this too is impossible to defend as well because it contradicts the entire practice of the Chinese revolution and the fact that the bourgeois parties remain in power in Beijing to this day. It contradicts Mao's thesis of "long term coexistence and mutual supervision" between the Chinese capitalist parties and the communist party. Moreover, it contradicts the entire bourgeois democratic outlook of Mao Zedong. When Mao Zedong told Service that "After all, we Chinese consider you Americans the ideal of democracy", he was not making an idle compliment. In fact, Mao considered a multi-party system of bourgeois democracy to be superior to the "one-party system" and "the type of communism practiced in Russia". As Mao put it, "We are not destroying the dictatorship of the big comprador bourgeoisie and the big landlord class in order to replace it with a one-party dictatorship of the Communist Party." (Mao Zedong,Selected Works, Vol. II, p. 445) And Mao continually harped on the theme of opposition to the "one-party dictatorship" of either the KMT or any other party. Mao's anti-Marxist line on this question is summed up in one of his countless trite and idiotic formulas: "Just as everyone should share what food there is, so there should be no monopoly of power by a single party, group or class." (Ibid., p. 409)

But what does it mean to renounce the idea of "monopoly of power" ? It means to renounce the hegemony of the proletariat in the revolution which Lenin described as "the most consistent reformism" (V.I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 17, p. 232) It means to renounce the dictatorship of the proletariat which "can be complete only if it is led by one party, the Communist Party, which does not and must not share leadership with other parties." (J.V. Stalin, "Interview with American Labor Delegation", Works, Vol. 10, p. 104)

The Maoists may object and say that Mao called for the "leading role of the proletariat and the Communist Party" within his multi-party democracy. But what, according to these so-called "Marxist" theoreticians, is a political party if not a "leader" of a definite class. And if such a leader of the bourgeois class shares power in the government along with the Communist Party what does this mean but sharing leadership? The phrase "leading role of the proletariat and its party" is only a phrase attached to an anti-Marxist policy, an afterthought after the fact, a slogan to fool the naive into thinking there is something "proletarian" in Mao Zedong's bourgeois democratic policy. Why else is it that in the original text of "On Coalition Government" the idea of "the leading role of the proletariat and the Communist Party" is not even mentioned once, while the doctored versions are peppered with this phrase including an entire additional paragraph on it? It is because Mao Zedong Thought and so-called "New Democracy", like social- democracy, stands for bourgeois democracy and not the Marxist-Leninist theory of proletarian democracy and the dictatorship of the proletariat.

CAPITALISM AND THE EXPLOITERS ARE PEACEFULLY MERGED INTO MAO'S "SOCIALISM'' - A LA BUKHARIN

As for the "socialism" of "New Democracy", here again, as already mentioned, Mao himself stressed that this regime is "different in principle" from a socialist state. And the "socialist future" which Mao charted after "several decades" of "New Democratic" development was to evolve peacefully out of this hybrid bourgeois democratic order. That is, just as in classic social-democracy, the realization of socialism will not require a socialist revolution, the resolute expropriation of the capitalists and all exploiters and the elimination of the exploiting class. According to Mao, none of these socialist tasks were necessary for the realization of socialism in China. Instead, capitalism and the exploiters were to be merged into the system of Mao's "socialism". This theory is fully concretized in Mao's notorious thesis that with the victory of the "New Democratic" revolution and its alleged transition to the socialist revolution, even then, the contradictions "between the exploited and the exploiting classes have a non-antagonistic aspect" and should be handled as "contradictions among the people" ("On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People") Mao's idea that "in the concrete conditions of China that this antagonistic class contradiction (between the working class and the bourgeoisie -- ed.) can, if properly handled, be transformed into a non-antagonistic one and be resolved by peaceful methods" (Ibid.) is nothing more or less than the idea of the dying out of the class struggle, as Mao put it, the idea of "harmonizing" or "adjusting" the class struggle; it is the idea of the peaceful growth of the capitalists into socialism. This theory was not first elaborated by Mao at all but by countless anti-Marxist "socialists" from Proudhon and the "bourgeois socialists" of the days of Marx and Engels to the chiefs of the Second International to the renegade Bukharin. In fact, J.V. Stalin's polemic against the revisionist theories of Bukharin is also a powerful condemnation of the true nature of the "socialism" of Mao Zedong Thought. The following is part of a speech of Stalin's against the "Right Deviation in the CPSU(B)":

"Capitalists in town and country, kulaks and concessionaires, growing into socialism --such is the absurdity Bukharin has arrived at.

"No, comrades, that is not the kind of 'socialism' we want. Let Bukharin keep it for himself.

"Until now, we Marxist-Leninists have been of the opinion that between the capitalists of town and country, on the one hand, and the working class, on the other hand, there is an irreconcilable antagonism of interests. That is what the Marxist theory of the class struggle rests on.

But now, according to Bukharin's theory of the capitalists' peaceful growth into socialism, all this is turned upside down, the irreconcilable antagonism of class interests between the exploiters and the exploited disappears, the exploiters grow into socialism... .

"One thing or the other: either there is an irreconcilable antagonism of interests between the capitalist class and the class of the workers who have come to power and have organized their dictatorship, or there is no such antagonism of interests, in which case only one thing remains -- namely, to proclaim the harmony of class interests.

"One thing or the other:

"either Marx's theory of the class struggle, or; the theory of the capitalists growing into socialism;

"either an irreconcilable antagonism of class interests or; the theory of harmony of class interests.

"We can understand 'socialists' of the type of Brentano or Sydney Webb preaching about socialism growing into capitalism and capitalism into socialism, for these 'socialists' are really anti-socialists, bourgeois liberals. But one cannot understand a man who wishes to be a Marxist, and who at the same time preaches the theory of the capitalist class growing into socialism".(Problems ofLeninism, p. 354-56, emphasis Stalin's)

Of course, Mao's theory too, that is Mao's thesis of the non-antagonistic nature of the contradiction between the working class and the bourgeoisie and his policy of uniting with the bourgeoisie in "building socialism", is not Marxist socialism at all but is really anti-socialism and bourgeois liberalism. Those Maoist birds who like to puff out their chests and chirp at Stalin for allegedly "denying the class struggle" are truly pathetic creatures as it is obvious that it is Mao and his followers, and not Stalin and the Marxist-Leninists, who have feathered a common revisionist nest with the likes of Bukharin.

THE STRUGGLE AGAINST MAO ZEDONG THOUGHT IS A NECESSARY PART OF THE STRUGGLE AGAINST MODERN REVISIONISM, SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY AND OPPORTUNISM OF ALL HUES

For these reasons, among many others, there is no question that there is not a trace of Marxism-Leninism to be found in Mao's theory of "new democracy". Furthermore, on a whole series of other cardinal questions of the revolution, Mao Zedong Thought has grossly revised the Marxist-Leninist principles. And on many of these questions, such as Mao's theory of the communist party as an arena of vying platforms, his idea of opportunism constituting a middle force to be united with, etc., etc., Mao Zedong Thought has simply borrowed wholesale from classical social-democracy. Like the other revisionists, Mao Zedong's theoretical energies were not devoted to the elaboration of Marxism-Leninism in the conditions of China as it is sometimes claimed, but to emasculating the Marxist-Leninist theory and adapting communism to social-democracy and a mishmash of other anti- Marxist-Leninist trends.

It is on this basis that Mao developed his revisionist idea of "two paths to power": the October road of Marx and Lenin for the advanced capitalist countries and the "Chinese road" of Mao Zedong for the peasant countries. Mao Zedong advocated the stereotype formula of the non-revolutionary West in contrast to the revolutionary East, and the non-revolutionary proletarians as opposed to the revolutionary peasants. Thus, accordingly, Mao created a completely schematic picture of the purely legal, parliamentary, reformist and peaceful development of the revolution in the capitalist countries and declared that such a social-democratic, Browderite strategy "has been proved correct by the October Revolution in Russia"! (Mao Tsetung, Selected Works, Vol. II, p. 220) And Mao counterposed this gross distortion of the road of the October Revolution to the "Chinese road" which Mao claimed to be "different", free of what he describes as the "task of the party of the proletariat in the capitalist countries to educate the workers and build up strength through a long period of legal struggle" (Ibid., p. 219). (For further analysis of Mao Zedong's social-democratic schematicism on this question, see the article "Mao Zedong Thought Cannot Dull the Brilliance of the Great October Socialist Revolution", The Workers' Advocate, October 15, 1979, p. 13)

Such a social-democratic conception of the proletarian revolutionary movement in the developed capitalist countries is, as is well known, one of the cornerstones of Mao's theory of "three worlds" which openly condemns the proletariat as a class without a revolutionary nature or capacity. Moreover, Mao has been elaborating these opportunist dogmas since the 1930's, which further demonstrates the affinity of Mao Zedong Thought and Browderism in those years. As well it demonstrates that so-called Mao Zedong Thought is not in the least antagonistic to the liberal-labor reformism of the "three worldist" modern day Browderites but in fact merges with it completely. This shows that the struggle against Mao Zedong Thought is a necessary part of the struggle against reformist, social-democratic and modern revisionist politics of all hues. The repudiation of Mao Zedong Thought is part and parcel of the struggle for the triumph of the Marxist-Leninist strategy and tactics and ideology in the revolutionary movement.

A Note on the Sources Used in the Text

In order to hide its opportunism and constant zigzags in line, the Chinese leadership has sought to place a veil of mystery over China. Theoretical and political literature, party history and even basic statistical and social-economic literature are in great disorder. The Chinese leadership prefers to operate through rumor, gossip and informal channels, to withhold information on the actual state of affairs, and to turn official statements into a vehicle for trite, stereotyped formulae that say next to nothing. As a result even the simplest questions are shrouded in a thick fog. This situation also prevails with respect to the writings and work of Mao Zedong.

The Chinese leadership acclaimed Mao as the greatest Marxist-Leninist of the era. Yet very few works of Mao written since 1949 have beenofficially published in Mao's lifetime. Mao inparticular has almost no official writings against modern Khrushchovite revisionism. It is no accident that the Red Book of "Quotations from Mao Tsetung", this alleged great anti-revisionist fighter, has no section on combatting revisionism. Instead of having his works published, Mao preferred to have the Chinese Communist Party and, if it were within his power, the whole world rhapsodize over six or seven word quotations torn out of context. Even the official first four volumes of Mao's Selected Works, which were published in Mao's lifetime and which only cover up to 1949, do not give an accurate picture of Mao's work.

The articles in these volumes have been heavily edited to obscure and prettify many of Mao's stands. The selection is also glaringly incomplete. This is not just because of the inevitable gaps caused by the harsh conditions of revolutionary struggle, but because, as the "Publication Note" to the first four volumes of the SelectedWorks states: "Some articles which have been widely circulated... were omitted in compliance * with the author's wishes." As a result, there is a major problem of sources in the study of Mao's . life and writings and the study of the Chinese revolution.

When the COUSML carried out its detailed study of Mao's work and of the course of the struggle against modern revisionism, the study that led to the COUSML's condemnation of Mao Zedong, it paid careful attention to the scientific use of source material. The study began by only using official Chinese sources for Mao's works and for information on the Chinese revolution. Only those works by Mao that were officially published during his lifetime were used. As well, other official Chinese sources were used, including documents from Party Congresses, what little literature did exist on social-economic statistics, and so forth. Mao's ideas were examined not just in his works,but also as they revealed themselves in the practice of the revolution. This study immediately showed the complete inadequacy of the Chinese literature. For example, the Chinese leadership brags about how its anti-Marxist theories about work in the countryside are better than the Marxist-Leninist theses pioneered by Lenin and Stalin. Yet such basic questions as who owns the land and the means of production in the Chinese countryside, the relative roles of the commune, production brigade and work teams, the actual production relations that prevail and so forth are left undiscussed in the Chinese literature. There is lots of fluff about this commune did so much better this year than the next and literature of a chitchat nature, but the basic scientific literature is lacking. The same thing applies to the basic party documents. The last national party congress which gave a detailed description of the line of the party was the Eighth Congress, which was held in two sessions in 1956 and 1958. The Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh Congresses are on most questions schematic at best and often completely silent. But the Eighth Congress was a thoroughly revisionist congress. It charted an utterly revisionist, opportunist course and took up many of the basic theses of Khrushchovite revisionism on both international and domestic questions. It is typical that, even at the height of the "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution", the Chinese leadership refused to condemn the revisionist line of this Congress and merely asserted that Liu Shaoqi has "smuggled in" this or that phrase into the presumably healthy Congress. This amounted to putting a band-aid on the problem or covering it up, rather than undertaking that radical surgery needed to cut out the revisionist corruption. The truth is that the Khrushchovite revisionist path of the Eighth Congress was not solely due to the ultra-revisionist class traitor Liu Shaoqi, but also resulted from the views and theories of Mao, who presided at this Congress.

From this study the COUSML reached its unanimous condemnation of Mao. This condemnation is outlined in the article "Mao Tsetung and Mao Tsetung Thought are Anti-Marxist-Leninist and Revisionist" in the March 29, 1979 issue of TheWorkers' Advocate and has also been reprinted in the pamphlet of the same name. But this study also led to the conclusion that the actual views of Mao are very carefully concealed and given a Marxist-Leninist gloss in his officially published writings. It showed that, with the proper care and critical attitude, a wide range of other sources can and should be used to get an accurate reflection of Mao's views. Indeed, Mao and the Chinese leadership made a habit of saying one thing in official statements, while letting the whole world know through other channels that it really held opposite views. For example, the Chinese for over two years avoided making any official statement on the Lin Biao affair through the party press, while simultaneously they broadcast to the whole world through bourgeois journalists, imperialist and social-imperialist agents and opportunist circles that Lin Biao was an ultra-leftist. They started a big campaign against ultra-leftism in order to pave the way for the development of the warmongering U.S.-China alliance. But while continuing this campaign against ultra-leftism, the Chinese did not fail to simultaneously denounce Lin Biao officially as an "ultra-rightist" at the Tenth National Party Congress. In this sense, sometimes the unofficial sources are the only places in which the Chinese really say what is on their mind. These unofficial sources must be used with great care. But it is the same with the official sources; they too can only be used with great care.

In the work for this article, therefore, a number of other sources were used besides the official sources. First of all, one source of importance is the original version of Mao's writings when they can be found. In this article, for example, we cite the original 1945 version of "On Coalition Government", the report by Mao to the Seventh National Party Congress. We used a 1945 English language edition published by the CPUSA, which had close relations with the CPC. We were also able to compare this edition with another 1945 English language edition from India, which agreed with it, except for the usual variations of different translations. The original 1945 edition sheds an interesting light on the heavily edited version contained in the Selected Works. Often certain of the apologists of Mao deny Mao's views against the hegemony of the proletariat by referring to certain phrases in his work, phrases that contradict the clear significance of the basic themes of his work. The 1945 edition of this speech shows that various stock phrases of Mao about the "leadership of the proletariat" and the "leadership of the communist party" are simply window' dressing added years later to the original speech. No such expressions occur in the 1945 original version. They were all added to the version in the Selected Works.

Another source for Mao's writings are certain unofficial collections of his works. The Chinese leadership themselves circulated or leaked unofficial copies of certain of Mao's works and extensively promoted them. Such collections as, say, the well-known ones by Stuart Schram seem to be reasonably reliable. Stuart Schram is a typical imperialist China-watcher in both political views and in motivation. However, he appears to have taken care to prepare a good text of Mao's writings, to have compared the various existing texts for the same speeches, to have evaluated relative reliabilities, and so forth. Tie articles in Schram's collections and certain others are fully consistent in both content and style with the other works of Mao Zedong. As well, Volume V of Mao's Selected Works is reliable. It was published a number of months after Mao's death (the "Publication Note" is dated March 1, 1977). Not only is it consistent b6th in content and tone with other works of Mao, but as well it includes some articles which have circulated previously in various "unofficial" versions during Mao's lifetime.

In such cases, Volume V and the other versions mutually corroborate each other. It should be noted that despite the hot debate on Mao's life and work of the last few years, not one discrepancy or falsification in Volume V (or in the serious unofficial collections) has been proven or even claimed. Those few defenders of Mao who wish to throw out the unofficial works have resorted to simply general expressions of scepticism -- for them to actually challenge any thesis would put them in contradiction with their allies, the other defenders of Mao, who enthusiastically uphold the very theses and expressions that are the most anti-Marxist and corrupt. Further evidence of the general authenticity of these works of Mao is provided by the fact that such fanatical partisans of Maoist orthodoxy (and of Mao's "three worlds" theory as allegedly distinct from Deng's "three worlds" strategy) as the leadership of the "RCP, USA" also accept Volume V of Mao's Selected Works and the collections by Schram and quote from them extensively. The "RCP,USA" leadership had direct contact with the Chinese leadership during Mao's lifetime and for some time after. Its widespread use of the unofficial sources is further confirmation that Mao and the Chinese leadership had no objection to these works.

A further source made use of in this article is interviews of Mao by certain bourgeois journalists or imperialist diplomatic agents. It should be noted that the Chinese leadership made great use of various journalists, CIA agents and U.S. State Department officials as their unofficial spokesmen. A prominent example of this is Edgar Snow. Edgar Snow was used by the Chinese leadership as a direct contact with FDR and U.S. ruling circles. When Mao and the Chinese leadership wished to slander Stalin and the Comintern (Third International) as early as in the 1930's, they simply relayed various of their slanders to Snow and used him as their mouthpeice, while officially pretending to be loyal to the international communist movement and Marxism-Leninism and while writing articles about their "greatest friendship" with Comrade Stalin. The accuracy of Snow's reports (that is, accuracy in reproducing the views of the Chinese leadership) is shown by the great warmth shown him by Mao. Right to the end of both Mao's and Snow's lives, they had a close friendship. It is no accident that Edgar Snow stood beside Mao on Tien An Men on China's National Day, October 1, 1970 and helped usher in the U.S.-China alliance.

In this article we made use in particular of the published reports of the U.S. diplomatic agent John Service, a prominent member of the "pro- Mao" lobby at the end of World War II. As was the case with Snow, the Chinese leadership had friendship towards Service and various other diplomatic and military agents of U.S. imperialism. Service's reports on his conversations with Mao and other Chinese leaders have never been repudiated by the Chinese leadership. On the contrary, as is pointed out in the text of this article, these works by Service have been praised by the apologists of Chinese revisionism, such as Han Suyin. Han Suyin, although a hack writer, is a very highly "respected" member of the international circles of apologists of Chinese revisionism. She spent years with the Chinese and in her works reproduces the views of the Chinese leadership. Her praise of Service's work, up to the point of showing photographs of Mao and Zhou Enlai smiling together with Service, Barrett and other agents of U.S. imperialism, is further evidence of the reliability of Service's work. Despite the great variety of gossips and rumors spread by the various factions in the Chinese leadership, there is no work which we have seen from the Chinese revisionist circles that casts doubt on or repudiates the reports of the key journalists and travelling imperialists favored by the Chinese.

Thus in this article (and in our other work on Mao Zedong Thought), the COUSML has made a scientific use of source material and restricted itself to the use of the most reliable sources, whether official or unofficial. The necessity to reach into the cesspool of unofficial and imperialist sources has been entirely created by the anti- Marxist practices of Mao and the Chinese leadership. Indeed, it should be again stressed that careful research shows that it is mainly to such sources that the Chinese leadership really opens its heart.

Today some of the adherents of the revisionist and anti-Marxist theses of Mao Zedong are attempting to create a big stink by groundless and frivolous arguments on the question of sources. In order to deny Mao's opportunism, some of them scream that to use Volume V of the SelectedWorks means that one supports Hua Guofeng or even Deng Xiaoping, that only the official works of Mao published during his lifetime should be used, that anyone who uses an unofficial source is probably an imperialist or revisionist, and so on and so forth. It is not too hard to see the hypocrisy of this diversionary maneuver. These same fanatical adherents of the "official" works, these same people who smear the Marxist-Leninists for using Volume V as one of the sources of Mao's writings, these allegedly super-principled worthies, are actually quite happy to climb into bed with other defenders of Mao who cheerfully quote from Volume V, from Stuart Schram's collections, etc. We have seen with our own eyes such "purists" denounce the glorious work of Comrade Enver Hoxha and the Party of Labor of Albania in fighting Chinese revisionism on the pretext that use is made of Volume V in order to illustrate Mao's views, while simultaneously these high priests of authenticity publicly embrace Bob Avakian and the anti-communist dregs of the leadership of the "RCP,USA" who themselves enthusiastically quote not only from Volume V and the collections by Stuart Schram, but indeed also from sources which we ourselves would not touch with a ten-foot pole, including from Titoite sources and from imperialist sources that they rely on outside the narrow range for which such sources can be used. It is thus clear that behind all the brouhaha, these alleged partisans of historical accuracy are not really against Volume V; they are only against those who quote Volume V and the unofficial sources in order to denounce Mao, while they live quite happily in wedded bliss with those who quote the same documents, but in order to praise Mao. But such a fuss is not only hypocrisy, it is unscientific as well. In the COUSML's study of Mao, the Chinese revolution, and the course of the struggle against Khrushchovite revisionism, ten times more care was manifested in the use of source material than is shown by any of the defenders of Mao's revisionism. It was this study that verified to us how and to what extent the unofficial sources could be used. While all the defenders of Mao's revision- ism, including those who hypocritically raise a fuss on the issue of sources, rely on a totally different method: complete arbitrariness. They prefer to pick up this or that phrase, arbitrarily speculate on how this or that gem of Maoism could be interpreted rather than examine its actual meaning, arbitrarily attribute this or that act to Mao and this or that act to his opponents, and so forth. Whenever some saying or deed of Mao's embarrasses them, they explain it away with dozens of conflicting artificial constructions taken from thin air. While their friends and fellow defenders of Chinese revisionism will often wax enthusiastic about Mao's genius concerning the very same sayings or deeds of Mao. It is only the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists who have undertaken a serious and scientific examination of the life and work of Mao, the course of the Chinese revolution, and of the international struggle against Khrushchovite revisionism. As always, Marxism-Leninism remains the most scientific and demanding theory, the only theory fit to guide the struggle of the proletariat.

[Back to Top]

"The Marxist-Leninist Party Is Our Leader"

(Song by comrades of the COUSML written during campaign to found the Marxist-Leninist Party)

[Sheet music.]

The Marxist-Leninist Party

Is our leader, our voice.

Hail the founding of the Party!

Comrade workers, we rejoice

For the Party that can guide us

To end capitalist misery.

Build the Marxist-Leninist Party.

The Republicans and Democrats

Act just the same.

Promise paradise each election

But the problems still remain.

Down with these liars,

Lackeys of the bourgeoisie.

Build the Marxist-Leninist Party.

It's a Party of a new type,

Built in the working class.

To lead the socialist revolution

Is our Party's sacred task.

We build disciplined organization

In the mills and factories.

Build the Marxist-Leninist Party.

We are guided by the science

Of proletarian revolution --

Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin,

Applied for the solution

Of the tasks that we face

To achieve our destiny.

Build the Marxist-Leninist Party.

The Party we rebuild

Was founded sixty years ago,

Took up the revolution

But traitors sold its soul.

They became "left-wing" Democrats,

But we smashed their treachery.

Build the Marxist-Leninist Party.

The opportunist big shots

Opposed the Party from the start.

Now they're social-chauvinists,

It's World War III they want.

Each defeat they suffer

Is our victory.

Build the Marxist-Leninist Party.

To advance the revolution,

For our struggle to come of age,

The workers need their own politics,

Come out on the political stage.

In order to wage this struggle

Our battle cry must be

Build the Marxist-Leninist Party!

[Back to Top]

THE SOCIAL-DEMOCRATS ARE STRIKEBREAKERS

The social-democrats find their greatest enemy in the revolutionary initiative and struggle of the masses. They are opposed to the revolutionary movement and to the revolutionary methods of struggle. This is why the social-democrats make a fetish out of denouncing the genuine revolutionaries as alleged "ultra-leftists", "adventurists" and "anarchists". Thus it should come as no surprise that the social-democrats of the MLOC/"CPUSA(M-L)" regard their mission as the holy crusade against "ultra-leftism" and that they have taken a consistent stand against the development of the revolutionary struggle of the masses.

This stand of the social-democrats leads them to play the role of strikebreakers for the bourgeoisie. The "CPUSA(M-L)" has taken stands against the wildcat struggles of the workers' movement. It has supported the strikebreaking Labor Law Reform Act of the Carter administration. It has opposed the workers striking Chrysler out of tender solicitude for the fate of Chrysler. These social-democrats write big words about insurrection in the future, about the huge red trade unions they will organize in the future and the big strikes they will lead, but for the present, they say that the strength of the masses is too small, the enemy too powerful, and any revolutionary struggle at all is senseless adventurism. They shout big words about fighting the Klan, they shout "death to fascism" and "fascists have no rights", but in any particular struggle they, advocate capitulation on the grounds that fighting is adventurous and "now is not the time to take on the police". Apparently their slogans about denying rights to the fascists are addressed not to the masses but to the police, who are to suppress the right of the very fascist gangs that are police-organized. Indeed, they have even tried to form coalitions whose basis of unity is to oppose any struggle that might lead to a clash with the forces of the state.

Lenin flayed the hypocrisy of the social-democrats. He pointed out:

"... the extreme hypocrisy of the parties of the Berne International is to be seen in their typical recognition of revolution in words while they flaunt before the workers high-sounding phrases about recognizing revolution but as far as deeds are concerned go no farther than adopting a purely reformist attitude to those beginnings, elements, manifestations of the growth of revolution in all mass actions which break bourgeois laws and go beyond the bounds of all legality, as for example, mass strikes, street demonstrations, soldiers' protests, meetings among the troops, leaflet distribution in barracks, camps, etc.

"If you ask any hero of the Berne International whether his party does such systematic work, he will answer you with evasive phrases to conceal that such work is not being done -- his party lacks the organizations and the machinery for doing it, is incapable of doing it -- or with declamatory speeches against 'putschism' (pyrotechnics), 'anarchism', etc. And it is that which constitutes the betrayal of the working class by the Berne International, its actual desertion to the camp of the bourgeoisie. " ("The Tasks of the Third International", Collected Works, Vol. 29, p. 506)

Now let us go into a few concrete examples of the extreme hypocrisy of the social-democrats of the "CPUSA(M-L)". Let us see how they fight against the revolutionary spirit and go as far as to engage in strikebreaking against the workers' movement. We shall see how they are opposed to any "mass actions which break bourgeois laws and go beyond the bounds of all legality". Indeed they even break out in a sweat at the thought of a wildcat. Instead they stand for strengthening the bureaucratic apparatus that stifles the workers and for dressing up social-democratic strikebreaking in Marxist-Leninist colors.

1. The social-democrats of the "CPUSA(M-L)" are so eager to crush the fighting spirit of the proletariat that they denounced the coal miners' wildcat strike movement of 1977. According to the social-democrats, the wildcat strikes allegedly hurt the preparation of the miners for the national coal contract struggle. The "CPUSA (M-L)" has repeated this denunciation several times, using the pretext of criticizing the "RCP, USA". For example, in the following passage the social-democrats claim that the wildcats have contributed to the alleged anti-communism that the "CPUSA(M-L)" is trying to find among the miners:

"The Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP) also had a hand in misleading the working class in the strike, and has contributed to anti-communism among the miners. The RCP glorified the use of strikes in its work in the Right to Strike Committees.... In the summer before the strike, they madly rushed around helping to spread wildcats through roving pickets. It apparently never crossed the minds of the RCP leadership that at times the capitalists would as soon have the miners wildcat, weakening the workers' economic strength and making it difficult to hold out in crucial battles." ("Summing Up the Coal Strike: The Lessons to Be Learned", Class AgainstClass, No. 11, August 1978, p. 13)

The rebellious spirit of the coal miners was a great threat to the "CPUSA(M-L)". No one with an ounce of proletarian class sentiment could fail to be inspired by the coal miners' movement and by their ingenious and daring methods. But for the "CPUSA(M-L)", the wildcat strikes are an obstacle to be stifled.

It should be noted that the "CPUSA(M-L)" is glorifying the "RCP, USA" when it attributes to them enthusiastic support for the wildcat strikes. In fact, in the summer 1977, the "RCP" cadre in the Right to Strike Committees were putting forward the view that it was necessary to judge whether or not to have the wildcat strikes, that maybe the wildcat strikes might hurt the national contract struggle, and so forth. At one point, they would have this discussed at meetings and not put forward a view themselves. But the "RCP" left to the "CPUSA(M-L)" the "honor" of denouncing the wildcat movement when the workers had themselves determined to set out upon this path.

2. The "CPUSA(M-L)" went further in scabbing on the coal miners' movement. They put forward as one of the demands in their program for the coal miners the notorious "limited right to strike" scheme of notorious scab and labor traitor, the social-democrat Arnold Miller, president at that time of the United Mine Workers. First we will give this scheme in the "CPUSA(M-L)" formulation. Their demand was: "Right to strike -- Miners must have the right to strike as a means of resolving grievances, both national and local. The miners must also have the right to go out on sympathy strikes in support of other workers. A voteby the majority would determine whether or not theminers would go out." (Unite!, Feb. 1, 1978, p. 3, the latter underlining is ours). Arnold Miller, in an interview in the Louisville Courier-Journal, put forward the same program as a way to end strikes. He was asked by the capitalist press: "How do you propose to end the wildcat strikes that have plagued the industry and cut production in the last two years?" His answer was: "By establishing majority rule at the local level. This can be accomplished by the limited right to strike, based on the contract and 51% of the vote affirmative. And the same procedure can be used by neighboring locals (sympathy strike -- ed.) if they want to support neighboring locals." (Quoted in The Workers' Advocate, Dec. 20, 1977, p. 18)

3. Thus the left-phrasemongering "CPUSA(M-L)" social-democrats proved to be the "Marxist-Leninist" cover for the right-wing social-democrat Arnold Miller, the notorious scab and strikebreaker of the coal miners' strike. The so-called "majority vote" is a fraud. It means that the workers should be completely hemmed in by the rules and regulations of the labor bureaucracy.

The workers will be lucky if their votes are even counted in the voting, while voting meetings held at the locals will be subject to all the tricks of the labor bureaucrats. As well, the scheduling of the voting will be used to allow a few days for things to cool down. Thus with this voting scheme it is in practice virtually impossible to spread sympathy strikes. So all the "CPUSA(M- L)" big words about "right to strike" including "sympathy strikes" come down to is the strikebreaking scheme of Arnold Miller.

4. Not content to rely on the "limited right to strike" scheme of Arnold Miller as sufficient to suppress the coal miners' movement, the "CPUSA(M-L)" went further and supported the fascist anti-labor legislation of the Carter administration, namely, the Labor Law Reform Act.

The Labor Law Reform Act was a bill to strengthen the fascist Taft-Hartley Act, to smash strikes, further ban wildcat strikes and roving pickets, legalize labor spies and contained provisions such as those against roving pickets, that were especially designed to suppress the coal miners' movement. The Workers' Advocate thoroughly denounced this act in its issues of December 20, 1977, January 9, 1978, and in later issues. The issue of January 9, 1978 had an article entitled "Actual Provisions of the 'Labor Reform Act'" that went through the bill section by section analyzing the act so that anyone could verify our assertions about the bill's contents. As well, we reproduced quotations from the Congressional debate, including remarks of the bill's sponsors, that showed the motivation behind the act. All this literature was sent to the MLOC months before the MLOC wrote on this bill. Therefore the MLOC supported this bill in full knowledge of its fascist provisions.

The MLOC's support for this bill is contained in the article "Labor Law Reform, Lots of Smoke but Little Fire" in the June 15, 1978 issue of Unite! The article stated "We support the Labor Law Reform bill, because it would 'cramp the style' of the capitalists somewhat, and it could to some extent facilitate organizing efforts."

Thus the MLOC propagated all the lies of the bureaucrats about this bill. Their only claim was that it was too weak. According to the article,

"In short, all the proposed changes are positive but slight." As we have seen above, the MLOC has no love for roving pickets and wildcat strikes, so increasing the penalties for them and entangling the workers still further in the National Labor Relations Board and the courts is presumably, for the MLOC, a "positive but slight" change. The MLOC was so anxious to glorify the capitalist system of fascist laws, that they repeat the lies of the bureaucrats that this act was "simply an amendment to the elections portion of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935" -- and "forget" to note that the NLRA of 1935 no longer exists, that the NLRA now is legal shorthand for Title 1 of the fascist Taft-Hartley Act. Following meekly behind the labor bureaucrats, the article does not denounce the whole system of fascist labor legislation installed by the Taft-Hartley Act, but restricts itself to the Meanyite position of only opposing the so-called "right-to- work" laws, that is, to only opposing section 14B of the Taft-Hartley Act, while "overlooking" the rest of the act, which bans mass picketing, outlaws communists in the trade unions, etc.

The MLOC expressed its attitude in a cartoon, which we reproduce. According to this cartoon, the top labor traitors like Meany are coaches fighting on the side of the workers, and they should be criticized for only using weak, crippled players like the Labor Law Reform to fight for the interests of the workers instead of also using stronger weapons. Only a hardened social-democrat could conceive of the top labor traitors as a force working in the interest of the workers, and not on the "team" opposed to the workers' movement.

5. The "CPUSA(M-L)" has also displayed its opposition to the workers' movement in the auto contract struggle of 1979. The August 15, 1979 issue of Unite! has a special supplement produced by the "CPUSA(M-L)'s" "Trade Union Action League". This paper supports the line of the social-democratic hacks of the UAW of breaking up the auto workers' struggle. It says that if the impossible were true, namely that "if the auto workers were united behind the TUAL", then the TUAL might be brave and bold and "we might(!) call for striking all of the Big 3 at once." But for the present, "When workers are in a weak position such as this, we call for striking one corporation as a target." The TUAL goes on to conclude that GM is far too strong to be struck. Besides a strike would deplete the UAW's treasury. "Choosing GM will deplete the UAW 'war chest' and demoralize the workers." On the other hand, "Chrysler is out of the question at the moment due to its instability. A strike might break the company and put 101,000 workers on the street." Clearly the right-wing social-democrat Fraser and the "Marxist-Leninist" social- democrat Weisberg share a touching concern for the welfare of Chrysler. Naturally, just as with the capitalist politicians and Fraser himself, this tender loving care for Chrysler is disguised with a concerned pulling of heartstrings about the workers. But how the workers are to defend themselves against the Chrysler moneybags and the huge auto magnates while they are hamstrung with concern for Chrysler and fear for the size of the UAW's bank vaults, that is another question. From all this, you can see how purely verbal and hypocritical the "CPUSA(M-L)" is with its lead article on the front page. It "militantly" declares "No Government Aid to Chrysler! Make the Monopolies Pay". It declares its opposition to the workers bearing the burden. But how the workers are to accomplish carrying out these slogans while they are forbidden to even think of striking Chrysler, well, that is another question.

It turns out that underneath all the rhetoric, the main difference between Weisberg and Fraser was that the TUAL was for choosing Ford as the strike target, while Fraser chose GM. Indeed, Fraser was thus even more militant in words than Weisberg, or, rather, we can see that on this issue Weisberg proved to be even to the right of Fraser. For Fraser didn't dare proclaim to the workers the impossibility of striking the giant GM, while Weisberg did.

(For that matter, Weisberg proved to the right of Arnold Miller also. Because of the mass indignation at the Labor Law Reform Act and the exposure of its contents, the UMW bureaucrats were forced to back down temporarily on this bill and to give a weak verbal opposition to it for a short period. While the "CPUSA(M-L)" stuck to its principles and supported this bit of Carter's fascist program against the workers' movement.)

6. Just in case the workers wouldn't abide by the pessimism and defeatism of the TUAL, the TUAL put forth a program with additional demands to shackle them.

Demand 7 of the TUAL for the auto workers was for "Union Representation". This demand was for the strengthening of the labor bureaucracy by further increasing its numbers. This demand is presented as a demand in opposition to the UAW. But the social-democratic hacks are quite willing to increase the bureaucracy. In fact, the Ford contract included a certain increase in the bureaucracy. Wherever the workers are threatening to get "out of control", the UAW wishes to strengthen the power of the bureaucracy against them. With this demand the TUAL gives up even the pretext of working for the formation of proletarian trade unions and instead comes up openly for the reactionary trade unions.

As well, the "CPUSA(M-L)" demanded the same "limited right to strike" scheme as they had demanded earlier in the case of the mine workers. Demand 8 is "Right to strike. We must have the right to strike over unsettled grievances and political questions like the gas crisis or working on parts which go to fascist countries like Azania.

The workers should have the right to strike over anything that the majority votes on...." (emphasis added). In the UAW, this has a hollow ring indeed. The workers have the "right to strike" already over the national contract. The overwhelming majority of the workers opposed the national contract. Yet the UAW bureaucracy announced the voting results as two or three,to one in favor of Fraser's sellout contract. And this is the procedure that the "CPUSA(M-L)" recommends for all issues. Why they picture a utopia of the UAW bureaucracy helping the workers strike over the "gas crisis" or "working on parts which go to fascist countries like Azania". What militancy. What recognition of the revolution in words. Only it seems that in practice these rights are only to be allowed insofar as the bureaucracy allows. And as for those militants that today dare to organize wildcat strikes, heat walkouts and other protests without a single vote to ascertain the majority will -- why they should be denounced as adventurists, anti-democratic elements, and so forth. In practice, the "CPUSA (M-L)" style of "right to strike" means to strengthen the laws suppressing the mass struggle that is waged outside the bureaucratic apparatus that administers this so-called "right to strike". Why these militants should have relied on the "right to strike" ! And if the bureaucrats miscount the votes in the voting to exercise the "right to strike", any good social-democrat has the answer. Take it to the courts, enforce your rights! As Unite! explained: "There are times when we can and must use the court system to force it to uphold laws which objectively improve the conditions of the working class in their struggle for socialism -- to order desegregation, to uphold women's rights, and the right to organize, for example. This is the essence of the strugglefor democratic rights under capitalism." (""Defend Bennie Lenard! All Out for October 11th!", Unite! , October 1977, p. 7, col. 2, emphasis added) What abject legalism and touching faith in the Browderite fairytale of "American democracy".

7. It is notable that for all the talk of the TUAL about the "right to strike" over the "gas crisis" or on "working on parts which go to fascist countries like Azania", they are silent on the burning question of the workers fighting against Carter's wage controls. They are opposed to having the auto workers consciously take the banner of defying the wage controls and striking a blow for the whole working class. The TUAL barely manages to mention the wage controls twice in this four- page tabloid on the contract struggle. And one of the times the TUAL brings up the wage controls in order to prettify Fraser and the UAW bureaucracy. According to the TUAL, the UAW "outwardly opposed" the 7% wage guidelines, whereas in fact Fraser has tried every dodge in the book to support Carter's wage-cutting program. By ignoring the issue of the wage controls, the "CPUSA(M-L)" was working hand in hand with the social-democrat strikebreaker Fraser, who insisted that the wage controls were not an issue in order to prevent a big upsurge against the wage controls, to avoid embarrassing the "Democratic" President Carter, and to generally sabotage the workers' movement.

8. The big cry of the social-democratic scabs of the "CPUSA(M-L)" against the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists is that the Marxist-Leninists allegedly are against the work in the reactionary trade unions and do not engage in economic work and so forth. There is no difference whatsoever in substance between these hysterical shrieks of the social-democrats trying to pose as "Marxist-Leninists" and the wild shrieks of their right- wing social-democratic brothers in the labor bureaucracy, who are fond of justifying every sellout by denouncing the "small handful of dissidents" who are allegedly "anti-union" and trying to "wreck the union". The social-democrats unite in the cry "anti-union". And indeed the open "three worlders" and directers of the "main blow against the Soviet social-imperialists" themselves join in this chorus. They pontificated over and over again about the necessity for work in the reactionary trade unions as if they had found a new world. The purpose of their vulgarization and distortion of the Leninist theses can be seen in their taking their places in the labor bureaucracy.

No, social-democratic scabs; the difference between the Marxist-Leninists and the social- democrats is not over the issue of whether to utilize the trade union forms. The difference is that you are scabs and strikebreakers, while the Marxist-Leninists are the organizers of the revolutionary movement. The difference is that the Marxist-Leninists work to spread the party spirit among the workers, while you are a slave to liberal-labor politics. As to the work inside the reactionary trade unions, the Marxist-Leninists know very well how to give the orientation for this work and how to develop it as one front of the party's work. The COUSML carries out work to mobilize and organize the masses of workers, work to organize their independent struggle that breaks through the stifling fascist rules and regulations of the bourgeoisie and the labor bureaucrats. The COUSML makes use of struggle both inside and outside the reactionary trade union apparatus. We utilize the struggle inside the reactionary trade unions as a subsidiary form of struggle to be waged in coordination with and to serve the mass struggle against the bourgeoisie and the labor traitors. The struggle inside the the reactionary trade union apparatus is designed to prevent the labor bureaucrats from having even a single secure base area to attack the workers from, and it is also designed to draw even backward sections of the workers who place trust in this apparatus and to help them to break their illusions through their own practical experience -- but this struggle is not designed to create illusions in the trade union apparatus and the government bureaucracy; it is not designed to "move the bureaucrats to the left" or to pretend that the reactionary trade union apparatus will be miraculously turned into the genuine proletarian trade unions. We use the struggle whether inside or outside the trade union apparatus to push forward the building of the party and the spread of the party spirit among the workers and to build towards the development of revolutionary mass organizations. True, we don't brag every time we engage in this or that union election, unlike you who shout to the high heavens about every disco fund-raiser you participate in in order to hide your lack of any practical activity. But all the same, the work is going forward. All the same, the party is being built right in the midst of the mass struggle and the party activists are gaining more and more experience in leading and mobilizing the masses, in learning how to evoke a revolutionary mood among the masses.

Whereas you social-democratic scabs make it your chief preoccupation to smash the independent movement of the working masses. You oppose the decisive task of building the party and spreading the party spirit by pontificating on the trade unions, and you oppose the actual motion of the masses by your social-democratic strikebreaking. You denounce wildcat strikes as adventurist on the pretext that there are no strike funds or on any of a thousand other pretexts.

You are so bureaucratized that you cannot even imagine life without the National Labor Relations Board. All you can think of is union funds, labor lawyers and the proper rules and regulations.

And you participate enthusiastically in strengthening the stifling rules and regulations and in supporting the fascization that goes on under the cover of "liberal democracy" and social-democracy.

The COUSML takes it as one of its tasks to defend the communist and workers' movement from social-democratic infiltration. A necessary part of the workers' movement is the unyielding struggle against the social-democratic strikebreaking.

[Cartoon: The social-democrats find themselves on the same team with the labor bureaucrats. The above cartoon from the social-democrats of the "CPUSA(M-L)" shows their support for Carter's fascist Labor Law Reform Act.]

[Back to Top]

On Barry Weisberg's MLOC/"CPUSA(ML)"

Against Social-Democratic Infiltration of the Marxist-Leninist Movement

Part 3

In this issue of The Workers' Advocate we are reprinting a document which has come into our possession. This document is entitled "Statement of the Central Committee, Communist Party U. S. A./Marxist-Leninist on the state-inspired actions of the Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninists -- July 1, 1979". This is the response to our scientific study entitled "Against Social-Democratic Infiltration of the Marxist-Leninist Movement, A study of the origin, history and present role of the social-democrat Barry Weisberg and his MLOC/"CPUSA(M-L)".

We published our study in the pages of The Workers' Advocate last March and reprinted it in pamphlet form in May. This study showed with irrefutable facts and arguments how Barry Weisberg's MLOC/"CPUSA(M-L)" represents an agency of social-democracy attempting to smuggle itself into the Marxist-Leninist movement from the outside. The MLOC fell completely silent in the face of our systematic exposure of their true nature, at least silent in public. Then we became aware of the fact that MLOC was secretly distributing this document of contemptible slanderous and vile abuse against the COUSML. Thus, in the August 15 issue of The Workers' Advocate we issued a public challenge to the Central Committee of the MLOC/"CPUSA(M-L)".

Our challenge reads as follows:

"Since Part One of this article was published, and as of the August 1 issue of Unite!, there has been no public reply from the 'CPUSA(M-L)'. None of our facts have been contested. This is not surprising. Our article was based on painstaking study, including examination of the writing of Mr. Weisberg and the public documents and publications of the MLOC/'CPUSA(M-L)' and the Institute for Policy Studies. Our study has value not only as a polemic against the 'CPUSA(M-L)', but as an open call for struggle against social- democracy and as a reference work for the study of the history of the revolutionary movement in the U.S. We showed with convincing proof that Mr. Weisberg was trained in social-democracy and anti-communism at the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS). The IPS is a social-democratic 'think tank', funded by the big bourgeoisie and staffed by intellectuals who float in and out of appointed posts in the federal government. Weisberg's mentor at IPS was Marcus Raskin, a former member of the National Security Council under President Kennedy. Weisberg himself went on to be a co-founder of a regional offshoot of the IPS, the (San Francisco) Bay Area Institute of Policy Studies. The Bay Area Institute specialized in Asia in general and in China in particular and included early advocates of the U.S.-China alliance. From that time to the present, he has preserved his social-democratic politics while adapting his phraseology to the growing prestige of Marxism-Leninism among the advanced section of the revolutionary activists. Today the politics of the MLOC/'CPUSA(M-L)' are still in essence those of the IPS, but covered over with 'Marxist'- sounding phrasemongering.

"We were proud to issue our article openly, before the whole world, so that everyone could see and, if they wished, attempt to challenge it. When we published it, with the very first mailing we sent copies to the 'CPUSA(M-L)' itself, as we also do with all polemical material directed against them.

"On the other hand, the 'CPUSA(M-L)' has been reduced to public silence. Silent in the press, it has run into a frenzy, spreading rumors and slanders against the COUSML and against our article. A few days ago, we learned that the Central Committee of the 'CPUSA(M-L)' had apparently issued a private statement on July 1 attacking our article. This statement contained slanderous, contemptible and utterly unsupported allegations. Thus it is quite natural that the "CPUSA(M-L)" sees fit to circulate such things only in the dark of night, behind the back of informed public opinion.

"We issue an open challenge to the Central Committee of the 'CPUSA(M-L)'. If you have any reply to our exposure of your social-democratic nature, publish it openly before the whole world.

If you don't dare to do so, then this is yet further proof that you are nothing but a bunch of anti-communist social-democrats, slanderers and contemptible adventurers, insects who come out only in the dark and who flee from the light of day."

Now it is December, four months later, and the MLOC continues to refuse to make any public reply in the face of our challenge. Despite MLOC's lying claim in their document that it had, among other things, the purpose of "alarm(ing) the working class and progressive forces of the U.S. as to the counter-revolutionary nature of the COUSML", this document has not been made available to the public. We were not even sent a copy to allow us to reply to their contemptible charges. Thus, while the MLOC accuses ourselves of using the "means and methods of operation of police agents and provocateurs" it is obvious to any objective observer that it is the COUSML which has stated its case openly and has given the MLOC every opportunity to contest our position. On the other hand, it is clear that it is the MLOC which is using the methods and schemes of double-dealers. It is they who are operating in the dark sewers of filthy intrigue.

It is the "pure lillies" of the MLOC who, in the course of a sharp political conflict, have resorted to the criminal practice of circulating the filthiest lies hither and thither, in back rooms and behind the backs of their political opponents. Therefore we are reproducing the complete text of the MLOC's July 1 Statement for the scrutiny of public opinion. We urge our readers to seriously examine the statement and to carefully read our study "Against Social-Democratic Infiltration of the Marxist-Leninist Movement". It is quite obvious that the only reason why the MLOC has had to resort to such backhanded methods is because their reply cannot stand the light of day and is itself a powerful confirmation of the precise and well-documented analysis we have presented concerning the history, development and the present role of Barry Weisberg's MLOC.

The Statement of the MLOC/"CPUSA(M-L" Central Committee levels the most serious and grave charges against the COUSML. The declared purpose of this statement is to inform the world that "the COUSML is not merely another opportunist organization" in that "The COUSML has passed in recent months from opportunism over into the direct activity of police agents and provocateurs." And according to the MLOC statement, the COUSML "acts in the direct service of state monopoly capitalism". Furthermore, these contemptible social-democratic liars don't even attempt to back up these vicious slanders with a single shred of evidence. It is clear that they have simply resorted to mad ravings to save themselves from ruin. But the MLOC is not the first opportunist group to grasp at these disgusting methods of the most vicious and unsubstantiated slanders. For many years we have witnessed the neo-revisionist followers of Chinese revisionism, the lackeys of the U.S. - China imperialist alliance, resort to the charge that "the COUSML is CIA". And when asked for facts, for confirming evidence, these revisionist jackals would throw their hands in the air and declare "we heard it from the Chinese"! And it must not be overlooked that Barry Weisberg was a co-founder of the Bay Area Institute of Policy Studies which was an agency of this same U.S.-China alliance. Barry Weisberg's social-democratic sect is still parroting the lies and slanders circulated by the Chinese revisionists.

Nevertheless, the totally raving nature of this statement tells a great deal. It is, in fact, a full and complete declaration of confirmation on the part of the Central Committee of the MLOC/ "CPUSA(M-L)" of everything we have said about the history, development and present role of that organization. The Statement does not contest, or even attempt to contest, a single charge of our study. To the contrary, it only confirms our study to the letter. The MLOC/"CPUSA(M- L)" has been exposed for what it is, a social- democratic agency for the infiltration of the Marxist-Leninist movement. And it has taken to desperate means to save its skin.

In our study and exposure of Barry Weisberg's MLOC we painstakingly demonstrated with facts and readily available documentation how the leader of this organization was trained and nurtured as a social-democratic, anti-communist publicist at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, D.C. We demonstrated how his mentors, fellows and associates at IPS go in and out of top levels of the executive branch of the government and many come directly out of the intelligence community. (IPS co-founder, Richard Barnet, was a State Department and a Defense Department advisor under Kennedy. Barry Weisberg's personal mentor, IPS co-founder Marcus Raskin was on Kennedy's National Security Council. IPS Council member, Mitchell Rogovin, left his position at IPS in 1974 to become the Special Counsel to the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency in 1975.) We elaborated how the big bourgeoisie funds and directs the IPS as a social-democratic agency for the infiltration and liquidation of the revolutionary movements. We researched the thoroughly anti-Marxist-Leninist, counterrevolutionary writings of Mr. Weisberg to find that, in fact, he had been well trained in his work. We documented the work of the Bay Area Institute for Policy Studies -- a social-democratic and imperialist institute of which Barry Weisberg was the co-founder. And we outlined the course which this professional social-democratic adventurer followed to smuggle himself into the Marxist-Leninist movement.

But the MLOC Statement does not contain a single word, not one word or refutation of these facts. They dare not and cannot -- because they are undeniable, because they are the truth which tears the mask off this miserable social-democratic sect. We stand by every allegation made in our study. And we repeat our open challenge to the Central Committee of the MLOC/"CPUSA (M-L)". If you have any reply to our exposure of your efforts at social-democratic infiltration of the Marxist-Leninist movement, then publish it openly before public opinion. The fact that you lack the courage to do so is yet further proof that you are nothing but a bunch of anti-communist social-democrats. Circulating criminal abuse and completely unsubstantiated lies in back alleys against others cannot save you either but only further condemn you as contemptible slanderers and masters of intrigue.

THE MLOC'S STATEMENT DOES NOT CONTEST A SINGLE WORD OF OUR CHARGES AGAINST THEM, BUT CONFIRMS OUR CHARGES TO THE LETTER

The MLOC's statement tries to duck our charges with the pathetic plea that COUSML "concocts and distorts several years of Comrade Weisberg's life". But just how have we "concocted and distorted" ? Where? And in what way? The Statement says nothing. There is not a word of explanation of Weisberg's several years at the Institute for Policy Studies. The MLOC avoids the question of the IPS like a thief avoids the scene of his crime. The Statement continues with an even more obvious dodge, that our account "is selected to omit any mention $f more than a decade of revolutionary activity in which Comrade Weisberg, beginning in the late 1950's, fought actively against discrimination in housing," etc. With this oh so clever ruse the MLOC has let the whole cat out of the bag. Instead of refuting our charges of where Weisberg comes from, they have confessed to them by trying to claim that we have distorted the truth by omission -- that is to say "granted Weisberg was a trained anticommunist publicist at IPS, etc., etc., but you must not select only these things and omit his revolutionary activity"! Of course, these claims of so-called "revolutionary activity" are not substantiated either and are at best dubious. For example, the Statement claims that Weisberg "actively mobilized opposition to Zionism" while we can read in black and white in Weisberg's books that he considered the Israeli kibbutzim a model of socialism! But this is not the point and we have never claimed that Weisberg did not participate in political activity. We have only claimed that he is a trained, professional social-democrat who has fought with all his energy against Marxism-Leninism and for the social-democratic liquidation of the revolutionary movement. As for Barry Weisberg's alleged earlier political activity, that is neither here nor there, particularly as the Statement carefully omits any characterization of the political content of this political activity. For example, the IPS itself took part in all the political movements that the Statement lists. Obviously, this hardly proves the revolutionary credentials of the IPS. To the contrary, it only proves that the IPS was active in subverting the mass movement and attempting to liquidate its revolutionary character.

The Statement also asserts that Weisberg publicly refuted the anti-communist book Beyond Repair, which he authored. That too is neither here nor there. We never asserted that Weisberg still upheld the formulations from this book. On the contrary, we stressed that he maintained the same basic social-democratic politics but added on a glossy cover of "Marxist-Leninist" phrasemongering. But since the Statement makes the assertion that Barry Weisberg publicly refuted the book, it should have said when and where and given the content of this refutation. And if the book has been refuted then why does the Statement take such pains to defend this rotten book? The Statement claims that we "completely distort and misrepresent" the contents of Weisberg's book Beyond Repair, and that this book was merely "eclectic and containing many incorrect ideas". But what may we ask have we "completely distorted and misrepresented" in this anti-communist book? This book openly attacks Marxism- Leninism and communism. It openly opposes the class struggle and the proletariat. It openly opposes the proletarian revolution. It openly denounces the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat. And it openly condemns the idea of the party of the proletariat. The book gives a completely consistent line on these questions with no "eclecticism" in its guiding social-democratic and anti-communist ideas. What is really eclectic is Barry Weisberg's and the MLOC's present position in which they try to reconcile Marxist- Leninist phraseology with the social-democratic politics of the book Beyond Repair.

The fact that the MLOC Statement is defending such a book against "distortions" is condemning proof of what our study originally pointed out a- bout this book: "the social-democracy of Weisberg's Beyond Repair and the social-democracy of Weisberg's MLOC are at base the same. Both are dedicated to the infiltration and subversion of the revolutionary movement with the most rightist social-democratic reformism and both harbor an undying hatred against revolutionary Marxism- Leninism." (see "Against Social-Democratic Infiltration of the Marxist-Leninist Movement", pamphlet edition, p. 18)

THE COUSML REMAINS IRRECONCILABLY OPPOSED TO THE SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC SUBVERSION OF THE MARXIST-LENINIST MOVEMENT

As we pointed out earlier, the anti-communist ravings in MLOC's Statement against COUSML are completely unsubstantiated to say the least. And when you cut through the frantic demagogy and posturing in the Statement, it is clear that the MLOC has based all its extremely grave and serious assertions against, the COUSML on one thing: that the COUSML opposes Barry Weisberg and his MLOC/"CPUSA(M-L)". The Statement alleges that "the recent slanders and fabrications of the COUSML are related today to a sharp escalation of attacks against the CPUSA/ML by state monopoly capitalism and fascist reaction." This, in fact, is a most interesting claim. Firstly, as far as "a sharp escalation of attacks against the CPUSA/ML by state monopoly capitalism" is concerned, neither ourselves nor anyone else has any idea of what "attacks" are possibly being referred to. We too read Unite! and it has not reported on any "escalation of attacks" whatsoever, unless, of course, you include the rainstorm that soaked their offices last spring! The pathological liars of the MLOC have cooked up this "escalation of attacks" in their own brains for their own purposes of intrigue and deception.

And, secondly, it is clear that Barry Weisberg's social-democratic sect has suffered heavy blows from the work of the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists of the COUSML. We are irreconcilably opposed to the efforts of the social-democrats, revisionists and opportunists of whatever type to subvert the Marxist-Leninist movement. It is for this reason, and this reason alone, that the Statement moans so loudly that "the COUSML is not merely another opportunist organization" but is a real terror, the most horrible criminals of them all. This only shows that it has been the COUSML alone which has correctly shouldered the Marxist-Leninist responsibility of maintaining vigilance against the infiltration of the ranks of the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists by social- democracy. This is what Barry Weisberg and co. regard as a crime, but this is what we regard as our honor.

Another indication of the totally raving nature of MLOC's Statement is their charge of "agent provocateurs" which they hurl at the COUSML for allegedly trying to "destabilize basic units of the CPUSA/ML". The MLOC is particularly upset that our comrades "have made repeated efforts to try to contact" the MLOC people. It is true that our comrades have tried to meet with and have political discussion with the MLOC people for the purpose of explaining our views. Serious political discussion is what Barry Weisberg and co. regard as a crime, but we regard it as our responsibility. However, the very idea that the MLOC considers our comrades' efforts to talk to their people as attempts to "destabilize the basic units of the CPUSA/ML" is not only ludicrous, it is also a telling revelation of the instability, decay and fear of collapse haunting this social-chauvinist sect of vagabonds. This is further evidence of the power of the Marxist-Leninist truth.

In the final third of the Statement of Barry Weisberg and co., it finally gives up the ghost. The Statement makes a feeble and incoherent attempt to add a political coloration to the hysterical anti-communist charges and utterly unsupported allegations. This political coloration is a combination of sheer absurdities and the repetition of worn-out old slanders. A typical example of the hysteria that the Central Committee of the "CPUSA(M-L)" has been reduced to is its emphatic charge that the COUSML has "merely a 'national committee' and no Central Committee". What principled political issue can reside in the difference between the names "central committee" and "national committee". Here Barry Weisberg and co. are following the practice of dropping enigmatic idiotic remarks in the hope that they will be taken for gems of profundity.

Straining hard to find some pretext for their shameless anti-communism, Barry Weisberg and co. only manage to echo the tired-out arguments of the "three worlders". This social-democrat sect finds its mission in opposing the revolutionary movement, so it expresses that in high- flown terms by imitating the "three worlders" in their pontification about the lack of the revolutionary situation. The Statement attacks the COUSML's correct view of the objective and subjective conditions as expressed in the Call of the National Committee. The Call says that "the basic contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is at the bursting point" and talks of the "great class battles" to come in the 1980's. Weisberg and co. regard this as "out-and-out degenerate". But this is only to be expected from a group which can cower before GM and tell the auto workers that they better not strike such a powerful auto monopoly, and which manifests tender loving concern for Chrysler and tells the workers that they should not strike this monopoly for fear that it will collapse. While the subjective condition given by the Call is "To organize the revolution the decisive question is the formation and building of the Marxist-Leninist Party in the midst of the revolutionary mass movements."

This is absolutely correct.

Further imitation of the "RCP,USA" "three worlders" is contained in the position of Barry Weisberg with respect to their idea of the party. They ridicule "self-moving basic organizations". Thus the "RCP,USA" denounces the party on the grounds that the party allegedly prevents the release of the initiative of the revolutionary movement, while the "CPUSA(M-L)" agrees with the "RCP,USA" that the party should dampen and liquidate the revolutionary action of the masses and so they attack self-moving basic organization". The Marxist-Leninists hold that the existence of the party is a force enhancing the self- motion, initiative and correct orientation of the revolutionary movement. The Marxist-Leninist is only truly powerful when he works under the discipline of the party. But the social-democrats agree with the "three worlders" in their anti- Marxist idea of the party.

Continuing down the line in imitation of the "three worlders", Barry Weisberg and company raise a lot of cultural nationalist and "three worlder" hysteria on the national question. Barry Weisberg and company are following slavishly behind the socialist-segregationism of the Klonskyite social-chauvinists when they denounce the struggle against racial discrimination as a "white-supremacist position" and a denial of the existence of the Afro-American nationality. And Weisberg and co. have an outright annexationist stand with respect to the people of Mexican nationality. (It is also typical of the methods of Weisberg and co. that he replaces the word "nationality" with "ancestry" and then shouts about liquidating the national question.)

The "CPUSA(M-L)" goes further and raves against the People's Socialist Republic of Albania in the exact manner of the "three worlders", by its reference to the "parroting their 'bright red bastion' of the moment". This is the most vulgar and crude anti-communism. In the time of the Soviet Union of Lenin and Stalin the social- democrats attacked "the agents of Moscow", and now the social-democrats of today are attacking the "parroting (of) their 'bright red bastion' of the moment". The land of the dictatorship of the proletariat is indeed the bastion of world revolution. This is the only proletarian internationalist conception. As well, all this talk about "parroting" is also an expression of the furious impotence of the "CPUSA(M-L)" in front of the fact that the Marxist-Leninists have a definite well- defined denunciation of Mao Zedong Thought, while "CPUSA(M-L)" is twisting and turning this way and that.

The Barry Weisberg group does further service to the "three worlders" in its opposition to the struggle against modern revisionism. In this Statement, it floats a number of theses against this struggle. Besides the fact that it calls this struggle the "parroting" of Albania, it raises the bizarre objection that there is some contradiction between upholding the Marxist-Leninist trend in fierce struggle against the opportunist trends, which it calls finding one's "mission" in "identification with or against a particular trend", and in "the defense and elaboration of Marxism-Leninism". This is just fancy sophistry to say: don't fight the social-chauvinists, don't strike out against the "three worlders", and don't, don't fight the social-democrats. This has gone to the extent that the "CPUSA(M-L)" had to abjectly confess on page 6 of the October 15 issue of Unite! that it had "not carr(ied) out the struggle against Chinese revisionism in the fullest possible way." This is a euphemism for opposing the struggle against Chinese revisionism tooth-and-nail. Further Unite! had to admit that it was in a complete disarray on the issue of the "overall assessment of Mao Tsetung" and of Mao Zedong Thought. It twisted and turned, admitted that it had not taken the question seriously and had only "initial views", and relied on some vague phrases as "past revisionist seeds and the present revisionist weeds". After all, for the "CPUSA(M-L)" the question of Mao is unimportant anyhow, for according to the Statement of the "CPUSA(M-L)": "nothing more reflects the inability... to speak to questions of program, strategy and tactics, than... exclusive attention to individuals." In reality the " C PU SA (M-L)" is reflecting its total incompetence in questions of program, strategy and tactics with its complete fiasco on the question of Mao Zedong Thought.

The Statement also makes all sorts of fantastic claims about the COUSML having no practical existence in the world. These claims do not even deserve to be replied to. Everyone knows that it is the "CPUSA(M-L)" which is a mere paper organization. Under the blows of the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists, the "CPUSA(M-L)" is staring utter catastrophe in the face. That is why it has been reduced to an incoherent state of hysterical blabberings. The wild ravings of Barry Weisberg and co. are proof of the effectiveness of Marxism- Leninism in the struggle against social-democracy and all opportunist trends. We in the COUSML pledge to carry the struggle against modern revisionism, social-democracy and opportunism of all hues through to the end.

[Back to Top]

A Statement that couldn't stand the light of day

[Communist Party USA/Marxist-Leninist letterhead.]

STATEMENT OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE, COMMUNIST P^RTY U.S.A./ MARXIST-LENINIST ON THE STATE-INSPIRED ACTIONS OF THE CENTRAL ORGANIZATION OF U.S. MARXIST-LENINISTS July 1, 1979

In the last Several months, the Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninists has undertaken a series of activities which clearly reflect the fact that this organization today acts in the direct service of state monopoly capitalism, employs the means and methods of operation of police agents and provacateurs, and has assumed as its mission the sabotage of the class struggle in the United States, and the undermining and wrecking of the growing unity between the proletariat of the United States and the international proletariat and oppressed nations of the world.

The Central Committee of the Communist Party U.S.A./Marxist-Leninist gravely condemns the state-inspired actions of the COUSML, and wishes to bring to light the actions of the COUSML in recent months. These have included the publication of outrageous slanders and fabrications against the CPUSA/ML, against the Chairman of the Central Committee of the CPUSA/ML, and the use of such methods as sending certain so-called "truth squads" to various cities to try to contact and infiltrate the basic units of the CPUSA/ML, as well as the spreading of lies and fabrications about the policy of the CPUSA/ML on various questions. Most recently this organizations has announced its intention to claim itself a "Marxist-Leninist" party, perpetrating still another caricature of Marxism-Leninism.

The purpose of this statement is not to try and persuade the individuals of the COUSML as to the error of their ways. The COUSML is not merely another opportunist organization among the plethora of opportunist trends in the United States. The COUSML has passed in recent months from opportunism over into the direct activity characteristic of police agents and provacateurs. Only secondarily is the purpose of this Statement to alarm the working class and progressive forces of the U.S. as to the counter-revolutionary nature of the COUSML -- for this in the main is accomplished by the COUSML itself, with its ultra-adventurist and ultra-'left' phrasemongering and activity.

Rather, because the main function of the COUSML today is to try to sow confusion internationally, to disrupt the growing unity of the U.S. proletariat with the international proletariat, to promote "several" parties in the U.S. and to cause confusion and divisions among the Marxist-Leninist Parties in order to hinder their unity with the proletariat of the U.S., the main purpose of this Statement is to inform our fraternal Marxist- Leninist Parties further of these recent activities by the COUSML, and to connect them to the general political line of this counter-revolutionary organization, parading under the "bright red banner of Marxism-Leninism."

This Statement addresses three points:

(1) The document issued by the COUSML at the Internationalist Rally in Montreal, Canada, on March 31, 1979 entitled, "Against the Social Democratic Infiltration of the Marxist-Leninist Movement; a Study of the Origin, History and Present Role of the Social Democrat Barry Weisberg and His MLOC/CPUSA(ML)."

(2) Certain activities bf the COUSML in recent months; and

(3) The document entitled, "Build the Marxist-Leninist Party Without the Social Chauvinists and Against the Social Chauvinists

*******************************************

1.) The March 29, 1979 issue of the irregularly-published Workers' Advocate, newspaper of the COUSML, prepared for distribution at the March 31, 1979 Montreal Rally sponsored by the Communist Party of Canada/Marxist-Leninist, contained pages of slanders and fabrications against Comrade Barry Weisberg, the Chairman of the Central Committee of the CPUSA/ML. These fabrications were repeated by COUSML in their speech at the Rally!

Later, this anti-communist diatribe was issued as a pamphlet of 55 pages. This material, announced the COUSML, was the result of a special internal conference of the COUSML called to denounce the CPUSA/ML and Comrade Weisberg.

That this material represents the means and methods of police agents can be readily seen by the nature of its anti-communist slanders, including such statements as those that Comrade Weisberg is a "hardened social democrat with a long history of anti- Marxist-Leninist writings.... trained in anti-communism and social democracy.... a professional anti-communist...." etc. The COUSML suggests directly that Comrade Weisberg is both a trained agent of the state, an "infiltrator", and on the other hand that Comrade Weisberg is an agent of Chinese revisionism who "developed credentials and ties with 'left' circles after Nixon went to Peking."

Such fabrications are followed by a piecemeal and slanderous alleged political history of Comrade Weisberg, together with a collection of passages from a book written by Barry Weisberg, published in 1971, which are organized in such a manner as to completely misrepresent and take out of context their actual significance.

The "biography" manufactured by the COUSML researchers for their "special conference" not only concocts and distorts several years of Comrade Weisberg's life, but is selected to omit any mention of more than a decade of revolutionary activity in which Comrade Weisberg, beginning in the late 1950's, fought actively against discrimination in housing, helped to organize the first national march on Washington against the Vietnam War and many other large scale anti-war actions, worked in various struggles for democratic rights in the South and North, organized anti-imperialist student organizations on several campuses and actively mobilized opposition to Zionism. The book from which they choose to excerpt, issued in 1971, was long ago publically refuted by Comrade Weisberg as eclectic and containing many incorrect ideas. Yet the COUSML not only selects from this book to completely distort and misrepresent its contents, but presents something written eight years before the formation of the CPUSA/ML as if it represents the views of the CPUSA/ML today! Naturally the COUSML chooses to omit from its slanders any reference to public statements made by Comrade Weisberg in the last few years.

It is a hallmark of every opportunist and provacateur to utilize the means and methods of Joseph McCarthy to try to slander and discredit individuals, when they are unable to defeat the correct program and political line of our Party.

The recent slanders by the COUSML against Comrade Weisberg are reminiscent of similar attacks, in this respect, launched against him publicly by the U.S. Attorney General in 1964, and later by the fascist Ku Klux Klan, various trade union bureaucrats, and in a special document circulated by the social-fascist Revolutionary Communist Party U.S.A. The recent COUSML slanders place them in the same camp as the state- inspired attacks of the past, and directly serve state monopoly capitalism in its efforts to subvert and destabilize the CPUSA/ML today.

Not satisfied with this, the COUSML then proceeded to utilize the same method to misrepresent the origin and history of the former Marxist-Leninist Organizing Committee in the pages of Workers' Advocate. In a manner reminiscent of attacks against the leaders of many Marxist-Leninist organizations and parties, the entire history and work of both the MLOC and now the CPUSA/ML are attributed to the efforts of Comrade Weisberg.

Nothing more reflects the inability of this counter-revolutionary organization to speak to questions of program, strategy and tactics, than their exclusive attention to individuals.

The recent slanders and fabrications by the COUSML are related today to a sharp escalation of attacks against the CPUSA/ML by state monopoly capitalism and fascist reaction, and serve as an inspiration to various other opportunist circles and organizations which have taken recently to launching similar such attacks against the CPUSA/ML, and Comrade Weisberg. Together, all such activities have as their common thread their hatred of Marxism-Leninism, which is variously expressed in increasing open and veiled assaults against the CPUSA/ML, the Party of Labor of Albania, the Third Communist International and Comrade J.V. Stalin.

2.) In recent months, the COUSML has undertaken various efforts aimed at attempting to infiltrate and destabilize basic units of the CPUSA/ML in some cities, in the same manner as agent-provacateurs would act. Arriving in a city where the COUSML has no political work, they have made inquiries with local contacts in the 'left-wing' movement, trying to obtain the names and phone numbers of cadre of the CPUSA/ML. On other occasions, they have made repeated efforts to try to contact Party members and supporters to "inform them" about the CPUSA/ML.

Still other methods are utilized to slander the CPUSA/ML and falsely represent its policy. One example was efforts by the COUSML in some cities to spread the lie that the CPUSA/ML did not support the Eritrean revolution, and therefore to convince members of the Eritrean students' organization in the U.S. to condemn the CPUSA/ML. On still another occasion the COUSML has sought to utilize its attendance at the Internationalist Rally in Montreal, on March 31, 1979, organized by the Communist Party of Canada/Marxist-Leninist, as "proof" that COUSML had fraternal relations with the various parties in attendance, and that the CPUSA/ML did not!

To date, the COUSML has produced two pamphlets directed toward attacking and slandering the MLOC, and now the CPUSA/ML, totalling nearly 150 pages. No such attention has been directed by them to the struggle against Khrushchevite, Titoite or Chinese revisionism, Trotskyism or any other revisionist or opportunist trend.

3.) The latest round of such activities by the COUSML has been their pathetic "Call of the National Committee" to "Build the Marxist-Leninist Party Without the Social Chauvinists and Against the Social Chauvinists."

The timing of this maneuver is definitely tied to the supposed prestige the COUSML achieved by attending the Internationalist Rally which concluded the Sixth Consultative Conference of the Communist Party of Canada/Marxist-Leninist.

Trying to cover their counter-revolutionary line under supposed support for the People's Socialist Republic of Albania and alleged opposition to the theory of the "three worlds" and "Mao Tsetung Thought", the COUSML once again paints the absurd fiction that "ten years of all-sided and wide-ranging struggle has gone into the building of the Marxist-Leninist nucleus of the vanguard of the proletariat. It is now time to reconstitute that Party through the founding of the Marxist-Leninist Party of the U.S.A." (page 17, "Build the Marxist-Leninist Party....)

The Central Committee of the Communist Party U.S.A./Marxist- Leninist condemns this further effort on the part of the COUSML to build yet another revisionist party in the United States, to try and further split and divide the proletariat, and to sow confusion and divisions internationally.

The out-and-out degenerate nature of the COUSML is clearly evident in their view both of the objective and subjective conditions, in the U.S. and internationally. The COUSML claims that today in the United States, "the basic.contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is at the bursting point." Anyone truly familiar with the conditions of the class struggle recognizes that a revolutionary situation does not yet exist in the United States, nor is it around the corner. This contradiction is hardly at the "bursting point" today.

Blatant social chauvinism is contained in the COUSML's white supremacist position on the existence of oppressed nations within the state boundaries of the U.S. Following in the footsteps of the revisionist Earl Browder, and Mao Tsetung, they deny the existence of an oppressed Black Nation in the U.S. and relegate the oppression of the Black masses to a question of "violent repression and racial discrimination." The Chicano Nation and people are completely liquidated, and simply referred to by the COUSML as "people of Mexican ancestry"!! This is the same revisionist position of the Khrushchevite CPUSA.

In its call to form a party, the history of the COUSML and its predecessor is painted with the most fantastic exaggerations. While the COUSML promoted the line and practice that "Mao Tsetung is our Chairman" for ten years, and advocated "Mao Tsetung Thought as a new and higher stage of Marxism-Leninism", the COUSML now describes this as having "consistently fought against the pervasive ideological confusion spread by the bourgeoisie!" With a newspaper which today remains irregular, which has no outlets in the South, Southwest, or in virtually any major factory in the U.S., they claim to have " (taken) up the organization of agitation and propaganda which was national in scope...," With an organization which played no national role in the struggles for democratic rights or the anti-war struggles of the 1960's and 1970's, no role in any major strike in the last ten years, such as those in auto, steel or coal, no role in any major struggle for democratic rights in the U.S. such as the anti-Bakke or anti-Weber struggles....with this pathetic history, the COUSML claims to "guide every step of the struggles of the masses." With open support for such organizations as UNITA of Angola, the COUSML claims to have "laid great stress on proletarian internationalism." With merely a national committee" and no Central Committee, with "branches" independent of the "national committee", with "self-moving basic organizations" and no factory nuclei or basic units of a Leninist character, the COUSML claims that its organization "has the initiative to respond to the day to day struggles of the masses and the political strength and unity to train the workers in the revolutionary Marxist-Leninist line of the COUSML."

This is an organization completely modelled after the social- democratic line of geographical units, not factory organization. This is an organization which has for ten years "enlivened revolutionary activists in the defense of socialism" with no stated strategy and tactics, and by blatantly denying the necessity for a party program or constitution.

The five "main tasks" which the COUSML advances to build their revisionist party contain no discussion or reference to a party program, constitution, founding Congress, plan to unite Marxist-Leninists, welding a core, or anything else vaguely resembling a Leninist approach to forging a vanguard party of the proletariat. This is a party which is to be based on "city branches" with no regard to concentration in the strategic industrial centers, the Black or Chicano Nations, the military or any important center of revolutionary struggle in the U.S.

**********************************************

The recent flurry of activities of the COUSML described in this Statement are connected to the basic stand and viewpoint of the COUSML, which the Marxist-Leninist Organizing Committee pointed out in August, 1978 in its "Reply to the COUSML Pamphlet, 'Reply to the Open Letter of the MLOC'". Since that time the COUSML has descended further down the road of Khrushchevite and Chinese revisionism, covered over with internationalist phrases.

This basic political line of the COUSML is a hodgepodge of Right and 'left' revisionism and infantile disorders characteristic of the petty bourgeoisie. On one hand, it takes a classic Right social-democratic position in assuming geographic forms of organization and denying the importance of factory nuclei and industrial concentration. It follows a blatant social-chauvinist line in negating the national character of the oppression of the Black and Chicano Nations, following readily in the footsteps of Browder and Jay Lovestone in the U.S. and Mao Tsetung internationally. On the other hand, it postures with endless 'left'-sounding phrases and self-inflating accolades, preserving its "purity" by ignoring the masses of workers in the reformist organizations and trade unions, never conducting any genuine revolutionary education, organization, mobilization and leadership of the mass movement.

The sterile, shrill' and frantic maneuvering of the COUSML is the hallmark of its class stand and origin. Completely unable to apply the tenets of scientific socialism to the concrete conditions of the class struggle in the U.S., COUSML both denies the universal character of Marxism-Leninism, and is reduced to parroting their "bright red bastion" of the moment. In this sense, the COUSML finds its mission not in the defense and elaboration of Marxism-Leninism, but in identification with or against a particular trend. Such is the caricature of Marxism-Leninism made by the Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninists.

In this Statement, the Communist Party U.S.A./Marxist-Leninist has pointed out both some recent activity on the part of the COUSML and connected it to the basic orientation and line of this organization. The main point made in this Statement is to call attention to the fact that the means and methods of struggle now employed by the COUSML are those of police agents and provocateurs, and that these result directly from both its basic political orientation and its class outlook.

[Back to Top]

Resolution of Chicago Anti-Nuclear Conference

(Passed Unanimously November 3, 1979)

THE ANTI-NUCLEAR MOVEMENT IS A MASS MOVEMENT OF THE WORKING CLASS AND PEOPLE. It is a movement against the nuclear program of U.S. imperialism. The movement has arisen against the nuclear poisoning from the U.S. nuclear program and against the production of nuclear weapons, designed for mass slaughter in imperialist wars. Since the recent nuclear breakdown and near catastrophe at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant, there has been a big upsurge of mass opposition to the reactionary U.S. nuclear program. Massive demonstrations, which have already involved hundreds of thousands of people, have taken place all across the country. The movement is continuing to broaden, bringing into motion all sections of the people.

The demand of the masses that the nuclear energy program be liquidated lock, stock and barrel, is absolutely right and just. This demand is very well expressed in the slogan: NO! TO U.S. IMPERIALISM'S NUCLEAR ENERGY PROGRAM!

THE U.S. NUCLEAR PROGRAM IS A PROGRAM OF FRENZIED WAR PREPARATIONS FOR NUCLEAR GENOCIDE, FOR A NUCLEAR THIRD WORLD WAR. IT IS A PROGRAM FOR MONOPOLIZING THE WORLD'S ENERGY RESOURCES IN ORDER TO ENSLAVE THE WORLD IN NEOCOLONIAL CHAINS. IT IS A PROGRAM OF WILD PROFITEERING TO LINE THE POCKETS OF THE U.S. ENERGY MONOPOLIES. IT IS A PROGRAM OF CANCER AND SICKNESS, A PROGRAM OF RADIOACTIVE POISONING OF THE MASSES.

IT IS IMPERIALISM WHICH IS AT THE ROOT OF THE U.S. NUCLEAR PROGRAM. The U.S. nuclear program was developed right from the start as part and parcel of the development of nuclear weapons in the striving of U.S. imperialism for world domination. The atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not dropped to defeat fascism because Japan was already a defeated country. These atomic bombs were dropped to intimidate the world's anti-fascist masses emerging in struggle for genuine national and social liberation. In this situation, U.S. imperialism stepped forward to take the place of the fascist Axis and become the world's foremost neo-colonial enslaver, world's policeman, and prop of reactionary dictators and hangmen of national and social liberation. The U. So nuclear reactors of the 1940's and 50's were used for the production of plutonium for atomic bombs, mad research to develop the hydrogen bomb, the nuclear-powered submarine Nautilus project, etc. All this was carried out under the cover of talk of "peaceful uses" of atomic energy. Today, the further fruits of the nuclear research and development program can be seen in the further development of weapons of mass destruction -- the "clean" neutron bomb that "only" kills people, the MIRV nuclear missiles, the huge Trident nuclear submarine launching project, etc.

THE U.S. NUCLEAR PROGRAM IS A PROGRAM OF FRENZIED WAR PREPARATIONS. Along with the direct research and development of nuclear weapons, the U.S. is also preparing for war through the building of nuclear power plants for electric generation. The monopoly capitalists are developing and stockpiling energy sources for use in war -- seeking a stable source of energy in nuclear power at a time when coal and oil have proved vulnerable to the just struggles of the world's peoples. The revolution in Iran and the massive strike movement of the coal miners in the U.S. in 1977-78 effectively proved this.

THE U.S. NUCLEAR PROGRAM IS A PROGRAM FOR MONOPOLIZING WORLD ENERGY PRODUCTION AND TIGHTENING THE GRIP OF NEO-COLONIAL ENSLAVEMENT. U.S. monopoly corporations are building or planning nuclear reactors in more than 15 countries. The extremely expensive reactors tie the host country with many financial strings, just as any other imperialist investment, credit or aid does. In addition, the U.S. controls the process of enrichment of uranium ore and the technology for nuclear reactors which also ties the host country to the U.S. domination of world energy markets. This brings the U.S. not only fantastic profits but also a tighter political domination of a vast "sphere of influence".

THE U.S. NUCLEAR PROGRAM IS A PROGRAM OF WILD PROFITEERING. The reckless pace of nuclear power construction has created a veritable explosion of profits for the finance capitalists, for the construction and engineering giants, and for the energy monopolies. These profits are being extracted by the impoverishment of the working masses through automatic rate increases in utility bills and ever increasing taxation. Far from being a source of cheap power, nuclear power has been an ever more expensive swindle. And far from being an "alternative" to the oil monopolies, the oil billionaires are firmly entrenched in the atomic energy field. Three big oil monopolies (Exxon, Kerr-McGee, and Continental Oil) control 45% of U.S. uranium reserves.

THE U.S. NUCLEAR PROGRAM IS A PROGRAM OF RADIOACTIVE POISONING OF THE PEOPLE. The nuclear power reactors are extremely dangerous. The facts are that in the mad rush to develop nuclear power, none of the major safety questions have been solved. There is still not even a reliable method of disposal or even long-term storage of the extremely toxic nuclear wastes. Thousands of people have already suffered radioactive sickness and death at the hands of the U.S. nuclear program. In point of fact, no private insurance company will even consider insuring nuclear power projects.

THE U.S. NUCLEAR PROGRAM HAS FROM ITS INCEPTION BEEN PUSHED BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT. The U.S. government and the entire state apparatus has shown itself to be nothing but a front-man for the U.S. oil kings and the energy monopolies and nothing but a machine for waging war against the world's peoples. Between 1970 and 1978 the federal government directly financed from tax money $6 billion for the research and development of the nuclear power program (not including expenditures for nuclear weapons and military research). The two government agencies overseeing the nuclear power industry, the AEC (1946-74) and the NRC (1974 to the present), have been revolving doors for military generals, CIA officials, and energy and financial barons. Together, these "public guardians" have been "regulating" the nuclear power program to ensure maximum war preparations, maximum profit, and maximum disregard for the safety of the masses of people. Even after the near disaster at Three Mile Island, the Presidential Commission set up to investigate the "accident" did not put a stop to the nuclear power program, but only advised that the government clean up its image and the image of nuclear power to further deceive the masses, while moving forward the nuclear program.

THE CARTER ADMINISTRATION, THE DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN PARTIES ARE ALL FERVENT ADVOCATES OF NUCLEAR POWER AND IMPERIALISM. Carter is swearing to increase the use of nuclear power. The Republican Party is equally on record favoring wholesale expansion of the nuclear power program. Besides the old signboards of "peaceful uses" of nuclear power and "defense" of the U.S. world empire, Carter is trying to sell nuclear energy with an hysterical campaign on the basis of the phoney "energy shortage". The lie of the energy shortage was first floated by the bloodstained war criminal Richard Nixon. It has always been used by the oil monopolies to justify their fake shortages and outrageous plunder, and to bludgeon the people into a patriotic union with the red, white and blue oil monopolies to "solve the energy crisis" -- that is, to solve the problems of imposing fake shortages, skyrocketing prices, and war preparations on the masses of people. In this context, Carter is preaching sermons about "conservation":

a) to blame the people for the wastefulness of the monopolies;

b) to justify super-profits and government subsidies for the oil and energy kings and their skyrocketing prices;

c) to stop wasting economic resources on heating homes, cooking food, and driving, when it can be saved for tanks, missiles, war production, and stockpiles;

d) to justify lifting all environmental standards, and;

e) to justify the criminal nuclear energy program.

As well as preaching about "conservation", Carter is making big noises about developing "alternative energy sources". With this program Carter will hand over billions of tax dollars to the energy monopolies to help them develop and monopolize any and all sources of energy. Carter is emphasizing those synfuels that are best adapted to military use. With the fraud of "energy shortage" as his excuse, Carter is justifying the U.S. nuclear energy program and promoting conservation and "alternative energy sources" to carry out a whole program of war preparations through finding "stable" and "alternative" fuels for the aggressive U.S. war machine.

THE U.S. NUCLEAR PROGRAM IS COMPLETELY ROOTED IN THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL SYSTEM OF IMPERIALISM.

The energy monopolies, the financial magnates, the state machine, the Republican and Democratic Parties are all committed to the wild profiteering, neo-colonial domination and plunder, and war preparations which are the basis for the development of the criminal U.S. nuclear program.

THE ANTI-NUCLEAR MOVEMENT IS POSING A BIG THREAT TO U.S. IMPERIALISM AND ITS WARMONGERING PLANS. A big collision is brewing between the anti-nuclear movement and the capitalist nuclear warmongers, their state machine, and the Democratic and Republican Parties. Already the government in its feverish drive to carry forward the nuclear energy program has brought the force of the state machine against the anti-nuclear movement. Thousands of anti-nuclear activists have been attacked and arrested. The anti-nuclear movement has made masses of people conscious of the dangers of the U.S. nuclear program. It has brought the issue of imperialism to the foreground, calling into question the economic and political institutions of imperialism -- the monopolies, the state machine, the political parties, etc. The movement has broadened to encompass millions of people who are in opposition to the U.S. nuclear program, its war preparations, its wild profiteering, its neo-colonial plunder and domination, its poisoning of masses of people. The anti-nuclear movement is playing an important role in politicizing the masses of people against the rich and their warmongering plans. The growth and development of the anti-nuclear movement along the path of mass revolutionary struggle is a roadblock to the warmongering plans of U.S. imperialism.

THE "LEFT WING" HACKS OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY ARE THE ENEMIES OF THE ANTI-NUCLEAR MOVEMENT. In the face of the growth and development of the anti-nuclear movement -- its growing mass character, its force and strength, its politicalization of the working class and people -- various "left wing" hacks from the Democratic Party and the trade union bureaucracy have come forward to divert and liquidate the anti-nuclear movement, including such spokesmen as the ex-radical Democratic Party hacks Tom Hayden and Jane Fonda, the ultra-opportunist politicians Jerry Brown and Ted Kennedy, and the soldout trade union bureaucrats Doug Fraser and William Winpisinger. All of these "left wing",hacks have come into the anti-nuclear movement to divert and liquidate it. They are all basing themselves on the criminal lie of Nixon and Carter of "energy shortage" which is the justification of the oil and energy monopolies for their program of plunder and war preparations. It is Carter's justification for the nuclear power program itself. They are talking about a "positive, realistic approach" to help U.S. imperialism out of its difficulties. They are all painting "conservation" and "alternative energy" schemes in flaming radical colors. They want to have the activists join in a super-patriotic crusade to blame the masses of people for shortages and to help the rich stockpile energy resources for war. They talk of "conservation" and "alternative energy" as the solution to stopping nuclear power, when, in fact, these are the very slogans that Carter is using to justify the nuclear power program. Instead of fighting the militarists and monopoly exploiters, these Democratic Party hacks are nothing but disguised supporters of Carter's energy program, better propagandists for Carter's energy plans than Carter himself. They are trying to tie the anti-nuclear movement to the coattails of the Democratic Party and to convert it into a pressure group for the passage of this or that part of Carter's energy program, with or without Carter. Don't fight the oil and energy kings, they say, don't fight imperialism and the soldout capitalist politicians. Just go back to chopping wood, and make sure to vote for the newest smooth-talking Democratic Party liar next year.

THE CHICAGO CONFERENCE AGAINST U.S. IMPERIALISM'S CRIMINAL NUCLEAR ENERGY PROGRAM HOLDS THAT A REAL FIGHT IS DEVELOPING IN THE ANTI-NUCLEAR MOVEMENT OVER WHICH WAY FORWARD: THE PATH OF THE "LEFT WING" DEMOCRATIC PARTY HACKS OF DIVERTING AND LIQUIDATING THE ANTI-NUCLEAR MOVEMENT ONTO THE PATH OF SUPPORTING A PATRIOTIC UNION WITH THE RED, WHITE AND BLUE OIL AND ENERGY MONOPOLIES TO "SOLVE THE ENERGY CRISIS" OF U.S. IMPERIALISM OR THE ELECTORAL AIMS OF SOME DEMOCRATIC PARTY HACK; OR THE PATH OF MASS REVOLUTIONARY STRUGGLE AGAINST U.S. IMPERIALISM'S NUCLEAR ENERGY PROGRAM, THE PATH OF STRENGTHENING AND UNIFYING THE MOVEMENT AGAINST THE NUCLEAR PROGRAM OF U.S. IMPERIALISM.

THE CHICAGO CONFERENCE HOLDS THAT THE PATH FORWARD FOR THE ANTI-NUCLEAR MOVEMENT IS THE PATH OF MASS REVOLUTIONARY STRUGGLE AGAINST THE IMPERIALISTS, THE EXPLOITERS, AND CARTER'S ENERGY PROGRAM. The nuclear energy program is not a temporary aberration or a mistake, not something that can be corrected by appealing to some mythical good will or benevolence of the energy industry or the government, but, on the contrary, the U.S. nuclear energy program is deeply rooted in imperialism and has been fostered by the most powerful monopolies, the government at all levels, and the political parties of the rich, ever since World War II. It is only revolutionary struggle, the drawing into conscious life and struggle of the masses of working and progressive people that is the life of the anti-nuclear movement. The mass revolutionary struggle against imperialism is the only true road forward for the anti-nuclear movement.

The Chicago Conference against U.S. imperialism's criminal nuclear energy program holds that it is necessary to STEP UP THE FIGHT AGAINST THE NUCLEAR PROGRAM OF U.S. IMPERIALISM! By:

1) increasing propaganda and agitation against all aspects of U.S. imperialism's nuclear energy program at the factories, in the communities, and in the schools,

2) increasing opposition to all the war preparations of U.S. imperialism, including opposition to the draft and other forms of government service, against the U.S.-China alliance, against phony disarmament schemes such as SALT II, etc., because the development of U.S. imperialism's nuclear energy program is linked to its all-round war preparations,

3) encouraging and developing all mass struggles against the U.S. nuclear program and supporting the increasing militancy of the movement,

4) developing and increasing opposition and exposure of the enemies of the anti-nuclear movement, especially the "left wing" hacks of the Democratic Party, and their program,

5) working to unify the movement in Chicago on this basis, for a genuine people's movement against U.S. imperialism's nuclear power program and war preparations.

NO! TO U.S. IMPERIALISM'S NUCLEARENERGY PROGRAM!

STEP UP THE FIGHT AGAINST THE NUCLEAR PROGRAM OF U.S. IMPERIALISM!

[Photos: Photos 1 and 2 show the continuing growth of the U.S. anti-nuclear movement. (1) On October 21 in Lansing, Michigan more than 3,000 people demonstrated and denounced the U.S. nuclear power program and called for the destruction of all nuclear weapons. (2) Near Bangor, Washington, at the site of the Trident submarine base, people denounced U.S. imperialism's frantic preparations for nuclear war.]

[Back to Top]