The Workers' Advocate

WORKERS OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE!

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

Volume 9, Number 8

October 15, 1979

P.O. BOX 11942 CHICAGO, IL. 60611 25¢

[Front page:

Tripartite Pay Board Set Up to Cut Wages--Down With Carter's "National Accord" With the Trade Union Hacks;

Step Up the Fight Against the Nuclear Program of U.S. Imperialism!;

Down with the Fake Shortages and Carter's Energy Policy!--Resist the Outrageous Robbery of the Masses by the U.S. Oil Monopolies!;

COUSML wages a big campaign to organize the auto workers' struggle]

IN THIS ISSUE

Tripartite Pay Board Set Up to Cut Wages

Down With Carter's "National Accord" With the Trade Union Hacks

The disgusting desire of the labor traitors to have a voice in cutting wages is nothing new.

Step Up the Fight Against the Nuclear Program of U.S. Imperialism!

Down with the Fake Shortages and Carter's Energy Policy!

Resist the Outrageous Robbery of the Masses by the U.S. Oil Monopolies!

COUSML wages a big campaign to organize the auto workers' struggle

Carter's "Soviet Brigade in Cuba" Hysteria:

A Smokescreen for Measures Against the Revolution in Latin America and the Caribbean

Birds of a Feather Flock Together:

War Criminal Nixon Receives Another Warm Welcome from the Chinese Social-Imperialists

"CP(M-L)" Toots Their Bugles in Praise of V.P. Mondale, Bob Hope and the U.S.-China Alliance

Militant Demonstration at Seabrook:

DOWN WITH THE ATTACKS OF THE RICH AGAINST THE ANTI-NUCLEAR MOVEMENT!

NATIONWIDE PROTESTS ESCALATE AGAINST THE U.S. IMPERIALIST NUCLEAR PROGRAM

TEACHERS STRIKE TO RESIST GROWING IMPOVERISHMENT

Mission District of San Francisco:

Denounce the Racist and Fascist Police Attacks Against the Youth!

RACIST VIOLENCE OF THE POLICE DENOUNCED IN PHILADELPHIA

FORD WORKERS:

Oppose Fraser's Sellout Contract! Defy Carters Wage Controls!

THE PROVISIONS OF FRASER'S CONTRACT ARE A SELLOUT

Second All-Canada National Youth Festival a Big Success!

LONG LIVE THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO!

Communique of the Founding Conference of the Communist Party of Trinidad and Tobago

On the 60th Anniversary of the Founding of the Communist Party U.S.A.

DOWN WITH THE REVISIONIST BETRAYERS OF COMMUNISM!

People's Socialist Republic of Albania-35 Years of Socialist Construction

Comrade Hysni Kapo, Glorious Son of the Albanian People

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

Mao Zedong Thought Cannot Dull the Brilliance of the Great October Socialist Revolution

1979: YEAR OF STALIN

"Synopsis of the Article 'The International Character of the October Revolution'" - J.V. Stalin

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

To Pursue a United Front with "Three Worlders" is Anti-Marxist and Tantamount to Betrayal

For Marxism-Leninism, Against the "Three Worlds" Theorists

WE ACCEPT THE CHALLENGE!

Tripartite Pay Board Set Up to Cut Wages

Down With Carter's "National Accord" With the Trade Union Hacks

On September 28, 1979, the Carter administration announced that it had signed a ''national accord" with the top bureaucrats of the AFL-CIO. This "national accord" is the latest step of Carter's vicious offensive to suppress the workers' movement, cut wages and increase capitalist profits under the hoax of "fighting inflation". The "national accord" calls for the setting up of a tripartite "Pay Advisory Committee" to be composed of representatives of the government, business and "labor". The pay board will draw up new wage guidelines for Carter and help to impose them on the working class. With indecent haste, Teamsters president Frank Fitzsimmons and UAW president Douglas Fraser jumped up to endorse the accord reached in negotiations between Carter and the AFL-CIO, and have said that they expect to serve on the pay board.

The signing of the "national accord" is a further glaring exposure of the totally anti-working class character of Carter's Democratic Party, which bills itself as a "friend of labor and the minorities". Since coming to office three years ago, Carter has imposed fascist Taft-Hartley injunctions and resorted to mass jailings and violent police suppression against numerous strikes of the workers. Through his "voluntary" wage controls program, the monopoly capitalists have organized a vicious wage-cutting offensive in which the workers' purchasing power was reduced 2. 6% in 1978 and 4.3% in the first eight months of 1979 alone! And Carter directly collaborated with the oil monopolies to impose both the fake "natural gas shortage" of 1977 and the equally fraudulent "gasoline shortage" of last spring and summer, to jack up prices to the skies, further enrich the overgorged oil billionaires and bleed the working people dry. Carter has well earned the hatred felt for him by the masses.

The top officials of the trade unions are nothing but soldout accomplices of the Democratic Party and of the brutal offensive it is waging against the workers on behalf of the monopoly capitalists. Their signing of the "national accord" with Carter is a big exposure of their contemptible character as labor lieutenants of the capitalist class. At a time when the brutal offensive of the rich demands the intensified resistance and struggle of the working class, the labor traitors are "setting out the basis for American labor's 'involvement and cooperation"' with the class enemy. Carter stands so utterly exposed and despised by the masses of people that his administration is near collapse and he wails about a "crisis of confidence". Yet right at this moment, instead of calling on the workers to escalate their struggles against the monopoly capitalists and the Carter government, the top union officials sign a "national accord" with Carter and call for total capitulation and surrender! In so doing, the labor traitors are attempting to disintegrate the working class movement, shield Carter from the wrath of the masses and prop up the rotten rule of the rich.

Lane Kirkland, secretary-treasurer of the AFL-CIO and chief architect of the nine page "national accord", and Carter himself both describe this agreement as a "social contract" between labor and government. They describe it correctly, for a social contract is an open declaration of class collaboration, a statement of abject capitulation to the bourgeoisie. In setting up a tripartite board incorporating the trade union bureaucrats in the administration of the reactionary policy of the monopoly capitalist government, Carter has taken another step down the path of corporate state fascism similar to that rigged up by the fascist Mussolini. The "national accord" is the natural result of the alliance between the trade union bureaucrats and the Democratic Party. Besides the measures to establish the pay board, the "national accord?' contains statements strongly supporting Carter's energy program, a program of fake shortages to fleece the people and hand over billions of dollars to the energy monopolies.

It endorses Carter's "fight against inflation", which is a code word for Carter's fight against the workers, a fight to suppress strikes and to v impose severe wage cuts and a brutal productivity drive in order to swell capitalist profits. Full of raving national chauvinism, the accord calls for a "strong merchant marine", expanded "American-flag shipping", and "fair trade" to prevent "unfair restrictions on American goods and services", so as to strengthen U.S. imperialism's exploitation and plunder around the world. Overall, the "national accord" is a statement of endorsement for the whole range of anti-working class policies and programs of the Carter administration.

The main emphasis of the "national accord" is on inflation. "War against inflation," it states, "must be the top priority of government and of private individuals and institutions." It will "mean a period of individual and collective sacrifices," echoes Kirkland, and will help "ensure that the austerity Carter says the nation must accept is shared evenly by all segments of the population. " Likewise, UAW president Douglas Fraser, endorsing the accord, declared that "the UAW has supported and will continue to support anti-inflation policies based on equal sacrifice by all sectors of our society." Thus the "national accord" is based on the fraudulent bourgeois theory of "equality of sacrifice" to "curb" inflation.

The logic of this theory is that since all sectors of society supposedly suffer equally from inflation, then if all sections sacrifice equally, inflation can be controlled. But this is not true. Wage increases do not affect the general level of prices and are not a cause of inflation. Inflation comes about through expansion of the money supply in excess of the growth of actual production, such as through deficit spending and financial speculation. Furthermore, inflation does not stand above classes, affecting all sections equally. The effects of inflation further impoverish the workers and the poor while further increasing the profits and fabulous wealth of the rich. The more the workers' wages are cut, as through wage controls, the more the capitalists' profits go up.

In the name of implementing "equality of sacrifice" in the "fight against inflation", a 15-member tripartite Pay Advisory Committee has been set . up headed by John Dunlop. So five "labor" representatives, five representatives of the capitalists, and five "public" representatives (including Dunlop) are to sit together. But to do what? To establish a new set of wage controls and pass judgement on workers' wage settlements so as to cut the workers' pay and ensure fatter profits for the capitalists. Furthermore, at the same time as the big push to set up this wage-cutting board, the price guidelines have actually been loosened, allowing prices to rise by another percentage point at a time when wholesale prices are rising at a rate of some 18% a year and inflation is nearly 14%! And setting up the Price Advisory Committee is "less pressing" than the pay board, according to anti-inflation czar Alfred E. Kahn, and it will have merely five representatives of the "public", all appointed by the government of the rich. These treacherous activities show that what Carter and the labor traitors really have in mind is not equality of sacrifice but workers' sacrifice. Hence, for government: cut the federal employees' wages; for business: cut the workers' wages; for the workers: "voluntarily" accept these wage cuts. Such is their program of "tripartite sacrifice and austerity"!

To have a voice and directly participate in the government's administering of wage cuts was the actual aim of the labor bureaucrats in negotiating their "national accord". The AFL-CIO News (Sept. 29, 1979) reported that "Kirkland said at a White House briefing that the AFL-CIO's cooperation was achieved because labor was directly involved in shaping the new wage advisory machinery. By contrast, when the guidelines were announced last year, labor was 'vouchsafed (granted) an audience' but was not a part of the process and was kept 'very much at arm's length'." According to the September 29 Washington Post, Kirkland also said that, if not for this, "we would have been prepared to negotiate this same kind of program this time last year."The labor bureaucrats are positively gleeful at now being accepted by Carter as equal partners in the process of writing new wage guidelines for the cutting of the workers' wages.

[Back to Top]

The disgusting desire of the labor traitors to have a voice in cutting wages is nothing new.

These bootlickers did the same thing in 1971 during the Nixon regime. George Meany and other labor bureaucrats had repeatedly called for wage controls. Then when Nixon declared his "New Economic Policy" of a 90-day wage freeze followed by compulsory wage-price controls, the labor bureaucrats made noisy criticism -- but only because they wanted to be the ones to administer the fascist wage controls. So on October 8, 1971, when Nixon ended the freeze, he set up a tripartite pay board (the Cost of Living Council) headed by the same Mr. John Dunlop and including the top union officials. The pay board limited wage increases to 5. 5% and greatly slashed the wage settlements of millions of workers, including aerospace workers and longshoremen. Finally, after the pay board had made and enforced all the major decisions, all the labor traitors except Fitzsimmons walked out (not forgetting, however, to assure the capitalists of their full cooperation in the future!).

Today, the "national accord" and "Pay Advisory Committee" represent the latest step by the Carter administration toward imposing fully mandatory wage controls on the working class. They go even farther in establishing the ideological justification, the rules and the mechanism to administer fully mandatory controls. In April 1978 Carter launched Phase I of his "anti-inflation" program: "voluntary" guidelines to limit pay increases to 5.1-5.6%. But Phase I went bankrupt in the face of the resolute struggles of the postal workers, railroad workers, schoolteachers, and others. So on October 28, 1978, Carter announced Phase II: "voluntary" guidelines which placed the combined wage and benefit increase at 7% and added measures of compulsion, such as withdrawal of government contracts from companies which didn't sufficiently cut the workers' wages. The essence of Phase II -- wage cuts for the workers -- was warmly received by the top labor officials. Teamsters boss Fitzsimmons hailed it, while the UAW Executive Board voted unanimously to support it and Fraser praised it to the skies. George Meany and the AFL-CIO made noise against it, but only because they wanted fully mandatory controls right away.

The Phase II controls were designed to be a club against the '78--'79 contract struggles of the truck drivers, rubber workers, electrical workers, garment workers, auto workers and other significant sections of the proletariat. But during the past year, many fighting contingents of the proletariat waged vigorous struggles and broke through the guidelines, some by substantial margins, but even these workers are not keeping up with the cost of living. To try to prevent these struggles from developing into a powerful class- wide movement against the controls and to save them from defeat, the government and the labor traitors worked to demoralize the workers with the illusion that the controls were not really being defied and badly damaged, but just "bent" a little, or even that they had "self-destructed". Now, trying to strengthen the battered controls, impose them more effectively on the workers and undermine the workers' resistance, Carter has brought the labor traitors openly into the government's wage-cutting "Pay Advisory Committee".

Carter's wage controls are part of the overall offensive by the entire monopoly capitalist class and their government against the entire working class to make the workers pay for the economic crisis.' The controls aim to cut the wages and increase the exploitation of the workers so as to swell capitalist profits. In the face of this offensive, the top labor bureaucrats with their "national accord" are calling for the workers to surrender, to ally with their class enemies, to submit to wage cuts and further impoverishment. This is utter betrayal of the working class. For the workers to defend their livelihood and their standard of living requires not "accords" and alliances with the "Democrats" but resolute mass struggle to defy Carter's wage controls and resist the offensive of the rich.

[Photo: Shameless class collaboration: Charles Schultze (left) Council of Economic Advisers chairman, Alfred Kahn (center) Carter's "chief inflation fighter", and AEL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Lane Kirkland agree to implement wage-cutting "national accord".]

[Back to Top]

Step Up the Fight Against the Nuclear Program of U.S. Imperialism!

[Photo: Mass protest of 250,000 in New York City against U.S. imperialism's nuclear energy program.]

The upsurge continues in the mass movement against the U.S. imperialist nuclear energy program. After the near catastrophe at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant, mass demonstrations of tens of thousands of people took place all across the U.S., including a demonstration of 100,000 at Washington, D.C. on May 6, 1979. Now, months later, the anti-nuclear movement is continuing to broaden. Demonstrations and anti-nuclear actions are taking place throughout the country, ranging up to 250,000 in New York City on September 23 and including militant actions like that at the Seabrook reactor in New Hampshire on October 6-9. At the same time the monopoly capitalist dictators led by Carter are swearing to increase the use of nuclear reactors. The day after his major speech on energy of July 15, Carter declared that the nuclear energy program "must play an important role in our energy future". A big collision is brewing between the people and the capitalist nuclear warmongers.

The issue of U.S. imperialism lies at the center of the fight over nuclear power. Right from the start, the U.S. nuclear power plant program was developed as part and parcel of the development of nuclear weapons. Today the pro-nuclear spokesmen still scream about the need for nuclear development for "defense". But this "defense" is defense of a vast worldwide U.S. imperialist empire, it is defense of the profits of the United Fruit Company, of IT&T, of the oil billionaires, etc. This "defense" is nothing but aggression against the world's people. Today if. S. imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism are the biggest aggressors in the world today and the leaders of world reaction., The two superpowers are fighting with each other and threatening to launch a nuclear world war. At the same time they are also cooperating with each other to drown in blood the revolution. The anti-nuclear movement has always been closely connected with the movement against imperialist war preparations. Many of the same activists who fight against the nuclear power plants are also active in the struggle against imperialist armaments production, against the reintroduction of the draft, etc.

Carter and the Democratic Party are fervent advocates of nuclear power and of imperialism. Nuclear power is one part of Carter's reactionary energy program. Just as Carter is using the fake energy shortages to impose skyrocketing utility rates, heating costs and gas prices onto the masses, so too Carter is using the fraud of the energy "shortage" to justify the criminal nuclear power program. According to Carter, the masses should freeze in winter, starve to pay the utility bills and quietly suffer radioactive poisoning from the nuclear power plants, all under the pretext of "conservation" and of developing "alternative energy sources". This shows that Carter and the Democratic Party, equally with the Republican Party, are just front men for the huge oil companies and energy monopolies, who are engineering fake "shortages" in order to impose an ever larger tribute from the whole of society. The nuclear energy program is a particularly dangerous and warmongering part of the Carter energy program. This shows that the anti-nuclear movement must oppose the flunkeys of the Democratic Party, fight Carter's energy program and its patriotic crusade for "conservation" and "alternative energy", and take the path of struggle against imperialism and the huge corporate exploiters.

THE MONSTROUS NUCLEAR ENERGY PROGRAM IS A PRODUCT OF IMPERIALISM

Right from the beginning, the U.S. nuclear energy program was a program drenched in blood. The atomic bombs dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not dropped to defeat fascism, because Japan was then an already defeated country. No, these atomic bombs, the only ones ever dropped in war, were dropped to intimidate the world's anti-fascist masses. The anti-fascist fighters were then engaged in a great festival of revolution. The victory over the fascist German-Japanese-Italian Axis was giving rise to a great upsurge of the national liberation movement and of socialist revolution. The U.S. imperialists, however, stepped forward to take the place of the fascist Axis and become the world's policeman, the prop of reactionary dictators and the hangmen of the national liberation and socialist revolutionary movements.

In order to dominate the world, the U.S. continued a frenzied nuclear weapons program. One part of this was the building of nuclear reactors. These reactors were used for war research, to produce plutonium for atomic bombs, and, much later, for electric power generation. A deafening propaganda chorus began about the "peaceful uses of atomic energy", including, fantastic tales about using nuclear explosions to build canals and about how radioactive contamination of food could be used to prolong its storage life without refrigeration. And now Carter is blackmailing the people with the "energy shortage". But all these fairytales cannot hide the real features of the U.S. imperialist nuclear energy program. It is a program that can not be made safe, nor peaceful, nor humane.

A PROGRAM OF PREPARATIONS FOR NUCLEAR WAR

The nuclear power program remains closely linked to war preparations. The development of nuclear energy is useful for weapons research, for the production of plutonium, etc. Furthermore, nuclear power is being stockpiled as a source of power that is relatively immune to interruption from the people, interruptions such as the heroic coal strike of 1977-78 or the development of the Iranian people's democratic revolution.

A PROGRAM OF MONOPOLIZING WORLD ENERGY PRODUCTION AND TIGHTENING THE GRIP OF NEO-COLONIAL ENSLAVEMENT

The nuclear energy program also helps the U.S. imperialists to monopolize world energy supplies and to further tighten the chains of neo-colonial domination of countries by seizing control of their energy supply. 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 brings the U.S. imperialists not just fantastic profits, but also a tighter political domination of a vast "sphere of influence".

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 the skyrocketing utility bills and through ever-increasing taxation. Far from being a source of "cheap power", nuclear power has proved to be an ever more expensive boondoggle, with constantly escalating costs. And far from being an "alternative" to the oil monopolies, the oil billionaires are firmly entrenched in the atomic energy field. For example, three big oil monopolies (Exxon, Kerr-McGee and Continental Oil) control 45% of U.S. uranium reserves.

A PROGRAM OF RADIOACTIVE POISONING OF THE PEOPLE

The nuclear power reactors are extremely dangerous. Indeed, why should the militarists who ordered the napalming of Indochinese women and children be expected to have any concern for safety measures ? 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 for the disposal or even long-term storage of the extremely toxic nuclear wastes. And Carter's proposed Energy Mobilization Board will further erode even the present-day standards.

The fraud of the government's soothing assurances about "safety" is exposed by the Price-Anderson Act. In order to foster the development of nuclear reactors, the government removed the liability for damages from the huge corporate giants that make billions off nuclear energy. Quite clearly, no insurance company believes the official optimism of the Rasmussen Report or of the Atomic Energy Commission or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Price-Anderson Act limits the liability of an electrical utility operating a reactor in the case of a nuclear accident to $560 million, of which the government itself would pay $100 million. But the NRC itself has recently been forced to concede that a major nuclear accident could cause $40.5 billion in total damage. Naturally, what is not paid for by the corporations falls back on to the masses.

THE FRAUD OF THE "ENERGY SHORTAGE"

For these reasons, the nuclear energy program has won the hatred of the people. Carter is trying to sell nuclear energy with a hysterical campaign on the basis of the phony "energy shortage". The lie of the "energy shortage" was first floated by the bloodstained war criminal Richard Nixon.

It was and is used to justify the fake shortages and outrageous plunder by the oil monopolies and to bludgeon the people into a patriotic union with the capitalists to "solve the energy shortages".

The various shortages include the recurring long gas lines of 1973-74 and 1979, the "shortage" of natural gas of 1977, the present alleged shortage of heating oil, and countless regional and local shortages. The price of energy goes higher and higher. But, contrary to the preachings of the U.S. oil kings and the capitalist economists, the higher the price the more intense the shortages. One lie about the reasons for this "shortage" is more incredible than the next.

The real cause of the "shortages" can be found in the huge increases of profits of the oil companies in the first part of this year. Under capitalism, if something is profitable, then it will be done. And contrived shortages are very profitable. As well, the cause for the "shortages" can be found in Carter's statement at a news conference in Iowa on May 4 that "We're going to have to have... a few demonstrable shortages as are now being faced in California to show that this (the policy of oil price decontrols and soaring prices and his energy policy as a whole) is necessary. " He promised "periodic gasoline shortages" and "heating oil shortages", while the Director of the Department of Energy, Schlesinger, projected "many more worse shortages over the next decade" which will "end the previous years of cheap (?) energy."

In actual fact, the U.S. is swimming in energy energy sources. Even without any oil imports at all or without any use of nuclear power, the U.S. has abundant natural gas, petroleum and coal deposits to last for many, many decades, until long after all sorts of other energy sources are in use. The oil men and their apologists shout about the oil imports. But the U.S. doesn't import oil because of domestic shortage. On the contrary, the U.S. changed from the world's major exporter of oil to an oil importer as the U.S. stepped up its plunder of world oil resources. The ballooning of oil imports after 1973-74 took place as the U.S. oil monopolies sought to maintain their domination of the world market in the. face of a world oil glut, a massive oversupply of oil relative to the drop in demand with the deepening of the economic crisis of the capitalist world. U.S. imperialism strives to monopolize and dominate as much as possible of the entire world production of energy. The U.S. is interested in foreign oil and other energy sources not mainly to supply U.S. energy needs. But the U.S., like any imperialist power, seeks to monopolize all sources of raw materials, energy, etc. Through its control over world oil markets, the U.S. not only makes great profits, but also is able to exercise hegemony and control over other countries.

"CONSERVATION" AND "ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES" - PART AND PARCEL OF CARTER'S ENERGY PROGRAM

In order to put a nice face upon the policy of ruining the people for the benefit of the energy billionaires, Carter is preaching pious sermons about "conservation". The U.S. corporate giants are indeed among the most wasteful bunch of exploiters history has ever seen. U.S. imperialism plunders and squanders the earth's resources, ruins agricultural land and poisons the waters, lands and atmosphere. But Carter's "conservation" has nothing to do with stopping these crimes. No basic change in this massive waste can be expected without the overthrow of the man-eating profit system and the giant corporate exploiters. Carter's slogan of "conservation" means: (a) to blame the people for the wastefulness of the monopolies; (b) to justify super-profits for the oil kings and skyrocketing energy prices; (c) to stop "wasting" economic resources on heating homes, cooking food and driving, when it can be saved for tanks, missiles and war stockpiles; (d) to justify lifting all environmental standards; and (e) to justify the criminal nuclear energy program.

As well as preaching about "conversation", Carter is making a big noise about developing "alternative energy sources". With this program, Carter will hand over billions of dollars to the energy monopolies to help them develop and monopolize all other energy sources as well as oil.

He is emphasizing those "synfuels" that are best adopted to military use. But Carter is also talking about solar power, gasohol, windmills, geothermal energy, biomass conversion, etc. The government is busy funding young intellectuals to undertake petty "conservation" and "alternative energy" projects in order to divert the mass movement into channels harmless, if not positively profitable, to the oil kings and the monopoly capitalists as a whole. U.S. News and World Report, an undisguised mouthpiece of monopoly capital, in its edition of September 3, 1979 waxes enthusiastic over their hopes for "a grass roots war on fuel shortages" through self-financed conservation projects of the people in various localities. Let the people pay for expensive "conservation" toys, while the monopolies rake in the billions.

THE FLUNKEYS OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY ARE ENEMIES OF THE ANTI-NUCLEAR MOVEMENT

The constant development of new energy sources is a normal part of economic development. The use of certain petty "conservation" measures (while the real waste of monopoly capitalism continues in full swing) and the development of energy resources in the way best suited for military aggression and for corporate super-profits is part and parcel of capitalist economic "progress".

The oil kings and corporate giants are well paid for this work. But for the sake of misleading and liquidating the anti-nuclear movement there are those "left" wing politicians from the Democratic Party and the trade union bureaucracy who paint "conservation" and "alternative energy" schemes in flaming radical colors. They want to have the activists join a super-patriotic crusade to blame the masses for shortages and to help the capitalists stockpile oil 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 push nuclear energy. Instead of fighting against the militarists and the monopoly exploiters, these "Democratic" Party hacks are nothing but disguised supporters of Carter's energy program, better propagandists for Carter's 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. Don't fight the oil 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.

Some of these flunkeys of the Democratic Party adopt all sorts of demagogic appeals. But they all agree with the basic premises of the Carter energy fraud -- such as that there is a "shortage" of energy and that a "positive, realistic" program must be dictated to help U.S. imperialism out of its difficulties. What happens to the anti-nuclear movement when it becomes tied to this path can be seen by the sorry example of California. For a period of time the demonstrations against the nuclear energy program stopped. Why? Because a coalition of anti-nuclear organizations, expecting backing by the ultra-opportunist Governor Brown, got together to float a legislative program for the California State Legislature. According to one source, the anti-nuclear organizations almost split over the legislative program, but maintained unity by -- dropping all anti-nuclear demands, including the banning of new nuclear power plants in California! This is what happens when one gives up the path of struggle against the imperialist nuclear energy program and instead takes up having a "realistic, positive" program, something that might be agreeable to the capitalist politicians and their corporate backers. The rationale for this program was that the anti-nuclear demands would keep the program from being passed! So instead of fighting for anti-nuclear demands and exposing the imperialist politicians, the coalition helped the California legislature to put a wet blanket on the anti-nuclear demands. In place of anti-nuclear demands, the coalition called for a program of "alternative energy" and of financial incentives to the big corporations for "conservation", a program of mandatory solar heating of swimming pools, etc. Allegedly if this program were passed then there would be no need for nuclear power in California. What rubbish!

Clearly such a program has nothing to do with fighting against the imperialist nuclear energy program. The nuclear energy program has nothing to do with the solving of fakes shortages, but is carried out in the interests of imperialism and profiteering. Such a program as that in California could only accelerate the nuclear power program by stopping all mass struggle against it. Such a program may well be adopted to the electoral ambitions of such ultra-opportunists as Governor Jerry Brown or Ted Kennedy, who make a habit out of speaking out of both sides of their mouths, or to the ambitions of their ex-radical supporters, Fonda and Hayden. But it is nothing but helping Carter and the oil monopolies push their energy program.

MASS REVOLUTIONARY STRUGGLE IS THE PATH FORWARD FOR THE ANTI-NUCLEAR MOVEMENT

Nuclear energy is a means of large-scale production. Imperialism has made a monster out of it. The reason for this does not lie in the nature of nuclear energy and nuclear engineering in itself. Sooner or later mankind will learn how to utilize nuclear energy. The cause of the problem lies in the criminal system of imperialism, this system of unrestrained slaughter and exploitation that developed nuclear energy right from the start as an instrument of war and aggression and as a source of unbounded profits. The masses are right to demand that the nuclear reactor program be liquidated lock, stock and barrel. In fighting the imperialist nuclear energy program, the struggle is directed against imperialism and the billionaire exploiters.

The path forward for the anti-nuclear movement is that of the revolutionary struggle against the imperialists, the exploiters and Carter's energy program. Only the mass struggle has the strength and vitality to strike a real blow at the nuclear energy program. And this struggle comes up against the lying capitalist politicians at every step of its development. The nuclear power 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 nuclear energy program has been deeply rooted in imperialism and fostered by the most powerful monopolies ever since World War II. Therefore, there is no alternative to struggle, no shortcut via "realistic" legislative programs or tinkering with petty "conservation" or "alternative energy" schemes. It is 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.

[Back to Top]

Down with the Fake Shortages and Carter's Energy Policy!

Resist the Outrageous Robbery of the Masses by the U.S. Oil Monopolies!

As winter approaches, the price of home heating oil is rising 6¢ a gallon each month and has now reached 80£, nearly double that of a year ago. Tremendous hardships are in store for millions of poor people who face the prospect of freezing or starving as a consequence of the insatiable greed of the monopoly capitalists. The energy monopolies are continuing their rampage for yet higher fuel prices and more gigantic profits, while their mouthpiece Carter is blackmailing the people with lies about a "heating oil shortage".

Carter's energy program, stripped of all the lies, is a program for unprecedented robbery of the masses by the oil billionaires. It is a program to jack up prices to the skies through the diabolical schemes to create phony fuel shortages, and to thus provide the energy monopolies with gigantic profits. The fraudulent gasoline "shortage" earlier this year was the vehicle used by the oil companies, in complete cooperation with Carter, to raise the price of gasoline to over $1 a gallon and to cause all energy costs to the consumer to soar at over a 60% annual rate.

The working people are being pushed up against the wall, and this arouses their utmost hatred and contempt for the government of the rich. But Carter says this is all wrong. No, he says, the problem is that the U.S. has a "dangerous... excessive dependency on foreign oil", and that this is a result of an "energy shortage" in the U.S. But in fact, Carter is excessively dependent on lies, of which there is no shortage.

The U.S. is not "dangerously dependent on foreign oil". It is not the U.S. imperialists who are being pushed around by the oil producing countries. It is the U.S. imperialists who are plundering them and the people of other countries throughout the world. The U.S. is importing large amounts of oil, over half of U.S. consumption. But the energy monopolies are importing these huge quantities of oil because of the fabulous profits that are obtained from the plunder of this oil. Equally as important, they need these large imports in order to maintain their control over world oil production and distribution and to prevent rival imperialists, particularly the Soviet social-imperialists but also the monopolies of Western Europe and Japan, from establishing their control and edging out the U.S. oil monopolies. Control of world oil resources is of vital strategic importance to the U.S. imperialists, economically, politically and militarily. This is the cause of the large oil imports and Carter has absolutely no intentions to change this situation. Carter rants and raves against a "dangerous dependence on foreign oil" to hide the imperialist plunder of world oil resources by the oil companies that lies behind the large oil imports into the U.S.

Furthermore, these massive imports, this "dependency", is not the result of any shortage of energy resources in the U.S. The U.S. is literally swimming in oil, coal and natural gas reserves. But these reserves are not being extracted and produced to meet the energy needs of the country, due to the oil monopolies' imports (read plunder) of oil from abroad. Instead the U.S. imperialists are hoarding and stockpiling domestic energy reserves as part of their preparations for aggressive wars in defense of their world empire. Carter's energy program is as much a part of war preparations as is his program of frantic nuclear weapons stockpiling and armaments production of all types. Carter's claim of an "energy shortage" in the U.S. is a 100% lie.

Carter is also lying when he says that the particular fuel shortages felt by the consumer are real and come about as a result of the disruption of the supply of the huge U.S. imports of foreign oil, such as with the Iranian revolution last winter. In fact, world oil production reached record levels in 1979. The drop in Iranian oil production was simply an excuse of the oil companies to declare a blatant artificial shortage to pave the way for extortionate price increases. And it was Carter, on behalf of the oil barons, who pretended that the shortage was real, and for example denied the existence of overflowing gasoline storage tanks while the car lines stretched for blocks and prices soared. Carter cynically declared, "We're going to have to have... a few demonstrable shortages as are now being faced in California to show that this (his policy of oil price decontrols and soaring energy costs -- ed.) is necessary."

Congress is now debating Carter's July proposal to "lead our nation to victory" over the "energy problem". Now that gasoline prices and oil company profits have hit the sky, Carter has proclaimed the second phase of his energy program: to divide up the loot among the richest monopolies. Based on the fraud of the U.S. having a "dangerous dependence on foreign oil" and a "shortage of energy resources", Carter is proposing massive schemes for the development of "alternative energy" resources. These schemes have nothing to do with lessening oil imports or eliminating a non-existent energy shortage. Put in plain terms, Carter's program is to hand out $140 billion to the energy monopolies, along with other measures to stuff the pockets of the rich. Carter's main proposal is to set up an "Energy Security Corporation". This "independent, government sponsored corporation" would have a charter to invest a minimum of $88 billion in the next ten years to develop synthetic fuels (including coal gasification, shale oil and alcohol fuels, etc.). What a feast for the rich! This includes the proposed construction of 50 coal gasification and shale oil projects at a projected $1 billion apiece -- a multi-billion dollar boondoggle for the large engineering, manufacturing and construction corporations, etc., and for the oil monopolies, who will not only operate the plants, but who also control vast coal and oil shale mining tracts. But besides being a billion dollar treasure chest for the energy corporations, the synfuels projects are specifically designed for utilization by the U.S. imperialist war machine. As opposed to other energy resources, the oil produced from coal and shale rock provides excellent fuel for tanks, jets, trucks and other military hardware. Even the bourgeois media has drawn a comparison between Carter's synfuels projects and Hitler's coal gasification plants which provided fuel for the German Nazis' armed forces. Behind Carter's hysteria of a "dangerous dependence on foreign oil", the government is handing out billions of dollars to the energy monopolies and stockpiling energy resources for war.

And who will pay for the fantastic profits to be made from the "alternative energy", synthetic fuel developments ? Carter says that the oil companies will pay, through a "windfall profits tax". This is a fraud. In reality, it is the working people who will pay, having been robbed blind in the first place by the oil kings to achieve these windfall profits. This tax on the windfall profits of the oil companies is actually an indirect tax on the people. Carter's energy program is designed to make the working people pay for the energy crisis and economic crisis of the monopoly capitalist system and for the stockpiling of all sorts of energy resources in the U.S. in preparation for aggressive imperialist war.

FOR A REAL FIGHT AGAINST THE U.S. OIL MONOPOLIES AND CARTER'S ENERGY PROGRAM

A "National Day of Protest" against "Big Oil" has been called for October 17 to take place in numerous cities across the U.S. This protest has been called by the umbrella organization Campaign for Lower Energy Prices (CLEP), which is mainly composed of two social-democratic coalitions. These are the Progressive Alliance, led by the UAW's Doug Fraser, and Citizens/Labor Energy Coalition (CLEC) led by the International Association of Machinists' (IAM) William Winpisinger. Also involved are such elements of the left wing of the Democratic Party as Ralph Nader, Tom Hayden and Jane Fonda. The Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninists believes in mass actions against the gluttonous energy corporations and supports any real fight. The American people are burning with indignation at the robbery of the oil monopolists and the government, and with the blatant lies of Carter to cover up the tracks. But, strangely enough, to actually carry out this fight, it is necessary to oppose the social-democratic big shots and labor bureaucrats who are only pretending to fight the oil monopolies. Analysis of their supposedly anti-"Big Oil" program shows that they are nothing but front men for essentially the same pro-"Big Oil" energy program as Carter. They are putting on airs as militant fighters against "oil rip-offs" and proclaim "Stop the Oil Profiteers!" But these exclamations are just as meaningless as Carter's demagogy against the "excessive profits" of the oil billionaires. To really wage a fight against the profiteering oil corporations, one must also fight the government that serves them and oppose Carter's energy program.

Carter recognized the identical nature of Fraser's program against "Big Oil" and his own energy program in a speech on August 22, much to Fraser's embarrassment. Carter praised "UAW members all across the country" for "stopping work... to write me and Congress to pass the legislation we have proposed." (UAW Solidarity, Vol. 22, No. 10, Sept. 3, 1979) In fact, the UAW members did not write letters, but instead sent in postcards prepared by Fraser and the UAW leadership. These postcards were written deceptively so that the UAW members thought that they were against the oil billionaires and in favor of "stopping the oil rip-off". But Carter exposed that the demands written by Fraser for Congress to enact a "People's Energy Program" were in fact a demand for Congress to enact Carter's energy legislation. How is Fraser and Winpisinger's energy program the same as Carter's?

Winpisinger's CLEC says that the U.S. has to have "less dependence on foreign oil". Just like Carter, Winpisinger is describing the oil companies' imperialist plunder of world oil resources and the oil imports into the U.S. as "dependence on foreign oil". They are both covering up for the tremendous exploitation of the natural resources of the world's people by the U.S. multinational corporations.

Winpisinger also agrees with Carter's basic fraud that this dependence on foreign oil is caused by an energy shortage in the U.S. Instead of exposing this fraud, he is going along with it and calling for the development of "alternative forms of energy" to supposedly alleviate this non-existent shortage. This is exactly what Carter is proposing with his $88 billion synthetic fuels development schemes, to rob from the masses and give billions of dollars to the energy corporations and to stockpile domestic energy resources.

But the parallel doesn't stop here. To finance these "alternative energy" schemes, Fraser and Winpisinger's umbrella organization demands "Enact a Strong Windfall Profits Tax!". Thus they support Carter's energy program down the line, including the centerpiece of Carter's proposals, the multi-billion dollar handouts to the energy monopolies for "alternative energy" development schemes, using money robbed from the masses through soaring energy prices. (Fraser and co. claim to be more radical than Carter, because they want a bigger tax. In other words, they want to divide up and shell out more loot among the different energy monopolies.)

This exposes Fraser and Winpisinger as lackeys of "Big Oil", just like Carter. Despite their screams to "Stop Oil Rip-offs" and "Stop the Oil Profiteers", it seems that these gentlemen have no such thing in mind at all. They simply scream a little louder than Carter against the oil companies for "price gouging", "profiteering" and "phony shortages". But they go against all of this in their concrete program which is a Carterite program for billion dollar handouts to the oil barons. They say "roll back prices" and "end profiteering", but if this actually occurred, where would be the "windfall profits" that, according to the UAW, could be taxed to "generate billions of dollars for a crash program to ensure adequate energy supplies" ? As one UAW leaflet put it: "It's not enough to condemn Big Oil's price gouging and rigged shortages. We need to go a step further and enact the beginnings of a People's Energy Program." It is perfectly clear that their "People's Energy Program" is the same as Carter's, but simply with some militant rhetoric attached. It is nothing but "Big Oil's" program.

To gain popularity, Fraser and co. demand "No Phony Shortages". But they nevertheless agree with Carter's fraud that the U.S. lacks energy resources and is therefore dependent on foreign oil. They demand "Stop the Lying and Open the Books". But Carter himself said on July 16 that he is "investigating the oil companies to see if the current shortage involves any improper or illegal activity." Talk is cheap for those who are trying to deceive the people.

Fraser and co. are advancing no demands against nuclear energy for the October 17 protests. Why is this? It is because their mission is to support all aspects of Carter's energy program. And Carter's "alternative energy" schemes include the reckless development of the criminally unsafe and poisonous nuclear power. By yelling loudly for "alternative energy" and for Carter to "Get moving" while they remain silent on nuclear power, Fraser and co., these "radicals" who are supposedly against "Big Oil", are actually coming out in support of the nuclear energy corporations (which are in large part the big oil companies)!

Carter blames OPEC for high fuel prices and for every other inherent disease of U.S. monopoly capitalism, including inflation, layoffs, etc. Fraser and co. do the same, stating that with the lifting of controls, "OPEC Nations set the price we pay for American oil." In blaming OPEC, Fraser reveals that despite his screaming at the oil companies for "profiteering", etc., he actually agrees with Carter that the real problem is "foreigners". This rabid national chauvinism of Carter and the labor traitors is designed to divert the people's anger away from the U.S. oil companies and the government, and to create public opinion in favor of a U.S. imperialist war of aggression against the Arab oil-producing countries, should the oil monopolists feel that this is necessary to protect their huge investments there and the fabulous profits received from them.

Fraser and Winpisinger, these "anti-Big Oil" warriors, are also yelling for the breaking up of what they call the "oil companies-OPEC cartel". They say this should be done through a "public (government) corporation" to take over the negotiation of oil import prices from the oil companies. This is just another version of letting the oil companies off the hook and saying that the real problem is that the poor defenseless U.S. oil corporations are being pushed around by "OPEC".

The real issue is: why hasn't the government broken up the U.S. oil companies by now ? It is because they are the very backbone of the U.S. monopoly capitalist economy, and can only be broken up by the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat. All of this faith expressed by Fraser and co. in the desire of Carter to break up the "oil cartel" is for prettifying the government.

Fraser and co. blame OPEC, "Big Oil", dependence on foreign oil imports, an "energy shortage", etc. But they are extremely careful to avoid putting any blame whatsoever on Carter and the government for the soaring fuel price increases. The labor traitors want to channel all the indignation of the workers away from Carter and the government. They want the workers to believe that the only problem with the government is that it is not restraining the monopolies forcefully enough. In the words of the UAW: "Only one corporation can assure a steady, sufficient flow of energy at fair prices... and it's called the U.S. government. Isn't it time we, the stockholders, told our government to get moving?" The issue is not to plead with the government to "get moving". The government cannot force the monopoly capitalists to stop all of their criminal schemes to realize maximum profits. On the contrary, the state machine is nothing but a tool of the monopoly capitalists to administer the exploitation of the workers and to suppress their struggles against the rich. The collaboration between Carter and the oil kings is only one example. In prettifying the government, Fraser and co. are trying to prevent the working class from drawing revolutionary conclusions from the blatant, criminal robbery by the rich.

Only the revolutionary struggle can strike blows against the oil monopolies, and the savage and increasing robbery of the exploiters is creating a powerful sentiment for this struggle. A genuine struggle can draw in the working masses and release their enthusiasm. This struggle must target both the oil billionaires and the government and adopt an irreconcilable attitude toward them. This struggle includes the powerful strike movement of the workers, for the strike movement and the demand for higher wages is one of the ways that the masses fight against the robbery of the capitalists. These struggles too come right up against the fierce resistance of the Carter administration and the government, and they must take up the popular banner of "defying Carter's wage controls".

Such mass actions against the exploitation and oppression of the monopoly capitalists help prepare the working class and people for the socialist revolution. The oil monopolies are a decisive part of the capitalist economy. The only conclusion that can be drawn from their outrageous robbery is the need for socialism, for the expropriation of the monopoly capitalists. Socialism alone will eliminate the monopoly capitalist corporations and organize production on the basis of satisfying the needs of the working people. This is the correct conclusion, the need for socialist revolution, that can be made from the vicious activity of Carter and the energy monopolies.

Carter is the head of the Democratic Party and is waging a fascist offensive against the working, class on behalf of the rich. The trade union bureaucrats are in an alliance with the Democratic Party against the workers. They are trying to save Carter from the hatred of the masses, or to elect some other liar like Kennedy. In September, according to the AFL-CIO, the top labor traitors from 33 public sector unions attended a convention in which they "joined in shaping a program designed to revive confidence in the government. " Fraser, Winpisinger and other elements from the left wing of the Democratic Party are using a more subtle approach to whip up support for Carter's energy program and for the Democratic Party in general.

In order to wage a real fight against the oil billionaires, there must be struggle against Carter's energy policy. The Democratic Party hacks and the social-democratic trade union bureaucrats are nothing but lackeys of the oil monopolies.

The masses are seething with anger against the outrageous robbery of the exploiters and a ferment is spreading among the working class. A struggle is developing for the defense of the vital interests of the masses, and this struggle can and will be utilized to develop and strengthen a powerful revolutionary movement.

DOWN WITH THE OIL BILLIONAIRES' ROBBERY OF THE MASSES!

DOWN WITH CARTER'S ENERGY PROGRAM: FAKE SHORTAGES TO IMPOSE SKYROCKETING PRICES AND STOCKPILE FOR WAR!

YES! TO REVOLUTIONARY STRUGGLE AGAINST STARVATION, FASCISM AND WAR!

[Back to Top]

COUSML wages a big campaign to organize the auto workers' struggle

A big struggle is being waged over this year's. auto contract. The auto workers are under savage attack. The auto monopoly capitalists are cutting the workers' wages, 100,000 auto workers have been thrown out of their jobs, and the remaining workers are being overworked through extreme speedup and job combinations, through long overtime hours and automation. The Carter government has created a "national accord" with the top bureaucrats from the UAW, Teamsters, and AFL-CIO to step up the offensive to cut the pay of all the workers through wage controls.

And together the auto billionaires, the Carter government, the UAW bureaucrats and the monopoly capitalist news media have gone all out to keep the auto workers silent, to suppress every attempt at resistance, to demoralize the workers and ensure through lies and violence that there is "no opposition" to the present sellout of the auto workers, that there is "unanimous" approval of the betrayal of the working class. The revisionist and opportunist organizations also joined this vicious onslaught against the workers. They did not lift a finger to defend the auto workers, but have proved once again that they are nothing but the tail of the trade union bureaucrats and their plots to stifle the workers' resistance.

The workers were burning with rage against these savage attacks, but they were thrown into disarray by the UAW bureaucrats and their opportunist hangers-on. In this difficult situation, the COUSML boldly marched forward and launched a big campaign to organize the auto workers' struggle. In auto plants all across the country, from the Ford-Mahwah complex in New Jersey to GM-Fremont in California, COUSML has called on the workers to "PREPARE FOR STRUGGLE!" and to "DEFY CARTER'S WAGE CONTROLS!" At more than 75 auto factories in over 20 cities, the agitation of the COUSML has encouraged the fighting spirit of the workers and has given them one national voice, orienting them against the class enemies and exposing the sinister maneuvers and betrayal of the UAW misleaders. Through its work at the factory gates, its demonstrations and agitational pickets, through its distribution networks inside the factories and its struggle at the local union meetings, the COUSML has worked to make the workers conscious of their own great strength. It has further encouraged all the opposition currents and inspired many militants to link up with the Marxist-Leninist workers to spread even wider the struggle against the UAW chieftains' sellout contracts, against the auto billionaires and Carter's wage controls.

A month before the first contract deadline, the COUSML came out with a special supplement of The Workers' Advocate devoted entirely to the auto workers' struggle. This paper explained the significance of the fight against the barbarous wage-cutting offensive of the Carter government, set the fighting task to defy Carter's wage controls, and called on the workers to split from the politics of the rich and take up independent political activity based on the interests of the working class and its revolutionary struggle for emancipation. The paper showed how the UAW president, Douglas Fraser, has always supported the government's wage-cutting offensive and exposed that his lying claim that wage controls had "self- destructed" was an attempt to lull the workers to sleep and keep them from embarking on an open and conscious revolt against the government. It was exposed that in his lies about wage controls and in his plea for "a fair share of the profits", Fraser was even then preparing to throw overboard the union's own demand for a "substantial wage increase". It was pointed out as well that Fraser's scheme to make the workers give "concessions" to Chrysler and "sacrifice" for the profits of the rich moneybags will not defend the workers' jobs. And the paper told the truth that "The Issue Is Not to 'Save" Chrysler, But to Intensify the Struggle Against It". In every article The Workers' Advocate showed that the organization of the workers and their mass struggle alone can defend the workers' livelihood and contribute to the struggle of the entire working class against Carter's wage controls and the monopoly capitalist wage-cutting offensive.

Besides this special supplement, the COUSML also put out special bulletins of The Workers'Advocate at the important turns in the contract struggle. On September 17, two days after the tentative GM contract was signed, COUSML distributed a special bulletin calling on the workers to "Fight Fraser's Sellout Contract! Defy Carter's Wage Controls!" This bulletin exposed that Fraser had betrayed every promise he had made to the workers and showed that this new contract means continued wage cuts, overwork and layoffs. On October 7, two days after the tentative Ford contract was signed, another special bulletin was distributed exposing the sellout Ford contract and showing how Fraser has all along been working behind the scenes to strengthen the wage controls of the Carter government.

Auto workers all over the country were enthusiastic when they received these papers and leaflets, and they seriously read and discussed them. The largest concentration of auto workers is in southeastern Michigan. And in this area alone over 84,000 pieces of literature have been distributed to the auto workers so far (41,500 copies of the special supplement and then over 42,700 copies of the special bulletins). Whether in Detroit, Flint and Pontiac, or in Norwood, Ohio or other cities throughout the country, the workers were buzzing with excitement as the fighting truth of The Workers' Advocate spread throughout the auto factories. At many plants militants joined with the Marxist-Leninist workers to distribute the papers and leaflets widely both inside and in front of the auto plants. In a number of cases militants on their way into work stopped not only to get their own copies, but also took stacks of the leaflets and distributed them to other workers right in front of the plant gates. For weeks on end these Workers' Advocate supplements and bulletins were the constant topic of discussion among the auto workers. And the facts these papers presented and the orientation they gave showed the workers the way to fight and strengthened their resolve to do so. "The Marxist-Leninists tell the truth, " one worker said. And his words summed up the feelings of many. '

Along with the widescale distribution of TheWorkers' Advocate supplement and bulletins, the COUSML organized many other activities to inspire and rally the workers for the fight against the auto billionaires and Carter's wage controls. Carrying a bright red banner emblazoned with the slogan "DEFY CARTER'S WAGE CONTROLS!", the Marxist-Leninist workers demonstrated at the Detroit meeting of the UAW Bargaining Council to protest against the sellout GM contract that the UAW chieftains had signed. Propaganda demonstrations were held through the markets and working class communities. Agitational pickets were organized at plant gates on the nights of the contract deadlines. And the Marxist-Leninist workers agitated at many local union informational meetings and contract ratification meetings. Wherever auto workers gathered, there the Marxist-Leninists could be found, explaining the burning issues and pointing the direction for the fight.

The monopoly capitalists and the UAW hacks organized an enormous propaganda campaign in order to steamroller through their sellout contract. With the aim of demoralizing the workers and disorganizing all resistance they created the big lie that there was "no opposition" to the sellout and that the contracts would receive "unanimous" approval. Fraser repeated this big lie at every opportunity and the news media of the rich chanted this same theme night and day. They even wrote lengthy "news" articles to "prove" that there was "no opposition" by quoting various opportunists who readily admitted that they were doing nothing to fight the sellout, and who tried to create the false opinion that nothing could be done. But this big lie was burst like a bubble by the wide-ranging work of the COUSML. The masses of workers could see with their own eyes that there is an opposition, and that the Marxist-Leninists are organizing it.

The monopoly capitalists and the UAW chieftains used not only lies and deception, but turned to threats and reactionary violence in their frantic efforts to silence the COUSML and to suppress any outbreak of struggle. The UAW sent goon squads of trade union bureaucrats to the plant gates and the local union meetings to try and intimidate the Marxist-Leninist workers and to violently stop the distribution of The Workers' Advocate bulletins. But the Marxist-Leninist workers stood up to the trade union hacks and exposed their treachery. When the other workers saw the staunch stand of the Marxist-Leninists, they pushed the UAW hacks aside, they came up to get copies of the communist bulletins, and they laughed and joked that it was "about time someone stood up to the union hacks."

When the UAW goon squads could not silence the Marxist-Leninists, they called in the auto company guards. After the guards failed, they called in the police. But no force could silence the COUSML. The Marxist-Leninists continued to organize the opposition and they gave the trade union sellouts no peace.

In order to hide from the angry auto workers, Fraser had called a big union meeting in Dallas, Texas, far away from the centers of the auto industry. But even as Fraser and his entourage were boarding the plane for Dallas, a Marxist- Leninist worker was leafletting the UAW delegates with The Workers' Advocate bulletin that called on the workers to "Fight Fraser's Sellout Contract! Defy Carter's Wage Controls!" Fraser himself was cornered by the comrade. Hoping to intimidate this worker and make the claim that the leaflet was from outsiders who knew nothing, Fraser demanded that the worker tell where he was from. The worker replied that he was laid off from the Dodge Main plant. Fraser was taken aback by his obvious exposure and blurted out his contempt for the auto workers by demanding to know why a laid off worker wanted to fight against overtime.. Again the answer exposed Fraser, because the worker pointed out that while over two- thirds of the Dodge Main workers are laid off, because of the capitulation of the UAW bureaucrats the remaining workers are again being forced to work long overtime hours. On issue after issue the Marxist-Leninist worker exposed Fraser and his sellout contract, while Fraser was completely unable to refute even a single word of the truth of the Marxist-Leninist analysis. Made a fool of by a single Marxist-Leninist worker, Fraser, this prestigious UAW president, this "mighty" capitalist trade union hack supreme, fled to his airplane to escape the opposition which he had been claiming didn't even exist. Everywhere the trade union hacks turned, in the factories, in the communities, in the union meetings, even boarding a plane, they were confronted by the COUSML. Frustrated, intimidated and increasingly isolated by the growing opposition, Fraser was forced to drop his big lies of "unanimity" and "no opposition". When he got off the plane in Dallas, Fraser began blurting out to television reporters his hatred at the "small group of dissidents" who were upsetting his sellout plans.

The myth that the workers are in favor of the sellout contract has been smashed. And with it, the entire sellout campaign of the UAW bureaucrats is collapsing. Only a short while ago Fraser was singing the praises of what he called a "momentous" and "historic" contract. But stung by the sharp exposures by the COUSML and the growing opposition of masses of the workers, today Fraser has begun to moan that, after all, this is "not...the greatest contract ever." The workers are turning to struggle. Already small walkouts have occurred against the contracts. Workers have staged slowdowns and smashed up cars in protest against the massive layoffs. And farm equipment workers have begun contract strikes. The auto contract fight is still on. And the opposition is gaining strength.

The nationwide campaign of the COUSML has been an important weapon for the organization of the auto workers' struggle. With its Marxist- Leninist analysis and its fiery agitation, the COUSML has shown the workers their own great strength and has brought consciousness and a clear-cut orientation to the struggle against the auto billionaires and the government's wage controls. With their own eyes the masses of workers have seen that the Marxist-Leninists are on their side, and that they have found their own vanguard revolutionary force in the COUSML.

[Photo.]

[Back to Top]

Carter's "Soviet Brigade in Cuba" Hysteria:

A Smokescreen for Measures Against the Revolution in Latin America and the Caribbean

Since early September, the U.S. imperialists, through their lackey politicians and news media, have been yelling hysterically about a ''Soviet Brigade in Cuba". On October 1, President Carter announced a series of new military measures to be taken by the U.S. government, supposedly in response to the existence of this brigade. But in actual fact these military measures are designed as a bludgeon against the revolutionary liberation movements, particularly in Latin America and the Caribbean, that are developing in opposition to the brutal exploitation and domination of U.S. imperialism and its fascist puppet regimes. The Soviet social-imperialists for their part are equally with the U.S. imperialists the hangmen and assassins of the revolutionary people. The existence of Soviet troops in Cuba is one aspect of the Soviet Union's neo-colonial domination and plunder of that country. But the "Soviet Brigade in Cuba" issue is only a pretext being used by Carter to justify the beefing up of the armed apparatus of the U.S. to be used against the revolutionary struggles of the people.

To usher in the present wave of expanded military operations various senators and then Carter himself, declared that "new evidence" from U.S. spy satellites, listening posts, and CIA agents in Cuba suggested that a Soviet training brigade stationed outside Havana might actually be a combat unit. The brigade in question consists of 2,000 to 3,000 men with 40 tanks and no airborne or seaborne capability. No nuclear threat was charged as in past "Cuban crises". Even the council of "wise men" (former policymakers during the Viet Nam war) convened by Carter could not agree whether the brigade is for combat or for training Cuban puppet troops for combat.

The presence of Soviet social-imperialist troops in Cuba has been recognized and agreed to by the U.S. imperialists ever since the Cuban missile crisis and the 1962 "understanding". So why the big fuss ? The fact of the matter is that Carter's sensational pseudo-exposure is but a pretext. The actual target of the massive "countermeasures" announced in his October 1 speech is the developing revolution, particularly the revolution in Latin America and the Caribbean. Naturally, because of the strength of the revolution today, imperialists cannot openly declare, "We are for reaction, oppression, and exploitation. We are going to take the following measures to liquidate the revolution and drown it in blood." No, they must conceal their true motives with various frauds and deceptions. They must portray themselves as the victims of aggression, however farfetched it may seem.

The U.S. imperialists are long practiced in this lying art. The "Soviet Brigade" hysteria provided a convenient pretext for further strengthening U.S. imperialism's counter-revolutionary apparatus on a number of fronts. U.S. spying both through satellites and intelligence agents will be expanded, but with appropriate guarantees for "civil and constitutional rights", of course.

A new Caribbean Joint Task Force Headquarters is established at Key West to direct U.S. military operations in the region. These activities are to be stepped up beginning with a practice amphibious invasion of Cuba at Guantanamo. "Improvements" are being made in speed, mobility and logistics for the 110,000 man Rapid Deployment Force to intervene anywhere in the world to "protect our (U.S.) interests and to act in response to requests for help from our allies and friends." Other worldwide imperialist moves include the reinforcing of the U.S. fleet in the Indian Ocean, authorizing of a fifth nuclear aircraft carrier, "real increases in our defense expenditures to fulfill the goals of our Five Year Defense Plan," and the dispatching of Secretary of Defense Brown to further seal the U.S.-China aggressive alliance. Presumably these modest measures should be sufficient to "counterbalance" the Soviet Cuban brigade!

The current U.S. maneuvers have been developed in response to their defeat in Nicaragua and their hopes to crush the revolution in El Salvador, Guatemala and elsewhere. In Nicaragua the U.S. imperialists did everything short of a Viet Nam war style invasion to save their lackey Somoza.

To the very end Somoza's fascist troops were resupplied by U.S. Air Force planes from the Panama Canal Zone. The genocidal bombing, resulting in the slaughter of tens of thousands of Nicaraguan patriots, was carried out by U.S.-provided planes and bombs, U.S.-trained pilots, directed by U.S. "advisers", and protected U.S. imperialists' interests. At the same time U.S. diplomats were carrying out frantic, behind the scenes manipulations to organize an "Inter-American Peacekeeping Force" to intervene to save their neo-colony, and were trying to arrange a "compromise peaceful solution", a "ceasefire", or any other subterfuge to suppress the popular uprising. However, in the end the armed Nicaraguan masses defeated the U.S. butchers and sent them running.

In summing up its experience in Nicaragua, the Carter administration concluded that it was "insufficiently forceful" and that now the U.S. faced "insurgency and Communism" throughout the region (Assistant Secretary of State Viron P. Vaky to the House Inter-American Affairs Subcommittee). Therefore vigorous measures to beef up the reactionary armed forces for more extensive fascist terror and repression were in order. Military aid to the puppet regimes was stepped up. U.S. spying and military operations in the area were increased. Vaky and "special mediator" William Bowdler resumed lining up support for the creation of a permanent "Inter-

American Peacekeeping Force" at the upcoming OAS (Organization of American States) meeting in November. In addition, to camouflage this aggression the "human rights" fraud was cranked up again. Sham elections for El Salvador in March were announced as well as a propaganda campaign about "democratization". Carter administration officials admit that the mass murder and imprisonment of workers, students, and peasants undermines the "human rights" propaganda a bit, but after all General Romero is the "constitutional head of state" and they "can't tell him what to do"! They also announced "human rights victories" in Brazil and Argentina where the fascist generals are participating in the farce of "political liberalization" and the "rule of law"! Even in Uruguay the level of torture of political prisoners has been "significantly reduced" with the opening of two new, modern prisons! Why, we certainly couldn't allow "social turmoil" and "insurgency" to interfere with such "progress"!

The "Soviet Brigade" incident is also part of the dangerous game of inter-imperialist rivalry and nuclear brinkmanship which the two imperialist superpowers are playing. This latest escalation in their voracious warmongering increases the threat of wars of aggression and of a general counter-revolutionary world war. It is a serious attack on the people who are forced to provide the cannon fodder for the imperialist adventures as well as the increased sweat to pay for the crushing burden of militarizing the economy and ensuring super-profits for the warmongers. Carter's demagogy about defending '''peace", "freedom", and "security" against the "foreign threat" is nothing but a smokescreen to conceal the hideous aggressive designs of the U.S. imperialists against the people of the world. It is the mirror image of the hypocritical "support" for "liberation" and "socialism" preached by the Soviet social-imperialists. The crimes committed by these two hitlerite regimes to stave off their inevitable defeat will only serve to further arouse the revolutionary upheaval which is now developing to overthrow them both.

[Back to Top]

Birds of a Feather Flock Together:

War Criminal Nixon Receives Another Warm Welcome from the Chinese Social-Imperialists

In mid-September, the fascist warmonger Nixon went to China to meet with his good friends, the Chinese revisionist scoundrels, Deng Xiaoping and Hua Guofeng. Nixon is universally hated by the proletariat and people in the U.S. and worldwide who will never forget the monstrous crimes he committed on behalf of the U.S. imperialist bourgeoisie. Nixon's name is regarded as a synonym for rabid anti-communism, fascist repression, vicious exploitation, unbridled U.S. imperialist aggression and mass murder around the world. As the leader of the U.S. war of aggression against Viet Nam, Cambodia and Laos, this butcher has the blood of hundreds of thousands of Indochinese people dripping from his hands. When Nixon was president he was thoroughly discredited, even being shown to be a common criminal, and was forced to leave office and go into hiding. With their meeting and honoring of this wretched creature, the social-imperialist leaders of China unashamedly announce to the world their deep love of anti-communism, fascism and war.

Nixon was sent to China as a special envoy of the State Department. As an old hand at ''playing the China card", he came with a special message to strengthen and arm Chinese social-imperialism's military forces. This trip was part and parcel of U.S. imperialism's plans to use the Chinese people as cannon fodder against the U.S. imperialists' main rival for world domination, Soviet social-imperialism. As Nixon stated just before entering China: "It is in the interest of all nations to contribute to the strengthening of the People's Republic of China economically and defensively. '' "A strong China is central to the survival of peace in this part of the world and peace in the whole world -- it's the old balance of power. " He added that: "We take the position we won't sell arms to China but we don't object if others do'' and "... any action to help China develop its defensive capabilities would help peace. " These statements greatly pleased the Chinese leaders because they coincide with their own plans to import armaments and other "aid" from the U.S. imperialist bloc and to build China up into a ferocious aggressive social-imperialist power. Therefore the Chinese warmonger Deng lavishly praised Nixon, especially for his role in "the struggle against hegemonism.''

The warmongering plot behind Nixon's visit can be clearly seen from a recently released Department of Defense study entitled, "Consolidated Guidance No. 8: Asia During a Worldwide Conventional War". Citing China's "pivotal role" in the global balance of power, the report states that the U.S. should "encourage Chinese actions that would heighten Soviet security concerns. " It points out that if the U.S. does not arm China that this "could lead to significantly reduced Soviet defense requirements in Asia and concurrent strengthening opposite the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. " Thus the report recommends providing "advanced technology and intelligence data to China", "the sale of advanced arms", "Chinese production of American weapons", and ''joint military exercises". The same week the report was disclosed, it was announced that Secretary of Defense Brown would be going to China shortly to discuss "security problems of mutual interest".

Of course the Chinese warmongers have not been sitting idly by. For the last couple of years they have traveled all over Western Europe and the U.S: shopping for weapons. Recently, for instance, the Chinese warmongers purchased Rolls- Royce jet engines from the British imperialists. Thus Nixon's trip was intimately connected to the intensified warmongering of the U.S.-China alliance.

Nixon's visit to China was his third and these visits have always been closely linked to the development of the counter-revolutionary U.S.-China alliance. The reconciliation between U.S. imperialism and the Chinese revisionist leadership began in 1971 when Kissinger went to China for secret talks. These talks led up to the infamous meeting between Nixon and Mao Zedong in 1972. Mao Zedong's meeting with Nixon was held at a time when the fascist Nixon was carrying out the most barbaric bombing against heroic North Viet Nam, when U.S. imperialism was being smashed by the heroic peoples of Indochina, and when Nixon and the U.S. warmongers were becoming isolated and denounced around the world. But for "the greatest revolutionary of all time", Mao Zedong, it was nothing one day to issue a call to the world's people to "unite and defeat the U.S. aggressors and all their running dogs" and the next day have cordial talks with Nixon in his study. Even as the rotten talks with Nixon were being plotted, Mao Zedong hypocritically stated that "the American people who are fighting valiantly will ultimately win victory and that the fascist rule in the United States will inevitably be defeated. " This "brilliant tactic" of Mao Zedong of fostering warm friendship with the worst enemies of mankind was cynically described by the Chinese revisionists as "people-to-people" diplomacy. This same excuse was given when Nixon met Mao Zedong for a second time in 1976, after Nixon had fallen from power and there was not even the question of diplomatic relations of any sort.

The meetings with Kissinger and Nixon mark the beginning of the development of the U.S.-China alliance. In 1971, with great Marxist-Leninist insight, Comrade Enver Hoxha of the Party of Labor of Albania correctly recognized the disastrous consequences of the U.S.-China rapproachment. He wrote at the time: "No! This policy is unprincipled and its basis is an anti-Marxist, anti-revolutionary line. Conciliation is sought with American imperialism, compromises are sought with it, sacrificing principles...

"If this revisionist course is not brought to a halt immediately, the China of Mao Tsetung will take the same road that the revisionist Soviet Union took, and here there is the danger that matters will be precipitated and great confusion created.

"What is occurring in China interests both the imperialists and the revisionists. The first phase is that of setting China on the road of agreement with the revisionist betrayal, on the road of becoming discredited in the international arena, in the eyes of the peoples and communists. The second phase is the game of the three superpowers, of new combinations, of the balance of forces, of more severe quarrels in the international arena." (Reflections on China, entry of July 26, 1971.)

China's capitulation to imperialism was the inevitable result of Mao Zedong's attempt to steer China on a "third road" between imperialism and socialism. "Mao Zedong Thought" was developed as a "Chinese form", that is, revision, of Marxism. Guided by this eclectic, anti- Marxist theory, the Communist Party of China was unable to construct socialism or fight revisionism from the standpoint of Marxism-Leninism. But no such "third road" is possible. Inevitably this "third road" collapsed altogether and gave rise to capitulation to world imperialism and to the emergence of China as a social-imperialist power.

The counter-revolutionary alliance between the U.S. and China initiated by Nixon and Mao Zedong has now become fully developed and its ugly features are now out in the open.

China has now developed into a social-imperialist power that has joined the dance of the imperialist alliances. For now it is allying with U.S. imperialism as it strives to "modernize" itself into the world's third superpower. The "ping- pong diplomacy" of 1971 has given rise to a warmongering military alliance that is continually being strengthened. Both the U.S. and China are encouraging each other to arm to the teeth and are carrying out concrete measures to achieve this. In January of this year, Deng Xiaoping came to the U.S. where he and Carter plotted the Chinese invasion of Viet Nam. Nixon's recent visit was preceded by that of Vice President Mondale, who like the open fascist Nixon stated on Beijing television that a "strong and secure and modernizing China are actively coordinating their efforts to suppress the revolutionary movements for national liberation and socialism. The friends of the U.S.-China alliance include the most fascist hangmen such as Mobutu, the Shah of Iran, and Pinochet. Such figures are even promoted as liberators of the people by the theory of "three worlds" devised by the Chinese revisionists to justify the path of collaboration with U.S. imperialism started by Mao Zedong, (China has been opened up for imperialist plunder and the U.S. multinationals and financiers have poured into China in order to exploit the "cheap labor" and rob the country's natural resources. The U.S.- China alliance is a totally reactionary alliance of actively fighting the revolution, of viciously exploiting the peoples and of unrestrained warmongering.

[Cartoon: The U.S. is playing the China card. "A strong China is central to the survival of peace in tins part of the world and peace in the whole world -- it's the old balance of power. " Nixon, 1979]

[Back to Top]

"CP(M-L)" Toots Their Bugles in Praise of V.P. Mondale, Bob Hope and the U.S.-China Alliance

Once again the volunteer State Department advisers of the "Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist)" have sprung into action to defend the warmongering U.S.-China alliance. The "CP(M-L)" is a notorious social-chauvinist sect. Years ago they openly declared their open allegiance to the U.S. monopoly capitalist dictators by advancing the thesis that the American working class and people should give up the struggle to overthrow their "own" bourgeoisie and instead direct their "main blow" against U.S. imperialism's main rival for world domination, the Soviet social-imperialists. In the September 17, 1979 issue of the "CP(M-L)'s" newspaper The Call, in an article entitled "Mondale --'U.S. fully supports strong and secure China'", these Pentagon-socialists heap praise upon the warmongering visit to China by Vice President Mondale.

With great glee the article reports, "the Vice President declared, 'we are committed to joining with you (the Chinese revisionists -- ed.) to advance our many parallel strategic and bilateral interests." Of course, the "parallel and strategic interests" that the "CP(M-L)" is gurgling about are the "parallel and strategic interests" of U.S. imperialism and Chinese social-imperialism to dominate the world. In his speech Mondale made this point crystal clear stating: "Strong bilateral relations serve our strategic interests. Through them both of us can foster the world community we seek..." He also stated that "containing international conflicts, (and) protecting the independence of nations, these goals must be pursued from the perspective of our bilateral relationship." Thus the social-chauvinist bootlickers fully support the "right" of the U.S.-China alliance to carve up the world as it sees fit. They are excited about the prospects of suppressing the revolution, brazenly interfering in the affairs of the peoples and the imposition of brutal exploitation and subjugation under the jackboot of the U.S. and Chinese imperialists.

Moreover, these flunkeys express their delight with the saber-rattling comments of Mondale directed against U.S. imperialism's main rival for world domination, the new tsars of the Soviet Union. The Call reports that "In an obvious jab at Moscow, Mondale told the Chinese, 'Thus any nation which seeks to weaken or isolate you in world affairs assumes a stance counter to American interests. As anyone can see, Mondale's statement simply means that the U.S. considers China as its ally in the fight against the world revolution, and U.S. imperialism wishes to strengthen and arm a counter-revolutionary social-imperialist China. The Call however hails Mondale's comments as "pointed statements reflecting) another setback for those forces within U.S. ruling circles who have tried to put the brakes on U.S.-China relations." As the "CP (M-L)" has pointed out in the past, "normalization of U.S.-China relations is a 'great victory'." (The Call, Feb. 5, 1979, "U.S. Welcomes Teng"), Thus the "CP(M-L)" is hailing the warmongering U.S.-China alliance. The "CP(M-L)" is now replacing the campaign for "normalization of relations" with an open campaign for the arming of social-imperialist China by U.S. imperialism. The "CP(M-L)" is nothing but a bunch of recruitment officers for inter-imperialist alliances and war.

There are no deeds too vile for the Pentagon- socialists if they serve the warmongering U.S.- China alliance. Thus in an article entitled (don't laugh) "China's flourishing culture seen in Bob Hope special", they express their love for the militarist "entertainer" Hope, who zealously entertained U.S. aggressor troops in Korea and Viet Nam. They are ecstatic about the imperialist "disco culture" he brought to China, but complain that Hope's "chauvinist remarks" marred the show. But then in the next sentence, with the arrogant racism characteristic of the U.S. bourgeoisie, they claim that the Chinese people enjoy this chauvinism, that Hope's "humor was in fact geared to the Chinese" ! They go on without blushing to say, 'and quite correctly, that Hope's trip was "symbolic of the developing ties of friendship". This filthy, racist garbage of the "CP(M-L)" shows yet again that its "people-to-people friendship" is a hoax, and that the "ties of friendship" that they support are the ties between the imperialist bourgeoisies of the U.S. and China who have united to viciously subjugate and exploit the Chinese people and mobilize them for imperialist war.

The American proletariat will never go along with the Klonskyite mobilization for inter-imperialist slaughter on behalf of the U.S.-China alliance. Today the proletariat is preparing to found the Marxist-Leninist Party without and against these social-chauvinists. Led by the Marxist-Leninists the proletariat is vigorously organizing the struggle against the U.S.-China alliance and for the revolution that will bury the social-chauvinists alongside of their imperialist masters.

[Cartoon.]

[Back to Top]

Militant Demonstration at Seabrook:

DOWN WITH THE ATTACKS OF THE RICH AGAINST THE ANTI-NUCLEAR MOVEMENT!

(The following leaflet was issued by the Boston Branch of the Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninists on October 8, 1979.)

Over the weekend of October 6, more than 2,500 people have just demonstrated their opposition to the U.S. nuclear energy program at the site of the planned nuclear plant at Seabrook, N. H. It was a courageous action of the masses, where they gathered despite all kinds of threats from the government, and faced the attacks of 500 armed troopers and national guard using vicious dogs, water hoses, clubs, mace and tear gas. And in the weeks before, they and thousands of others have carried out widespread activity to denounce both the criminal profiteering and the poisoning of the masses by the government and the nuclear monopolists.

Once again, masses of people are showing their determination to carry out mass demonstrations and other actions to oppose the criminal nuclear energy program of the rich. The Seabrook action is part of the massive nationwide wave of anti- nuclear demonstrations involving hundreds of thousands of people. This is a just movement, fully in the interests of the working class and broad masses. Also, once again, the rich capitalist moneybags have shown, that their cries of "concern" and "reasonableness" to the contrary, they stand ready to defend their nuclear program with the massive mobilization of their armed state apparatus, with the open baring of their real fascist fangs.

The Seabrook demonstration is thus being used by the rich to bare its fascist fangs in order to threaten, terrorize and intimidate the anti-nuclear mass movement. But the rich also use other methods to confuse, divert and liquidate the movement. Not only are they interested in feverishly developing their nuclear energy program, but they also want to liquidate the mass opposition to it, which is an obstacle for them.

It is thus that the rich are loudly declaring the Seabrook action a "failure". Within hours, the rich carried out nationwide propaganda through their news media that the demonstration was a "failure". The Sunday New York Times said: "Anti-Nuclear Protest Bogs Down In Mud." The New Haven Register headlined: "2,000 Protesters Fail in Seabrook 'Assault'". Government officials and various characters are echoing this common theme.

But how can the Seabrook demonstration be declared a failure, when it has once again strongly demonstrated the determination of broad masses of the American people to persist in the path of developing the activity of the masses against U.S. imperialism's nuclear energy program? For the issue is not the "success" or "failure" of the occupation of a particular nuclear power plant; instead the issue is the development of the growing nationwide mass movement against the entire nuclear energy program of U.S. imperialism.

However, there is a sinister reason behind this declaration of "failure". It is meant to oppose the path of mass action in general and especially to oppose any militance developing among the masses. Instead it seeks to divert the movement, to allow the masses no role to play -- in effect, to liquidate the mass opposition to the nuclear energy program. This is clearly seen when one looks at who is declaring the Seabrook demonstration a failure.

It is none other than the capitalist news media, like the Boston Globe, which editorialized on September 22 against the October 6 action, and openly declared that they opposed the path of mass actions altogether: "The experiences of other demonstrators, for this cause and others, suggest that the talents and energies that will go into the attempt to occupy Seabrook will be talents and .energies that will not be available for the harder, but more crucial task of finding efficient alternatives to nuclear and fossil fuel power."

And it is Democratic Party hacks, social-democrats, such as Tom Hayden, who breezed into New England recently and attacked the October 6 demonstration. He proclaimed: "If you could get Kennedy to call for an end to Seabrook, it would leave the utilities with the impression that the next president has written off nuclear power and they would move on to alternatives."

Thus the declaration of the "failure" of the Seabrook demonstration is directly tied to the aim of liquidating and denying the activity of the masses against the nuclear program, and instead promote some diversion such as "the search for alternative fuels", or the fairytale that the monopoly capitalists' Democratic Party leaders will solve the problem.

So why do the rich bare their fascist fangs and try to destroy the anti-nuclear movement which is in^the interests of the people? This is because the poisonous nuclear program is not some "mistake" that the rich can be convinced to correct, not some technical issue of a choice between forms of energy, but it is imperialism which is at the root of the U.S. nuclear energy program.

The U.S. imperialists carry out vicious exploitation and suppression of the proletariat and people at home, and they have enslaved vast sections of the world's peoples, for the sake of the greed of a handful of monopoly capitalists for maximum profit. To defend their enslaving domination of the peoples from liberation by popular revolution or from competition from other imperialist slave owners like the Soviet social-imperialists, U.S. imperialism acts, as a world policeman and fascist hangman, props Up fascist dictatorships everywhere, and feverishly prepares for war.

The nuclear energy program is part of the warmongering and enslaving activity of U.S. imperialism. Right from the start, the nuclear program undertaken by the U.S. has been closely linked with its research and development of weapons for nuclear war. In fact, the alleged "peaceful uses" of nuclear energy are a mere byproduct of the frenzied war preparations for nuclear war by U.S. imperialism. In turn, the rich use the development of nuclear power reactors to push forward their weapons research, to provide plutonium for bombs, and to stockpile energy resources for war. They also use the development and export of nuclear power plants to monopolize world energy plants and to strengthen the enslaving chains of the vast U.S. neo-colonial empire.

For the sake of this frenzied warmongering activity and for the wild profiteering of the monopolies, the U.S. imperialists are feverishly developing the nuclear energy program. That is why they do not give a damn for the health and safety of the masses which is criminally endangered. What do criminal warmongers, who have and still plan to drown the peoples in blood, care about the risks of cancer for the masses anyway?

But the hands of the warmongers can be stayed. The real solution to the U.S. imperialist nuclear energy program is the development of mass revolutionary struggle, the development of the activity of the masses. Already, a widespread anti-nuclear movement has taken shape. It is closely linked to the movement against imperialist war preparations which is also developing. Protests have taken place against the reintroduction of the draft, nuclear weapons, the U.S.-China warmongering alliance, etc. It is the development of the movement onto the path of mass revolutionary struggle that can strike serious blows at the imperialist nuclear energy program.

DOWN WITH THE U.S. IMPERIALIST NUCLEAR ENERGY PROGRAM!

DOWN WITH ALL U.S. IMPERIALIST WAR PREPARATIONS!

[Photo: Anti-nuclear demonstrators confront fascist police at Seabrook, N.H.]

[Back to Top]

NATIONWIDE PROTESTS ESCALATE AGAINST THE U.S. IMPERIALIST NUCLEAR PROGRAM

In recent months the movement against the U.S. nuclear energy program has continued to develop vigorously. Hundreds of thousands of people have participated in demonstrations and rallies throughout the country. In many of these actions there have been confrontations with the reactionary U.S. imperialist state resulting in hundreds of arrests. The masses of anti-nuclear activists have denounced the criminal poisoning of the people from radiation by the nuclear energy monopolies and the U.S. government which "regulates" this industry. They have denounced the wild profiteering of the energy monopolies who are further impoverishing the people through ever higher utility bills, in part to pay for "cheap" nuclear energy. They have denounced the export of nuclear power plants by the U.S. imperialists to endanger the people of other countries and tighten the control of their energy supplies. And more and more the activists are denouncing the barbarous preparations of the U.S. imperialists for a nuclear war.

Demonstrations have taken place in Buchanon, New York; Lower Alloways, New Jersey; Toledo, Ohio; Boston; Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; Richland, Washington; St. Louis; Philadelphia and many-other cities. The largest demonstration in the history of the anti-nuclear movement took place in New York City's Battery Park on September 23. Some 250,000 people participated. Also on September 23 another rally was held at the Yankee Nuclear Plant at Vernon, Vermont. This time 200 protestors were arrested. From September 28-30, 600 people protested against the federal government's plans to dump radioactive waste from nuclear weapons development at a site near Florencia, New Mexico. On September 30 at Barnwell, South Carolina 1,500 people marched three miles down South Carolina Highway 64 past Chem-Nuclear, Allied General Nuclear Services, and the Savannah River Plant. On October 1, 162 people were arrested at the three sites.

On October 6, 7 and 8 at Seabrook, New Hampshire about 2,000 protesters confronted the nuclear monopolists at the site of many previous demonstrations. They were met by 500 State Police and National Guardsmen using clubs, mace, tear gas, attack dogs, and high pressure water hoses. Despite 33 arrests, numerous injuries, and arduous physical conditions (cold, rain, camping in marshland, etc.) the demonstrators persisted in their action for three days. On October 9, 300 continued their protest at the Hampton Courthouse where those arrested were being held. And following that, 250 vowed to remain at the nuclear site to continue the protest indefinitely.

Many other demonstrations and protests have also taken place. All these numerous demonstrations and actions show that the American people have a burning hatred for the U.S. imperialists nuclear energy program. The further development of the anti-nuclear movement assures that on this front, too, the monopoly capitalists will have no peace!

[Back to Top]

TEACHERS STRIKE TO RESIST GROWING IMPOVERISHMENT

Throughout the U.S. teachers are fighting for higher pay in the face of skyrocketing prices which are driving them to impoverishment. In September over 45,000 teachers went on strike in 15 states. So far this year there have been over 140 strikes. Many of the strikes have been long and spirited. In Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, 3,300 teachers are waging their first strike ever and are now in their second month. Teachers in Detroit and 11 other Michigan school districts have struck in defiance of the reactionary laws. Teachers have defied threats of firing, court injunctions, fines and imprisonment in Lansing, Michigan; Indianapolis; Spokane; San Francisco; Oklahoma City; Rutland, Vermont; Southington, Connecticut; and elsewhere. In Westwood, Michigan, where officials have threatened to fire 180 striking teachers, over 4,000 teachers in surrounding districts have vowed to strike in sympathy.

Seeking to isolate the teachers and undermine their struggle, government officials and the capitalist news media have sought to mobilize students and parents against the teachers with philistine cries that they are being "selfish" and are "disrupting the educational process". This is to turn truth on its head. It is the rich and their government who are attacking the education of the youth in their attempt to make the people bear the burden of the economic crisis. They are closing schools, increasing class size, cutting back on educational programs, laying off teachers, imposing "payless paydays" on school employees under the hoax that "there is no money" and carrying on every other manner of "disruption". In spite of the propaganda of the rich to blame the teachers for the crimes which they themselves commit, the teachers enjoy widespread support as shown by demonstrations, mass meetings and other manifestations of solidarity.

Today the tyranny of the monopoly capitalists over the whole society is becoming more and more oppressive. Ever wider sections of the working people are awakening to new militancy and are being drawn into battle against these rich exploiters. The strikes of the teachers are part and parcel of the growing movement of the working class and people to fight against the effects of the economic crisis in general and against the wage controls of the Carter government in particular.

[Back to Top]

Mission District of San Francisco:

Denounce the Racist and Fascist Police Attacks Against the Youth!

(The following leaflet was recently issued as a Statement of the San Francisco Bay Area Branch of the Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninists.)

The state of the rich, through its armed thugs the police, have recently stepped up their racist and fascist attacks on the Latino and other national minority youth in the 24th and Mission area.

As many as 31 arrests have occurred in one weekend in that area. Harassment and intimidation are constant. One evening earlier this month, a group of more than 25 youth were forced to submit to police search -- supposedly for weapons. People are thrown against the wall, roughed up and brutalized by uniformed fascists. One youth reported that he saw the police brutalizing a twelve year old boy, slamming his head against the wall; when he told them to take it easy on the boy, he was arrested for "interfering" with an officer doing his "duty". Another person, a Puerto Rican worker, was arrested because he came forward to assist a friend (by translating for him) who was being harassed by the police. Even the police brag about them, boasting 1,500 arrests during July and August in one area of the Mission alone. The police are quite proud that they have increased the youth arrests at 24th and Mission by 60 percent.

These racist and fascist attacks by the police are not restricted to the Mission. In Decoto-Union City, Hayward and San Jose the police are singling out Latino and Mexican nationality youth. The same thing is going on in Denver, Los Angeles and other cities. As well, Afro-Americans are subject to the same forms of attack in many cities, as are other minority nationalities. In recent months two Afro-Americans -- 15 year old Melvin Black and a 37 year old worker, Charles Briscoe -- have been murdered in cold blood by the Oakland police. The wide-scale nature of these attacks shows clearly that they have nothing to do with the particular "problems" which serve as the pretext for these attacks -- such as "gang wars" in Decoto or the so-called street violence "crisis" in the Mission. All the hysteria about "street crimes in the Mission" is created to justify the increased police presence and the racist and fascist attacks against the national minority youth.

WHY ARE THE RICH AND THEIR STATE ATTACKING THE LATINO AND OTHER MINORITY NATIONALITY YOUTH IN THE MISSION?

Today the capitalists are in a severe all-sided crisis -- economic, political and cultural -- and are trying to shift the effects of the crisis onto the backs of the working class. Further, they are preparing for imperialist war as a way out of the crisis. To carry out this program the rich are fascizing the state to suppress the growing resistance of the working class and oppressed people. In its fascist offensive against the entire working class, the government singles out the Afro-Americans and other nationalities for particularly savage attacks, blaming them for all the ills of society from high unemployment, to high taxes, to crime, etc. These attacks are the cutting edge of the growing fascism in the United States.

In the Mission neighborhood, with the police harassment, brutality and arrests of the youth -- the capitalists are attempting to terrorize and intimidate the community so as to cripple the resistance of the Latino and other minority nationality peoples against capitalist exploitation, racial discrimination and violent repression. The revolutionary spirit of the national minority peoples which was demonstrated in the glorious rebellions of the Afro-Americans in the 1960's and the Mexican-American rebellion in Houston in 1978 has inspired fear in the heart of the capitalists and their state. The capitalists seek to suppress this spirit before it breaks out on an even broader scale. As well, the capitalists are very well aware that many of the youth in the Mission come from countries where their people are actively engaged in revolutionary movements for liberation from U.S. imperialism, Soviet social-imperialism and fascist dictators.

In this drive to terrorize the community the government of the rich and their police are employing local community traitors and liberals. A handful of community traitors are openly supporting the fascist and racist attacks, even to the extent of calling for more attacks on the community. In their reactionary newspaper they label the youth a "social problem" (problema social) and call for the fascist police to "exterminate this cancer" (exterminemos el cancer). At the same time, a handful of state-paid liberals, under the cover of "opposing" these police attacks are calling on the masses to rely on the state and to beg the police to stop them. By doing this they attempt to disorganize any resistance to these attacks. They promote the illusion that the police thugs and capitalist politicians have an interest in controlling the racist and fascist attacks which they purposely launched in the first place. These liberals even give support to these police attacks, by saying that they are justified if they are against "outsiders". As if the police will politely ask whether or not someone is an "outsider" before attacking.

The state, the open traitors and the state-paid liberals are working hand in hand to terrorize the youth and thereby the rest of the Mission community. The just response of the Latino youth and community at large is to rely on their own strength and wage active resistance against these racist and fascist attacks. Only through active resistance can we truly fight back and only through mass revolutionary struggle led by the working class and its Marxist-Leninist Party can we overthrow once and for all the bloodsucking monopoly capitalists and their rotten system which is the source of these racist and fascist attacks.

[Back to Top]

RACIST VIOLENCE OF THE POLICE DENOUNCED IN PHILADELPHIA

On September 22, 1979, the Philadelphia Committee Against Social-Chauvinism published a leaflet denouncing the murder of a young Afro- American man at the hands of the racist Philadelphia police. Under the headline "The Murder of Cornell Warren Was No Accident!" the leaflet exposes the facts surrounding the brutal killing of this 20 year old youth, who was shot to death by a uniformed fascist after being arrested for... traffic violations! In the one year since this racist murder was committed, the news media has produced a lot of talk describing it as an "accident", or blamed individual "bad apples" in the police department. The government has conducted court cases, commissions, and investigations, which have only produced a smokescreen to hide the true facts.

But the truth cannot be hidden. The murder of Cornell Warren was neither an "accident" nor the result of just a few individual racist policemen. It is part of a planned and systematic policy of terroristic violence against the people of Philadelphia. This includes the systematic racist terror of the police against the Afro-American people. The leaflet denounces numerous examples of such racist and fascist atrocities that have occurred in Philadelphia in recent times. To this, the Philadelphia Committee states, "Only mass revolutionary struggle can stop the racist attacks and terrorism" directed against the black people and other oppressed nationalities. They end the leaflet with the words: "We strongly oppose the murder of Cornell Warren and all other racist attacks. Self-defense and mass revolutionary struggle are the only road.

[Back to Top]

FORD WORKERS:

Oppose Fraser's Sellout Contract! Defy Carters Wage Controls!

(The following is the text of the Special Bulletin of The Workers' Advocate of October 7 which included the exposure of the sellout provisions of Fraser's contract.)

Rather than waging a stubborn fight against the arch-exploiter Henry Ford, the top UAW bigwigs want to force the sellout GM "pattern" onto the Ford workers" The Ford tentative settlement is essentially the same as the GM "pattern" with no "improvements" at all, and in some ways it is even worse.

In the negotiations at GM, Fraser and Blue- stone brazenly ignored every demand they had promised to fight for. This sellout met with opposition from GM workers, far beyond what Fraser and co. had predicted. Therefore at Ford, Fraser and Bannon made all sorts of promises about "improving" the settlement so as to prevent Ford workers from rising in rebellion. But, contrary to their lying promises, there are no "improvements" in the Ford contract,, Especially, there is nothing at all to "reduce compulsory overtime" which Fraser and Bannon promised to fight for at Ford. Furthermore, Fraser is allowing Ford to begin using the workers' SUB fund money to pay for other provisions of the contract. Fraser is allowing this erosion of the SUB fund at the very time when every penny in the fund is desperately needed by the 40,000 Ford workers now on layoff (24,000 indefinitely). One can imagine what Fraser has in store for the Chrysler workers, who he admits he will force to accept even less than the GM "pattern".

Fraser, Bannon and co. are shaking in their boots with the realization that the Ford workers are against this sellout. When they initialed the sellout agreement on October 4 and ordered the Ford workers not to walk out, everywhere the Ford workers were outraged. At Dearborn Assembly Plant at Ford Rouge, production workers downed their tools, ripped the No Strike notices from the walls and poured into the street, idling 2,000 workers.

One of the most outrageous aspects of the Ford agreement is that it has the same insultingly low wage settlement as the GM contract. (A complete explanation of the Ford sellout agreement provisions accompanies this article -- ed.) This wage settlement is completely consistent with Fraser's collaboration with Carter's wage-cutting offensive. The UAW leadership, as well as the AFL- CIO and Teamster leaderships, have just agreed to a nine page document called "a document of national accord" with the government of the rich. Under this accord Fraser and the top UAW labor traitors pledge their support for Carter's new "Pay Advisory Committee". This new pay board is to be composed of 15 members from business, government and labor unions handpicked by Carter. Its purpose is to enforce government wage controls. Fraser's endorsement of this wage- cutting board is an open betrayal of the workers' struggle. Only a few months ago Fraser was telling the workers that Carter's wage controls had "self-destructed". But this was just a lie to put the workers off guard during the contract struggle. All the while Fraser was actually collaborating behind the scenes with Carter to set up this new Nixonite pay board. It is no wonder that Fraser, who is so enthusiastic to assist Carter and the rich to enforce fascist wage controls, is also so unenthusiastic about fighting for higher wages for the auto workers. The two are directly related.

Fraser has been dead set against an auto strike. For example, when Fraser initialed the Ford sellout, he declared that if the Ford skilled trades rejected the contract, and if their objection had to do with the small 3% raise, then "that's not a valid reason" and there will "be no strike". Fraser is afraid that a powerful auto strike would become a further rallying point for the whole working class to defy Carter's wage controls, and thus he refuses to strike.

In short, the wage settlement in this sellout Ford contract is the worst sort of bellycrawling capitulation to the wage-cutting offensive of the Carter government. Yet, Carter's controls are set so low that even the auto contract's low 3% raise plus COLA breaks the 7% guidelines. Fraser and the auto magnates stopped short of cutting the auto workers' wages down to the 7% starvation level for fear of a rebellion by the workers.

If Fraser was at all interested in the workers' struggle against Carter's fascist controls, he would openly declare that the new auto workers' contract defied the controls and that all the other workers should do the same. But no! His only interest is in helping Carter shield and strengthen wage controls, and to keep workers' wages as low as possible.

The auto workers' struggle against the '79 contract sellout has been gaining momentum. In mid-September Fraser and co. were arrogantly bragging that there would be "unanimous" approval of their GM sellout contract, and that there was "no opposition" for them to worry about. But they met a rude awakening.

And the voting at GM locals, far from being "unanimous", was an embarrassment for Fraser. The sellout was overwhelmingly rejected at Lords- town, Ohio, and elsewhere. At many locals in the Detroit area, workers were angry to see the alleged vote counts released by the UAW. At Willow Run plant in Ypsilanti, many workers walked off their jobs to protest the sellout contract. Yet this local was promoted by the UAW as a model of a 5 - 1 vote for the contract. Many workers said that the top officers had stuffed the ballot boxes by automatically counting workers who had not voted as having voted "yes". But even with this tampering with the vote, even according to the UAW's official claims, there was major opposition to the contract.

Also, at many auto plants militants joined with Marxist-Leninist workers to massively distribute literature against Fraser's sellout both inside and in front of auto plants. Fraser was so infuriated by this literature that he made declarations at the national GM council meeting in Dallas that this literature was "garbage" and "lies", but was unable to refute a single one of these so-called "lies". In fact, the workers recognize that it was the Marxist-Leninists and not the UAW top traitors who tell the truth.

The workers are seething with anger against the monopoly capitalists and Carter's wage controls. The Ford workers should fight against Fraser's sellout and defy Carter's wage controls. Only in this way can the Ford workers defend their livelihood and make a contribution to the struggle of the whole working class against the capitalist offensive.

[Back to Top]

THE PROVISIONS OF FRASER'S CONTRACT ARE A SELLOUT

1. NO "SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE" IN WAGES:

The program of the UAW leaders adopted at their bargaining convention last April called for a "substantial increase" in wages and "updating the COLA formula". But Doug Fraser and co. have completely betrayed this demand at both GM and Ford. They have agreed to no "substantial increase" in wages whatsoever,, In fact, under the tentative settlement the workers will receive further cuts in real wages in the face of inflation which is skyrocketing at a 14% annual rate.

The tentative agreement contains the very same wage settlement as the previous contract: a 3% annual raise in base pay (which is nothing but the "annual improvement factor" which is supposedly a "bonus" for increased worker productivity), plus the same COLA adjustment as before for the first two years and a slightly improved COLA for the third year of the contract But cancelling out any Improved COLA in the third year, the workers will actually lose part of their COLA increases with a new provision to divert a total of 14¢ an hour to the pension funds by the end of the third year.

Under this wage settlement the workers' wage level will continue to drag just behind the increases in the Consumer Price Index. But the government's CPI actually minimizes the burden placed on the workers by soaring prices by not taking into account the particularly staggering price increases for food, fuel and other necessities. Furthermore, real take home earnings will be cut by heavier taxes.

2. NO COLA ON PENSIONS:

The Ford capitalists and the UAW leaders are trying to jam the sellout GM contract down the workers' throats with the lying claim that it has realized an "historic breakthrough" in protecting retirees from inflation. But in fact, "COLA for retirees", the much ballyhooed "top priority" of the bargaining convention, was totally abandoned by Fraser and co. Fraser's settlement on pensions provides nothing "new" or "momentous" at all -- except that the active workers, instead of the company, for the first time will have to make three years of payments from their COLA increases into the pension funds.

While the tentative settlement will raise monthly pension benefits which are at starvation levels, without a COLA escalator these increases will rapidly be eaten up by inflation. For example: a worker retiring under the 30-and-out program in the first year of the contract will receive $800 a month this year and after a series of increases will receive $915 by the end of this contract in 1982. But by September 1982, if inflation keeps up at the present soaring rate of 14% over the next three years, that $915 will only be worth $618 in today's dollars -- $82 a month less than the $700 benefits in the present contract! What an "historic breakthrough" for retirees! A cut in real pension benefits!

3. NO RELIEF FROM COMPULSORY OVERTIME:

Bannon and Fraser made big claims about fighting to reduce compulsory overtime at Ford, as one of their promised "improvements" on the GM agreement. But just like the GM settlement, the Ford sellout offers no measures to reduce overtime or to shorten the workweek. For years Ford workers have been demanding an end to the long hours of compulsory overtime that they are forced to work. The bargaining convention called for "concrete steps to reduce overtime". But under this agreement Ford workers will continue to slave 54, 58 and even 82 hours a week in the plants.

Fraser boasts that this contract has 14 extra PPH days. But this too is a lie as four of these PPH days won't come until after the 1982 contract. The workers need a real shortening of the workweek in order to provide much needed relief from the grueling overwork. And it is clear that eight or nine Paid Personal Holidays (PPH's) in a year's time will not satisfy this need any more than the seven PPH's did last year.

4. MORE SPEEDUP, OVERWORK AND AUTOMATION:

The tentative Ford agreement doesn't even address this life and death issue. The auto magnates' productivity drive to sweat more labor out of the workers in a shorter and shorter period of time is literally crippling the auto workers and sending them to an early grave. Furthermore, by increasing the productivity of the workers by means of both terrific speedup and overwork and the introduction of robots and other new automation, more cars are being built by fewer and fewer workers. Tens of thousands of auto workers' jobs have been permanently eliminated and 100,000 auto workers are currently on layoff.

But, as in the past, the UAW leadership has not raised a finger on the questions of line speeds, workloads and job elimination at Ford. Oh, no! According to Fraser and co., increased worker productivity through speedup, job combination, etc., means "progress"! Why, he even wrote a letter to the Detroit News during negotiations declaring that "The key to higher living standards" (what higher living standards!) "is higher productivity. "

5. VICIOUS DISCIPLINARY MEASURES AGAINST ABSENTEEISM:

In order to enforce their productivity drive, to squeeze the most blood and sweat out of the workers, the auto plant managements want to chain the workers to the assembly lines like the robots that are replacing the workers' jobs. The workers are treated like dogs and expected to think of nothing but producing for the profits of their masters. Among other means to regiment the workers, the capitalists have been pushing for an even stronger hand for the Labor Relations office in punishing and harassing workers for absenteeism. The "pattern" contract includes a joint UAW-Company board to cut absenteeism which is a new vicious measure to discipline absentees and keep the workers chained to their machines. This is another "historic breakthrough" -- for the Ford slave drivers!

6. SELLOUT OF THE WORKERS' JOB AND INCOME SECURITY:

In a most brazen sellout, Fraser and Bannon have agreed to allow Ford to take money out of the SUB fund to pay for other parts of the contract. The issue for the workers is to strengthen the SUB fund in the face of the present massive layoffs. But Fraser actually is weakening it, is giving it away to Henry Ford!

Almost 100,000 auto workers have already been thrown into the streets and thousands more are laid off every week. And it is the productivity drive of the auto corporations, a campaign for which Fraser openly declared his support, which is wiping out the workers' jobs. On top of this, the contract does nothing about plant closings. These are crucial issues of job and income security facing the Ford workers, and here again they are sold out.

7. WAGE AND BENEFIT CUTS FOR NEW HIRES:

The tentative Ford agreement includes cuts in wages and health care benefits for new hires. This section of the workers who are already worked like slaves with no rights whatsoever will now start at 60£ an hour less than seniority employees, and will no longer be able to recover this loss when they get 90 days in. Furthermore, they will receive health insurance even later than now, and Sickness and Accident benefits will be at a lower rate until they have one year seniority, etc. This criminal treatment of the new hires is an attack on all the workers.

[Back to Top]

Second All-Canada National Youth Festival a Big Success!

From October 6th to 7th in Toronto, the Second All-Canada National Youth Festival took place in which revolutionary youth from all across Canada participated. Organized by the Communist Youth Union of Canada (Marxist-Leninist), the Canadian Workers' Association and the Canadian Cultural Workers' Committee, the Second All- Canada National Youth Festival was attended by more than 500 people. Representatives of the fraternal Marxist-Leninist parties were also present, and the guests of honor on the occasion were the delegation of the Central Committee of the Labor Youth Union of Albania, led by the Secretary of the CC of the LYUA, Comrade Etemije Zeneli.

The festival commenced with a mass rally on the evening of October 6. The rally was opened by a representative of the CYUC(M-L) who welcomed the youth from all parts of Canada to the festival. He pointed out that the festival was organized for the purpose of further mobilizing the youth to oppose the main enemy, the Canadian monopoly capitalist class and the U.S. imperialist domination of Canada. The comrade also summed up the contributions of the youth in the past to the dissemination of Marxism-Leninism across Canada, and to the building of the political party of the proletariat, the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist). He pointed out that this work has been carried out by the youth in the face of the state attacks of the reactionary bourgeoisie and of the revisionists and opportunists of all hues, and is an indispensable contribution to the proletarian revolution. He briefly put forward the important tasks which the youth must take up. He pointed out that the youth are a reserve of the proletarian revolution. The future of the youth and the solution of the present problems, which they face as a result of the capitalist system, are the concern of the youth and the youth must build their future and solve their current problems by organizing proletarian revolution. There is no other future for the youth. He called on the youth to militantly defend Marxism-Leninism and spread proletarian politics to all sectors of the society under the leadership of CPC(M-L), and vigorously participate in the building and consolidation of the Party as the basic task.

He also pointed out that the participation in day-to-day struggles and the communist education of the youth are important tasks taken up by CYUC(M-L). CYUC(M-L) is an instrument of propaganda and a reservoir of new cadres for CPC(M-L). It is a training ground for the youth. Just as the bourgeoisie aims to win over the youth, to train it in its world outlook and aspirations, we take the bold and just stand of educating the youth and the workers in the ideology of the proletariat, Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism, to prepare conditions for the proletariat to take up its historic mission. We must bring the youth into mass revolutionary action and make a contribution to the proletarian revolution.

Following these remarks, the representative of CYUC(M-L) announced that messages of greetings and best wishes for the success of the Youth Festival had been received from the Communist and Revolutionary Youth Union of Portugal (UJCR), from the Anti-Fascist and Anti-Imperialist Youth Union of France (UJAFAI), from the youth of the Communist Party of Denmark (Marxist-Leninist), as well as the Zimbabwe African National Union and the Federation of Iranian Students in Canada.

The comrade then read greetings from the Eritreans for Liberation in North America, and the Youth Commission of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ireland (Marxist-Leninist).

Then, amidst thunderous applause and the shouting of revolutionary slogans, the revolutionary youth received the delegations of the fraternal organizations, first and foremost the delegation of the CC of the LYUA. In greeting the Albanian delegation the Canadian revolutionary youth expressed their revolutionary enthusiasm and deep love and affection for the heroic youth of socialist Albania and their glorious Marxist-Leninist party, the Party of Labor of Albania, with Comrade Enver Hoxha at the head. One after another, the other fraternal guests from the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist), the Communist Party of Trinidad and Tobago and the Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninists were all greeted with applause and cheers. Each of the fraternal delegations addressed the youth. In their messages the fraternal delegations expressed the unity of the youth of the entire world based on the foundations of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism against the common enemies.

Following these remarks, the representative of the CC of the LYUA addressed the revolutionary youth. She brought fiery greetings from the fighting Albanian youth. She pointed out that the participation of the LYUA in the Youth Festival is a testimony to the close ties between the LYUA and CYUC(M-L) on the foundations of the teachings of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, in the fight against the same enemy, U.S. imperialism, and Soviet and Chinese social-imperialism and all reaction. The representative of the LYUA spoke about life in socialist Albania and of the history of the struggle of the Albanian youth. To the thunderous applause of the revolutionary youth participating in the mass rally, the LYUA representative stated that the Albanian youth stand always ready to shoot the bullet straight into the heart of anyone who dares to try to violate the socialist homeland. The comrade said that the Albanian youth highly appreciate the support which the Canadian youth and the revolutionary youth of the entire world gave to socialist Albania when the Chinese social-imperialists carried out their perfidious attack against socialist Albania, and following the April 15th earthquake this year. She spoke of a song which the youth of' Albania had composed about the earthquake which says: "Great was the strength of the earthquake, but greater was the strength of our youth." The revolutionary youth warmly applauded the news which the comrade gave that as of October 1, all of the consequences of the April 15th earthquake had been completely liquidated in Albania. The comrade concluded her remarks by saying that the PLA educates the youth in the spirit of proletarian internationalist solidarity with all the youth who are fighting against imperialism, social-imperialism and all reaction.

Thunderous applause and the shouting of slogans were the response of the revolutionary youth to the revolutionary sentiments which the comrade expressed in her speech. Following her speech, the delegation of the CC of the LYUA presented the CYUC(M-L) with the flag of the LYUA as a gesture of internationalist solidarity. Following this, the delegation presented CYUC (M-L) with yet another precious gift, the film of the 7th Congress of the LYUA held in the city of Elbasan in September 1977. The film was immediately shown. In the film, Comrade J2nver Hoxha personally addresses the youth. Just as the Albanian youth applauded Comrade Enver Hoxha, so the youth in the mass rally applauded.

It was just as if the mass rally was the extension of the 7th Congress of the LYUA, with the Albanian youth and the Canadian youth together shouting slogans to the glory of Marxism-Leninism and pledging to make a contribution to the cause of the revolution and socialism. In his speech to the Albanian youth Comrade Enver Hoxha told them that just as the blast furnace needs to be cleaned thoroughly in order to produce steel,so too the purity of Marxism-Leninism needs to be defended if it is to be an invincible weapon in the hands of the proletariat led by its Party. The mass rally concluded with the singing of the Internationale and the vigorous shouting of slogans.

On the second day of the festival, October 7, the Canadian revolutionary youth engaged the delegation of the CC of the LYUA in a vigorous discussion under the general topic "The Youth of Albania in Perspective".

The session started with a talk presented by Comrade Etemije Zeneli on behalf of the delegation, entitled: "The Youth -- A Great Reserve of the Revolution". In the talk the comrade explained the serious attention which the PLA pays to the youth and the mobilizing of the youth as a reserve of the revolution. One of the resolutions adopted by the Party at its founding Congress was to form the organization of the Communist Youth without delay. The comrade emphasized that the leading role of the Party in the youth organization is of decisive importance in channeling the energies of the youth in the correct direction. At the same time the youth see their aspirations embodied in the Party and in the correct road of armed struggle.

The comrade also pointed out that the youth living under the exploiting and oppressive orders tend towards the revolution and liberation struggle because of the conditions which they face under these regimes. But the youth cannot overthrow the old order on their own. The great role of the youth is the consequence of the work of the Marxist-Leninist parties which ensure that they are mobilized and which provide them with correct revolutionary political, ideological and organizational direction. She concluded her speech with the pledge that the youth of Albania will always support the struggles of the revolutionary youth the world over and that they will always work with all their energies to carry out the tasks assigned by the Party.

The presentation of the delegation of the LYUA unleashed a barrage of questions which the revolutionary youth proceeded to ask the delegation of the LYUA. All sorts of questions were asked by 1 the youth. They wanted to know what was the source of the happy life which the Albanian youth have. They wanted to know about the life of the students in Albania -- both in terms of their studies and their extra-curricular activities. They wanted to know about life in the family; about what measures are taken to ensure that the rich and the exploitative system do not re-emerge. They asked about the process whereby the youth end up in various occupations; on the role of the youth in making Albania the only atheist country in the world; on the role of the youth in the army and in defending the socialist homeland; on the system of social justice in Albania; on the work to educate the younger generation, and many, many other questions. The delegation answered each and every question of the youth in detail and in vivid contrast to life under the capitalist system. The answers about life in Albania inspired the youth in the meeting. After the discussion, the youth continued to discuss among themselves the things they had heard. They expressed their determination to intensify their work to mobilize the youth as the militant reserve of the proletarian revolution and to make a contribution to the struggle of all humanity against imperialism, social-imperialism and all reaction and for the triumph of the revolution and socialism.

On the evening of that same day, an Internationalist Youth Concert and Variety Show of revolutionary music, songs, dances and short plays were performed by the Canadian Cultural Workers' Committee, the Progressive Cultural Association of Britain, and performers from the West Indies, India, the United States, and songs by the youth delegation of Albania. Backed by steel drums from the West Indies, an electric guitar, electric organ, flute and drums and with an internationalist chorus, the concert ran the gamut from satirical pieces against the Chinese revisionists, against the U.S. imperialist lackey and former Prime Minister Trudeau, songs against Carter's wage controls, songs in praise of the working class and against the monopoly capitalist system, songs in praise of J.V. Stalin, songs in praise of socialist Albania, and of course militant songs of the revolutionary Canadian youth. The melodies ranged in style from ballads and revolutionary calypso to militant marching songs. The concert received high praise from the revolutionary youth and other progressive and revolutionary people present with sustained applause after each piece. Timely and popular with a strong mass character the concert reflected in a lively fashion the militant revolutionary and internationalist sentiments of the entire Second All- Canada National Youth Festival. The entire festival vividly expressed the revolutionary determination of the Canadian youth to fight under the leadership of the Party until final victory and powerfully expressed the proletarian internationalist spirit with which CPC(M-L) educates the proletariat and the youth of Canada.

[Photo: Participants vigorously greet the delegation of the Labor Youth Union of Albania.]

[Back to Top]

LONG LIVE THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO!

Hail the Historic Founding Conference of the Communist Party Held August 11, 1979!

We have received with great joy and enthusiasm the recent news of the founding of the Communist Party of Trinidad and Tobago on August 11, 1979. The founding of this Marxist-Leninist party is a great victory of the proletariat and revolutionary masses of this country and for the Marxist-Leninist and revolutionary forces throughout the world.

The Communist Party of Trinidad and Tobago is the revolutionary party of the proletariat. Its founding is the product of years of struggle by the Marxist-Leninists, whose determined efforts have established Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism, the invincible ideology of the proletariat, as the guiding beacon of the revolutionary struggle in their country. Its founding heralds the unprecedented development of the revolutionary struggle of the working class and people in Trinidad and Tobago in their fight for freedom, independence and social progress, for emancipation from U.S. imperialist slavery and the rule of the reactionary bourgeoisie.

The founding of the Communist Party of Trinidad and Tobago is an important victory over the reactionary bourgeoisie and imperialism, particularly U.S. imperialism. U.S. imperialism has wild ambitions to forever maintain Trinidad and Tobago, as well as the other countries of the Caribbean and Latin America, as its own sphere of influence for neo-colonial plunder and domination. But these imperialist ambitions will never win out. On the contrary, the proletariat and revolutionary masses of Trinidad and Tobago and elsewhere in the region, are making very concrete preparations to smash U.S. imperialism and the local reactionaries once and for all, under the leadership of their Marxist-Leninist party.

The neo-colonial designs of the Soviet social- imperialists and the sabotage they direct against the revolutionary struggle through their Castroite puppets in Cuba and other revisionist agents in the region have also suffered a serious defeat with the founding of the Communist Party of Trinidad and Tobago. Its founding is a big defeat for the revisionists and opportunists of all types, including the followers of revisionist Mao Zedong Thought who tried with might and main to prevent this Marxist-Leninist party from coming into existence.

In recent years, the international Marxist-Leninist communist movement has boldly marched forward with the vigorous development of the struggle against the Chinese revisionist theory of "three worlds" and Mao Zedong Thought. Led by the Party of Labor of Albania with Comrade Enver Hoxha at the head, the international Marxist- Leninist communist movement is clearing one obstacle after another from its path and resolutely defending the purity of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism. The founding of the Communist Party of Trinidad and Tobago is a glorious part of these recent developments and an inspiration to the Marxist-Leninists of all countries and to the common struggle against imperialism, social-imperialism and international reaction, and against revisionism and opportunism of all types.

For several years now the COUSML and the genuine Marxist-Leninists of Trinidad and Tobago have had close fraternal relations on the basis of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism. And now with the founding of the Communist Party of Trinidad and Tobago, which occurs as preparations are being made for the founding of the Marxist-Leninist Party of the U.S. A., we are sure that the close fraternal friendship and assistance between the Marxist- Leninist parties of both countries will continue to grow and deepen in the years ahead.

The Marxist-Leninist comrades of Trinidad and Tobago have taken a bold and resolute step. We express our hearty congratulations to them and wish them every success in their struggle for freedom, independence and social progress, for emancipation from U.S. imperialist slavery and the rule of the reactionary bourgeoisie. We are confident that the proletariat and revolutionary masses of Trinidad and Tobago will make a valuable contribution to the world revolutionary struggle, under the leadership of their Marxist- Leninist party.

Hail the Founding of the Communist Party of Trinidad and Tobago!

Long Live the Unity Between the Communist Party of Trinidad and Tobago and COUSML!

Glory to Marxism-Leninism and Proletarian Internationalism!

[Back to Top]

Communique of the Founding Conference of the Communist Party of Trinidad and Tobago

August 11, 1979

[Photo.]

GLORY TO MARXISM-LENINISM!

MARXISM-LENINISM IS INVINCIBLE!

LONG LIVE THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO!

LONG LIVE THE VANGUARD DETACHMENT OF THE WORKING CLASS, THE COMMUNIST

PARTY!

UPHOLD PROLETARIAN INTERNATIONALISM!

WORKERS OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE!

A great historical event in the life of the working class has taken place. THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO HAS JUST BEEN FOUNDED! !

The proletariat and revolutionary masses now have their general staff, their vanguard, to lead the struggle against the reactionary bourgeoisie, the sellout ruling class, the neo-colonial state, imperialism and all reaction.

The founding of the Communist Party of Trinidad and Tobago marks the beginning of a great historical stage in the development of the revolutionary struggle of the working class and people in Trinidad and Tobago in the fight for freedom, independence and social progress, for emancipation from U.S. imperialist slavery and the rule of the reactionary bourgeoisie.

The founding of the Communist Party of Trinidad and Tobago is a smashing blow to the reactionary bourgeoisie, to imperialism and to the front-men of the bourgeoisie, the revisionist and opportunist traitors, who have been attempting to strangle the building of the Communist Party of Trinidad and Tobago. The founding of the Party drives mortal fear into the hearts of these reactionaries, for they are well aware that the Communist Party is the only political party which prepares the subjective conditions for revolution and leads the struggles of the working class and its allies to victory.

This great historical, event is a powerful victory for Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism and for the teachings of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin which are the guiding ideology of the working class.

The founding of the Communist Party of Trinidad and Tobago marks the high point in the work of the Marxist-Leninists in Trinidad and Tobago and their Marxist-Leninist organization, which was incorrectly called the "NLM", to provide the working class with its general staff, its vanguard, the Communist Party, Our organization, the "NLM", has, from its birth, been a Marxist- Leninist organization and not a "National Liberation Movement" as it was erroneously called.

Since 1974, the work to found the Communist Party of Trinidad and Tobago based on Marxism- Leninism and proletarian internationalism has been in progress and the comrades who today have founded the Communist Party are the best sons and daughters of the proletariat and the revolutionary masses who fought bravely and established in our country Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism as the invincible ideology of the proletariat which leads the revolutionary masses to smash the chains of imperialist slavery and play their part in the liberation of mankind. The Communist Party of Trinidad and Tobago will never betray the heroic and militant traditions of the working class which are reflected in the bold activity of the comrades of our Party, and will advance the work of leading the struggle of the working class and people through all its stages until final victory is won.

Today, the powerful storms of revolutionary struggles are brewing in Trinidad and Tobago and throughout the world. The objective conditions are ripe for revolution and the subjective conditions are rapidly maturing. There is no part of our country where the bourgeoisie is at peace. There is no part where the working class and people are not rising up, determined to put an end to the rule of the reactionary bourgeoisie and U.S. imperialist domination of Trinidad and Tobago. In both words and deeds the question of the revolution is no longer merely an aspiration of our people, but a problem taken up for solution. The solution is being provided only by the ideology of the proletariat, Marxism-Leninism, the ideological foundation upon which our Communist Party is built. Only the Party at the head of the proletariat and people can implement the solution, which is armed overthrow of the rule of the reactionary bourgeoisie, smashing its state apparatus and the establishment of the people's power, finally leading to the dictatorship of the proletariat and socialism.

The founding conference of the Communist Party of Trinidad and Tobago was held in a militant revolutionary atmosphere of unity among the delegates who came from throughout the country. The conference was opened by a comrade of the Secretariat appointed to host the founding conference of the Party.

The delegates unanimously, and with great enthusiasm, approved the founding resolution of the Communist Party of Trinidad and Tobago, which gave an important Marxist-Leninist analysis of the national and international situation. At the end of the resolution, the delegates militantly sang the "Internationale" and shouted slogans hailing the hoisting of the bright red flag of Marxism-Leninism in Trinidad and Tobago.

The founding resolution called for the Party to consistently defend the ideological foundation of the Party, Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism, against the attacks of the reactionary bourgeoisie, against the attacks of the revisionists and opportunists of all hues who are today in a frenzy, trying to combat the work which the Marxist-Leninists have been carrying out in Trinidad and Tobago for the last five and a half years. The resolution called for the stepping up of the work of preparing the class and providing revolutionary leadership to the battles which are taking place today between the working class and people, on the one hand, and the reactionary sellout ruling class and imperialism, in particular U.S. imperialism, on the other.

The resolution hailed the militant unity which exists in the international Marxist-Leninist communist movement and called on the comrades to work for the further strengthening of the international Marxist-Leninist communist movement, pointing out that our Party is a militant detachment of the movement, of Marxist-Leninist unity, which is of great assistance to the further strengthening of the Communist Party of Trinidad and Tobago.

The resolution hailed the work of the Party of Labor of Albania under the leadership of Comrade Enver Hoxha in defending Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism. It hailed the Party of Labor of Albania for the most precious gift to the proletariat and people of the world, socialist Albania, the socialist homeland of the international proletariat.

The anti-Marxist-Leninist and pragmatic "theory" called "Mao Zedong Thought" was condemned and its offspring, the revisionist theory of "three worlds", was denounced. The resolution called for the Party to wage a relentless struggle to clear out the remnants of this dangerous "Mao Zedong Thought" revisionism from the revolutionary movement in Trinidad and Tobago.

It was pointed out that the struggle against "Mao Zedong Thought" revisionism and all other kinds of revisionism is an important task for the Party since these forms of bourgeois ideology aim at paralyzing the proletariat and the people fighting for liberation against the reactionary bourgeoisie and imperialism.

A part of the founding resolution of the Party hailed the life and works of the great Marxist-Leninist, Comrade Joseph V. Stalin, and called on the comrades to defend the life and works of J. V. Stalin, disciple of Leninism and hero of the international proletariat and revolutionary masses. In this context, the conference called for the celebration of the Year of Stalin in the context of the 100th anniversary of the birth of this great communist revolutionary.

The massive upsurge in the militant struggles of of the people of the Caribbean was hailed by the conference which expressed its firm support for these struggles of the peoples against the fascist tyrants, and against U.S. imperialism and the reactionary ruling class. The treacherous role being played by the revisionists, in particular the Khrushchovite revisionists, in disrupting these struggles was condemned.

The comrades then elected the first Central Committee of the Communist Party of Trinidad and Tobago and expressed their determination to strengthen and build the revolutionary leadership of the Party.

The historic founding conference of the Communist Party of Trinidad and Tobago concluded its proceedings with the comrades singing the "Internationale", expressing their determination to stand in their place in the ranks of the international proletariat, in putting an end to the rule of the reactionary bourgeoisie here in Trinidad and Tobago.

The working class in Trinidad and Tobago now has its revolutionary leadership! Build the Communist Party of Trinidad and Tobago!

HAIL THE HISTORIC FOUNDING CONFERENCE OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF TRINIDAD TOBAGO!

LONG LIVE THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO!

ALL GLORY TO MARXISM-LENINISM!

UPHOLD PROLETARIAN INTERNATIONALISM!

WORKERS OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE!

Central Committee of the Communist Party of Trinidad and Tobago

August 11, 1979

[Back to Top]

On the 60th Anniversary of the Founding of the Communist Party U.S.A.

DOWN WITH THE REVISIONIST BETRAYERS OF COMMUNISM!

(The following leaflet was issued by the Detroit Branch of the Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninists on August 25, 1979, and was distributed at the Convention and Rally of the "CPUSA revisionists as well as in other places.)

1979 marks the 60th anniversary of the founding of the Communist Party of the USA. The establishment of the Communist Party in 1919 was a great historic advance for the American working class. It meant that the working class had its own' political party independent of capitalist parties. Originally the CPUSA was a genuine communist party, a Marxist-Leninist party with a revolutionary program aimed at realizing the historic mission of the working class, the overthrow of the man-eating capitalist system and the building of socialism and communism. This party was the leader and organizer of the working class movement, in the forefront of the great mass struggles of the workers, a party of revolutionary struggle and action which struck real terror into the hearts of the capitalist exploiters.

And this party was a party of the liberation of all the working and oppressed people who were correct to look to this party as the true champion of their cause. This party was made up of the finest sons and daughters of the working class whose goal in life was not bourgeois respectability but who fought and died for the great cause of the proletariat and the revolution.

Today, however, the ''Communist" Party which is holding its 22nd National Convention at Cobo Hall in Detroit is a party of revisionist traitors to the working class.

Gus Hall and Angela Davis are today parading around as the "true communists", as the continuers of the heroic work of the Communist Party of the past. But this is all a lie. They are dressed up in stolen clothes. Over 20 years ago a clique of revisionist scoundrels took over the CPUSA and destroyed its revolutionary, working class character. The "C"PUSA of Gus Hall and co. is a party of timid, respectable bootlickers of the capitalists, a party of lackeys of U.S. imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism, a party of firefighters of the revolution.

From the independent political party of the working class, the present day "C"PUSA has been transformed into a bourgeois party, a mere "left" shadow of the Democratic Party of the capitalist billionaires. For years the Gus Hall revisionists have been telling the workers to vote for the Democrats as an alleged alternative to the openly reactionary Republicans. The "C"P-USA strives to turn the working class into the tail of the Democrats, the so-called "friends of labor and the minorities", which, like the Republicans, is a party of the capitalist offensive of starvation, fascism and war.

As a result of this criminal betrayal, the working class has been placed in a most difficult situation. The working class has been robbed of its own political party, of its own general staff. In order for the working class to come out onto the battlefield, in order to resist the offensive of the rich, to prepare for the great class battles which are on the horizon in the 1980's and to win its emancipation through revolution, the reestablishment of a genuine revolutionary working class party is a burning necessity. The renegades to communism who have captured the "C"PUSA must be defeated. For this reason, the best way to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the CPUSA is to support the campaign to found the Marxist- Leninist Party of the U.S.A., the vanguard of the working class.

The genuine communist party of the working class must be reestablished because the "C"P-USA of Gus Hall has been reduced to a "communist" party in name only, while it is a party of impotent reformism and the defense of capitalism in all its deeds.

Gus Hall and Angela Davis are broadcasting far and wide their demagogic slogan "Put People Before Profits". What this yellow slogan actually means is that the revisionists are for preserving the capitalist system of wage slavery, mass unemployment, barbarous speedup and soaring cost of living. "Put People Before Profits" is a slogan to defend the enormous monopoly profits of the billionaires extorted from the blood and sweat of the workers and to create the illusion that the workers can somehow be bled more humanely. Instead of a fierce struggle to make the rich pay for their crimes, instead of revolution to expropriate the capitalists and eliminate their bloodstained profits altogether, the revisionists want to beg the capitalist billionaires, the Rockefellers and Fords, to be more "compassionate" in their exploitation and to give a few more crumbs to the people before they rake in their billions in profits. The slogan to put "People Before Profits" is part of the revisionist strategy of "reordering priorities" -- making capitalist slavery and oppression more acceptable to the masses, and patching up the cracks in the crisis ridden monopoly capitalist system. The Gus Hall revisionists are nothing but respectable reformers. They are like the monopoly capitalist politicians of the Democratic Party who carry countless fraudulent schemes and lying promises of "reform" to reconcile the working masses with their miserable situation. Reduced to the role of the mere "left" wing of the arch-imperialist Democrats, the "C'PUSA ends up supporting U.S. imperialism at every step.

The "C"PUSA echoes the Democrats on every question. They clamor that they are for peace while in fact they are working to stamp out the mass movement against the war preparations of U.S. imperialism. Instead of mass revolutionary struggle against imperialist war, Gus Hall and co. place their hopes on the ''sensibleness" and hypocritical promises of the imperialist warmongers themselves. In particular, the revisionists promote the fraudulent SALT treaty as a step towards "disarmament" and "peace". However, in reality the SALT treaty is a warmongering treaty signed by the chieftains of the two aggressive superpowers, Carter and Brezhnev, to hide and serve the stepping up of their unbridled arms race. Even some imperialist congressmen in Washington are forced to admit that SA LT is not a treaty for "arms limitation", as Carter and Brezhnev and their friend Gus Hall pretend, but a treaty for unprecedented arms expansion. Nevertheless, the "CPUSA revisionists can only echo the Democratic Party hacks and declare that SALT treaties and other dirty dealings between the two superpowers for the division of the world serve "detente" and "peace" while revolutionary mass struggle against these savage warmongering beasts is allegedly "crazy" and "suicidal".

The "CP"USA advertises itself as an opponent of racism, but in deeds it opposes the struggle of the black people against racial discrimination and violent repression. The revisionists are creating all sorts of illusions about the racist and fascist nature of the rule of monopoly capital in order to convince the oppressed to seek salvation by relying on their worst oppressors. The revisionists are promoting the outrageous hoax that the systematic racial oppression inherent in the monopoly capitalist system can be "banned" and the black people saved from oppression if only Congress could be persuaded to pass Gus Hall's pet bill to "outlaw racism". Imagine that! The capitalist state of racial oppression is going to be turned into an instrument for the liberation of the black people by a little tinkering with the capitalist law and the stroke of the pen! Gus Hall has only "forgotten" that the southern Dixiecrat Lyndon Johnson and the other Democratic hacks "banned racism" long ago, that fraudulent legislation "against racism" to hide and serve a policy of savage racial discrimination in practice is the official line of the Democratic Party.

If there is one lesson learned from the great battles for freedom in the 1960's it is that every advance of the black people's struggle has been won only through mass revolutionary struggle.

The oppressed people must vigorously take up self-defense and wage active resistance to the racist and fascist attacks of the rich and their state. But here again, the "C"PUSA of Gus Hall and Angela Davis are on the side of their friends in the Democratic Party, demanding that the black people abandon revolutionary mass struggle and passively submit to the worst oppression while begging on their knees for "Congress to act".

The revisionist party of Gus Hall has given up the revolution long ago. Respectability in the eyes of the ruling class is its most cherished goal. It professes to be a Marxist party but it has thrown overboard the central principle of Marxism, the revolution, the "forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions". The revisionists have abandoned the road of the Bolshevik Revolution of Lenin and Stalin, replacing it with the so-called "peaceful road" to socialism. They are trying to lull the masses to sleep with fairytales of winning the majority in Congress and the Presidency, at which time all the capitalists are supposed to admit defeat, politely hand over their vast wealth and power to the working people and meekly follow President Gus Hall into socialism. The rich are arming to the teeth as never before, building prisons right and left, and organizing the KKK and fascist gangs to attack the working people, while Gus Hall sings hymns to alleged "American Democracy". Today the police attack picket lines to break up the workers' strikes, while tomorrow, according to the cowardly revisionists, the capitalist class as a whole is supposed to be willing to be expropriated without a fight. A real communist party may run in capitalist elections as a subsidiary means of revolutionary work, but it never creates illusions about electoral alternatives to revolution -- a criminal practice which is the revisionists' stock-in-trade.

Gus Hall's "C"PUSA is also the lackey of the new capitalist rulers in the Soviet Union. It supports Khrushchov and his followers in slandering the great Marxist-Leninist Stalin, in throwing mud at the then-socialist Soviet Union of the days of Lenin and Stalin, in repudiating the dictatorship of the proletariat in favor of the "state of the whole people", in restoring the profit principle in the economy and in invading and dominating other countries. The "C"PUSA portrays the present-day Soviet Union and the other revisionist states, where socialism has long been overthrown and where capitalist relations have been restored in every cell of the society, as "models of socialism".

This exposes the hollow fraud of Gus Hall's claims to "anti-imperialism" and "socialism". On the one hand, the "C'PUSA despises and dreads as its worst enemy the only genuinely socialist country in the world today, socialist Albania, where the red banner of Marxism-Leninism is held triumphantly aloft and the dictatorship of the proletariat stands as firm as a rock. At the same time, the revisionists champion as "socialism" the savage imperialism of the New Tsars in the Kremlin. Gus Hall and co. have made a big fuss about the criminal collaboration of the Chinese social-imperialists with U.S. imperialism, particularly since Nixon's visit to Beijing. But what this noise is trying to hide is the fact that it was Gus Hall's bosses in the Kremlin who have long ago been collaborating with U.S. imperialism against the revolution and for the division of the world between themselves, who were the first to start wining and dining the chieftains of U.S. imperialism including the hated fascist Nixon.

Gus Hall has the sad fate of serving two imperialist masters, both the U.S. and the Soviet superpower. Like the "three worldist" followers of Chinese revisionism and all the other modern revisionists, the Khrushchovite revisionists of the Gus Hall clique are a bunch of social-chauvinists, socialist in name and rabid flunkeys of imperialism and chauvinists in deeds. Therefore, the genuine communist party can only be rebuilt by fighting against such traitors as Gus Hall and the revisionists and opportunists of all shades. This is why the campaign to found the Marxist-Leninist Party is being waged under the fighting slogan: "Build the Marxists Leninist Party Without the Social-Chauvinists and Against the Social-Chauvinists!"

DOWN WITH THE REVISIONIST BETRAYERS OF COMMUNISM!

CELEBRATE THE 60th ANNIVERSARY OF THE CPUSA BY FOUNDING THE MARXIST-LENINIST PARTY!

[Back to Top]

People's Socialist Republic of Albania-35 Years of Socialist Construction

(The following article is reprinted from Albanian Telegraphic Agency (ATA), September 13, 1979.)

Thirty-five years are being completed since the day of the 29th of November 1944, when the Albanian people, led by the Communist Party of Albania (today the Party of Labor of Albania) with Comrade Enver Hoxha at the head, attained their greatest historic victory, that of the liberation of the homeland and the triumph of the people's revolution, and establishment of the people's state power and the dictatorship of the proletariat.

The Party, just as during the Anti-Fascist National Liberation War, in the first days following liberation mobilized all the people to reconstruct the economy which had been shattered by the war and creatively implementing Marxism-Leninism in the concrete conditions of our country, elaborated the program of the socialist construction according to the principle of self-reliance.

The magnificent achievements attained in the socialist construction of the country over these 35 years are the best proof of the correctness of the line of the Party and of the economic policy elaborated and implemented by it. The fact is that beginning especially from 1950, the average annual rate of the growth of social production in

Albania has been about 8. 7% while that of industrial production has been about 12. 6%.

Relying on the mobilization of the creative energies and abilities of the working masses and the discovery and exploitation of the natural assets, a powerful economy has already been built in Albania, which has a complex, modern extracting and processing industry and developed multi-branched agriculture having as the main task the production of bread grains. The setting up of such a sound material and technical basis has made it possible for the economy to fully meet the needs of the people in bread grain, electric power, oil and other fuels, building materials, chemical fertilizers and other products of the chemical industry, and others, and over 85 to 90% of the country's needs in spare parts and consumer goods, at the same time as increasing exports at rapid rates.

By ever better mobilizing the internal material resources and the creative thinking of the working masses, with the working class in the van, as well as relying on their revolutionary readiness and patriotism, the Party has set up a powerful, complex economy which successfully coped with the great damage caused to our socialist construction by the treachery of the Soviet revisionists in the 60's and open betrayal of the Chinese revisionists in recent years and which firmly stands in the face of the savage imperialist-revisionist blockade.

The successes achieved during these 35 years of liberation could not be realized even for hundreds of years in the past regimes. Thus, total industrial production has grown about 125 times over that of the year 1938, agricultural production about 5 times, the number of pupils and students 13 times, of cadres with higher education about 120 times, the supply of the basic food articles per capita of the population two to three times and with industrial goods four to five times, while the average life span has increased about two times, etc. New prospects of development lie in store for the Albanian people for the future.

[Graphic.]

[Back to Top]

Comrade Hysni Kapo, Glorious Son of the Albanian People

-Obituary-

(The following article is reprinted from the Albanian Telegraphic Agency, September 25, 1979.)

Follows the obituary of Comrade Hysni Kapo, signed by Comrade Enver Hoxha and the other Party and state leaders, by outstanding patriots and co-fighters of Comrade Hysni Kapo:

On the 23rd of September, 1979, following a grave illness, our very beloved comrade, a glorious member of our heroic Party, the cherished son of the people, one of the most outstanding leaders of our Party, state and people, Hysni Kapo, member of the Political Bureau and Secretary of the Central Committee of the Party of Labor of Albania, member of the Council of Defense, Deputy to the People's Assembly of the People's Socialist Republic of Albania, member of the General Council of the Democratic Front of Albania passed away.

Comrade Hysni Kapo was born in March 1915, in the village of Terbac, in the district of Vlora in a peasant family of patriotic traditions. At a young age, prior to the formation of the Communist Party of Albania he took part in the communist movement of the country. In the first days of April 1939 he distinguished himself as a resolute anti-fascist fighter, an ardent patriot, inspirer and organizer of the resistance of the heroic people of Vlora against the fascist Italian occupation.

With the creation of the Communist Party of Albania, on the 8th of November, 1941, he was admitted as a member and charged with the important duty of Political Secretary of the regional committee of Vlora. Comrade Hysni Kapo has special merits for the strengthening and extension of the Party organization in the region of Vlora, in the resolute and uncompromising struggle against the different traitors and deviators, for the organization of the national liberation councils and for the uniting and organization of the people in the armed uprising for liberation. Implementing the teachings of the Party with unwavering loyalty, as an ardent agitator and propagandist, as an organizer and leader of rare qualities and courageous fighter, he has always been a lofty example of inspiration for the communists, for the partisans, for the people whom he loved so much.

Comrade Hysni Kapo worked with rare determination and ability for the organization of the partisan units. From the very beginning he was a member of the General Staff of the National Liberation Army.

As early as in the First National Conference of the Communist Party of Albania in March 1943, Comrade Hysni Kapo was elected member of the Central Committee and since the First Congress, continuously, through to the end he has been elected member of the Political Bureau, while since the Third Congress he was also Secretary of the Central Committee of the Party.

Comrade Hysni Kapo was an outstanding state and social personality. In 1943, in Labinot, at the meeting of the General National Liberation Council he was elected member of this council; in 1944 at the Anti-Fascist National Liberation Congress of Per met he was elected member of the Anti-Fascist National Liberation Council. After liberation he was charged with high-level state and social duties, and he directed with full success many important sectors of the Party, the state, the economy, the army and diplomacy.

From the founding of the Party, during the stormy years of the National Liberation War, of the reconstruction and the socialist construction of the country and in the class struggle against the enemies of the Party and people, against the conspiratorial and subversive activity of the imperialists, social-imperialists and revisionists of different shades, Comrade Hysni Kapo has always been a resolute and consistent fighter. He carried out an extremely valuable and intensive activity for the strengthening of the Party, for the preservation of its ideological and organizational unity, for the strengthening of the dictatorship of the proletariat, for the education and modernization of our armed forces, for the implementation of the principled foreign policy of our Party.

He worked with exemplary ability and self-sacrifice for the economic, cultural and social development of the country. Always, in all circumstances and everywhere he has been, he has faithfully and courageously implemented and defended the correct line of our Party, the life-giving teachings of Marxism-Leninism.

As a member of the highest leading organs of the Party, Comrade Hysni Kapo has worked and fought with Marxist-Leninist maturity and determination of a glorious leader.

With his principled stand and the lofty proletarian spirit which characterized him, with his tireless and persistent work, with a steel-like will, with his modesty and love for the people and with severity for the enemies, with all those lofty qualities and virtues which he had as a communist and leader, as a faithful son of the people, Comrade Hysni Kapo has been and will remain a brilliant and very beloved figure of the Party and people and of our armed forces.

His whole life as a militant and communist revolutionary, Comrade Hysni Kapo devoted to the magnificent cause of the Party, the revolution, the construction of socialism, the triumph of the triumphant ideas of Marxism-Leninism. In the magnificent achievements of socialist Albania, these 35 years, in the setting up, strengthening and modernization of industry, in the successful development of our socialist agriculture, in the raising of the cultural level and well-being of the people, in the all-round flourishing and prosperity and the strengthening of the defense potential of our socialist homeland, everywhere, the outstanding contribution of this cherished son of the Party and people is present.

Highly evaluating his merits and contribution both during the war and following liberation, the People's Assembly of the People's Socialist Republic of Albania has awarded Comrade Hysni Kapo with the highest titles, of ''Hero of the People" and ''Hero of Socialist Labor", as well as with many different orders and medals.

Comrade Hysni Kapo has departed from our ranks at a time when the Party and the people had such a great need for him, for his abilities as a leader, for his very rich experience, for his wisdom and intelligence. With the death of Comrade Hysni Kapo, the whole Party, our people, the workers, cooperativists and soldiers, the young men and women, the cadres all over the country, his family, all his comrades, co-fighters and coworkers have suffered a very great loss. But all of them, like one man, with ranks tightened around the Party, will know how to turn this loss, this great grief and pain into revolutionary strength to realize the magnificent program of the Party for the construction of socialism, for the defense of freedom and independence of our cherished homeland, to realize everywhere the tasks which the Party has set in all fields, as our unforgettable Comrade Hysni Kapo desired and fought for with rare heroism to the last moments of his life.

[Photo.]

Message of condolences from the National Committee of the Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninists to the Central Committee of the Party of Labor of Albania on the death of Comrade Hysni Kapo

October 3, 1979

Central Committee Party of Labor of Albania Tirana, Albania

Dear Comrades,

It is with deep sorrow that we have received the news of the untimely death of Comrade Hysni Kapo, beloved son of the Albanian people and outstanding leader of the Party and state. Comrade Hysni Kapo devoted his life to the glorious cause of the Party and the people, and of socialism, the triumph of the revolution and Marxism-Leninism. He was a militant internationalist, an unyielding fighter against imperialism and modern revisionism. His life and work remain a lofty example and an inspiration for the Marxist-Leninists throughout the world.

We convey our sincere condolences to the Party and to Comrade Hysni Kapo's family.

With sincere sympathy,

National Committee Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninist

[Back to Top]

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

Mao Zedong Thought Cannot Dull the Brilliance of the Great October Socialist Revolution

These days mark the 62nd anniversary of the triumph of the Great October Socialist Revolution. This was an earthshaking and unprecedented revolution in which Lenin and the Bolsheviks led the Russian proletariat in overthrowing the yoke of imperialism, opening up the path for the liberation of the proletariat and oppressed peoples of all countries. The October Revolution was a most significant event in world history, which ushered in the era of proletarian revolutions, the epoch of the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism and the victory of socialism. The triumph of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the October Revolution was a great confirmation of the theory of Marxism as elaborated by Marx and Engels. It also marked the inevitable triumph of Leninism -- the Marxism of the era of imperialism and the proletarian revolution, L e theory and tactics of the proletarian revolution in general and the dictatorship of the proletariat in particular.

With the triumph of the October Revolution, the Soviet Union of Lenin and Stalin emerged as a center of socialism and a mighty base for the advance of the world revolution. For the first time in history the capitalists and landlords were radically expropriated, eliminating the exploitation of man by man, and the Soviet working class and toilers embarked on the road of the construction of socialism. The eyes of the exploited and oppressed of the whole world turned to the land of the October Revolution. The most class conscious proletarians of all countries in both the West and the East took up the banner of the October Revolution and Marxism-Leninism, which they recognized as the sole path to liberation from the yoke of exploiters, the capitalists and landlords, the colonialists and imperialists. As Lenin pointed out, "Bolshevism can serve as a model of tactics for all." (The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky, p. 88) Lenin organized the Communist International under which the communist parties, Leninist parties of a new type, of revolution, were set up. And under the invincible banner of the October Revolution, guided by the theory of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, the world revolution, the struggles of the proletariat and oppressed peoples for social and national liberation achieved unprecedented victories. The imperialist system was breached in a number of countries of Europe and Asia, and a powerful socialist camp emerged confronting the imperialist camp.

It is therefore not in the least surprising that from the very days of October 1917 to the present the imperialist bourgeoisie has concentrated all its energy and power towards preventing the proletariat from taking the road of the October Revolution, destroying Bolshevism and liquidating the Marxist-Leninist parties and the socialist camp. The international bourgeoisie has unleashed its armies and all its instruments of repression against socialism and Marxism-Leninism. In particular, imperialism created its special agency within the international communist movement itself, a special weapon in the form of modern revisionism with which to fight Marxism- Leninism. And through the Trojan horse of modern revisionism, imperialism achieved what it couldn't achieve through the armed counter-revolution. After the death of Stalin, the Khruschovite modern revisionists betrayed the October Revolution and through the revisionist counterrevolution overthrew the dictatorship of the proletariat and the socialist system in the Soviet Union, and revisionism came to power in a number of socialist states and liquidated the communist parties as revolutionary parties in many countries.

Nevertheless, despite the zigzags in history, despite the revisionist betrayal, the experience of the October Revolution and the ideas which led it, the doctrine of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, have not and cannot be eliminated but maintain the same brilliance and universal validity as ever. The red banner of Marxism-Leninism and the October Revolution is held high aloft by the international proletariat, by the Marxist-Leninist communist parties with the glorious Party of Labor of Albania and Comrade Enver Hoxha in the forefront. And there is the genuinely socialist country, the People's Socialist Republic of Albania which marches forward triumphantly on the road of Red October.

Therefore, more than ever, the defense of the road of the October Revolution and Marxism- Leninism against the onslaught of modern revisionism, against their revisionist distortion and negation, remains a central task for all genuine Marxist-Leninists. This is a cardinal subjective factor for the development of the world revolution, for the struggle of the proletariat and oppressed peoples for social and national liberation. The purity of Marxism-Leninism, as the doctrine of the international proletariat, must be guarded as the solid ideological foundation of the contemporary revolutionary movement. Thus the attempts of the various currents of modern revisionism to overthrow Leninism, under whatever pretext and from whichever source, must be relentlessly exposed and repudiated.

In short, whether or not the road of the October Revolution and the Marxist-Leninist theory which guided this revolution are valid for all countries and must not be violated is a question of paramount importance on which Marxism-Leninism clashes with modern revisionism of all types. It clashes with Khrushchovite revisionism which propagates the ''peaceful road to socialism" and social-fascism and social-imperialism. It clashes with Titoite revisionism with its ''specific socialism" and "third road" to deny the universal experience of the October Revolution, and to justify capitalism and alliance with U.S. imperialism. It clashes with "eurocommunism", with its "Italian", "French" and "Spanish" ''roads to socialism" which justify a policy of historic compromise and collaboration with the monopoly bourgeoisie. And on this vital question Marxism-Leninism clashes sharply also with Chinese revisionism and Mao Zedong's theory of ''three worlds" which denies the revolution altogether and which defends U.S. imperialism in particular. Like the other variants of modern revisionism, Chinese revisionism, with its ideological basis in Mao Zedong Thought, is a revisionist negation of the experience of the October Revolution and Marxism-Leninism.

Just as the other revisionisms have done, Chinese revisionism has created an entire arsenal of opportunist "justifications" for its fundamental negation of Marxism-Leninism in its revisionist doctrine of Mao Zedong Thought. To uncover and expose Mao Zedong Thought, however, it is not sufficient to look only at Mao's official works.

Mao Zedong posed as a "great Marxist-Leninist" while in fact he was a wily revisionist who eclectically and pragmatically combined some Marxist-Leninist phraseology with his revisionist distortions of Marxism. Therefore the entire development of Mao Zedong Thought and the practice of the Communist Party of China must be examined. Also in this light, the "theoretical" defense of Mao Zedong by the U.S. neo-revisionist and hardened "three worldist" sect, the "RCP,USA", is a valuable contribution to the exposure of the revisionist and opportunist nature of Mao Zedong Thought, giving Mao's anti-Leninist theses an even more undisguised elaboration.

MAO'S THEORY OF A ''NATIONAL" OR "CHINESE FORM OF MARXISM" MEANS TO REVISE MARXISM

Mao Zedong was an advocate of the revisionist and national chauvinist position that Marxism-Leninism is not the universally applicable doctrine of the revolutionary proletariat of all countries. According to Mao, each country requires its own ideology, its own "national Marxism".

In particular Mao held that the Communist Party of China had to develop a "Chinese form of Marxism", different in character from the "European Marxism" of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin. While the followers of Chinese revisionism at times attempt to give the development of Mao Zedong Thought an "anti-revisionist" coloring, this "Thought" did not emerge in the struggle against modern revisionism. In reality, since the mid- 1930's the Communist Party of China has developed Mao Zedong Thought as a "Chinese form of Marxism", i.e., a Chinese revision of Marxism from that time.

Mao's idea of a ''Chinese Marxism" was promoted under the chauvinist and xenophobic pretext that China is allegedly an "objective world" unto itself, a necessarily unknown entity to all but Mao and the Chinese. Hence, the scientific laws governing the development of class society and the proletarian revolution which had been discovered by "foreigners" were allegedly not applicable to Chinese conditions or were at best only partially applicable.

Therefore, the CPC and Mao Zedong set out to establish a "Marxism" with a specifically Chinese character, an "Asio-Marxism" which, of course, is not Marxism at all. In 1945, the 7th Congress of the CPC adopted a new constitution declaring that "the Thought of Mao Tsetung" must "guide the entire work" of the party (Mao Tsetung, by Stuart Schram, p. 232). And in his report to the 7th Congress, Liu Shaoqi (Liu Shao-chi) defined Mao Zedong Thought as an "admirable example of the nationalization of Marxism" (Ibid., p. 233). The following year, in an interview with Anna Louise Strong, Liu Shaoqi declared that "Mao Tsetung's great accomplishment has been to change Marxism from a European to an Asiatic form" (Ibid., p. 254). Of course, it cannot be argued that Mao disagreed with the arch-revisionist Liu Shaoqi on this. Mao presided over the 7th Congress and knew full well what his comrades were saying about "Mao Tsetung Thought" to the foreign journalists. No, this was Mao's line as well. For Mao Zedong too constantly harped on the need of giving Marxism "a definite national form", "an indubitably Chinese character" (Selected Works, Vol. II, p. 209).

In the creation of this "Chinese form of Marxism", in building up "Mao Zedong Thought" as something more "suitable to China" than Marxism- Leninism, Mao harbored a real chauvinist hostility towards the revolutionary experience of the international proletariat.,The theory and tactics to guide the Chinese revolution had to be Chinese, or more specifically had to be the product of the "brilliance" of Mao Zedong and his ideas alone.

In this regard, Mao Zedong is completely shameless:

"... it is we Chinese who have achieved understanding of the objective world of China, not the comrades concerned with Chinese questions in the Communist International. These comrades in the Communist International simply did not understand, or we could say they utterly failed to understand Chinese society, the Chinese nation, or the Chinese revolution. For a long time even we did not have a clear understanding of the objective world of China, let alone the foreign comrades!" ("Talk at an Enlarged Central Work Conference", January 30, 1962, cited in Stuart Schram, Chairman Mao Talks to the People, p. 172).

This outrageous diatribe against "foreign comrades" reflects the typical hostility which Mao Zedong consistently displayed towards Marxism-Leninism and towards the international communist movement. For example, everyone knows that the great proletarian revolutionary strategists, Lenin and Stalin, were among those "comrades concerned with Chinese questions in the Communist International". Yet with unsurpassed arrogance, Mao declares that Lenin and Stalin too, "utterly failed to understand Chinese society, the Chinese nation, or the Chinese revolution". But then again, how could any "foreigners" "have a clear understanding of the objective world of China"?!

Furthermore, this abuse of "foreign comrades" is a typical example of Mao Zedong's sinister duplicity. In Mao's official writings, insofar as he quoted from the Marxist-Leninist classics, it was mostly from Stalin's works pertaining to China. Mao even stressed that the Chinese communists must especially "study Lenin's and Stalin's writings on the Chinese revolution". But this was simply so much eyewash because it is well-known that Mao made a regular practice of abusing and slandering Stalin as a blundering ignoramus in regard to the Chinese revolution and in every other field. Like the other revisionists, Mao raved against the great disciple of Lenin, Stalin, in order to oppose Leninism itself. Shameless hypocrisy was Mao's stock in trade.

The "RCP" also speculates and ''theorizes" at length on this idea of the unknowable "objective world" of China. The first tactic of "RCP's" defense of the so-called "immortal contributions" of Mao Zedong is to create the completely unfounded aura around Mao of the "great helmsman" crossing dark and uncharted waters, casting a ray of light in whichever anti-Leninist direction he steers. China is not like any other country, they protest. Hence, how can you criticize Mao from a Marxist-Leninist position when "Mao was really dealing with a new historical situation". (The Communist, Number 5, May 1979, p. 49). The "RCP' raves:

".. .where in the writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, is a clear line presented on how to wage the armed seizure of power in a country like China? Of course there is no such prescription, for unlike Hoxha, the great leaders of the proletariat were not into speculating on hypothetical situations that had not yet arrived. Since there had never been a revolution led by the working class in such a country prior to the Chinese Revolution, isn't it really rather silly to tell us to compare Mao's writing with the military writings of the earlier Marxist-Leninist leaders to discover Mao's mistakes ?'' (Ibid., p. 14)

The defenders of Mao make great play with the specific and particular features of the Chinese revolution in order to deny its basic features, its fundamental path, which Marxism-Leninism and the October Revolution had brilliantly illuminated. Thus, for example, in order to defend Mao Zedong's bourgeois democratic and opportunist line of "long-term mutual supervision" between the bourgeois parties and the communist party under socialism, the "RCP" explains this away with the assertion that such a line was necessary because of the "nature of Chinese society and the historical conditions". (Ibid., p. 49) And the "RCP" continues: "It is also important to note that at the time Mao wrote his major theoretical works on this subject, there was no historical experience of the proletariat and its Communist Party in leading the victory of a democratic revolution and building a new social order on this basis. '' (Ibid., p. 49)

But this is a hoax because the "democratic" revolution is not the experience of Mao alone. A century before Mao's writings, Marx and Engels organized the proletariat's participation in the bourgeois democratic revolution and wrote extensively and drew important theoretical conclusions about the ways and means for the proletariat to carry this revolution through to the proletarian revolution and socialism. And, on the basis of the theory of Marxism, with Lenin and the Bolsheviks at the head, the Russian proletariat led the bourgeois democratic revolution to victory in Russia on their triumphant march to the October Socialist Revolution. The fact of the matter is that it was Lenin who, as early as 1905, systematically worked out the Marxist-Leninist theory on the bourgeois democratic revolution led by the proletariat as an intermediate stage for the uninterrupted transition to the socialist revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat. Thus, the fantastic claims that before Mao "there was no historical experience" on this fundamental question of the revolution, are a ridiculous farce. Furthermore, nowhere in the extensive writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin or Stalin, the great champions of the hegemony and undivided leadership of the proletariat and its party in the system of the dictatorship of the proletariat, can anything be found to justify such an extreme opportunist policy of "long-term mutual supervision" between the capitalist parties and the communist party within a state which is allegedly the dictatorship of the proletariat and socialist.

But then again, maybe there is something else to the claim that before Mao "there was no historical experience of the proletariat and its Communist Party in leading the victory of a democratic revolution and building a new social order on this basis." Indeed there was no historical experience and there is no possibility of building the dictatorship of the proletariat on the basis of a revolution which is stopped at the democratic stage. And it is exactly here that Marxism-Leninism, which only considers the completion of the bourgeois democratic revolution as a necessary stage for the immediate going over to the socialist revolution, clashes head on with Mao Zedong Thought. Mao Zedong, like the opportunists of the Second International, held that there is a Chinese wall between the bourgeois democratic and the socialist revolutions. And it was Mao Zedong Thought which blocked the democratic revolution in China from going beyond Mao's idea of "new democracy", from being transformed into a genuine socialist revolution. Thus, "RCP's" defense of Mao Zedong Thought on the plea of "new historical conditions" turns out to be only further evidence of the fact that Mao Zedong Thought is not Marxism-Leninism at all but a gross distortion of it in the direction of bourgeois democracy. And it is the classics of Marxism-Leninism which show that Mao's preachings about the "long-term mutual supervision" and "harmony of interests" between labor and capital under socialism are nothing but the social-democratic and Bukharinite thesis of the growing of capitalism into socialism.

MAO ZEDONG'S OPPOSITION TO ''DOGMATISM" AND "FOREIGN STEREOTYPES" WAS DIRECTED AGAINST THE EXPERIENCE OF THE OCTOBER REVOLUTION AND MARXISM- LENINISM

Mao Zedong's pronounced national chauvinist attitude towards the revolutionary experience of the international proletariat was expressed in a concentrated fashion on the campaigns he waged against "dogmatism" and "foreign stereotypes".

In his campaigns against so-called "dogmatism", Mao did not have as his target the real dogmas, the dogmas of the Second International, the Trotskyites, the modern revisionists and other opportunists. On the contrary, within the "foreign stereotypes" and "foreign patterns" which Mao rejected, were included also the principles of Marxism-Leninism and the positive and revolutionary experience of the international proletariat, particularly the experience of the socialist revolution and socialist construction in the Soviet Union. Mao continually harped against "blindly following Soviet experience", and he talked a great deal about the need to "sum up the positive and negative experience of the Soviet Union", in order to cast this invaluable and light giving experience of the international proletariat in a completely negative shadow.

The defenders of Mao try to paint his hostility to the "Soviet experience" in "anti-revisionist" colors. But this is a gross distortion. In fact Mao did not differentiate between the Soviet experience under Lenin and Stalin which is Marxist- Leninist and socialist experience, and the Soviet revisionist experience under the Khrushchovites which is anti-Leninist, capitalist and social-imperialist experience. Furthermore, in league with the Trotskyites, Titoites, Khrushchovites and all the revisionist and opportunist renegades, Mao heaped vile abuse on the great Marxist-Leninist Stalin in order to tarnish the entire magnificent epoch of socialist revolution and socialist construction in the Soviet Union.

According to Mao: "After the October Revolution, while Lenin was still alive, while the class struggle was very acute and Stalin had still not come to power, they too were full of life." ("Talks at the Chengtu Conference", 1958, Chairman Mao Talks to the People, Schram, p. 96) This is how Mao Zedong shamelessly threw mud at the glorious decades of J. V. Stalin's leadership of the Bolshevik Party and the Soviet state, the dictatorship of the proletariat and genuine socialism. To claim that this type of "opposition to Soviet experience" on Mao's part was somehow "anti- revisionist", is absurd. The truth is Mao maintained national chauvinist views towards so-called "foreign stereotypes", "Soviet experience", etc., in opposition to Marxism-Leninism.

For their part, the "RCP" has raised this yellow, revisionist banner of Mao Zedong's as their guiding principle. The "RCP" theorists have adopted as their first principle hostility to the international communist movement and the rejection of the international experience of the proletariat. And they correctly attribute this anti- Marxist-Leninist line to Mao. The "RCP" elaborates that: "... as a decisive part of forging the correct line... Mao also had to challenge and break with the force of convention within the international communist movement", Mao had "to depart from, even 'violate', certain 'norms' which some have come to regard as sacred, in such basic areas as the functioning of the Party and its relation to the masses....without such 'violations' -- that is to say, developments -- of Marxism-Leninism, the Chinese revolution" would not have made "new breakthroughs on the path to communism". (Mao Tsetung's Immortal Contributions, pp. 312-14) "Had Mao...gone along with those who demanded that the Chinese revolution be' a clone of the Soviet revolution, and who invoked the Soviet experience and the Soviet Union itself as a holy icon,... there would have been no Chinese revolution. " What disgusting anti-communist trash! Moreover, about this garbage dragged up from the basements of the Hoover Institute, the "RCP" declares: "It can be further said that it is even a law of revolution"!

No, you anti-communist gangsters. The iron law of revolution is that it is only by defending Marxism-Leninism, its norms, the Leninist- Stalinist teachings on the Party, and the lessons of the October Revolution, and by relentlessly combatting the revisionist scoundrels such as yourself who glory in "departing" from and "violating" the Marxist-Leninist teachings which the entire international proletariat holds sacred, that the revolution can triumph.

MAO ZEDONG'S REVISIONIST THESIS OF "TWO PATHS TO POWER"

Mao raised the slogan that "the Chinese Revolution is a continuation of the October Revolution", and similar phrases can be found in his works.

But here again is Mao's hypocrisy, because he did not agree with this idea at all. In fact, Mao Zedong created an entire, worked out theoretical position, or more precisely schematic dogma, that the road of the October Revolution is only good for the advanced, imperialist-capitalist states while the oppressed nations and peasant countries had to have a different road, their own road to liberation, which was the road of China and Mao Zedong.

In the words of "RCP", Mao Zedong held that: "... to mechanically copy and apply to China the experience of the October Revolution in Russia, which set the general strategic orientation for revolution and the seizure of power in the capitalist countries" is an "erroneous tendency". The issue here is not whether or not the experience of the October Revolution should be "mechanically copied". This is only a flimsy ruse, a dodge to fool the naive. The issue here is that under the hoax of not "mechanically copying", the "RCP restricts the experience of Great October to a purely national phenomenon, applicable to the "capitalist countries" alone. In other words, the fundamental lessons of the October Revolution do not apply to all countries, and particularly not to the revolutions in the colonial and neo-colonial countries.

The "RCP" further elaborates Mao's scheme of "two paths to power":

"Hoxha tries to make it sound as if Mao held that in every country the road to victory lies in surrounding the city by the countryside. Quite the contrary. Mao held specifically that the model of the October Revolution, of insurrection in the cities, would be the road to power in the imperialist countries. Furthermore Mao never held that in all dependent and colonial countries the revolution would develop along this path.'' (Ibid., p. 16)

Here again, the "RCP" is creating the diversion of whether or not "Mao's road" applies to "all dependent and colonial Countries"; as they themselves later explain, this "will be the road to victory in many, if not most, such countries." (Ibid., p. 16) So the point is crystal clear: since there are "capitalist" or "imperialist" countries on the one hand and "colonial or semi-colonial and semi- feudal" countries on the other, therefore there must be two separate "general strategic orientations" -- two "paths to power" -- the road of the Bolsheviks and October for the "imperialist countries", and the road of Mao and China in "many, if not most" of the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America.

Let's further examine this anti-Marxist concoction of "two roads" as elaborated by Mao himself:

"Internally, capitalist countries practice bourgeois democracy (not feudalism) when they are not fascist or not at war; in their external relations, they are not oppressed by, but themselves oppress, other nations. Because of these characteristics, it is 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, and thus prepare for the final overthrow of capitalism. In these countries, the question is one of a long legal struggle, of utilizing parliament as a platform, of economic and political strikes, of organizing trade unions and educating the workers. There the form of organization is legal and the form of struggle bloodless (non-military). On the issue of war, the Communist Parties in the capitalist countries oppose the imperialist wars waged by their own countries; if such wars occur, the policy of these Parties is to bring about the defeat of the reactionary governments of their own countries. The one war they want to fight is the civil war for which they are preparing. But this insurrection and war should not be launched until the bourgeoisie becomes really helpless, until the majority of the proletariat are determined to rise in arms and fight, and until the rural masses are giving willing help to the proletariat. And when the time comes to launch such an insurrection and war, the first step will be to seize the cities, and then advance into the countryside, and not the other way about. All this has been done by Communist Parties in capitalist countries, and it has been proved correct by the October Revolution in Russia.

"China is different however. The characteristics of China are that she is not independent and democratic but semi-colonial and semi-feudal, that internally she has no democracy but is under feudal oppression and that in her external relations she has no national independence but is oppressed by imperialism. It follows that we have no parliament to make use of and no legal right to organize the workers to strike. Basically, the task of the Communist Party here is not to go through a long period of legal struggle before launching insurrection and war, and not to seize the big cities first and then occupy the countryside, but the reverse." (Selected Works of Mao Tsetung, Vol. II, pp. 219-220)

Such is the treachery of Mao Zedong Thought. What is it that makes "China different" from the capitalist countries in the ideas of the "greatest Marxist-Leninist" Mao? It is that the road of the October Revolution of Lenin and Stalin "has been proved correct" only in the capitalist countries but is however inapplicable to China!

To unravel Mao's anti-Marxist mumbo jumbo it should be pointed out that Lenin, too, exposed Kautsky and the leaders of the Second International who with similar arguments rejected the international significance of the October Revolution. Regarding these revisionist critics, Lenin pointed out; "In Russia, the dictatorship of the proletariat must inevitably differ in certain specific features from that in the advanced countries, owing to the very great backwardness and petty bourgeois character of our country. But the basic forces -- and the basic forms of social economy -- are the same in Russia as in any capitalist country, so that these specific features can relate only to what is not most important. " (V. I. Lenin, "Economics and Politics in the Era of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat", Collected Works, Vol. 30, p. 108) Clearly Mao Zedong too, is grabbing at "specific features" in order to throw out the window what is most important in the experience of the October Revolution. The basic social forces at work in Russia operated in the same way as in China and in every other country made up of antagonistic classes -- proletarians and capitalists, landlords and peasants, etc.

In his above thesis, Mao displays his extreme rigidity of concept and the shallow wordiness of his anti-Marxist dogmas. And Mao's rank schematism gives rise to nothing but typically social-democratic conclusions. Just look at Mao's so-called arguments. Is it true that legal and parliamentary struggle played no role at all in China? No, in fact, at one point in the revolution the Communist Party participated in parliamentary struggle in league with the ruling party. Nor did this rule out the fact that at the same time the revolutionary armed struggle was also being waged. Nor was this situation exceptional to China as, for example, during the Spanish Civil War when parliamentary struggle was also utilized by the revolution. Furthermore, is it not the case that in China, just as in any country where the proletariat exists, this class must be organized and there is a question of "economic and political strikes, of organizing trade unions and educating the workers,'' etc. ? (More on this later on.) Is it not simply social-democratic and Browderite reformism to describe the task of the communist parties in the capitalist countries as: "a long period of legal struggle", that "In these countries, the question is one of a long legal struggle, of utilizing parliament as a platform," etc. ? Don't the Marxist-Leninist teachings on the need for illegal forms of struggle, revolutionary mass struggle, etc., in order to prepare for the insurrection apply to all countries, even the most "bourgeois democratic"? Aren't Lenin's teachings on the need for illegal as well as legal organization for a successful struggle against imperialism universally valid? Mao writes as though in the "bourgeois democratic" countries the proletariat is granted the "legal right to organize" when in the most democratic bourgeois states these rights are won only through arduous struggle and are inevitably extremely limited. Besides this, there are fascist capitalist countries (note: Mao was writing in 1938) and other militarist and semi-feudal capitalist states as well as those states which are undergoing increasing fascization under the mantle of "bourgeois democracy" with their countless anti-communist and anti-working class laws and measures that restrict the "use of parliament" and the "legal right to strike" to the point that these things have become very hollow indeed. In this regard, how was it that China was so "different" from the October Revolution which everyone knows was prepared by the fearless Bolsheviks under the conditions of the bloodstained military-feudal absolutism of tsarist Russia?

It is clear that Mao is following in the footsteps of the opportunist social-democrats of Lenin's time. They also denied that the lessons of the October Revolution were of an international character, claiming that they could not apply to "democratic" Europe as they were suited only to the conditions of "Asiatic barbarism". Mao Zedong simply wants to turn this on its head. This is why Mao has concocted this completely schematic picture, and a completely social-democratic one at that, of a purely legal, parliamentary, reformist and peaceful development of the revolution in the capitalist countries and makes the outrageous assertion that such a development "has been proved correct by the October Revolution in Russia"! Thus, Mao advocated the stereotype of the non-revolutionary West in contrast to the revolutionary East, and the non-revolutionary proletariat as opposed to the revolutionary peasantry. This is what lies behind Mao's idea that "China however is different." What a travesty of Marxism-Leninism!

Another "specific feature" of Mao's rigid stereotype is his thesis that "capitalist countries... are not oppressed by, but themselves oppress, other nations." Here again Mao is trying to create a formula to the effect that the road of the October Revolution is a peculiar phenomenon to oppressor and not oppressed nations like China. And here again Mao is arguing from a completely opportunist and social-democratic position. The world system of imperialism is a system of the savage oppression of nations, both capitalistically undeveloped nations and fully capitalist ones. There are many contemporary and historical examples of advanced capitalist and imperialist nations being subject to the domination of powerful imperialisms. Defeated Germany after World War I is such a case. And the enslavement of defeated Japan and shattered Western Europe by a much strengthened U.S. imperialism after the Second World War remains in force to this day. Before Mao it was Karl Kautsky who attempted to prettify the imperialist system with the argument that imperialism only strives to subjugate agrarian territories and nations and not industrial ones. Against this idea Lenin pointed out: "The characteristic feature of imperialism is precisely that it strives to annex not only agrarian territories, but even most highly industrialized regions (German appetite for Belgium; French appetite for Lorraine)." (Lenin, "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism", Collected Works,Vol. 22, pp. 268-269). Thus, Mao's argument in none other than that of the renegade Kautsky.

Like the renegades of the Second International Mao Zedong argues in this vein in order to create a Chinese wall between the bourgeois democratic and socialist revolution; to separate the anti-imperialist and socialist tasks of the revolution with a gaping chasm. It was this gaping chasm created by Mao Zedong Thought which stood in the way of the uninterrupted transition of the Chinese bourgeois democratic, anti-imperialist revolution into a genuine socialist revolution. Moreover, this is one of the fundamental features of the anti-Leninist theory of "three worlds". And therefore it is one of the key ingredients of the anti-Marxist schematicism in the political line of the ''three worldist'' sects such as the ''RCP".

The "RCP" agrees completely with Mao that an artificial Chinese wall must be erected between the bourgeois democratic revolution and the proletarian socialist revolution. For the "RCP", any bourgeois democratic deviation of Mao and the Chinese after liberation is justified because China's revolution was bourgeois democratic and thus cannot be expected to become a truly proletarian socialist revolution -- that is, not ever. At the same time, also guided by Mao's idea of the insurmountable gulf between the bourgeois democratic and socialist revolutions the "RCF' has invoked an anti-Marxist taboo to the effect that the proletariat, in carrying out the socialist revolution, must not and may not take up any democratic tasks. And it is on this basis that the "RCP" virulently condemns the anti-imperialist struggles of the proletariat of Western Europe, Japan, Canada, etc., against U.S. imperialist domination under the hoax that to do so, to wage anti-imperialist struggle, necessitates abandonment of the socialist revolution and an alliance with one's ''own" bourgeoisie. On this point the "RCP" is in complete ideological harmony with the other ''three worldists" who have written off the proletarian socialist revolution in these states altogether, and advocate an alliance with the internal monopoly bourgeoisie under the hoax of a struggle against the two superpowers, or more precisely, against Soviet social-imperialism. These ''three worldist" formula worshippers are thus in the identical anti-Marxist position of creating a wall between the bourgeois democratic and socialist revolutions and between the democratic and socialist tasks of the revolution. It is for this reason that the "RCP" and all the ''three worlds" theorists jump up and down raving against the Marxist-Leninists for allegedly ''denying two- stage revolution", ''combining two stages into one", etc. However demagogy is cheap. The issue here is that the ''three worlds" schemists place the revolution into either ''purely bourgeois democratic stage" or ''purely socialist stage" compartments and then clamp down anti-Marxist- Leninist "sacred laws" onto each stage: (a) that the bourgeois democratic revolution must be divided by a wall from the socialist revolution and therefore cannot and must riot carry out any socialist tasks, nor can such a revolution be uninterruptedly carried through to the socialist stage; and (b) that the revolution cannot be socialist in character if it is still faced with democratic tasks, or to express the same "sacred law" from the other side, the socialist revolution must be forbidden to carry out any tasks of a democratic or anti-imperialist nature. Such is the revisionist doctrinairism of Mao Zedong Thought.

THE THEORY OF ENCIRCLING THE CITIES FROM THE COUNTRYSIDE DENIES THE HEGEMONY OF THE PROLETARIAT IN THE REVOLUTION

The final and most telling "specific feature" which Mao clings to in order to trumpet his "Chinese path to power" is the specific course of the armed struggle in China: that in the October Revolution the insurrection was launched in the cities and advanced into the countryside whereas in China the war took the course of encircling the cities from the countryside. From this fact, Mao Zedong created an entire theory of encircling the cities from the countryside, an anti-Marxist- Leninist theory which is at the center of the so- called "Chinese road". Moreover, this "brilliant strategic concept" of Mao's was built up as a universal pattern applicable and mandatory for all countries with the possible exception of the imperialist states. The Chinese revisionist leaders even demanded that "Mao's road" be followed in Spain! In official Chinese literature the concept of encircling the cities from the countryside was even extended to the course for the world revolution, with the "countryside" of Asia, Africa and Latin America surrounding the "cities" of the imperialist metropolises. These are the very same anti-Marxist-Leninist ideas that are at the bottom of Mao's theory of "three worlds".

Far from a "brilliant new Chinese path to power", a path more applicable than that of the October Revolution for the undeveloped countries, the theory of encircling the cities from the countryside is the height of rank schematicism. Such a formal pattern has been demolished by events and real life over and over again. Most recently the development of the revolution in Iran is a great demonstration of the absurdity of Mao's so-called "strategic concept". To condemn the revolutions of the proletariat and toiling masses of Asia, Africa and Latin America to such a scheme is to condemn these revolutions to disaster.

Mao Zedong's thesis of surrounding the cities by the countryside is not simply the description of the course of the military operations in China's liberation war. To the contrary, it is a cover for definite anti-Marxist-Leninist theories which negate the hegemony of the proletariat and the role of the cities in the revolution. No, "Mao's road" of encircling the cities from the countryside is a diabolical theory of distrust of the proletariat which replaces proletarian hegemony in the revolution with that of the peasantry. This theory that in China the revolution could do without the urban proletariat and that the revolution didn't have to be organised in the cities simultaneously with the work in the countryside, is another ugly manifestation of the pragmatism of Mao Zedong Thought. This road was not illuminated by Marxism-Leninism. Quite the opposite. As Mao says: "For so many years previously (prior to formulating the "general line" including encircling the cities from the countryside -- ed.) we were working in the dark." (Chairman Mao Talks to the People, Schram, p. 172) Put simply, the road of encircling the cities was formulated by Mao not on the basis of Marxism but was stumbled on as Mao and the CPC groped in the "dark".

Marxist-Leninist theory and the October Revolution had in fact indicated a different road for the Chinese Revolution than Mao's road of encircling the cities from the countryside. In answer to this charge, the "RCP" demands "where in the writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, is a clear line presented on how to wage the armed seizure of power in a country like China?" (The Communist, May 1979, p. 14) Indeed, for those whose minds are confounded by the eclectic formulations of Mao Zedong Thought, their lack of Marxism may leave them, as Mao says, "in the dark". But in fact Marxism-Leninism indicates "a clear line" for the proletariat of all countries, including China. For example, there is nothing unclear about Stalin's writings on the course of the Chinese revolution and Stalin's clear line is not in agreement with Mao's road. In Stalin's works, he clearly outlines the specific features of the Chinese revolution. It was Stalin who stressed the need for the proletariat to lead the peasant masses in agrarian revolution as an essential condition for the victory of the Chinese revolution, pointing out that there are "even Chinese Communists who do not consider it possible to unleash revolution in the countryside." ("Prospects of Revolution in China", p. 510 in On the Opposition) And it was Stalin who emphasized the fact that "In China the armed revolution is fighting the armed counter-revolution. That is one of the specific features and one of the advantages of the Chinese revolution... the Communists in China must devote special attention to work in the army." (Ibid., p. 505) But do these specific features justify a policy of abandoning the cities and the proletarians concentrated there? Not in the least.

Stalin, speaking under the heading "The Proletariat and the Hegemony of the Proletariat in China", gave a very definite answer to this question: "I think that the Chinese Communists should orientate themselves first and foremost on the proletariat.... I know that among the Chinese Communists there are comrades who do not approve of workers going on strike for an improvement of their material conditions and legal status, and who try to dissuade the workers from striking....That' is a great mistake, comrades. It is a very serious underestimation of the role and importance of the Chinese proletariat. This fact should be noted in the theses as something decidedly objectionable. It would be a great mistake if the Chinese Communists failed to take advantage of the present favorable situation to assist the workers to improve their material conditions and legal status, even through strikes. Otherwise, what purpose does the revolution in China serve? The proletariat cannot be a leading force if during strikes its sons are flogged and tortured by agents of imperialism. These medieval outrages must be stopped at all costs in order to heighten the sense of power and dignity among the Chinese proletarians, and to make them capable of of leading the revolutionary movement. Without this, the victory of the revolution in China is inconceivable. " (Ibid., p. 514)

Could Stalin have presented his position against the "very serious underestimation of the role and importance of the Chinese proletariat" more clearly? Nevertheless, to Mao the work in the cities and hence in the urban proletariat was only subsidiary at best and quite unimportant. As already discussed, Mao held social-democratic and reformist ideas about the organization of the proletariat and he considered this work non-revolutionary and quite unnecessary for the revolution.

Among Mao's legitimizations for the abandonment of the work in the cities was the severity of the White terror. As pointed out earlier, Mao argued that since in China there was "no parliament to make use of and no legal right to organize workers to strike", there was therefore no question of organizing "economic and political strikes, of organizing trade unions and educating the workers". In other words, in the face of reaction nothing can be done but to abandon the workers to the "education" and tender mercies of the KMT butchers and the imperialist exploiters! To look into what Mao's position on the work in the cities actually was, there is very little, almost nothing, written about this work in Mao's works. But according to the CPC it was Liu Shaoqi who provided the "model" tactics on this question: "As for mass work in the cities during that period, the principal policies should have been those advanced by Comrade Liu Shao-chi, the exponent of the correct line for work in the White areas." (See "Resolution on Certain Questions in the History of Our Party", adopted by the CPC Central Committee, 1945, in Mao Tsetung, Selected Works , Vol. III, pp. 198-202, 1965 edition). And Liu's basic tactic for work in the cities was "to act chiefly on the defensive (and not on the offensive)" and to "work under cover for a long time and accumulate strength" (Ibid.) In fact, the CPC with this "correct line" basically abandoned the cities, liquidated the Party organization in the KMT areas and failed to "accumulate strength" in the urban areas during the course of the liberation war. Furthermore, it cannot be claimed that this "model" tactic was only recommended as a result of the harshness of the repression following the 1927 counter-revolution. It is well-known that the Chinese leaders held that "Comrade Mao Tsetung's idea that for a long time we should employ our main strength to create rural base areas, (and) use the rural areas to encircle the cities" (Ibid., p. 184) -- in other words to retreat from the cities -- was not only the general line for China but for all peasant countries. (Liu Shaoqi's position as the "advocate of the correct line" for the cities brings up another indication of the Chinese leaders' distrust of the proletariat: that is the idea that the working class and the cities are the source of revisionism. It has been widely floated through the Chinese revisionist circles, and it is completely consistent with Mao's basic viewpoint, that the arch-revisionism of Liu Shaoqi was the natural result of Liu's responsibility for work in the cities and the proletariat, work which was allegedly inherently non-revolutionary and tainted with reformism and bureaucracy as opposed to the so-called "Yenan way" of Mao in the Chinese countryside.)

In the same resolution of the CPC Central Committee cited above, it states:

"Comrade Mao Tsetung also pointed out that the vast rural areas inhabited by the broad masses of the peasantry are the indispensable, vital positions of the Chinese revolution (revolutionary villages can encircle the cities, but revolutionary cities cannot detach themselves from the villages), and that China can and must establish armed revolutionary base areas as the starting point for countrywide victory.'' (Ibid., p. 198) Thus, for Mao, it was only the rural areas and the peasantry which were "indispensable, vital positions of the Chinese revolution" whereas the cities and the proletariat were of less consequence or of no consequence at all and were to take a back seat and wait for liberation to be brought to it from the peasantry! Of course, nowhere do the Chinese give a serious argument for this line which is diametrically opposed to Marxism-Leninism, to the experience of the October Revolution, to the correct advice of Stalin, etc. No, this anti- Marxist line is justified with idiotic dithyrambs such as "revolutionary villages can encircle the cities, but revolutionary cities cannot detach themselves from the villages"!

Due to the influence of Mao Zedong Thought, the Communist Party of China's proletariat could not possibly fulfill its proper leading role in the Chinese revolution. Although in the 1920's the CPC had undivided leadership of the militant proletariat and strength in the cities, by the time of liberation in 1949 the Party's strength in the cities and the urban proletariat was almost nonexistent. The situation was so bad that Mao himself describes how the CPC was at a loss to find urban cadres and turned to the army to find them. This situation where the Chinese proletariat was not brought to the forefront of the liberation struggle could only have done a great deal of harm to the revolution, keeping it from being transformed into a genuine socialist revolution. Even if it is conceded that due to the particular savagery of Chiang Kai-shek's 1927 counter-revolution there were devastating setbacks in the cities, it is very striking that nowhere in the works of Mao is there a hint that there was any particular drawback to the proletariat not taking its proper position in the revolution. In fact, Mao's entire theory of encircling the cities from the countryside is a schematic pattern for justifying this situation, for one-sidedly absolutizing the role of the countryside and the peasantry, and for underestimating the role and importance of the proletariat in the revolution. And this pattern has been elevated to a universal stereotype not only "correct for China" but for undeveloped countries everywhere.

Fortunately, despite the national chauvinist and arrogant claims of the Chinese revisionists, the proletariat and people of these countries are not predestined for this anti-Marxist road of Mao Zedong. On the contrary, the revolution in the undeveloped countries, equally with the developed countries, has only one road to genuine liberation and socialism, and that is the road of Marxism- Leninism and the October Revolution. This is the road of which the Party of Labor of Albania and the Albanian working class and people have traversed. The example of the Albanian people's liberation war against the nazi-fascist occupiers is a brilliant demonstration of the fact that the armed uprising does not have to and must not take the anti-Marxist course of leaving the working class on the sidelines and abandoning the cities even in a backward country such as Albania was at the time. Describing the victorious course of the people's uprising, the PLA points out:

"The uprising found its inspiration and began in the cities. As it extended and strengthened, the center of gravity passed to the countryside. The village became the main base of the uprising and the peasantry its main force. At the same time, the uprising was being extended and deepened in the cities, too. The countryside was liberated first, and this served as the starting point for the liberation of the cities and the whole country. However, right to the end the city remained the inspirer and leader of the whole uprising." (History of the Party of Labor of Albania, p. 662)

The fact that the Albanian working class, with its Marxist-Leninist party at the head, was able to carry out its historic mission as the leader of the revolution, has ensured the triumph of genuine socialism in Albania. Among other factors, this factor has guaranteed the uninterrupted development of the revolution through the anti-imperialist democratic stage to the stage of the construction of the economic base of socialism, through to the present stage of the complete construction of socialist society. The People's Socialist Republic of Albania is the prototype of the new socialist society which can only be realized and consolidated under one banner -- the invincible banner of Marxism-Leninism and the October Revolution.

[Photo: "The Storming of the Winter Palace in Petrograd by Revolutionary Workers and Sailors in 1917.]

[Back to Top]

1979: YEAR OF STALIN

"Synopsis of the Article 'The International Character of the October Revolution'" - J.V. Stalin

[Photo.]

The October Revolution is not merely a revolution "within national bounds," but, primarily, a revolution of an international, world order; for it signifies a radical turn in the world history of mankind from the old to the new.

Revolutions in the past usually ended by one group of exploiters at the helm of government being replaced by another group of exploiters.

The exploiters changed, exploitation remained. Such was the case during the revolutions of the slaves, the revolutions of the serfs, the revolutions of the commercial and industrial bourgeoisie. The October Revolution differs from these revolutions in principle. Its aim is not to replace one form of exploitation by another form of exploitation, one group of exploiters by another group of exploiters, but to abolish all exploitation of man by man, to overthrow all groups of exploiters.

The establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the most revolutionary and most organized of all exploited classes.

Precisely for this reason the victory of the October Revolution signifies a radical turn in economics and politics, in the manner of life, customs, habits and traditions, in the culture and in the whole spiritual complexion of the exploited masses throughout the world.

That is the basic reason why the oppressed classes in all countries entertain the greatest sympathy for the October Revolution, which they regard as the pledge of their own emancipation.

Four main features.

1) The centers of imperialism (the "metropolises"). October as the turn from the rule of capitalism in the advanced countries to communism. We often say that the October Revolution is a breach of the world imperialist front. But what does that mean ? It means that it ushered in the era of proletarian revolutions and the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Formerly, the point of departure was the French Revolution of the eighteenth century; its traditions were utilized and its order was implanted.

Now the October Revolution is the point of departure.

Formerly, France.

Now, the USSR.

Formerly, the "Jacobin was the bogy of the entire bourgeoisie.

Now, the Bolshevik is the bogy of the bourgeoisie.

The era of "ordinary" bourgeois revolutions, when the proletariat was merely the shock force, while the exploiters reaped the fruits of revolution, has passed away.

The era of proletarian revolutions in the capitalist countries has begun.

2) The periphery of imperialism. October ushered in the era of liberating revolutions in the colonial and dependent countries.

The proletariat cannot emancipate itself unless it emancipates the peoples oppressed by imperialism. The united front of proletarian revolutions in the metropolises and colonial revolutions in the dependent countries.

The era of tranquil exploitation of the colonies and dependent countries has passed away.

The era of liberating revolutions in the colonies, the era of the awakening of the proletariat in those countries, the era of its hegemony, has begun.

3) The centers and periphery -- together. Thereby, October struck world imperialism a mortal blow from which it will never recover.

Imperialism will never recover the "equilibrium" and "stability" that it possessed before October.

The era of the "stability" of capitalism has passed away.

The era of the decline of capitalism has begun.

4) October signifies the ideological victory of communism over Social-Democratism, of Marxism over reformism.

Formerly, before the victory of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the USSR, the Social-Democrats and reformists could flaunt the banner of Marxism, could coquet with Marx and Engels, etc., for that was not dangerous for the bourgeoisie, and people did not yet know what the victory of Marxism could lead to.

Now, after the victory of the proletarian dictatorship in the USSR, when everybody realizes what Marxism leads to and what its victory may signify, the Social-Democrats and reformists, sensing the danger to the bourgeoisie of such flaunting and coquetting with Marxism, have preferred to dissociate themselves from Marxism.

Henceforth, communism is the only shelter and bulwark of Marxism.

Henceforth, the spirit of Marxism is abandoning Social-Democracy, just as Social-Democracy earlier abandoned Marxism.

Now, after the victory of the October Revolution, only those can be Marxists who resolutely and devotedly support the first proletarian dictatorship in the world.

What does supporting the first proletarian dictatorship in the world mean? It means taking the stand of direct struggle against one's own bourgeoisie. As, however, the Social-Democrats do not want to fight their own bourgeoisie but prefer to adapt themselves to it, they, naturally, take the stand of fighting the first proletarian dictatorship in the world, the stand of restoring capitalism in the USSR. That is the twilight of Social- Democracy.

October ushered in the era of the triumph of world communism, which is the era of the twilight of Social-Democracy, of its final desertion to the camp of the bourgeoisie.

October is the victory of Marxism in ideology.

October 1927

(Reprinted from J. V. Stalin Works, Vol. 10, pps. 173-176.)

[Back to Top]

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

To Pursue a United Front with "Three Worlders" is Anti-Marxist and Tantamount to Betrayal

The second part of this series exposed the liberal and conciliationist approach towards the struggle against modern revisionism which is held in common by both Chinese revisionism and its American expression, U.S. neo-revisionism. Neither the Chinese revisionists nor the U.S. neo-revisionists believe in the necessity of a stern, irreconcilable and merciless struggle against revisionism and opportunism of all hues. They both reject the teachings of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin on this question. Both the Chinese revisionists and their American sycophants consider the principled struggle of the Marxist-Leninists against modern revisionism and all opportunism as "ultra-left", "dogmatic" and "sectarian". Instead, both the Chinese revisionist "theoreticians" and their followers in the U.S. hold that modern revisionism should be treated not as an enemy but as a so-called "wavering" and "middle force" to be "won over and united with".

This article deals with the Chinese leaders' extreme opportunist policy of forming alliances and "united fronts" with the modern revisionists -- the inevitable product of the anti-Marxist-Leninist position that modern revisionism should be treated as a "middle force". Throughout the whole course of the over two decades of struggle against Khrushchovite modern revisionism the Chinese leaders, with criminal methods, have tried to impose such a traitorous policy on the entire international Marxist-Leninist movement. The efforts of the Chinese in the direction of forming alliances with the modern revisionists -- whether with the Khrushchovites in a "united front against U.S. imperialism", or with the Titoites and other renegades allegedly "against Khrushchovite revisionism" -- severely compromised and damaged the struggle of the world's Marxist-Leninists against Soviet modern revisionism. And, in recent years, the Chinese road of vacillation and conciliation with modern revisionism has gone completely bankrupt. It has collapsed into openly counter-revolutionary "three worlds" revisionism and an open alliance with U.S. imperialism and the most barbaric reactionaries and warmongers.

The Chinese catastrophe provides a serious warning to all those who would advocate conciliation and alliance with the revisionists, whether they are Khrushchovite, Titoite, Chinese or any other variant of revisionist betrayers of Marxism- Leninism. In particular, it sounds a warning to all those who are following just such a conciliationist course in the current struggle against Chinese revisionism.

The struggle against Chinese revisionism and its rotten anti-Leninist theory of "three worlds" has broken out in force. Just as the struggle against Khrushchovite revisionism has been and continues to be a life and death struggle on a world scale between the revolutionary Marxist-Leninist forces and the counter-revolutionary forces of imperialism and modern revisionism, so too with the present struggle against Chinese revisionism. In this great struggle it is, of course, out of the question and tantamount to betrayal to seek an ally in the Khrushchovite or other modern revisionists to fight the Chinese revisionists. Or, equally traitorous, is to seek unity with one group of "three worldist" followers of Chinese revisionism in the name of fighting Deng Xiaoping (Teng Hsiao-ping) and Hua Guofeng in Beijing. However this is precisely what certain conciliators of Chinese revisionism are doing.

These conciliators proclaim that they are against the theory of "three worlds" and the new Chinese revisionists. But at the same time they are working to build alliances with elements of hardened "three worlders" and followers of Chinese revisionism. They are making alliances with one faction of Chinese revisionism against the other. Some of these conciliators even find mutual support in the "RCP,USA", a diehard "three worldist" sect that makes gangster-like attacks on socialist Albania. Thus, the obvious questions arise: What kind of serious struggle can you wage against the Chinese revisionists' "three worlds" theory when you yourself are openly embracing the advocates of "Mao Zedong's theory of three worlds" and the loudest trumpeters of the anti-Marxist-Leninist theses of Chinese revisionism? How can you properly perform your duty of defending Marxism-Leninism and socialism from the frenzied attacks of the Chinese revisionists when you yourself are linked arm in arm with a bunch of rabid enemies of the international Marxist-Leninist movement, vilifiers of the glorious Party of Labor of Albania and the brilliant Marxist-Leninist Comrade Enver Hoxha, and open enemies of socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat in the People's Socialist Republic of Albania?

It is abundantly clear to anyone with two eyes that to pursue such a course means to abandon the struggle against Chinese revisionism altogether. In reality, it means to merge with the Chinese and other revisionists in order to fight the genuine Marxist-Leninist parties. But these conciliators are blind to these obvious facts because they do not want to carry the struggle against Chinese revisionism through to the end. They say that they are against the "three worlds" theory and the Chinese revisionists' open alliance with imperialism and reaction. But now, when the question of the ideological roots of the "three worlds" theory and the Chinese revisionist betrayal have been exposed in the anti-Marxist-Leninist and revisionist theses of "Mao Zedong Thought", the conciliators want to retreat. Instead of systematically sorting out the question of Mao Zedong, the conciliators want to step back into alliances with the "three worldist" gangsters and enemies of socialism.

The line of alliance with the modern revisionists, under whatever pretext it may disguise itself, is a line of compromising and damaging the entire glorious struggle waged by the Marxist-Leninists against modern revisionism. Both the Chinese revisionists and their neo-revisionist followers in the U.S. have provided a vast wealth of proof of this truth. By negative example they have confirmed ever more powerfully the only Marxist-Leninist line: that the Marxist-Leninist cause and the proletarian revolution can only advance without the modern revisionists, social- chauvinists and opportunists of all hues and in relentless struggle against these traitors to Marxism-Leninism and lackeys of imperialism.

THE CHINESE LEADERS' CENTRIST POLICY OF A "COMMON UNITED FRONT AGAINST U.S. IMPERIALISM INCLUDING THE KHRUSHCHOVITE REVISIONISTS"

It has been well documented by the Party of Labor of Albania how the Chinese Communist Party vacillated and wavered from the outset of the struggle against the betrayal of the Khrushchovite revisionists. And one of the principal planks of the Chinese leaders' conciliation of the Khrushchovites was their extreme opportunist policy of a "common united front against U.S. imperialism including the modern revisionists."

It was in the early 1960's -- when the Khrushchovite betrayal was open and complete, when Khrushchov and his gang had proved themselves to be nothing but faithful accomplices and lackeys of imperialism, and when the Party of Labor of Albania had alone launched the open polemic to repudiate the Soviet revisionists -- that the Chinese leaders launched their "idea" of a "united front against imperialism" including within it the Khrushchov clique. Under this centrist banner, even after the open polemics were initiated by the CPC against the Soviet revisionists, the Chinese polemics were toned down and at times even ceased, negotiations were held with the Khrushchovites and compromises were struck. Even in the heat of the open polemic, when the Chinese leaders had themselves declared that Khrushchov was a traitor, Mao Zedong, Liu Shaoqi (Liu Shao-chi), Zhou Enlai and company clung to the idea of uniting with the Khrushchov clique against imperialism. For example, in 1964 Mao and the others wrote to their "Soviet comrades" declaring that in the face of aggression from imperialism, China and the Soviet Union will in the end be united. This conciliatory policy was particularly tuned to those wavering parties which lacked the Marxist-Leninist nerve for the open fight against Soviet modern revisionism. And by bolstering these elements taking a centrist position the struggle was damaged and a valuable service was provided the Khrushchovites.

The Chinese line of a "united front" including the revisionist tsars of the Kremlin was never fully consummated. However, in pursuing their typically pragmatic policy the Chinese are even now engaging in backstage negotiations for a reconciliation with Moscow, while simultaneously their paid dogs are barking about "striking the main blow at Soviet social-imperialism". The failure of this "united front" cannot be attributed to any lack of desire on the part of the Chinese. To the contrary, it was because this "united front" came under fire from two directions.

Such a "united front" came under fire from the Khrushchovites themselves. Reconciliation between the Chinese leadership and the Soviet revisionists through a "united front against imperialism" proved impossible. Though the Khrushchovites also propagated this idea to their own advantage, the Khrushchov clique could not accept such a "united front" on the Chinese terms. The Soviet revisionists refused to "share the leadership" of such a front as the Chinese demanded, and could accept so-called "unity against imperialism" only on the basis of the complete submission of the Chinese to themselves.

Furthermore, this centrist policy of a "united front including the Khrushchovite revisionists" came under stern fire from the Marxist-Leninists, making this policy a very difficult one for the Chinese. In particular, despite brutal pressure, the Chinese leaders failed to impose such a line on the Party of Labor of Albania which openly and courageously denounced such a centrist course. Throughout this period, the glorious PLA consistently fought for the Leninist line on this vital question of principle. This line was emphasized at the 5th Congress of the PLA held in 1965. In his Political Report to the 5thCongress, Comrade Enver Hoxha stressed:

"With their entire policy and practice the Khrushchovite revisionists have placed themselves outside the anti-imperialist front. To include the revisionists-in this front means to introduce the fifth column, the 'Trojan Horse',

and to undermine it from within."

And the PLA further pointed out in regard to the struggle against revisionism:

"... there can be no middle road. The 'golden mean' is the line of 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. ..."

For the PLA, unity with the revisionists, even in the form of an "anti-imperialist front", was inconceivable. The 5th Congress of the PLA expressed its firm opinion that:

"Unity will be reestablished in the communist movement and the socialist camp, but it will be reestablished by the Marxist-Leninists without revisionists and traitors and in resolute struggle against them."

(Above passages from the 5th Congress of the PLA taken from the History of the Party of Labor of Albania, pp. 603-605.)

THE CPC HAS PURSUED THE OPPORTUNIST LINE OF "FIGHTING KHRUSHCHOVITE REVISIONISM" THROUGH ALLIANCES WITH THE OTHER REVISIONISTS

While a common "united front" with the Soviet revisionists against U.S. imperialism was always pursued by the Chinese, because of the situation it never fully materialized. (Of course, nothing rules out the prospect of such an alliance between the revisionist centers of Beijing and Moscow in the future.) For this reason, the Chinese have spread a thick veil of silence over their efforts in this direction. Nevertheless, the dirty methods of Zhou Enlai and co. and the opportunist activities of the CPC in its attempts to realize such a unity with the Soviet revisionists has been documented and scientifically exposed in Enver Hoxha's brilliant new work Reflectionson China.

Furthermore, the Chinese line of a united front with the revisionists also came from another angle: unity with all and any revisionists, traitors and renegades who have contradictions or allegedly have contradictions with the Soviet revisionists in the name of "fighting Soviet revisionism". Quite simply this is the line of unity with revisionism to fight revisionism!

The string of alliances set up by the Communist Party of China with the Titoites and other modern revisionist lackeys of U.S. imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism has a long, sordid and disgraceful history. These alliances have matured and their rotten fruit has fully ripened.

From the beginning of the struggle against Titoite revisionism, Mao Zedong and the CPC agreed with the flunkey of U.S. imperialism, Tito, against the great Marxist-Leninist, J. V. Stalin. Though they did not and could not admit this at the time, later they said as much with a great deal of fuss about "Stalin's mistakes in regard to Tito". The Chinese took great care to cultivate their contacts with the Titoites and with the other revisionist traitors. In particular, all those swept up in the centrifugal, polycentrist current away from the Soviet revisionists and towards Tito, U.S. imperialism and the West remained "comrades" of the Chinese. The Communist Party of China carefully groomed its ties with the Yugoslav, Romanian, Polish, Czech and other revisionist lackeys in power in Europe. It also never severed its ties with the Italian, Spanish and other " Eurocommunist" scum. In 1970, the revisionist bootlicker of Franco fascism in Spain, Santiago Carillo, received a warm welcome in Beijing. And today the connections of the CPC with the " Eurocommunists" are being activated more than ever.

Of particular significance is the special relationship which has existed between the Chinese Communist Party and the Romanian revisionists. It is hardly a secret to anyone that Romania has been and remains one of the most openly revisionist states, without even a trace of revolutionary Marxism-Leninism in its line. In fact, the Chinese' "comrade" Ceaucescu has been the devout pupil of the renegade Tito. It was from Tito that Mr. Ceaucescu learned to play the role of an errand boy and loyal vassal of both U.S. imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism while pleasing both masters at once. And thus, the Chinese interest in Romania goes beyond its important ties with Romania itself. For the Chinese, COMECON and Warsaw Pact Romania has been a special bridgehead not only with Titoite Yugoslavia but also with the U.S. imperialists and Soviet social-imperialists and the other revisionists of Europe to boot.

Moreover, the Chinese have placed more value in their alliances with the Yugoslav and Romanian revisionists than in their alleged "proletarian internationalist solidarity" with the Party of Labor of Albania and socialist Albania where the red flag of Marxism-Leninism has been held triumphantly aloft and where the dictatorship of the proletariat and genuine socialism have been consistently defended. Not only that, the Chinese leadership even wanted to place the Albanian communists, the outstanding shock troops of the international proletariat in its great struggle against imperialism and modern revisionism, under the direct tutelage of the Romanian and Yugoslav revisionist cliques. In a most despicable plot of Zhou Enlai's, first hatched in 1968 and pursued through 1974, the Chinese tried with blackmail and brutal interference in Albania's internal affairs to pressure socialist Albania to sign a defense pact and form a united front with the Titoites and Romanians and thus to entrust the defense of socialist Albania to these revisionist enemies.

It is clear that the CPC never wanted to rely on the international proletariat and ally with the Party of Labor of Albania and the other genuine Marxist-Leninist parties and groups in a common struggle against the Khrushchovite revisionists. To the contrary, the tactics of the CPC were geared towards the building up of a united front of bourgeois lackeys and revisionist scoundrels "who have contradictions with the Soviets". Of course, to "fight modern revisionism" with such revisionist weapons as Tito, Ceaucescu, Carillo and the "Eurocommunists" is, in reality, to "fight" from a completely revisionist angle. This line shows the totally unprincipled, national chauvinist, centrist and conciliatory approach of the Communist Party of China towards the entire struggle against modern revisionism.

Today the fruits of the Chinese leaders' policy of "fighting the Soviet revisionists" with an alliance of other revisionists have fully matured. The CPC, in harmony with its Yugoslav, Romanian and other "comrades", has completely betrayed Marxism-Leninism and has formed an open alliance with imperialism and the most savage reaction. And the present-day "anti-Soviet revisionism" of the Chinese is indistinguishable from the "contradictions with the Soviet revisionists" which the Titoites and the others might have. Obviously, these contradictions have their source not in the ideological conflict between Marxism-Leninism and modern revisionism but in the imperialist and social-imperialist rivalries, and in the counter-revolutionary ambitions of these revisionist cliques.

The Chinese experience is a powerful demonstration that the policy of a united front including the revisionists is a line of conciliation of revisionism and capitulation to imperialism. It is a line of unity with the traitors and enemies and of betrayal of Marxism-Leninism and the revolution.

THE U.S. NEO-REVISIONISTS HAVE FOLLOWED THE CHINESE IN SEEKING UNITY WITH THE REVISIONISTS AND OPPORTUNISTS OF ALL HUES

As we have pointed out previously, the U.S. neo-revisionists also consider revisionism and opportunism neutral phenomena, "middle forces" to be "won over and united with". And this has been expressed in their extremely flabby and conciliatory attitude towards these firefighters of the revolution. In practice, each of the neo-revisionist cliques has a series of ties and opportunist alliances in effect among the modern revisionists, Trotskyists, cultural nationalists and opportunists of every shade. Moreover these ties and alliances are especially activated for the purpose of forming a holy alliance against their principal enemy -- to block the advance of revolutionary Marxism-Leninism. Over the last decade it can be seen that, on the one hand, the Marxist-Leninists of the ACWM(M-L) and then of the COUSML have consistently pursued the course of unity of the Marxist-Leninists and the building of the Marxist-Leninist Party without the modern revisionists, Trotskyites and other opportunists and in irreconcilable struggle against them. The neo-revisionists, on the other hand, have for over ten years fought the "ultra-left" and "sectarian" Marxist-Leninists with a policy of "unity" with everyone and anyone that can serve their struggle against Marxism-Leninism.

Look for example at the "RCP,USA's" unabashed fondness for the French Trotskyite professor Charles Bettelheim. The May 1979 issue of the "RCP" journal The Communist, carried a major article praising this hack anti-communist ideologue (appropriately, this was the same issue in which the "RCP' launched its rabidly anti-communist and lumpen-style ravings against the glorious Party of Labor of Albania and Marxism- Leninism and in defense of the revisionist dogmas of "Mao Zedong Thought"). Under the guise of a long-winded and obscure criticism of Bettelheim, the "RCP", in fact, praises this Trotskyite to the skies as a true "anti-revisionist" thinker whose at times "pathbreaking ideas" have unfortunately gone somewhat astray in failing to fully support "RCP's" favorite group among the Chinese revisionists.

Under subtitles such as "Bettelheim as Trotskyite" and "Bettelheim as Khrushchovite" this article correctly, though extremely politely, points out that: "Between 1951 and 1968 Bettelheim's politics were an eclectic mish-mash of a number of fashionable leftist trends, including Khrushchovite revisionism.. .Trotskyism and 'third worldism'". And admitting that Bettelheim's politics have not changed from 1968 to date, the article shows that "Trotskyite tendencies are deep-rooted in Bettelheim." It is also clear from this article that the political economy of this "anti-revisionist" is in fact anti-Marxist- Leninist to the extent that Bettelheim has been hired out to the bourgeois-feudal government of India and other reactionaries as an economic advisor!

Nevertheless, such "small matters" as these don't stop the "RCP,USA" from turning around and lavishing Bettelheim with praise. The "RCP" assures the reader that while Bettelheim's line is not a "thorough-going revolutionary line" (p. 233) at the same time, "Bettelheim can be said to programatically stand with those who oppose revisionism"! (More precisely, it is the "RCP' that can be said to "programatically stand" with those who support Trotskyism and oppose Marxism-Leninism!) And furthermore: "Marxist-Leninists should welcome his positive contributions" (p. 175); that "There is much that is positive about what Bettelheim has written" (p. 173), and that "for their time" Bettelheim's Trotskyite ideas "were in a sense pathbreaking and what he wrote helped many understand much better the true nature of the class struggle for socialism"! (p. 219)

According to the "RCP,USA" this openly Trotskyite and Khrushchovite element, this imperialist ideologue with a lifetime of work against the science of Marxism-Leninism, should be forgiven his ideological "weaknesses". And moreover he should even be united with and welcomed by the Marxist-Leninists because this "prominent friend of China", like the "RCP", writes profusely in support of Mao and against Stalin and besides this he is critical of the present regime in China as well. In fact, "RCP,USA's" only real criticism of Professor Bettelheim is that he lacks consistency in his Trotskyite arguments in defense of Mao Zedong's revisionist distortions of Marxism-Leninism.

As this example shows, in their struggle against Marxism-Leninism and to defend "Mao Zedong Thought" and the entire arsenal of Chinese revisionism, the neo-revisionists are more than willing to reach into the sewers for the slimiest allies, even for such inveterate Trotskyites as Charles Bettelheim.

It should be noted in passing that Professor Bettelheim has been, in reality, a "prominent friend of China" -- that is of the Chinese revisionist leadership.. To serve their dirty alliances with revisionism and imperialism the Chinese established an entire international network of bourgeois, revisionist, Trotskyite and anti-communist so-called "friends of China". In the name of the solidarity movement with China and under the hoax of "people to people friendship" the Chinese leadership linked up not with the genuine friends of China and the people but with the most reactionary, imperialist and revisionist elements such as the Trotskyite Charles Bettelheim, who was the chairman of the France-China Friendship Association and with the modern revisionists including the Italian revisionist party through its society for "friendship" with China.

This brings us to another clear-cut example of the neo-revisionist practice of unity and alliance with the modern revisionists and opportunists of every stripe: that is their disruptive activities in the anti-imperialist solidarity movements. According to the neo-revisionists, what it means to build a broad front of support for the national liberation movements is to give all the pro- Khrushchovite, "three worldist", Trotskyite and similar dregs their place inside this "broad front", inside the coalitions, etc. But how can the pro-Khrushchovites, the ardent firefighters of the revolution and the liberation struggles of the oppressed peoples and lackeys of imperialism and social-imperialism, "broaden" the solidarity movement? Or, how can the advocates of the anti-Leninist theory of "three worlds" -- the theory that justifies "solidarity" with U.S. imperialism and the butchers of the oppressed people such as the fascist criminal Richard Nixon, the medieval Shah of Iran and the bloodstained dictator Pinochet of Chile -- "broaden" the solidarity movement? These characters have not and will not lift a finger to support the liberation struggles but infiltrate the support movements for the sole purpose of subverting them in the interest of the Soviet, Chinese and other revisionists and imperialists and social-imperialists.

The truth of the matter is that in every case that the so-called broadening of the solidarity movements has pursued this course of unity with the revisionists and opportunists it has meant the real liquidation of the actual solidarity work. The solidarity movement can only be broadened by organizing the masses. However, lacking faith in the masses, the neo-revisionists instead open the doors only to the most rotten elements. And a tea party of assorted revisionist, "three worldist" and Trotskyite elements is the furthest thing from developing broad support for the anti-imperialist struggles. And to restrict the modern revisionists, "three worldists" and Trotskyites from the solidarity movement does not mean restricting the breadth and scope of the movement in the slightest. To the contrary, building the solidarity movement through dirty alliances with the opportunist jackals means necessarily to restrict, curtail and to do great damage to developing the support of the broadest sections of the people for the anti-imperialist and national liberation struggles.

The solidarity movement, like the entire revolutionary movement, can only be built and strengthened on the shoulders of the proletariat. It is only the revolutionary proletariat and its Marxist-Leninist party which can develop the solidarity movement on the sound basis of proletarian internationalism, which can ensure that it is truly anti-imperialist and revolutionary and is not undermined and turned into a plaything in the hands of the revisionists and imperialists. Likewise, based on the working class and the vanguard party of the working class, the anti-imperialist solidarity movement can be a truly broad movement, brought deep and wide among the working masses and to all the genuinely progressive and anti-imperialist sections.

Thus the Chinese revisionist line of unity and alliance with modern revisionism and opportunism is a line of cowardly retreat from the battlefield against modern revisionism which is to betray Marxism-Leninism and to desert the revolution and the working class. All revolutionary Marxist-Leninists have the duty to persevere on the road of Lenin who taught the proletariat that "The fight against imperialism is a sham and humbug unless it is inseparably bound up with the fight against opportunism." Today, the great struggle of the international proletariat against U.S. imperialism, Soviet social-imperialism, Chinese social-imperialism and all reaction; the struggle which is being led by the Marxist-Leninist parties for the triumph of the revolution and socialism, can only advance without the Khrushchovite, "three worldist", Titoite and other revisionist and social-chauvinist traitors and in merciless struggle against them.

[Back to Top]

For Marxism-Leninism, Against the "Three Worlds" Theorists

In Response to the "RCP,USA's" Anti-Communist Tirades Against the Party of Labor of Albania

Introduction

The publication of Comrade Enver Hoxha's exciting and powerful new book, Imperialism and the Revolution, is a great event in the world Marxist- Leninist movement. This revolutionary work exposed to progressive world thought the roots of the reactionary theory of ''three worlds" in Mao Zedong Thought. It shows how the "three worlds" theory and Mao Zedong Thought are adapted to the strategy of turning China into a social-imperialist superpower. The book is truly a breathtaking work in the depth and brilliance of its analysis, the correct orientation and direction it gives to the struggle against Chinese revisionism, and in its far-ranging subject matter. This book lets the clear daylight of Marxism-Leninism shine on those questions which fashionable opportunism has sought for years to obscure. It not only demolishes Mao Zedong Thought and the "three worlds" theory, but also exposes the world strategy of imperialism and modern revisionism. Furthermore it sets out the Leninist strategy of the revolution and gives important guidance on many burning questions of the strategy, forms, and tactics of the revolutionary struggle. This is not to mention its elaboration of the present-day features of imperialism in the light of Lenin's great work Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. This book will be studied over and over for many years to come.

Yet ever since the very announcement of this book's publication, the "RCP,USA" has gone into a frenzy. Revolutionaries around the world are cheering and hailing this new book, while the "RCP" leadership is snarling and licking its wounds. Starting in the January 1979 issue of the "RCP's" journal Revolution, even before the "RCP" leadership had read the book or seen anything but the briefest of publication announcements, they began to curse Comrade Hoxha and denounce the shining beacon of socialism, the People's Socialist Republic of Albania. Nothing is too low for those without principles. The "RCP" leadership claims to be communists, "revolutionary communists" at that, but they find their greatest enemy in the bastion of world revolution, socialist Albania, and in the glorious Party of Labor of Albania. Following in the footsteps of the arch-renegade Khrushchov and of the Chinese revisionist leaders, the "RCP' shamelessly gave what a- mounted to a call for the overthrow of the leadership of the Party of Labor of Albania. In their "theoretical" writings, the "RCP" leadership is following the gangster principle of repeating over and over again as many lies and slanders as possible against Comrade Hoxha and the Party of Labor of Albania in the hope that something or other, no matter what, will stick in the reader's mind and "discredit" Comrade Enver Hoxha and the great science of Marxism-Leninism. In this way the "RCP" has admitted that its real fight isn't against Chinese revisionism or the Klonskyite Pentagon-socialists with their social-chauvinist thesis of "directing the main blow at Soviet social-imperialism". On the contrary, all the "RCP's" ire is directed against Marxism-Leninism, which they call "dogmatism", "mechanical materialism", "direct-line thinking" and "dogmato-revisionism". The "RCP" leadership is not interested in upholding the immortal teachings of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, but in following Khrushchov and Mao in sneering at Marxism-Leninism under the banner of discarding the alleged "mistakes of Stalin". The "RCP' is utterly op posed to the fight against Chinese revisionism and the theory of "three worlds". They even openly defend the present-day ultra-revisionist Chinese leadership. They vehemently deny that the revisionist China of Hua Guofeng and Deng Xiaoping is social-imperialist and engaging in incitement to inter-imperialist war. They shamelessly echo Klonsky and Deng Xiaoping and denounce the struggle against "three worlds-ism" as "indirectly... promot(ing) the political view and needs of the Soviet imperialists to a great degree" (Revolution, Sept. 1979, p. 45, c. 1). With their attacks on socialist Albania and the principles of Marxism-Leninism, with their cursing, squirming and lying, the "RCP' leadership has come out to do the dirty work for the Klonskyites and the present-day Chinese leadership. The "RCP" has revealed itself as a "left" phrasemongering commando squad for "three worlds-ism" and Chinese revisionism. This shows the complete political bankruptcy of the "RCP,USA".

Why has the "RCP, USA" gone wild after the publication of Imperialism and the Revolution?

It is because this book marked a deepening and intensification of the struggle against Chinese revisionism and the "three worlds" theory. Imperialism and the Revolution is not only a powerful elaboration of Marxism-Leninism on a wide range of burning questions of world revolution, but also is particularly timely in going into the longstanding roots of Chinese revisionism and in exposing the revisionist essence of Mao Zedong Thought. And every step of the struggle against Chinese revisionism has spelled disaster for the "RCP".

Indeed, it is Mr. Avakian and co. who are trying hard to make an international reputation for themselves as the heavyweight theoreticians of Chinese revisionism (which shows how poverty stricken the Chinese revisionist trend is). Mr. Klonsky and co. may have official recognition from Beijing, but it is Mr. Avakian and co. who write the books elaborating Chinese revisionism and Mao Zedong Thought and who take upon themselves the vanguard role in throwing mud at heroic Albania. The "RCP" differs from Klonsky and the social-chauvinist "CP(M-L)" not on fundamentals, but only in shade, on interpretations, on such secondary issues as whether the "three worlds" theory is "part of or the "entire" international line and strategy, on whether or not there are one or two versions of the "three worlds" theory, etc. The "RCP' has consistently tried to soften, blunt and misdirect the struggle against Chinese revisionism. They differ from Mr. Klonsky in wanting to drop some of the more blatant, exposed and discredited social-chauvinist formulations, such as "directing the main blow against Soviet social-imperialism", while preserving the whole theoretical basis behind it. They know that arousing burning indignation and hatred for the "three worlds" theory is indispensable in combatting Chinese revisionism and in showing that Chinese revisionism and American social-chauvinism are not just wrong on this or that formulation, but are counter-revolutionary, fascist forces.

They know that once the masses of activists are aroused on the issue of the "three worlds" theory, they are bound to ask questions about the origins of this theory and about the whole history of the struggle against modern Khrushchovite revisionism, and they are bound to take up serious study of the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism. So the "RCP" holds that the issue of fighting the "three worlds" theory isn't important, it is only the "international line" and so forth. They admit that Mao made "mistakes" in advancing the thesis of the "Soviet main danger" and in the direction of "three worlds-ism", but according to Mr. Avakian and co. such matters aren't very important, they are hardly worthy of mention. For Mr. Avakian and co. the question of whether or not one has sold out to U.S. imperialism or not is hardly worth mentioning at all. Their whole policy is to blunt the struggle against the "three worlds" theory.

But this policy of the "RCP' has been going steadily bankrupt under the struggle of the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists. The "RCP' was forced from one position to another. At first they tried to stop the struggle against the "three worlds" theory with silence. Then they came out to write on this issue in the July 1977 issue of Revolution ("On the Three Worlds and the International Situation") where they explicitly defended the "three worlds" theory, only specifying that it should be taken as "part of' rather than the entire international line. In November 1978 they elaborated the same view further in the article "'Three Worlds' Strategy: Apology for Capitulation", which concocts the thesis of two different "three worlds" theories. In this way the "RCP' leadership hoped to have its cake and eat it too. They could denounce the "bad" "three worlds" theory while upholding the "good" one, and the only difference between the two theories was whether or not one called it a "strategy" or not. All this time the "RCP" leadership was given no rest by Albanian publications such as Comrade Hoxha's Report to the Seventh Congress of the Party ofLabor of Albania, the Zeri i Popullit editorial "The Theory and Practice of the Revolution" (July 7, 1977), and the Letter of the CC of theParty of Labor and the Government of Albaniato the CC of the Communist Party and the Government of China (July 29, 1978),'and by the COUSML publications against social-chauvinism including the pamphlet Why Did the "RCP,USA" Split? and such series of articles as "Does the 'RCP,USA' Oppose the Theory of 'Three Worlds' ?'' and "U.S. Neo-Revisionism as the American Expression of the International Opportunist Trend of Chinese Revisionism". And now, with the publication of Imperialism and the Revolution, the "RCP's" policy has gone completely bankrupt. There was nothing left for them but to come out openly as defenders of Chinese revisionism and ''three worlds-ism".

The very frenzy of the "RCP" is a vivid confirmation of one of the many brilliant Marxist- Leninist theses developed in Imperialism and theRevolution. This book shows that the roots of the theory of "three worlds" lies in Mao Zedong Thought, and that Mao Zedong Thought constitutes the ideological basis for Chinese revisionism and all its reactionary variants, offshoots and factions. The "RCP", against its own will, has all but admitted the truth of this important thesis of Comrade Hoxha's through the ''RCP's" own concoction of the thesis of two different "three worlds" theories and through its nonchalant "criticism" of Mao Zedong's allegedly minor and unimportant "mistakes". The "RCP' has defended the "three worlds" theory to the bitter end because it shares with the "three worlds" theorists the basic premises of Mao Zedong Thought and Chinese revisionism. The "RCP" admits that Mao Zedong indeed held to the theories of the "Soviet main danger", to the division of the world into three, and to the "opening to the West". The "RCP" must defend Nixon's trips to China in 1972 and 1976 because Mao was the author of these disgraceful extravaganzas. It was Mao who in 1972 made a point of giving an especially warm and intimate welcome to Nixon and of prostrating himself before Nixon while the U.S. bombs fell like rain in Viet Nam. It was this first visit of Nixon in 1972 that opened the floodgates for the sordid march to a U.S.-China warmongering alliance (what the "RCP' so delicately calls the "opening to the West"). Mao indeed went so far as to invite the fascist hangman Nixon back to China for a warm reunion in 1976 after Nixon had fallen in disgrace from power in the U.S., and thus Mao and the Chinese leadership demonstrated for all to see that they didn't just greet Nixon from alleged motives of diplomatic necessity, but actually relished Nixon's company and regarded this bloodstained mediocrity as a "great man". With Nixon's third visit to China in September 1979, the Chinese leadership is simply continuing along the well-trod path. The "RCP' knows something of the stand of the former Chinese leadership on these questions. Indeed they had made various trips to China and had firsthand contact with the Chinese revisionist leaders. Therefore, their testimony on Mao Zedong's responsibility for the elaboration of the "three worlds" theory bears some weight. All those who are still unclear on Mao's role and who are still investigating this burning question of international significance should take the evidence unwillingly provided by the "RCP" into account.

One such monumental work as Imperialism andthe Revolution would be enough to make 1979 a most memorable year. Yet already another outstanding work of Comrade Hoxha's has appeared. This work is volume one of Reflections on China. Reflections on China consists of excerpts from the political diary of Comrade Hoxha. Volume one covers the years from 1962 to 1972. This book is essential reading for any serious study of the history of the struggle against modern Khrushchovite revisionism. It pulls away the veil of mystery that the Chinese revisionist leadership has cynically cast over this period. It exposes the vacillations and zigzags of the unprincipled Chinese stand and denounces such centrist and even out-and-out capitulationist and utterly revisionist Chinese theses as; the "anti-imperialist front including even the modern revisionists"; "they take the first step, we take the second" (i.e. that one should tone down the anti-revisionist polemic, only reply when directly attacked, and even live in a blissful ideological "peaceful coexistence" with opportunism); the Chinese contempt for the new Marxist-Leninist parties; the united front with the Titoites, Roumanians, "Eurocommunists" and other revisionist scoundrels allegedly against the Soviet revisionists; and finally the open abandonment of the struggle against U.S. imperialism and the linking up with the war criminal Richard Nixon. This book provides a full and convincing documentation many times over of the points first made earlier in the Letterof the CC of the Party of Labor and the Government of Albania to the CC of the Communist Partyand the Government of China (July 1978). As well, it shows the manner of approach of the Party of Labor of Albania and Comrade Hoxha to relations between Marxist-Leninist parties, to the working out of Marxist tactics on state-to-state relations, and to many complex problems. This book will have lasting value.

Reflections on China also utterly demolishes the filthy slanders of the "RCP,USA" and other mongrels that the Party of Labor of Albania allegedly "changed" its line on China. No, "three worldist" dogs, it is you adherents of Chinese revisionism who are notorious pragmatists and waverers and who even ridicule as "direct-line thinking" the very idea of having a monolithic party with a consistent line that remains steady and principled over whole decades. Your "three worldist" lie was already refuted in the July 1978 Letter. And now Reflections on China provides a veritable mountain of documentary proof that the Party of Labor of Albania followed a consistent, principled, patient and mature stand with respect to China and Mao. It shows entry by entry how Comrade Hoxha and the Party of Labor of Albania opposed the vacillations and errors of Mao for whole decades. The "Foreword" to Reflections on China points out that: "Loyal to the principles of proletarian internationalism, the Party of Labour of Albania has defended the Communist Party of China and the People's Republic of China both when the Khrushchovite, Titoite and other modern revisionists attacked them, and during the Cultural Revolution, when the Chinese ultra-revisionists, headed by Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping, posed a serious threat to the CP of China and Mao Tsetung. At the same time, our Party has followed with concern the anti-Marxist stands and actions taken by the Chinese leaders on many occasions, and to the extent that this was realistically possible, has expressed critical opinions about what was going on in China. It has also expressed these opinions at the proper time to the Chinese leadership in the hope that it would put itself on the right course. ... Unfortunately, however, revisionism in China grew steadily stronger day by day." The Albanian Marxist-Leninists threw themselves into the fire for China at a time when many of today's "friends of China" were feverishly attacking it. Even the "RCP" leadership is forced to admit the obvious, that "Hoxha had united with Mao and the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution at a time when it was under attack from revisionists everywhere" (The Communist, Number 5, "Dogmato-Revisionism", p. 1). The world's Marxist-Leninists hoped that China would find its way to the true path of Marxism-Leninism, but it turned out that China, and Mao, preferred the path of "three worlds-ism", the path of turning China into a social-imperialist power, the path of wheeling and dealing in the blood of the oppressed masses. Now that Chinese revisionism has fully crystallized and that their alliance with imperialism and split with communism is fully consummated, it is the duty of all Marxist-Leninists to wage a stern and open struggle against Chinese revisionism in order to uphold the immortal teachings of Marxism-Leninism.

In this polemic, we will denounce the "three worlds-ism" and anti-communist stands of the "RCP, USA". There will be four basic sections. One, the exposure of the gangster-like methods and utter confusion-mongering that the "RCP,USA" leadership tries to pass off as "theoretical work". Two, the demonstration that the "RCP" defends Mao Zedong Thought from the standpoint of a fervent advocate of the "three worlds" theory, which is only natural as the "three worlds" theory is based on Mao Zedong Thought. Three, the examination of the history of the struggle against modern Khrushchovite revisionism. And four, the denunciation of the anti-Marxist-Leninist and revisionist basic theses of Mao Zedong Thought and their contrast with the living truths of Marxism-Leninism.

[Back to Top]

WE ACCEPT THE CHALLENGE!

The July/August 1979 issue of Revolution contains in the article "A Wrong Phrase" a challenge to the COUSML to publicly demolish the "RCP, USA's" shameless, gangster-style article "Beat Back the Dogmato-Revisionist Attack on Mao Tsetung Thought; Comments on Enver Hoxha's Imperialism and the Revolution." We accept the challenge. We consider it our duty as revolutionary Marxist-Leninists to publicly denounce the anti-communist, "three worldist" poison coming from Mr. Avakian and co. We call on all progressive people to do the same. The "RCP" leadership is nothing but a bunch of diehard "three worlders". They are serving as the front men for the Chinese social-imperialists in their attacks on the bastion of world revolution, heroic socialist Albania. In this issue of The Workers' Advocate there are several major articles ripping to shreds the theoretical absurdities and conscious confusion-mongering of the foul-mouthed "RCP" leadership and of its theoretical basis, Chinese revisionism and Mao Zedong Thought. The introduction to the article "For Marxism-Leninism, Against the 'Three Worlds' Theorists" shows that on fundamental issues Mr. Avakian and Mr. Klonsky are twin brothers. The article "Mao Zedong Thought Cannot Dull the Brilliance of the Great October Socialist Revolution" exposes that the Chinese revisionists put forward Mao Zedong Thought in order to negate the most fundamental teachings of Marxism-Leninism and replace them with the so-called "Yenan way". The article against the "united front with 'three worlders'" exposes some of the crimes of the Chinese revisionists in undermining the struggle against modern Khrushchovite revisionism and denounces the path of allying with one faction of "three worlders" against the other faction of "three worlders". And in this article we shall proceed to point to the "RCP's" negation of the Marxist-Leninist teachings on the party, which leads them to defend the Trotskyite formula of the "dictatorship of the party".

Actually, the COUSML has been publicly refuting the "three worldist" monstrosities of the "RCP" leadership in the pages of The Workers' Advocate since early 1978. Our articles included "Why Did the 'RCP,USA' Split?", "Does the 'RCP,USA' Oppose the Theory of 'Three Worlds' ?", "U.S. Neo-Revisionism as the American Expression of the International Opportunist Trend of Chinese Revisionism" and others. It is Mr. Avakian and co. who have stayed miles away from even attempting an open reply to these powerful articles. In challenging us to reply to them, the "RCP" leadership is knocking at an open door.

In their article "A Wrong Phrase", the "RCP" finally makes its first feeble attempt at an open reply to our polemics. This article is in fact a particularly pathetic example of attempting to avoid the serious issues at stake. "A Wrong Phrase" is in fact a comment on our article "U.S. Neo-Revisionism as the American Expression of the International Opportunist Trend of Chinese Revisionism, Part 3" (The Workers' Advocate, July 1, 1979). Our article shows in great detail and with many convincing proofs that the "RCP" neo-revisionists always negated the Party concept and the Marxist-Leninist teachings on the Party, counterposed "building the mass movement" to "building the party", opposed the vital task of party-building with such theses as that of the "pre-party collectives", and so forth. Unable to give any serious argument in favor of their anti-Marxist theses, the "RCP' leadership reduces everything to being allegedly only a question of a single "wrong phrase". The "RCP" says that their use of the Trotskyite phrase "the dictatorship of the party" was simply a typographical error, and that they meant to say "the party must exercise leadership (rather than all-round dictatorship) in every sphere of society..." And that settles everything, according to the "RCP".

But when the article "A Wrong Phrase" is read through to the end, it turns out that the article actually justifies the use of the phrase "dictatorship of the party". The article says that it is the same as talking about "Marxist-Leninists who have come to power", which is clearly unobjectionable. The article even quotes from Comrade Stalin's writings denouncing the phrase "dictatorship of the party" in order to prove that the "RCP' is correct in its use of this phrase. This is amazing, but it is true. In the very article in which the "RCP" tries to wash its hands of this Trotskyite rubbish, it finds it impossible to dissociate itself from it. This is because, irrespective of whether or not this phrase occurs in any particular place in "RCP's" writings or not, the ideas behind this phrase are deeply embedded in the "RCP's" whole ideological and theoretical outlook. It follows from the fact that, as we pointed out in "U.S. Neo-Revisionism, Part 3", "the 'RCP's' negation of the Marxist-Leninist teachings on the party has led it to the most mechanical, bureaucratic, administrative and bourgeois dictatorial teachings on the leading role of the party." It is not a matter of "a wrong phrase", but of the whole outlook and practice of the "RCP' leadership.

THE NATURE OF THE FORMULA "THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PARTY"

What is the nature of the formula of "the dictatorship of the party" and why does the "RCP" defend it? The article "U.S. Neo-Revisionism, Part 3" explained it as follows:

"For years the neo-revisionists denounced the Marxist-Leninists as sectarians and dogmatists for working for a single Marxist-Leninist center. But it is now proven for all to see that it is the neo-revisionists, those who lack all sense of party concept, who conceive of party leadership and proletarian hegemony in the most sectarian and factionalist manner. While it is the Marxist-Leninists who uphold the interests of the class and who use the Marxist- Leninist organization to uphold the revolutionary unity of the fighting masses. Thus the 'RCP,USA' in their gangster-style article '... Dogmato-Revisionism...' fume up and down about how such concepts as 'the "purity" of the party and of Marxism-Leninism' and the "'monolithic unity" in the party' are undialectical and bureaucratic (The Communist, Number 5, May 1979, pp. 66-70). The article eulogizes the negation of the leading role of the party as 'rely(ing) directly on the masses' (Ibid., p. 52). But simultaneously the article puts forward as the correct definition of the role of the party the arch-bureaucratic and Trotskyite formula '... the party must exercise all-round dictatorship in every sphere of society,...' (Ibid., p. 86). (This formula)... is a totally anti-Leninist formula, a formula that negates the dictatorship of the proletariat and replaces the leading role of the party with respect to the working class with the dictate by force over the working class. The formula of the 'dictatorship of the party', used in the way the 'RCP,USA' does, in fact implies the dictate of the top leadership of the party over all of society through forcible administrative means. Comrade Stalin showed in detail that this formula about the "dictatorship of the party" has nothing in common with Marxism-Leninism, that this formula is at best only inexact and figurative, hence is almost never used in Marxist literature,... Stalin showed how equating the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' with the 'dictatorship of the party' then gives rise to further equating it with the 'dictatorship of the leaders'."

Comrade Stalin's teachings on the question can be found in the article Concerning Questions of Leninism, Section V. "The Party and the Working Class in the System of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat" (which is in the book Problems ofLeninism and in Vol. 8of Stalin's Works).

The "RCP" has always negated the Marxist- Leninist teachings on the central role of party- building, the party concept and the leading role of the party. It is not possible here to repeat all the careful analysis of the historical experience of the U.S. Marxist-Leninist movement from "U.S. Neo-Revisionism, Part 3". That article showed that the "RCP's" predecessors began with the theory of the "pre-party collectives", a theory which openly negated the very need for the party. Then the "RCP' changed to the theory that party-building was a task that was important only for a brief period prior to the declaration of the party. The "RCP" could not and can not understand the importance of the constant strengthening of the party, the bolshevizing of the party, the constant attention to the development of the party concept both inside the party and among the proletariat and progressive masses.

The "RCF' has as one of its basic ideological foundations the theory of counterposing "building the mass movement" to "building the party". They share this theory with the Chinese revisionists. Both of them do not understand how the initiative of the masses is released through the leading role of the party. They have the bourgeois individualist ideas about the contradiction between "free" will and party discipline.

This bureaucratic counterposing of the initiative and action of the masses to the leading role of the party gives rise to many serious revisionist errors. First of all, the negation of the role of the party inevitably leads to the ideas and practice of tailing the spontaneity of the masses. This tail- ism comprises both anarchistic ideas and economist ideas. Indeed, much of the practice and ideology of the "RCP' can be characterized as anarcho-economism. And secondly, the negation of the role of the party is also associated with mechanical and extreme bureaucratic ideas and practices, such as those expressed in the idea of "the dictatorship of the party".

The "RCP's" mechanical, bureaucratic ideas are expressed in their criticism of Comrade Hoxha. The "RCP" hot-shot theoreticians pontificate, thinking that they are saying something very deep and profound when in reality they are repeating the most shallow ideas of the ordinary bourgeois, that party leadership in the Cultural Revolution would simply have reduced it to "... merely reshuffling the makeup of the key bodies of the Party and putting out a directive or two..." ("Dogmato-Revisionism", p. 54) The "RCP" pretends to be a "communist party", yet look at its contemptuous, bourgeois idea of what the role of the party is. According to the "RCP", if the communist party leads an action, then it is merely "putting out a directive or two". Of course, this may very well be how the "RCP" operates. We have no doubt that such concepts reflect the ultra-bureaucratic atmosphere and the practice of unbridled Bonapartism and individualism inside the "RCP" itself. And such concepts certainly reflect the practice of the Communist Party of China, which talks big words about a "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution" but can only end up by "merely reshuffling" the ultra-revisionist Deng Xiaoping up and down a few times. But when a genuine Marxist-Leninist party leads the masses, it releases their initiative and is in the forefront of the battle. Its directives are eagerly awaited fighting orders of the day that arouse the enthusiasm of the masses. And it wages a serious fight against bureaucratic rust and revisionist elements and does not elevate the enemies of the people to the top leadership.

This whole bureaucratic and bourgeois individualist view of the leadership and discipline of the party being in contradiction to the initiative and action of the masses permeates Avakian's work Mao Tsetung's Immortal Contributions from one end to the other. In the section on the Cultural Revolution, Mr. Avakian stresses that "And, again, the form, the method, that was found was basicallyreliance upon the masses." (emphasis as in the original, p. 285) According to Mr. Avakian, "such a rectification of the Party was...,completely unprecedented. " (Ibid.) Thus Mr. Avakian is saying that the party purges conducted by Lenin and the Bolsheviks after the victory of the. Great October Socialist Revolution, the methods of the workers' and peasants' control, the great struggles against deviations, and so forth, were all basically administrative methods from above, while the Cultural Revolution was "unprecedented" because it allegedly acted from below. Thus Mr. Avakian, following Mao Zedong Thought, contemptuously dismisses the Marxist-Leninist teachings on the party, attacks Comrades Lenin and Stalin as allegedly bureaucratic administrators, and slanders the entire experience of the World Marxist-Leninist movement. And the great new revelation that Mao and Avakian bring to the world is that anything led by the party is by definition "done from above" while it is necessary to negate the party and even to act against the party to have the label of acting from below and of "relying upon the masses".

Thus Mr. Avakian firmly believes that the party must be bureaucratic. He is absolutely incapable of even imagining a Leninist party. So he can only conclude from Comrade Hoxha's criticism of the Chinese revisionist theses negating the party that Comrade Hoxha must therefore allegedly be for bureaucracy and administrative measures. Anyone who examines the basic Albanian literature, such works as The History ofthe Party of Labor of Albania, the speeches and writings of Comrade Hoxha, and so forth, will see with what vigor and enthusiasm the Party of Labor of Albania tackled the job of fighting bureaucratic rust, what profound and effective ideological and organizational measures it took, and how consistent its orientation was and is. But all this is irrelevant to Mr. Avakian and co. In their polemical articles the "RCP" does not even discuss the measures taken by the Party of Labor of Albania. The "RCP" is blind to reality, because it is absolutely impossible for it to even conceive of a party as anything but a bureaucratic, administrative apparatus, anything other than a damper on the revolution. Hence, with the deep profundity of the bourgeois ignoramus, the "RCP" writes: "But for Hoxha, the dynamic role of youths.. is really more of a liability than an asset, something to be attacked and stifled unless it can be 'led' (by which he really means controlled) by the working class and its party." The writer goes on to stress that the issue is "whether to lead or to stifle the initiative of the youth." ("Dogmato-Revisionism", p. 56) Clearly, for the "RCP's" theoretical big shots, the leadership of the party is synonymous with the stifling, damping and attacking of the dynamic role of the masses.

THE LEADERSHIP OF THE PARTY IS REPLACED BY THE "DICTATORSHIP OF THE LEADERS"

Consequently the article "Dogmato-Revisionism" was completely in the Avakian spirit when in the passage in question it discussed the party as "objectively an administrative apparatus". The "RCP" is unable to imagine how a genuine communist party exercises its leading role in the dictatorship of the proletariat. The "RCP's" image of the dictatorship of the proletariat is the one denounced by Stalin when, refuting Trotsky, he declared: "The dictatorship of the proletariat is not simply a governmental top stratum 'skilfully' 'selected' by the careful hand of an 'experienced strategist,' and 'judiciously relying' on the support of one section or another of the population." (Stalin, "The October Revolution and the Tactics of the Russian Communists", On theOpposition, p. 144)

But just read Mr. Avakian's speech "The Loss in China and the Revolutionary Legacy of Mao Tsetung". Here we are, promised an inside look at Mao's new, "unprecedented" methods, which ate allegedly better than those ever applied by Lenin or Stalin, which allegedly are the first methods ever used by communists that actually relied on the masses. What we find is a sordid tale of personal maneuvering by Mao, as related by a most sympathetic writer, Mr. Avakian. We are told that "... Mao saw the need to bring new forces forward into the top leadership.... So Mao passes over most of these people ("the 'old guard"'-- ed.) in forming a leading group to carry forward the Cultural Revolution.'' (p. 45) Thus Mao apparently usurps the party's power, acts individually with the sure hand of the "experienced strategist", and sets up an ill-defined group to replace the leadership of the party. We are told to believe that he has enough power to do this, "passing over" those who disagree, yet still for some reason he leaves all the bad elements in their former position for use in future maneuvering. The nature of the "leading group" Mao forms is also left vague. Mr. Avakian doesn't specify what it is. From the point of view of Mr. Avakian's contempt for the party, only the personalities count. Mr. Avakian describes Mao on pages 55-56 as wisely deciding that Chen Li and Zhou Enlai shouldn't be overthrown. The "RCP" does not have a very high opinion of Zhou Enlai at all, who indeed was a very bad element, but Mr. Avakian approves of making use of Zhou Enlai, as it is necessary to counterbalance Lin Biao. It turns out that "no doubt Mao hoped he could even win over Zhou Enlai" (p. 67). Furthermore, "apparently, he (Mao -- ed.) even agreed to Teng's rehabilitation, because Of the necessity of cleaning up after the Lin Piao affair." (p. 62)

Here we have come full circle. First Lin Biao is used against Liu and Deng, despite the fact that allegedly as early as 1966 Mao had warned of him (p. 52). Then Deng is brought back in order to deal with the mess after Lin Biao's death. How unbureaucratic, what masterful reliance on the masses, what a careful avoidance of administrative methods and constant shuffling and reshuffling of top positions! Mao has just previously dissolved the party and the mass organizations and thrown society into an uproar in order to get rid of Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping. And indeed these ultra-revisionist elements are counter-revolutionary elements. But now Mao agrees to bring Deng back and Mr. Avakian agrees, nonchalantly explaining that everything is alright because "Mao did not trust Deng." (p. 62) The world's revolutionary Marxist-Leninists really wished to see Liu and Deng and the Chinese ultra- revisionists overthrown and to see a true victory of the Cultural Revolution, but to the Chinese it is all a game. Someone is called a revisionist and a counter-revolutionary and tomorrow it is said that such an element is useful and even essential to run China. But Mr. Avakian goes on enthusiastically about Mao's struggle, which is waged this time "by analogy, not directly," (p. 67). All this is not a new, unprecedented method. It is the old, old game of personal maneuvering and unprincipled factionalism, it is parliamentary leapfrog, it is anything you like, but it is not revolution.

Mr. Avakian zealously praises this method of Mao's and says "Mao's approach has always been -- and correctly so -- to go after the line of the opportunists and arm the masses with an understanding of this first, win over those in the opportunist camp who are not die-hards to the extent possible, create splits in their ranks,... but rely on the masses, politically armed and politically mobilized." (p. 67) In short, fancy talk about going after the line and mobilizing the masses, combined with the most sordid practice of maneuver, of "win(ning) over those in the opportunist camp". And the "unprecedentedly" mobilized masses were not consulted about such basic decisions as bringing Teng back. Indeed, even apart from the sordid forms of political maneuver at the top, we find that many of the forms of mobilizing the masses from below, these forms of allegedly spontaneous action of the masses, were in fact highly organized. The putting out of big character posters, the attacks on this or that leading personality, were not so spontaneous as the Chinese pretended. Both in China and outside, the Chinese revisionists love to arrange matters by whispering this or that in someone's ear. Instead of the clear orientation of a party, one has whispers and gossip. Finally the army itself is called in in order to bring order out the chaos in China. The party methods are denounced as bureaucratic j but the army is carefully protected from chaos and then brought in as the decisive force. Here indeed we have the last word in the "unprecedented" anti-bureaucratic, most highly democratic methods of organizing from below -- the naked rule of the army.

Thus Mr. Avakian goes to great extremes to laud and exalt the picture of Mao acting outside the norms and the discipline of the party. In fact, Mr. Avakian replaces the role of the party with the role of the leader.. In the question and answer period after Mr. Avakian's speech, as reproduced in the pamphlet "The Loss in China...", Mr. Avakian is asked "What role did the masses have besides making banners and following Mao ? ..." (p. 127) To answer this, Mr. Avakian goes into a big discussion of "the role of leaders". He has replaced the leading role of the party with the exaltation of the arbitrary action of the top leaders. Marxism-Leninism recognizes and correctly defines the role of leaders and of great individuals, but never concedes that they should be exalted above the party. When Mr. Avakian negates the party in favor of the exaltation of the role of leading individuals, he is showing that he follows the theory of the "dictatorship of the party." For Stalin, in criticizing the formula of "the dictatorship of the party", pointed out that: "This formula, taken without reservations, says, as it were,... c) to the top leadership of the Party: you may indulge in the luxury of a certain amount of complacency, you may even become conceited, for we have the dictatorship of the Party, and 'consequently', the dictatorship of the leaders." (Stalin, "Concerning Questions of Leninism", Problems of Leninism, p. 206)

HOW THE ARTICLE "A WRONG PHRASE" OPENLY DEFENDS THE FORMULA OF "THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PARTY"

In fact the article "A Wrong Phrase" openly defends the Trotskyite formulation "the dictatorship of the party". The first way it does this is by claiming that Lenin used this phrase. They state that "For while it is true that Stalin correctly criticizes the slogan 'dictatorship of the Party', it is in the course of fighting opportunists who used the fact that Lenin had on several occasions himself used the disputed phrase... " The "RCP" wants to compare its use of the phrase to that of Lenin. But this argument can only further expose the anti-Leninist positions of the "RCP". Stalin explains Lenin's use of this formula as follows: "On the few occasions that Lenin was obliged, in controversy with opponents, to speak of the dictatorship of the Party, he usually referred to the 'dictatorship of one party', i.e. to the fact that our Party holds power alone, that it does not share power with other parties." (Ibid., p. 205) Thus the phrase "dictatorship of the (or of one) party" was very rarely used by Lenin. Stalin says that he has "been able to note only five cases in which he (Lenin -- ed.) touches, in passing, on the question of the dictatorship of the Party." (Ibid., p. 203) And Lenin generally was referring with this formulation to the undivided leadership of the party, to the fact that the party does not share power with other parties.

But Mao Zedong Thought is opposed to the undivided leadership of the party. Mao held that there can and should be several parties sharing the state power. Besides the Communist Party, there were several bourgeois parties that took part in the government in China. These parties were pampered and given great rights. Mao stated: "Which is better, to have just one party or several? As we see it now, it's perhaps better to have several parties. This has been true in the past and may well be so for the future; it means long-term coexistence and mutual supervision." And he adds that he is talking about "the various democratic parties, consisting primarily of the national bourgeoisie and its intellectuals". ("On the Ten Major Relationships", SelectedWorks of Mao Tsetung. Vol. V, p. 296)

The "RCP", flying in the face of the teachings of Marxism-Leninism, justifies the Chinese revisionist practice of fostering the growth of bourgeois parties in the government of what was called "the dictatorship of the proletariat". The "RCP" agrees with Mao's social-democratic ideas about the bourgeoisie growing into socialism. They twist and turn to justify Mao's policy of fostering the growth of the bourgeois parties and even resort to that favorable trick of all "three worlders": using the crudest historical parallels between situations which don't bear the slightest resemblance. Just as the Klonskyites justify the warmongering U.S.-China alliance through fake historical parallels with World War II, so the "RCP" tries to justify the existence of the bourgeois parties in the dictatorship of the proletariat by drawing a historical parallel to the very short-lived collaboration between the Left Socialist-Revolutionary Party and the Bolshevik Party. We will go into this in more detail at another time. For now it suffices to note that this is ridiculous. Lenin, in an article dealing with the question of an alliance with the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries points out this possibility comes about because of the relationship of the Left Socialist Revolutionaries to the peasantry. He rules out any possibility of an alliance with bourgeois parties. He stated: "On the contrary, a coalition (alliance) between the working and exploited classes, on the one hand, and the bourgeoisie, on the other, cannot be an honest coalition because of the radical divergence of interests between these classes." (Lenin, "Alliance Between the Workers and the Working and Exploited Peasants, A Letter to Pravda", Collected Works, Vol. 26, p. 333, emphasis as in the original) Thus Lenin has denounced the class collaborationism of Mao Zedong Thought in advance.

The "RCP" is so zealous to defend Mao that it twists and turns and states: "In fact, the democratic parties largely ceased to exist during the Cultural Revolution... It was clear that in Mao's view and the view of those who made up his revolutionary headquarters, the historical conditions which had required cooperation with the democratic parties no longer existed (except, perhaps, in some limited way in relation to Taiwan)." (''Dogmato-Revisionism", p. 46) This sophistry is utterly shameless. First the "RCP' defends Mao's ultra-opportunist practice, then it turns around and tries to reassure everyone by saying that it doesn't matter anyway, the parties were eventually eliminated. But it turns out that the parties weren't eliminated. Whether or not the bourgeois parties functioned during the Cultural Revolution means little, as the Communist Party, the mass organizations, many state bodies and so forth also largely ceased to function. The "RCP's" speculation on Mao's views is completely unsupported. The evidence of the most important documents, indeed of all the published documents and speeches of which we are aware, is that no such decision was taken against the bourgeois parties. And, in fact, after the main turmoil of the Cultural Revolution subsided, the bourgeois parties were still there, ready at hand for the use of the ultra-revisionists.

Thus an examination of the context in which Lenin made his extremely rare uses of the formulation "dictatorship of the party" only serves to further expose the revisionist nature of Mao Zedong Thought.

Another argument by the "RCP" in defense of the formulation "the dictatorship of the party", is that Comrade Hoxha uses the phrase "We Marxist-Leninists who have come to power..." With this argument the article "A Wrong Phrase" proves that it is the "RCP" confusion-mongers who shout and scream about this or that isolated phrase torn completely out of context. In the passage at stake Comrade Hoxha is not discussing anything at all related to the point at issue. But no matter. Comrade Hoxha's phrase is completely unobjectionable, and the "RCP' is only exposing its diehard defense of the formulation "dictatorship of the party" by comparing it to Comrade Hoxha's phrase. The "RCP' dances and leaps and demands that the COUSML must criticize Comrade Hoxha in order to remain "consistent" with the COUSML's criticism of the "RCP". What rot! The deep, profound, heavy thinkers of the "RCP' have forgotten only a mere trifle: namely, that what the issue is with the formula of the "dictatorship of the party" is not that Marxist-Leninists shouldn't come to power. On the contrary, the issue is: how do the Marxist-Leninists make use of this power. The issue is to correctly define the leading role of the party, the role of the mass organizations, the methods of mobilizing the masses, and so forth. This is what Comrade Stalin does in the section of Concerning Questions of Leninism which discusses the question of "the dictatorship of the party". The issue is, to put it most briefly, the bureaucratic and Trotskyite conception of the leading role of the party, a conception shared by Mao and Avakian, versus the Marxist-Leninist conception of the leading role of the party. For the "RCP" hot-shots to confuse this question with that of whether the Marxist-Leninists should come to power, that is, with whether the Marxist-Leninist party should be the ruling party, is amazing. It is to issue themselves a certificate of ideological bankruptcy. What is the "RCP" trying to hide with this crude sophistry anyway? Are they trying to claim that Comrades Lenin and Stalin were opposed to Marxist-Leninists coming to power? On the contrary, Marxism-Leninism holds that the party should have undivided leadership in the dictatorship of the proletariat. The honor for such a position as advocating that Marxist-Leninists should not come to power can only belong to the Chinese revisionists and Mao, who advocate the replacement of the undivided leadership of the communist party with the "long-term coexistence and mutual supervision" with bourgeois parties.

So we see that the article "A Wrong Phrase" provides yet further proof that the "RCP" has an utterly mechanical, bureaucratic conception of the role of the party, just as "U.S. Neo-Revisionism, Part 3" pointed out. The "RCP" cannot even disassociate itself from the Trotskyite conception of the "dictatorship of the party". And it is no wonder. How hollow is all the "RCP's" talk about Mao's "great immortal contributions" and "unprecedented" new methods for "relying on the masses" and his "great contributions theoretically and practically to combatting efforts to transform the dictatorship of the proletariat into a dictatorship of party bureaucrats (actually a new capitalist class)." ("A Wrong Phrase") The only conception that Mr. Avakian or Mao Zedong have of the party is precisely that of "a dictatorship of party bureaucrats", a handful of leaders "skilfully selected by a master strategist". The new methods that are being trumpeted up and down as better than those of Lenin and Stalin turn out to consist of negating the leading role of the party, throwing mud at the party concept, repeating the bourgeois criticism of the idea of a monolithic party, compromising the struggle against opportunism, etc. That is why the "RCP", in following Mao Zedong Thought, has made a career out of opposing the party concept, back from the days that they reveled in the "pre-party collective" thesis to today when they fall and stumble backward over the "dictatorship of the party". The "RCP's" great "theoretical struggle" against the "dictatorship of party bureaucrats" collapses into a struggle against the Marxist- Leninist conception of the leading, mobilizing and energizing role of the Marxist-Leninist party of the proletariat.

[Back to Top]