First Published: Vanguard, Vol. 3, No. 1, January-February 1966.
Transcription, Editing and Markup: Paul Saba and Sam Richards
Copyright: This work is in the Public Domain under the Creative Commons Common Deed. You can freely copy, distribute and display this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit the Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line as your source, include the url to this work, and note any of the transcribers, editors & proofreaders above.
COMRADES; in the February 1966 issue of your publication, you briefly review the history and present position of the Marxist-Leninist movement in the this country. You have a perfect right to do this. You deem it proper, in making an analysis of various splits which occurred, in the period 1963-64, to single out for public mention, the late Secretary of CDRCU and co-founder of Vanguard Michael McCreery.
Simultaneously with paying tribute to his “fine qualities both personally and politically” you state that “he was, to a large extent responsible for the differences, which nearly brought the movement to an early end.”
You then go on to subject “self-appointed leaders” to a certain measure of ridicule. Since you see fit to indulge publicly in what I estimate as an unjustified criticism of McCreery and one rather less than objective, then as one who worked rather closely with him, I must publicly reply.
In the first place, the events leading up to the publishing of the document, “Appeal to all Communists” involved a whole number of comrades, besides McCreery. McCreery’s great merit lay in his unshakable conviction that the public break from and the public stand against modem-revisionism was the main content of Marxist-Leninist work in 1963-64. From this line he refused to be diverted by those anti-revisionists who wanted to exert the main effort to “change the CPGB policy and leaderships from the inside.”
The 1965 CPGB Congress and subsequent recent objective self-criticism on the part of a number of anti-revisionists (for a long time at “loggerheads”) with McCreery and “Vanguard” has justified to the hilt Michael’s “obstinacy” in this matter.
To say that Michael had both positive and negative features is merely to say the obvious, that applies to all – including students of Marxism-Leninism. It is my opinion that he displayed more positive features than any other Communist I have ever known. For the cause of proletarian internationalism he worked at least as hard as any and made personal sacrifices second to none.
Not only he regarded himself as a leader, but he proved himself to be an outstanding leader at a most critical period. What was wrong in that?
Since when do the working people, the militants of this or any other country not require leaders of an outstanding calibre? Are there not periods in history when the influence of outstanding men and women who are able to show decisive initiative, turns out to be a giant material force? Does not, at times the subjective nature and scope of action modify and ripen the objective situation? Should not, in the words of J. V. Stalin – Communists be of “special stuff, cast in a special mould”? Is it not precisely the revisionists who, intent on liquidating Communism, now deny the “special stuff” and even the special role of Communists?
Unfortunately for them, McCreery was of this “special stuff” and declined to go along with their 100% sell-out.
Why, Finsbury comrades, all this hulla-ba-loo about “self-appointed” leaders? After all, I can recall one or two so-called “leaders” whom you do not name, after peddling false ideas and “criticising” all and sundry, suddenly, like the Israelites of old decided to gird up their loins, fold their tents and steal silently away! If you wish to write a history of Marxist-Leninist development since 1963, then to be an objective, scientific historian, you must not confine your remarks, good or bad, merely to one man.
You will really have to estimate the work of a whole number of comrades – including a few from Finsbury. But, is it not a little early to go writing histories? Is it not better to await the maturing of a great deal of work that has been done by groups and individuals throughout the country? Errors are inevitable, when attempting to accomplish difficult, significant things. It is better to review them in others and relate them to ourselves in the spirit of self-criticism. This will prove a valuable weapon in raising our own ideological consciousness to ever higher standards.
Yours fraternally,
DAVE VOLPE