WORKERS OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE! SPECIAL ISSUE $1.00
VOICE OF THE MARXIST-LENINIST PARTY OF THE USA
June 30, 1981
Volume 11, Number 7
The truth about the relations between the Marxist-Leninist Party of the USA and the Communist Party of Canada (M-L) --Part One--
Letter of the CC of the Marxist-Leninist Party, USA to the CC of the Communist Party of Canada (M-L)
For over a decade, from May 1969 to December 1979, the predecessors of the MLP,USA, first the American Communist Workers Movement (Marxist- Leninist) and then the Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninists (COUSML), maintained a close fraternal relationship with the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist). On December 5, 1979, three weeks before the Founding Congress of the MLP,USA, the leadership of CPC(M-L) without warning trampled these longstanding ties into the mud with two brutal letters. In these letters, the leadership of CPC(M-L), in the most savage language, laid down the ultimatum that they would have no further relations with the COUSML or the soon-to-be-founded MLP,USA unless the leadership of our Party was overthrown and every disagreement or difference of views between the two Parties was resolved immediately and without hesitation in favor of the leadership of CPC(M-L). Since then, the leadership of CPC(M-L) has been going all-out to strangle our Party. Heedless of the damage done to the interests of the revolution and of revolutionary Marxism-Leninism, they have been carrying out straightforward wrecking activity with the aim of destroying the MLP,USA.
The immediate issues which lay behind this declaration of war by the leadership of CPC(M-L) against our Party are twofold. First of all, the leadership of CPC(M-L) is demanding a "special relationship" with our Party in which all criticism of them is banned as allegedly the work of "agent-provocateurs" and in which our Party is supposed to submit unconditionally to their dictate. They are angry because our Party insists that it is the norms dictated by Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism, and not any sort of "special relationship," that governs relations between fraternal contingents of the international Marxist-Leninist movement. They denounce these norms, especially those of equality, independence, non-interference in each other's internal affairs, consultation and cooperation, and criticism and self-criticism as "archaic," "formalist," "centrist" and "sources of national and social-chauvinism."
Secondly, the leadership of CPC(M-L) is opposed to our Party's carrying the struggle against Chinese revisionism through to the end and to the struggle against revisionism and opportunism in general. They demand that our Party give up its open polemic against "our own" domestic opportunism and in particular advocate that to fight the centrists means to disrupt the "unity of the Marxist-Leninists." They are infuriated by our Party's vigorous leadership of the movement against social-chauvinism in the U.S. of the 1976-1980 period and by our Party's being founded under the Leninist slogan "Build the Marxist-Leninist Party Without the Social-Chauvinists and Against the Social-Chauvinists." Trying to be derisive, they call our Party "the theoreticians of the 'movement' and of 'ideological struggle.' " With their permanent crusade against "ideological struggle" and their opposition to the "without and against" slogan, they have in fact come out against the Marxist-Leninist teachings on the struggle against opportunism.
Interconnected with these two issues is the poly-centrist and factional concept advocated by the leadership of CPC(M-L) according to which the genuine Marxist-Leninists around the world are divided into two different trends, with the leadership of CPC (M-L) being the center and leadership of a trend of their own. Their attempt to bludgeon our Party into submission is part of their demand for a "special relationship" with those parties or organizations that they regard as part of their "trend."
The differences between the MLP,USA and the CPC(M-L) should have been sorted out according to the methods provided for in the Marxist-Leninist norms and not by severing the relations between the two Parties. The MLP,USA condemns this hostile activity by the leadership of CPC(M-L) as unprincipled splitting and wrecking activity. It is unprincipled: for it serves to split the ranks of the international Marxist-Leninist movement in the face of the class enemies and the opportunists; for it is in violation of every applicable Marxist-Leninist norm of relations between parties to say nothing of elementary honesty and revolutionary morality; because it is carried out in the dark by means of slander, blackmail, provocation and lies; and because the leadership of CPC (M-L) does not dare to avow its real motives but instead constantly shifts and turns.
This does not mean however that the differences between the MLP,USA and the CPC(M-L) are minor or unimportant. On the contrary. The demands by the leadership of CPC(M-L) for a "special relationship" and for an end to the spirited struggle against opportunism would be fatal to our Party if we accepted them in the slightest. As well, these demands are manifestations of a whole series or system of Maoist and liquidationist blunders by the leadership of CPC (M-L). The CPC(M-L) is a Marxist-Leninist party which is committing deviations. A deviation is something that can be corrected. But just as long as these Maoist and liquidationist deviations are not corrected, just so long will these deviations continue to pose a great danger to the CPC(M-L). Our Party holds that the Marxist-Leninist norms governing relations between parties are not just for show or for minor ceremonial uses, but are precisely designed in order to deal with the major questions of principle and the life and death issues.
Our Party has fought consistently to solve these serious problems in the channels provided for by the existence of fraternal relations. Even after the leadership of CPC(M-L) unilaterally broke off these relations, we refused to be provoked. We gave the leadership of CPC(M-L) ample time to reconsider its stand, reestablish relations and begin the process of resolving the differences away from the eyes and ears of the class enemy. Instead they made the split public. Thus eventually we could no longer call them a fraternal party in our press. But we still refrained from directly mentioning the name "CPC(M-L)'' in the ensuing polemical exchange between the two Parties which they inaugurated with full-scale polemics in the organ of the CC of CPC(M-L), People Canada Daily News, in June 1980 and with their continual verbal agitation.
Despite our efforts, today the war of the leadership of CPC(M-L) against our Party remains a fact. With their shameful letters of December 5, 1979, with their frenzied war on our Party, with their attempts to build up an anti-party network in the U.S. and with their all-round wrecking activity, the leadership of CPC(M-L) has taken upon itself the full responsibility for the creation and maintenance of that split. In such a situation, it is not only the right of the MLP,USA, but also its solemn revolutionary duty, to speak out to the Marxist-Leninists, revolutionary activists and class conscious proletarians of the U.S. and the world and clarify the issues at stake. Therefore the Central Committee of the MLP, USA, in order to execute its responsibility to defend the integrity of the Party, to defend the interests of the revolutionary movement in the U.S. and worldwide, to continue our tradition of rendering wholehearted proletarian internationalist assistance to the CPC(M-L), and to shoulder its responsibility to international Marxism-Leninism as a whole, has decided to make public the truth about the relations between the CPC(M-L) and the MLP,USA. Starting with this special issue, The Workers' Advocate will publish a series of materials, documents and commentaries that will establish the facts of the matter and bring to the fore the issues of principle involved. In this issue, we begin the reprinting of the relevant correspondence. This article has been written to serve as an introduction to this correspondence.
The leadership of CPC(M-L) is trying to strangle our Party
Right from the start of the fraternal relations between the ACWM(M-L) and a predecessor of CPC(M-L) in May 1969, serious problems have existed in the relations between our Party (by which we refer not just to the MLP,USA, but also to its predecessors, the ACWM(M-L) and the COUSML) and the CPC(M-L). A new series of such problems began in the latter part of 1975. Our Party has consistently done everything possible to resolve these problems and differences by the methods provided for by the Marxist-Leninist norms.
But the leadership of CPC(M-L) has repeatedly acted to aggravate the situation. Periodically, they have threatened to break relations with our Party and have thus created a very tense situation. They have played this game of brinkmanship in an unsuccessful attempt to force our Party to submit to a "special relationship" with them and to give up its insistence on its organizational integrity and on the implementation of the Marxist-Leninist norms of relations.
A number of these incidents are referred to in our letter of June 16, 1980 to the CC of the CPC(M-L). For example, in January 1977 the leadership of CPC (M-L) "froze" relations with our Party. In August and September of the same year they again put our relations in doubt, repeatedly taunted the NEC of COUSML to break relations, and stated that relations were so bad that "a meeting of the delegations of the fraternal parties will be of no use whatsoever...." In March 1978 they again brought the relations to the brink of a split. Yet again in mid-1979 they tried the same thing so as to sabotage the campaign to found the MLP,USA.
In all of these situations they acted unilaterally and made free to cancel their obligations to our Party and to go back on their previous agreements. In such situations, the NC and NEC of the COUSML had to combine the utmost flexibility and willingness to compromise on secondary issues with the firmest, unyielding adherence to principle in order to find ways and means to continue relations with the CPC (M-L) while preserving the organizational integrity of the COUSML. After each of their acts of brinkmanship, the leadership of CPC(M-L), seeing the steadfast stand of our Party on the issues of principle, temporarily backed down from the precipice and, without doing self-criticism or resolving the situation, simply let the tension die down a bit.
Unable to force our Party to submit and uneasy at the successes of our Party and its growing strength, the leadership of CPC(M-L) then passed over to out-and-out wrecking activity. On December 7, 1979, just prior to the Preparatory Conference for the Founding of the MLP,USA and on the eve of the Founding Congress itself, the COUSML received two letters from the CC of the CPC(M-L), dated December 5, 1979. Through these letters the CC of the CPC(M-L) sought to sabotage the holding of the Founding Congress of the MLP,USA. The CC of the CPC(M-L) openly demanded the overthrow of the leadership of our organization and the renunciation of any differences whatsoever with the leadership of CPC(M-L). Until these brutal demands were met, the CC of the CPC(M-L) declared that all relations were severed with the COUSML, tearing to shreds the longstanding fraternal ties which had been built up during the course of more than a decade. These letters stated that the CC of CPC(M-L) had "no more patience," and they blustered that "this time your defeat will be final." These letters of December 5 were not letters of comradely criticism, but letters of brutal blackmail and arbitrary dictate. They have to be read to be believed. They were not letters of Marxist-Leninist logic and reasoning to assist our Party, but incoherent vows of bitter hostility.
What does it mean to demand the overthrow of the leadership of another party? It will be recalled that the revisionist class traitor Khrushchov broke off relations with the Party of Labor of Albania by publicly calling for the overthrow of the Albanian leadership at the 22nd Congress of the CPSU and by uttering such unspeakable filth as that the Albanians had allegedly sold out to imperialism. The letters of December 5 of the CC of the CPC(M-L) similarly demand the overthrow of the leadership of our Party and, filled with filth, they too denounce our Party's leadership as allegedly "agent-provocateurs," "imperialist gangsters," "agents of the blackest reaction," etc. By claiming the right to make and break the leadership of other parties, by seeking to discredit and ruin any who don't tamely and unquestioningly submit to one's baton, by in effect dividing parties into mother and daughter parties, the leadership of CPC(M-L) is following the foul example of the Khrushchovite revisionists. The only difference is that Khrushchov made his declaration of war in public, while the CC of the CPC(M-L) had, for the time being, done it in private. This meant that the Khrushchovites had declared a public split while for the time being the CPC(M-L) had kept the split private. As we shall see, the leadership of CPC(M-L) acted quickly to bring the split into the open.
Thus with these letters the CC of the CPC(M-L) had declared a split with the COUSML and the MLP, USA. The NC of the COUSML read and unanimously condemned these shameful letters. The NC gave these letters the proper reply by carrying forward the preparations for the Founding Congress of the MLP,USA, which triumphantly declared the founding of the Party on January 1, 1980. The NC of the COUSML decided that it was the CC of the MLP, USA that should make further analysis of these letters and deal with them further. Exercising the utmost flexibility, the NC of the COUSML and then the CC of the MLP,USA decided to maintain public solidarity with the CPC(M-L) as long as possible. Our Party was well aware of the rashness and immaturity of the CPC(M-L) leadership which had often taken hasty stands on the spur of the moment. The NC of the COUSML wished to give the CC of the CPC(M-L) time to reconsider this dangerous and unprincipled step they had taken.
But the leadership of CPC(M-L) immediately started down the road of a public split and a public polemic. In a major New Year's speech delivered on December 30, 1979 and reported in PCDN on January 3, 1980, the chairman of CPC(M-L) publicly attacked the "American party," i.e., their fraternal comrades in the U.S., for allegedly putting pressure on CPC(M-L) and interfering in its internal affairs. What a display of unrestrained hypocrisy!
The leadership of CPC(M-L) also began to organize a boycott of the MLP,USA. They withdrew all public solidarity with our Party from their press. Under the circumstances, this meant to go far towards making the split a public one.
Despite these acts by the leadership of CPC(M-L), the MLP,USA continued to do the utmost to create conditions for reestablishing relations between the two Parties. In a series of unanimous decisions, the CC of the MLP, USA decided to write a careful and detailed reply to the letters of December 5, 1979 in order to help the CC of CPC(M-L) reconsider the matter in a proper Marxist-Leninist light. This letter was to and did contain the proposal of the CC of the MLP,USA on how to reestablish relations and to keep the problems between the Parties away from the eyes and ears of the class enemy. The CC initiated the process of reviewing the situation from every possible angle and of delving into every aspect of the problem. As well, the CC of the MLP,USA decided to send a delegation to take part in the Internationalist Rally in Montreal on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the founding of the CPC(M-L).
The leadership of CPC(M-L), however, treated our delegation to the rally rudely and prohibited it from speaking. With this act, the leadership of CPC(M-L) brought the split to the attention of the international Marxist-Leninist movement and of all people who followed the international Marxist-Leninist press at all carefully. With this act, the split had now become a public split.
By withholding public support from the MLP, USA, the leadership of CPC(M-L) felt that they had it in their power to incite a terrible crisis in our Party, to cause grave discontent and split the CC of the MLP,USA irrevocably. With their megalomania, the leadership of CPC(M-L) was sure that the existence of our Party was totally dependent on their whim. Hence simultaneous with their consummation of the public split, they increased their attempts to organize an anti-party network inside the U.S. They telephoned non-party people demanding that they break off relations with the MLP,USA. They sent their agents to speak to the militants and sympathizers of the Party and appeal to them to break with the MLP, USA and show their "love for CPC(M-L)." They schemed to split our Party and recognize the splitters as the genuine "COUSML" while denouncing the MLP,USA as usurpers.
This scheme collapsed in the face of the iron unanimity of the MLP,USA. Not a single militant of our Party had anything but contempt for this vile wrecking activity. As a result, the leadership of the CPC (M-L) succeeded only in organizing a handful of non- party elements, mostly consisting of elements they had cultivated for years. These elements have no unity among themselves, no common organization or activity or ideology, but are joined together simply on the basis of following the directives of the leadership of CPC(M-L) to engage in wrecking activities against the MLP,USA.
Although the leadership of CPC(M-L) met with repeated fiasco in its attempts to organize a group in the U.S., ending up only with a loose anti-party network, nevertheless the significance of their taking the step of organizing such a network cannot be underestimated. This showed that the leadership of CPC(M-L) was deeply mired in wrecking activities and was attempting to organize the rudiments of a second or alternative party. This was an act of war. The leadership of CPC(M-L) cynically believes that so long as they do not mention MLP,USA by name in their press they can not be accused of splitting, no matter what hostile activity they engage in against our Party. But not only is their withdrawal of public solidarity itself an act of splitting directed against our Party, but by organizing the anti-party network they branded their actions against our Party as splittist and wrecking activities ten times over. That they organized such a network secretly, in the dark, only serves as further proof that it is nothing but an unprincipled conspiracy.
In June 1980 the leadership of CPC(M-L) took another step against our Party. Faced with the demoralization of their anti-party network, they initiated a full-scale polemic in PCDN condemning our Party. These articles are incoherent tirades. Their main content is to denounce the Leninist teachings on the struggle against opportunism as "the Maoist theory of 'two-line struggle' '' and to reduce the repudiation of Maoism to absurdities like denouncing one or two- word phrases, such as "ideological struggle,'' "campaigns,'' and "movements.'' These articles do not mention the name of our Party directly, but instead refer to our Party as one of "the theoreticians of 'ideological struggle' and the 'movement.''' They do not refrain from mentioning our Party's name from any consideration of moderation. On the contrary, in these articles our Party is denounced in the harshest possible terms as the class enemy, "a weapon of the bourgeoisie against the proletariat" and "enemies of all genuine Marxist-Leninist parties and of the International Marxist-Leninist Movement." Our Party is also called a new current of revisionism, a current whose distinguishing feature is that it fights against all the other currents, against Soviet, Chinese, Yugoslav revisionism, "Eurocommunism" and so forth. These articles don't mention our name directly simply as a tactical ruse, one that allows the leadership of CPC(M-L) to evade the question of the real motives of their war on our Party, to engage in unrestrained hypocrisy and as well to cause as much confusion as possible by inciting people against our Party on the basis of pointing to the views and actions of unrelated groups with totally opposite positions from ours.
The leadership of CPC(M-L) informed its anti-party network that these articles were directed against our Party, in case they hadn't noticed. As well, they reprinted them as the entire contents of an issue of their theoretical journal, The Road of the Party.
Thus the leadership of CPC(M-L) has taken upon itself the full responsibility for a public split and has mired itself deep in unprincipled wrecking activities. Over this period, they had as well sent two additional minor letters to the MLP,USA, both of which strongly endorsed their shameful letters of December 5, 1979 and showed that the leadership of CPC(M-L) was persisting in its brutal ultimatum against our Party. The latter letter demanded, among other things, that our Party stop displaying public solidarity with CPC(M-L) in the press.
In the face of this many-sided hostile activity by the leadership of CPC(M-L), our Party behaved calmly and maturely. In raising their hand against the MLP,USA, the leadership of CPC(M-L) showed that it knew nothing of our Party and its unity, maturity and strength. They underestimated the strength and vitality of revolutionary Marxism-Leninism and put their trust in intrigues and maneuvers. In the face of these intrigues, the Founding Congress of the MLP,USA was successfully held, marking the victory of over ten years of work for the consolidation of revolutionary Marxism-Leninism in the U.S. The efforts of the leadership of CPC(M-L) to split our Party, overthrow its leadership and eliminate its Marxist-Leninist line have been repeatedly smashed to bits against the monolithic unity which characterizes the MLP,USA. The militants and sympathizers of our Party have rallied like one man to the defense of the MLP,USA and of the revolutionary teachings of Marxism-Leninism.
As well, while militantly defending the integrity of our Party, the CC of the MLP,USA has not allowed itself to be provoked to rash actions in the face of the outrageous provocations perpetrated by the leadership of CPC(M-L). Despite the brutal letters of December 5, 1979, despite the fact that the leadership of CPC(M-L) has declared us enemies and worse in their press, despite their organization of wrecking activities in the U.S., despite all these provocations and more, the CC of the MLP,USA acted carefully, with well thought-out measures. At each stage of the development of the hostile activities against our Party, the CC took appropriate steps. When the split was not yet public and for some time thereafter, the CC ensured that public solidarity was maintained in our press with the CPC(M-L). When it became apparent that the leadership of CPC(M-L) was persisting in their hostile ultimatum and had made the split public, the CC mandated a full discussion inside the MLP,USA of the situation in the relations with the CPC(M-L) and made all the relevant correspondence available to the comrades. The CC worked tirelessly to find, study and put into the forefront the issues of principle involved in the controversy. At all times, the CC bore in mind its duty to act as a militant and responsible contingent of the international Marxist-Leninist movement.
On June 16, 1980, the Central Committee of the MLP,USA sent a comradely letter to the CC of the CPC(M-L) presenting our views on the issues raised by the December 5 letters of the CPC(M-L) and on the contradiction between the two Parties. In painstaking detail the letter of June 16 went over the issues of principle at stake. It systematically addressed the countless false charges and lies made by the CC of the CPC(M-L) in their letters of December 5. The letter of June 16 spent even more time and effort on a careful elaboration of the ideological issues at stake, which it examined from many angles. As well, the June 16 letter presented the proposal of the CC of the MLP,USA on meetings between the leaderships of the two Parties, on the prevention of the damage done by the continuation of the public split, and on overcoming the differences between the two Parties.
The letter of June 16 was written and delivered prior to our Party receiving the June 1980 polemic in PCDN. These polemics showed that the CC of CPC (M-L) was persisting in its effort to strangle our Party and to deepen the split. These polemics in PCDN coincided with and were coordinated with a stepping up of the activity of the leadership of CPC(M-L) inside the U.S. The polemics in PCDN, the intensification of the wrecking activity in the U.S. and the promotion of harmful liquidationist ideas in CPC(M-L)'s press, required our Party to clarify its stand on the questions of principle in the press. Hence in July 1980 The Workers' Advocate began its series "Against Mao Zedong Thought!" In order to give the CC of CPC(M-L) time to consider our letter of June 16, CPC(M-L) was still not mentioned by name in these articles.
But today, after over a year's time since our letter of June 16, the leadership of CPC(M-L) has not only not replied to our letter, but it has intensified its filthy war against our Party. Today the wrecking activity has reached the point where in May 1981 a few elements from the anti-party network traveled to some anti-imperialist demonstrations, but not to participate in the condemnation of U.S. imperialism but simply to distribute anti-party documents to those around our Party. These documents reproduce the verbal agitation by the leadership of CPC(M-L) against our Party, slanders, lies and flagrant deviationist rhetoric which the CC of CPC(M-L) is ashamed to sign its own name to. That such flagrant wrecking activities are taking place is just one instance of the methods chosen by the leadership of CPC(M-L)to attack our Party.
The MLP,USA, like any other self-respecting party, is not predisposed to sit idly by like a monk with folded arms in the face of such scandalous wrecking activity.
Over a year and a half ago, with its December 5 letters, the leadership of CPC(M-L) severed all relations with the COUSML and declared war on the soon-to-be-born MLP,USA. Since that time the leadership of CPC(M-L) has striven with might and main to strangle our Party by means of the most unprincipled gutter methods. They prefer to operate as much as possible in the darkness of the back alleys as this provides the most favorable terrain for their methods of intrigue, blackmail, slander and gossip. But how can the question of the party in the U.S. be solved behind the back of the American proletariat? Only adventurers, gamblers or casehardened intriguers can think in this manner, but revolutionary Marxist-Leninists could never work in this way. It is a norm accepted not only by Marxist-Leninists but by every honest and democratic political force, by every political party that feels itself to be the representative of a definite class that has a future, every progressive force that relies on the support of the masses and not on sordid maneuvers, that certain matters must be taken public. Marx and Engels, talking about Bakunin's Alliance of Socialist Democracy which was attempting to build up an anti-Marxist, anarchist, conspiratorial network inside the First International, made a point which applies far more widely to any unprincipled intrigue which relies on "lies, slander, intimidation, the stab in the back" and backroom maneuvering. They stated: "There is only one means of combating all these intrigues, but it will prove astonishingly effective; this means is complete publicity. Exposure of all these schemings in their entirety will render them utterly powerless. To protect them with our silence would be not only an act of naivete that the leaders of the Alliance would be the first to ridicule; it would be sheer cowardice." (The Alliance of Socialist Democracy and the International Working Men's Association, I, Introduction)
For this reason the CC of the MLP,USA has decided to have The Workers' Advocate publish a series of documents which shed light on the nature of the contradiction between the CPC(M-L) and the MLP, USA. Only in this way can the Marxist-Leninists, revolutionary activists and class conscious workers judge the situation with full objectivity. Only in this way can the secondary and diversionary issues, the intrigues and maneuvers and empty phrasemongering, be swept away, can the wrecking activity be branded for what it is, and can the issues of principle be placed in the forefront.
Why the leadership of CPC(M-L) declared war on our Party
We have seen that the letters of the CC of the CPC (M-L) of December 5, 1979 were a savage declaration of war against our Party. What were the immediate issues behind this savage declaration? Two issues stand out in these letters.
First of all, the leadership of CPC(M-L) is demanding what they have in the past described as a "special relationship" with our Party, relations that are "special and apart from the international movement." In fact, this means relations that trample into the mud the most elementary norms of relations dictated by Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism.
This "special relationship" is seen in action in the letters of December 5, 1979 of the CC of the CPC (M-L). To begin with, these letters show how the leadership of CPC(M-L) replies to fraternal criticism. These letters are a reply to the letter of the NEC of COUSML of December 1, 1979. This letter was a letter of comradely criticism. It protested against the political error made by the leadership of CPC(M-L) in selling the rights to the English translation of the book Chile: An Attempt at 'Historic Compromise, written by Jorge Palacios of the RCP of Chile, to the Maoist gangsters of the "RCP, US A." The letter showed that this was a tactical blunder and went into the mistaken ideological and political stands that gave rise to this blunder. In this regard, the letter laid stress on the questions of consultation and cooperation between the CPC(M-L) and COUSML, the mistaken stands of the leadership of CPC(M-L) towards the struggle of the COUSML against the American opportunists, and the analysis of the current struggle against centrism internationally, including the importance of denouncing the "RCP, USA," which was putting itself forward as the international standard-bearers of Mao Zedong Thought. The letter was written in a calm and analytical style and stressed the necessity of strengthening the relations between COUSML and CPC(M-L).
The CC of the CPC(M-L) replied instantaneously with their two letters of December 5,1979. These letters were written to punish our Party for its letter of December 1. They were written to serve as brutal blackmail to bludgeon our Party into submission. They sever the longstanding relations between the two Parties simply because our Party disagreed with the leadership of CPC(M-L). This alone is a shocking trampling underfoot of the most elementary norms among fraternal parties, but these letters go still further. They declare that any criticism of CPC(M-L) is a "provocation" and the work of "agent-provocateurs." In the name of "eliminating" this "provocation," they demand the right to dictate who can and who cannot be in the leadership of our Party and the right to split our Party. While the letter of the COUSML concerned a political error of the leadership of CPC(M-L) in regard to the Maoists in the U.S., an act of theirs that first and foremost affected our Party and that violated agreements with our Party, the CC of the CPC(M-L) responded that they "will never seek 'approval' from any fraternal Party for any of our actions, either before taking actions or after taking actions," i.e. that they had complete contempt for the party principle in the U.S. or elsewhere. In relation to political and theoretical matters, these letters replace analysis with simply labeling any views that differ from those of the leadership of CPC(M-L) as "peculiar," "American exceptionalism" and "chauvinism."
In short, the demand of the CC of the CPC(M-L) for a "special relationship" is a demand that every Marxist-Leninist norm be thrown aside. That is why they have repeatedly branded the leadership of COUSML as allegedly being "formalists" and "social-chauvinists" and later "centrists" and "American exceptionalists" for steadfastly demanding the implementation of the Marxist-Leninist norms and upholding the integrity of our Party. The CC of the CPC(M-L) is demanding that the two Parties be divided into leaders and followers, into one party that has all the rights and no obligations and the other party that has no rights and all the obligations, into one party that submits to no norms and the other party that must accept the arbitrariness and dictate of the leading party, into one party that can interfere everywhere and another party that must give up its organizational integrity, a relationship where every word from the leadership of CPC(M-L) must be regarded as an iron mandate, to be followed independently of whether it is right or wrong, Marxist-Leninist or deviationist, but just because it comes from CPC(M-L).
The demand for such a "special relationship" could not but lead to friction and profound contradictions. For over a decade our Party had maintained close fraternal ties with CPC(M-L) and its predecessors. But these ties were never the comradely proletarian internationalist relations they could have and should have been. This was because these relations were never placed on a proper footing as a result of the demand of the leadership of CPC(M-L) for a "special relationship." The struggle of our Party to uphold its organizational integrity and to build itself up on the basis of the Marxist-Leninist norms inevitably came repeatedly into conflict, and at times into very sharp conflict, with the efforts of the leadership of CPC(M-L) to impose its "special relationship" onto our Party. Today the leadership of CPC(M-L) prefers to try to strangle us than to abandon the "special relationship," rectify and strengthen relations with the MLP,USA on the sound basis dictated by the Marxist-Leninist and proletarian internationalist norms.
Secondly, the other main issue raised in the December 5 letters is the opposition of the CC of the CPC(M-L) to carrying the struggle against Chinese revisionism through to the end and indeed opposition to the struggle against revisionism and opportunism in general. The letters themselves state that the "crux of the matter" with respect to the differences between CPC(M-L) and our Party is that our Party is "highlighting" the struggle against Chinese revisionism. The leadership of CPC(M-L) has even gone to the extent of condemning the powerful movement against social-chauvinism in the U.S., the movement of the period 1976-1980 which spelled fiasco for the "three worlders," Maoists and neo-revisionists. In fact, they began their opposition to the plan for the founding of the MLP,USA by denouncing the slogan "Build the Marxist-Leninist Party Without the Social-Chauvinists and Against the Social-Chauvinists." But this slogan is a basic Leninist slogan, one of the formulations of the Leninist concepts that distinguish a real Leninist struggle against opportunism from centrist or conciliationist phrasemongering, that uphold the monolithic character of the Party and that express the vital character of the struggle against opportunism. Simultaneously the leadership of CPC(M-L) has given up all but a thin pretext of fighting the underlying ideas of Chinese revisionism and has reduced the repudiation of Mao Zedong Thought to the idiotic level of the denunciation of one or two phrases, like "getting organized" or "movements."
The letters of December 5 also set forth general pseudo-theses against the struggle against revisionism and opportunism as a whole. The leadership of CPC(M-L) condemns this struggle as "ideological struggle" (which they regard as a swear word), as the "Maoist theory of 'two-line struggle' " and as a disruption of "the unity of the Marxist-Leninists." They denounce the revolutionary vigilance of our Party as "spreading pessimism, gloom and a siege mentality," thus repeating out-and-out Khrushchovite catchwords. Indeed, just as the Khrushchovite revisionists denounced the unyielding struggle of the Party of Labor of Albania against Titoite revisionism as "narrow nationalism," so too the CC of the CPC(M-L) denounces our Party's struggle against the American opportunist groups as "American exceptionalism." The CC of the CPC(M-L) has gone so far that their organ, the PCDN, has, as we pointed out above, made a great new discovery in their June 1980 polemics, the discovery of a "new current of revisionism" in the world, a current characterized by the fact that it wages "ideological struggle" against all the formerly recognized currents.
With all these pseudo-theories, the CC of the CPC (M-L) is justifying replacing the struggle against opportunism with pragmatic maneuvers with the opportunists under the signboard of "unity of the Marxist-Leninists." They have urged on us such tactics with respect to the opportunists of, not struggle, but "put unity in the forefront and they expose themselves." Thus they replace a principled opposition to opportunism with a stand based on pragmatic considerations and the needs of the moment. This pragmatic stand and lack of backbone in the struggle against opportunism is one of the causes for such blunders as the selling of the rights of the Palacios book to the "RCP,USA," an astonishing blunder which they defend in their letters of December 5, showing regret only over the low price that they asked of the "RCP,USA." These theories of pragmatic maneuvers are especially opposed to the struggle against conciliationism and centrism, but this leads inevitably to giving up the struggle as a whole. Thus the leadership of CPC(M-L) started by opposing our Party's polemics against the MLOC/"CPUSA(ML)" and "RCP,USA" and ended up denouncing the movement against social-chauvinism as a whole.
Intertwined with both of these two immediate issues, that of the "special relationship" demanded by the CC of the CPC(M-L) and that of their opposition to the struggle against opportunism, is the poly-centrist and factionalist theory advanced by the leadership of CPC(M-L) dividing up the world's revolutionary Marxist-Leninists into two different trends, both of which are supposed to be equally legitimate. The letters of the CC of the CPC(M-L) of December 5, 1979 bring up "...this concept that we have advanced that the Internationalist Movement came up as one movement and merged with the International Marxist-Leninist Communist Movement, with no exception. This is a very important issue."
For the sake of official respectability, the CC of the CPC(M-L) says here that the movements have already merged. This is just a hoax. The point is that the CC of the CPC(M-L) is stressing the separate origin of the "Internationalist Movement" in order to advocate consolidating this trend today. That is why they say it is "a very important issue." The leadership of CPC(M-L) expressed it as follows in their discussions with our Party at the time of the 6th Consultative Conference of the CPC(M-L) in early 1979: "In practical terms, not political, there are the Marxist-Leninist parties that came out of the struggle against Khrushchovite revisionism led by the
Party of Labor of Albania and those who came out of the Internationalists. There is a question of merging them as one trend. The historical significance of the Internationalists and the work we have done shouldn't be underestimated: 1) common struggle; 2) relations and unity. Should utilize this as a force to develop strong relations in the International Communist Movement."
Thus the leadership of CPC(M-L) maintains that the "Internationalist Movement" still exists today as "one movement," centered on CPC(M-L). They talk of two presently existing trends, one of which is the Internationalists. And, of course, all the relevant documents of the Internationalists stress that CPC (M-L) or its chairman is the center of this movement. For the sake of demagogy, the leadership of CPC (M-L) talks of "merging the trends" and that "in political terms" there is only one international Marxist- Leninist movement. But by talking of merging the trends they stress the existence of the separate trends and their poly-centrist conception of the international Marxist-Leninist movement as a federation of trends. The various parties are not directly contingents of the international Marxist-Leninist movement but, "in practical terms," form an international movement through taking part in the trends. Thus the talk of strengthening the international movement ends up being "in practical terms," the task of developing the "Internationalist Movement" further as a trend, consolidating it and using it as "a force" in the international movement.
Thus this concept of two trends is a deeply factional theory that creates the danger of unprincipled splits and threatens the dismemberment of the international Marxist-Leninist movement. Indeed the bitter fruit of this concept can be seen in its use to justify the wrecking and splitting activity of the leadership of CPC(M-L) against our Party. This concept of a "trend" or "movement" based on CPC(M-L) is one of the chief tools which the leadership of CPC (M-L) possesses to justify their claim for a "special relationship" inside this"trend." Their brutal attempt to bludgeon our Party into submission is an attempt to enforce the factional discipline of this trend, a discipline that is to replace the Marxist-Leninist norms of relations between parties.
Another significant feature of this theory of two trends is that it separates the origin of the "Internationalist Movement" away from the struggle against Khrushchovite revisionism. In particular, it separates off the "trend" headed by the CPC(M-L) from the Party of Labor of Albania. The leadership of CPC(M-L) constantly postures and shouts high and low that any disagreement with them is allegedly an attack on the international Marxist-Leninist movement and a "peculiar" if not downright "exceptionalist" thesis. But in fact behind this smoke screen the leadership of CPC(M-L) is trying to impose unquestioning obedience to their own "peculiar" theses and to the factional discipline of their "trend."
Consider in this respect the opposition of the leadership of the CPC(M-L) to the slogan "Build the Marxist-Leninist Party Without the Social-Chauvinists and Against the Social-Chauvinists." The leadership of CPC(M-L) condemns this Leninist slogan of our Party. They scoff that it is only our own "peculiar" analysis. But what happened when The Workers' Advocate of October 15, 1979 published quotations from Comrade Enver Hoxha's Report to the 5th Congress of the PLA of 1966 including: "unity will be re-established in the communist movement and the socialist camp, but it will be re-established by the Marxist-Leninists without revisionists and traitors and in resolute struggle against them." Did the leadership of CPC(M-L) then admit that this concept was by no means "peculiar" to our Party? No, they complained that it was "an oblique attack on the CPC(M-L)," as the letters of December 5 of the CC of the CPC(M-L) put it. But when it came time for the CC of the CPC(M-L) to express its views on this slogan in public in its polemics of June 1980, then there is a different story. PCDN writes: "...Comrade Enver Hoxha explained that: 'unity will be re-established by the Marxist-Leninists without revisionists and traitors and in resolute struggle against them.'
"Taking a cue from this correct analysis of the situation, these theoreticians of 'ideological struggle' and of the 'movement', [MLP,USA -- ed.] instead of establishing and strengthening their parties on the basis of Marxism-Leninism, began their own peculiar 'movement' as the basis of establishing their parties.
"They turned this 'objective law' [the "without and against" slogan -- ed.]...into a mechanism, a method, to 'reconstitute' and 'strengthen' their so-called 'Marxist-Leninist parties. This was and is today merely a bluff and a ruse...."
What brazen hypocrisy! PCDN poses that it would never develop its own "peculiar" views, never, it will only repeat the views of the international movement. And PCDN is such a loyal defender of Comrade Enver Hoxha, such a loyal guard of orthodoxy in the international movement, that it will beat your brains out if you dare "take your cue" from Comrade Enver Hoxha (or from the works of Lenin and Stalin which put forward the "without and against" concept long ago). PCDN literally writes that the "without and against" slogan is correct when given by Comrade Enver Hoxha, but is a "peculiar" slogan, a mere "bluff and ruse," when it is applied in the United States. It is clear that when the CC of the CPC(M-L) accuses this slogan of being allegedly different from the concepts of the international movement, they are really accusing it of being different from the concepts of the "trend" based on CPC(M- L). It is the firm assessment of our Party that on the pretext of fighting against the "peculiar" theories of our Party, the leadership of CPC(M-L) is really fighting against various of the advanced positions of contemporary revolutionary Marxism-Leninism.
For our part, our Party and its predecessors have never agreed with the concepts of the leadership of CPC(M-L) concerning the existence of two or more genuine Marxist-Leninist "international trends" within the world Marxist-Leninist movement. The MLP,USA takes part in only one trend -- the trend of revolutionary Marxism-Leninism -- and fights against all bourgeois, revisionist, opportunist and anti-Marxist trends. We do not accept the existence of different varieties of Marxism-Leninism, whether national brands or multi-national cartels.
The leadership of CPC(M-L) is openly flaunting a liquidationist deviation
We have outlined above the immediate issues which lay behind the CC of CPC(M-L)'s declaration of war against our Party. In addition, however, the divergence between the stands of the two Parties on a whole range of questions was becoming clearer and clearer. Our Party's letter of June 16, 1980 discussed the Communique of the 7th Plenum of the CC of the CPC(M-L), dated November 18, 1979 and printed in the PCDN for December 3, and the New Year's speeches by the chairman of CPC(M-L) on December 30, 1979 -- January 1, 1980. These New Year's speeches were major documents of the CPC (M-L) summing up the decade of the 1970's and setting the orientation for the 1980's. Our Party's letter characterized them as "panic-stricken speeches which manifest a sharp turn towards rightism."
Since that time, our Party has made a profound analysis of the development of liquidationism in the U.S. Liquidationism -- the renunciation of party- building, the advocacy of merger with social-democracy and the yellow labor bureaucracy, and the all-round abandonment of, or fight against, the path of the independent class organization of the proletariat -- is the latest phase in the decay of Maoist neo-revisionism. Today the American followers of both the Chinese and the Soviet revisionists and the trotskyites as well are all standing on a common platform of liquidationism and merger with social-democracy. Other notable features of this liquidationism include the curses thrown at the struggle against opportunism, the sneering at Marxism-Leninism and the very idea of revolutionary theory, and the outright renegade atmosphere. Our analysis of liquidationism is contained in such articles as "The Advance of the Revolutionary Movement Requires a Stern Struggle Against Social-Democracy and Liquidationism" in the March 10, 1981 issue of The Workers' Advocate.
Liquidationism however is not a phenomenon unique to the U.S. Several genuine Marxist-Leninist parties have denounced similar phenomena in the revolutionary and progressive movements of their countries. There are many factors behind the rise of liquidationism and related forms of opportunism. For one thing, the Chinese revisionist groups around the world have in general taken up out-and-out liquidationist stands. Now both the followers of Chinese revisionism and of Soviet revisionism are united in their advocacy of liquidationism and their pursuit of merger with social-democracy. The bourgeoisie uses these revisionist groupings as one of its means of putting pressure on the genuine Marxist-Leninist parties and organizations.
In Canada too the followers of Chinese revisionism have become liquidators. The issue of merger with social-democracy is here too one of the central features of this liquidationism. This is one of the factors putting pressure on the CPC(M-L). But furthermore, this crystallization of liquidationism, its coming out into the open in all its repulsive features, sheds light on the new turn in the political stand of the CPC(M- L) from the time of the 7th Plenum of their CC. This is not just a turn to the right, although this stand is in fact deeply rightist. But CPC(M-L) already had begun a turn to the right in the early 1970's as it began putting forward theses for integration with the trade union bureaucracy, economist theses on the working class movement, theses against ideological struggle and so forth. By the mid-1970's the CPC(M-L) was engaged in systematizing and extending these theses, as sharply expressed by such blunders as adopting the "Make the Rich Pay" slogan, which is a slogan of struggle on the economic front, as the entire "strategy and tactics" of the proletariat. This rightism was covered over in words, if not in practice, during the period after the fierce struggle between revolutionary Marxism-Leninism and "three worlds-ism" and Chinese revisionism broke out into the open on a world scale. Thus the characteristic feature of the new turn of the CPC(M-L) starting at the 7th Plenum of the CC is not simply rightism. It is the open flaunting of various liquidationist theses. The leadership of CPC(M-L) began to flaunt a liquidationist deviation simultaneously with their declaration of war on our Party.
Let us examine some of the theses put forward by the leadership of CPC(M-L) in the Communique of the 7th Plenum and in the New Year's speeches.
With regard to the evaluation of Mao Zedong Thought, the 7th Plenum of the CC could be described as a watershed in the evolution of the views of CPC(M-L). The 7th Plenum basically equated Mao Zedong Thought with "petty-bourgeois 'leftism.'" It began a process of putting forward right opportunist theses under the signboard of "overcoming the adverse influence of 'Mao Zedong Thought.'"
This was turning the Marxist-Leninist critique of Mao Zedong Thought on its head. Revolutionary Marxism-Leninism teaches that Mao Zedong Thought is the ideological basis of Chinese revisionism, one of the main currents of modern revisionism. Modern revisionism is right opportunism. Mao Zedong Thought is saturated through and through with rightist and social-democratic theses highly reminiscent of the opportunism of the Second International. Mao Zedong Thought is also highly eclectic and contains both right and left opportunist elements, but this does not negate its overall characterization as revisionism, right opportunism.
But the description of Maoism as simply " petty-bourgeois 'leftism' " is one of the catchwords of liquidationism. The Chinese revisionists and their followers are themselves presenting the errors of Mao as consisting of ultra-leftism. In general all around the world the official supporters of China are moaning about their alleged ultra-left past and presenting going further to the right, to open liquidationism, as the way of overcoming the effects of the mistakes of the past. The Soviet revisionists too, for their own purposes, are describing Maoism as an excess of revolutionary spirit and as ultra-leftism in order to profit from the fiasco of Maoism.
Thus the 7th Plenum of the CC of the CPC(M-L) was making a liquidationist assessment of the nature of Mao Zedong Thought. The 7th Plenum, as apparently the main practical measure for overcoming the influence of Maoism, repeatedly stressed the need to "mak(e) the fullest possible use of the 'legal' possibilities," such as elections, as if the CPC(M-L) hadn't in fact been making use of legal possibilities and elections for many years. This too echoes a favorite theme of the liquidators. But. the CC of the CPC(M-L) goes so far as to put forward the utterly ridiculous thesis that: "both modern revisionism and all its variants, and petty-bourgeois 'leftism', are opposed to making use of the 'legal' possibilities." Thus the 7th Plenum criticized the official pro- Soviet revisionists of Kashtan's "Communist" Party of Canada, who are diehard legalists and parliamentary cretinists, for not making more use of "the 'legal' possibilities." What a farce! The New Year's speeches elaborated on this criticism and expressed it in more popular language by making a big deal over the fact that Kashtan's "C"PC did not run as many candidates in the federal elections of early1980 as CPC(M-L). But this only showed the weakness of the "C"PC, nothing more. This type of criticism of the parliamentary cretinists -- for not making more use of parliament -- meant to give a call to compete with Kashtan's party in parliamentary cretinism. Sure enough, only a few days before the election the chairman of CPC(M-L) declared at an election rally that: "There is propaganda carried out that to vote for the Marxist-Leninists is a waste because they will not form the government.... Only a vote for the Marxist-Leninists is a useful vote. This will put a lot of pressure on the rich and even this can force some structural reform which is advantageous to the people." (PCDN, February 16, 1980, p. 3, col. 4) Then after the election, the chairman of CPC(M-L) had to admit that a "euphoria" was created about the election, although he blamed this on the rank-and-file comrades rather than tracing it back to the views given at the 7th Plenum and afterwards and to his own promises of "structural reform." Indeed this speech claims that a "breakthrough" would have been made in the election if it just wasn't for the euphoria of the rank-and-file comrades. (PCDN, February 25, 1980, p.2, col. 5,6)
This assessment of Maoism as ultra-leftism colors the whole assessment of the decade of the 1970's of the leadership of CPC(M-L). The 7th Plenum and the New Year's speeches portray the 1970's as a period when the advance of the Marxist-Leninist movement was disrupted as a result of being "diverted" by the struggle against revisionism and the ideological struggle and as a result of being "paralyzed" by adherence to the party principle and by those who spent too much time "getting organized," that is, engaging in party-building, and being "tied in knots" by the Leninist organizational norms. This is of course completely in spirit with the liquidationist summation of the 1970's.
This brings up the question of party-building. Liquidationism is named for its liquidation or negation of the proletarian party and of party-building. The leadership of CPC(M-L) expressed their deviation in this direction with their negation and ridicule of the essential task of party-building in the New Year's speeches, which in fact is one of their main themes. They proclaim that:
"The fact is that after 10 years we are not talking about establishing some branches of the Party or some influence of the Party, or establishing some newspapers somewhere, or carrying some activities in terms of strengthening our Party internally, etc. Today we are talking about the political presence of the Party in the class and amongst the broad masses of the people." (PCDN, Jan. 3,1980, p. 2, col. 2 top) Here the leadership of CPC(M-L) is boasting that for them the work of party-building is a thing of the past. In the typical liquidationist style, they justify this by counterposing party-building to work among the masses. They suggest that abandonment of party-building leads to major "political influence" among the "broad masses."
This theme is reiterated over and over again in the New Year's speeches. For example, "getting organized" is denounced as "an anti-Party line -- a Maoist line." (PCDN, Jan. 3, 1980, p. 3, col. 4) How can such a two-word phrase be denounced as Maoism? Clearly what the speech is suggesting is that party- building and organizational work are allegedly Maoism. What a disgusting fraud! For year after year the Maoist neo-revisionists negated the party concept, while today the great discovery has been made that Maoism is "getting organized."
This ridicule of party-building in these speeches is connected with their sneering at the Leninist organizational norms of the party. The speeches preach that: "Marxist-Leninists use organization as a force in their own favour, not as a thing to paralyze themselves, to entangle themselves in so many rules and regulations that their hands and feet are tied in knots." (Ibid.)
This is straightforward mockery of the norms of the party. It is to say that there are those who can regard the organization as "a force in their own favour" and avoid being "entangled" in the norms, which will only apply to others. Our Party, of course, has had much experience with how the leadership of CPC(M-L) "use(s) organization as a force in their own favour" and totally negates the norms of relations between parties. Here however the leadership of CPC(M-L) is denouncing the inner-party norms.
This type of negation of the norms is in fact an appeal to the basest emotions of bourgeois individualism. The speeches in fact put forward a picture of the individual organizers, who do the real organizing, the real work, while the party man is entangled in rules and regulations and "getting organized."
Now let us consider the struggle against opportunism. The liquidators especially curse at the struggle against revisionism and opportunism. For example, they regard the social-democrats as "progressive forces in the labor movement." The pro-Chinese liquidators are even one by one dropping their pretensions to oppose Soviet revisionism.
On this question too, the New Year's speeches deviated in the direction of liquidationism, for they continued and deepened the longstanding crusade of the leadership of CPC(M-L) against "ideological struggle." The speeches put forward the basic perspective of an end to the struggle against revisionism and opportunism, claiming that: "...everything these revisionists and opportunists did during the 1974-1977 period actually discredited them, and eliminated them.... There is no way that revisionism and opportunism can arise in this country again with the same kind of bluster which they had during the 1974-1977 period." (PCDN, Jan. 3,1980, p. 2, col. 3)
With such an assessment the leadership of CPC (M-L) is spreading dangerous complacency and a pacifist attitude towards revisionism and opportunism. The decade of the 1980's is only just beginning and it is already clear that such an assessment is blatantly false. It amounts to disarming the Marxist-Leninists and class conscious workers in the face of the social-democrats, liquidators and other ideological servants of the bourgeoisie and corrupters of the working class movement.
The New Year's speeches go so far as to deride the very idea that revolutionary theory is important. They declare that:
"The Marxist-Leninist tactics, the Marxist-Leninist tradition, the Marxist-Leninist style of work -- all show that it is not necessary to have correct analysis all the time -- the issue is where one stands, first and foremost: On the side of the revolution and socialism or on the side of imperialism and all reaction?" (PCDN, Jan. 3, 1980, p. 2, col. 3, emphasis added)
In other words, the leadership of CPC(M-L) is saying that the questions of theory (analysis) are questions of second-rate importance, if that. Indeed, the speeches go on to mock at the struggle between "correct and incorrect" in order to underline the lack of importance of accurate analysis and correct theory. Once again this is a deviation towards liquidationism. Scoffing at the idea of revolutionary theory is a hallmark of present-day liquidationism, not of Marxism-Leninism. It is the very opposite of the teachings of Lenin who stressed that: "without a revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement." (What Is to Be Done?, Ch. I, Sec. D) It is to ignore the bitter experience of millions upon millions of dedicated revolutionaries who have fought heroically against imperialism and reaction but who, lacking the correct Marxist-Leninist theory, saw their struggles go astray. But no matter, the leadership of CPC(M-L) has discovered that "it is not necessary to have correct analysis all the time" in order to justify their own theoretical weaknesses and their opposition to the struggle against opportunism in general and to the carrying of the repudiation of Maoism through to the end in particular.
These stands of the leadership of CPC(M-L) concerning the ridicule of party-building, the mocking of the Leninist norms, the negation of the struggle against opportunism, the crusade against ideological struggle and the role of theory and so forth have all been to one extent or the other expressed previously by the CPC(M-L). But the 7th Plenum of the CC initiated the process of bringing them all together under the banner of "overcoming the adverse influence of 'Mao Zedong Thought' " and crystallizing them as a deviation towards liquidationism. Since the leadership of CPC(M-L) did not correct their mistaken stands on these various questions, but instead let them fester, today these errors have come together and expressed themselves as a deviation towards liquidationism.
The turn on the part of the leadership of CPC(M-L) towards flaunting a deviation towards liquidationism occurred simultaneously with their declaration of war against our Party. The 7th Plenum of the CC of the CPC(M-L) took place on the eve of the CC of CPC (M-L)'s brutal letters of December 5, 1979 to our Party. The New Year's speeches took place soon afterwards. While there is of course much that is accidental in the exact day on which this or that event takes place, still it is no mere coincidence that the CC of CPC(M-L) began its savage attempts to destroy our Party at the same time as they made their official proclamation of a liquidationist deviation. Our Party's firm stands against revisionism and opportunism, our stress on the absolute necessity of party-building, the importance our Party gives to the role of the Marxist-Leninist theory, the steadfast adherence of our Party to the Marxist-Leninist norms both within the party and between parties, and so forth could not but be obstacles in the way of the new turn by the CC of the CPC(M-L). Therefore on December 5, 1979 the CC of the CPC(M-L) finally had "no more patience" and decided that they must administer a "final" defeat to our Party. They decided that they must remove this obstacle, our Party and its firm Marxist-Leninist line. So, once again resorting to a liquidationist method, they embarked on wrecking activities with the aim of strangling our Party.
On the Maoist blunders of the leadership of CPC(M-L)
The latest turn of the leadership of CPC(M-L) towards liquidationism is not a chance event or a mere unfortunate accident. They have made severe Maoist blunders in the past. Instead of rectifying these errors, they have reduced the repudiation of Mao Zedong Thought to trivialities while fighting as hard as they can against our Party and our stand of carrying the struggle against Chinese revisionism through to the end. As their Maoist errors have festered, the leadership of CPC(M-L) has fallen into the flaunting of the liquidationist deviation.
Indeed the leadership of CPC(M-L) has turned the repudiation of Mao Zedong Thought on its head. Maoism sabotaged the struggle against opportunism. The Chinese revisionists produced one after another rightist and centrist thesis opposing the struggle against revisionism and opportunism. They practiced coexistence with opportunism and they also dressed up anarchist and factionalist methods of struggle as allegedly struggle against opportunism. Yet the leadership of CPC(M-L) denounces the struggle against opportunism as ' 'the Maoist theory of 'two-line struggle.'" Maoism denigrates party- building and was responsible for a rash of anti-party theories, including the theory of the "pre-party situation" and the theory that "the party will grow spontaneously out of the mass movement." But the leadership of CPC(M-L) denounces "getting organized" as Maoism and denigrates party-building as part of "overcoming the adverse influence of 'Mao Zedong Thought' on the Party." Maoism is well known for its ridicule of the Leninist norms, which it presented as bureaucratic, mechanical, rigid, revisionist and so forth. Nevertheless the leadership of CPC(M-L) is still denouncing the norms as "bureaucratic," "archaic" and so forth and presenting this as a repudiation of Maoism.
In brief, the leadership of CPC(M-L) is fighting as hard as they can to preserve their basic Maoist blunders while paying lip service to the repudiation of Mao Zedong Thought. This is an example of what Marx was talking about when he wrote: "The antiquated makes an attempt to reestablish itself and maintain itself within the newly achieved form." (Letter to Bolte, 23 November 1871)
This deviation towards Maoism is clearly seen in the stand of the leadership of CPC(M-L) on various of the major questions of the strategy and tactics of the revolution.
Several months after the leadership of CPC(M-L) declared war on our Party, they began whispering slanders against the Communique of the Founding Congress of the MLP,USA and alleged that their disagreements with the Communique justified their attempt to destroy our Party. Actually their war on our Party began months prior to their first whispered slanders against the Communique. It began on quite other grounds. Indeed, to this day they have still never dared to prepare a document giving their criticisms of the Communique but prefer to use the method of gossiping in back alleys and to say one thing one day, another the next, one thing to one person, another to the next. With this method they hope to distract attention from the immediate reasons behind their war on our Party, namely, their demand for a "special relationship" and for the toning down or elimination of our Party's struggle against revisionism and opportunism. Instead they tried to give themselves, in their own eyes anyway, a high-minded appearance.
Nevertheless, since our Party places a high value on the questions of the strategy and tactics of the revolution, we did our best to look into the questions they were raising and try to make some sense out of the contradictory rumors they were floating. This led us to make a serious and detailed examination of the stand of the CPC(M-L) on a number of questions of the strategy and tactics of the revolution as expressed in their authoritative documents such as the reports of the congresses and consultative conferences, the major pamphlets promoted by the CPC (M-L) themselves as a source for their views, and other official statements.
As a result of this investigation, it is our assessment that the leadership of CPC(M-L) has been afflicted by serious Maoist deviations on questions of strategy and tactics from its birth and is persisting in these blunders. On a number of these questions we replied to the verbal agitation of the leadership of CPC(M-L) and to the polemics in PCDN in our series "Against Mao Zedong Thought!" in The Workers' Advocate.
We shall list some examples of these deviations towards Maoism or Chinese revisionism. The leadership of CPC(M-L) hides their theses in a dazzling display of contradictory assertions and much demagogy. For example, they can and do both support and denounce the same formulation, denouncing someone else for using it while proclaiming it themselves. They also can and do allow contradictory theses to eclectically coexist as their Party's line. Therefore to trace through their views and show which are the significant statements and which are the window dressing takes time and patience. In the brief listing below, however, we only indicate certain of the basic ideas behind a few of the deviations of the leadership of CPC(M-L).
** To begin with, the leadership of CPC(M-L) has consistently defended a wrong assessment of the basic character and stage of revolution in Canada. On the basis of the need to fight the U.S. imperialist domination of Canada, they have presented the revolution as some sort of non-socialist anti-colonial revolution or as in the non-socialist anti-colonial stage prior to a future socialist revolution. This has been the consistent stand of all three regular congresses of the CPC(M-L) including the last one, the Third Congress of 1977, which is the currently binding congress. (The Special Congress of 1978 did not produce documents or deal with these questions.) The Third Congress held that Canada "is like a colony." In this regard it should be noted that the leadership of CPC (M-L) has consistently denounced the idea of "one-stage revolution" as "counter-revolutionary" or "trotskyite" or "windbaggery."
The leadership of CPC(M-L)'s negation of the socialist revolution is a typical Maoist blunder. Maoism has always been totally incapable of defining the relationship between anti-imperialist struggle and the socialist revolution. Maoism divides democratic and anti-imperialist struggles from the proletarian socialist revolution with a Chinese Wall. From the theoretical angle, this is due of the causes of the Maoist and "three worlder" distortion of the strategy of the proletariat in the so-called "second world" imperialist countries of Western Europe, Japan and Canada. The "three worlds" theory negates the socialist revolution in these imperialist countries under the pretext of the fight against foreign imperialist domination. Other "three worlders," such as the "RCP,USA," negate the struggle against U.S. imperialism under the pretext that such a struggle is contradictory to the socialist revolution.
** Mao himself set up a dichotomy between capitalist countries and imperialist-dominated countries. Thus in the 1930's Mao Zedong defined as a fundamental characteristic of "capitalist countries" that "in their external relations, they are not oppressed by, but themselves oppress other nations." (Selected Works, Vol. II, p. 219) Taken literally, this Maoist schematic formula means that by definition a capitalist country cannot be oppressed and, conversely, if a country is oppressed by others it is by definition not a capitalist country.
The leadership of CPC(M-L) has consistently been prey to this Maoist blunder. They have from their founding to the present consistently denied that Canada is an imperialist country on the grounds that Canada is dominated by U.S. imperialism. Whether or not a country is or is not a developed monopoly capitalist imperialist state is of tremendous significance for the fundamental questions of the basic strategy and tactics of the revolution. The mistake of the leadership of CPC(M-L) on this question, its deviation towards Maoism, has done tremendous harm. It is related to their denial of the socialist character of the revolution. As well, it also has been reflected in the failure of CPC(M-L) to expose the imperialist machinations of "its own" national bourgeoisie.
For some time the leadership of CPC(M-L) has attempted to hedge a little on this question. It has declared that Canada is an "oppressor state," has an "imperialist democracy," has imperialists among the bourgeoisie and so forth. But all these evasions are simply desperate attempts to slur over the issue of principle involved while at the same time preserving the Maoist blunder intact, just so long as they continue to insist that Canada is not an imperialist country, that the fundamental contradiction is not between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie and so forth.
** Related to their denial that Canada is an imperialist country and their presentation of the revolution in Canada in anti-colonial colors is the prettification by the leadership of CPC(M-L) of the Canadian "national bourgeoisie." They have consistently set forth the idea of an alliance with the national bourgeoisie or major sections of it in the revolution. Some time back they began renaming this section of the capitalists the "middle bourgeoisie." But in fact they gave no definition of this "middle bourgeoisie." But this "middle bourgeoisie" was actually the very same thing as what they had previously described as the "national bourgeoisie." At their Third Congress, for example, they had already theorized beforehand that the so-called national bourgeoisie could not exist as a big bourgeoisie in Canada.
The Third Congress gives an example of their sickening prettification of the bourgeoisie. It held that only the big bourgeoisie "expropriates the surplus value" and that the national bourgeoisie "cannot exist in Canada as the big bourgeoisie because of the entire historical development of Canada...." As well, this Congress spoke of "the national bourgeoisie who are patriotic, those who are pro-communist, or are not anti-communist, those who have interests of the nation in mind against the reactionary bourgeoisie, those who are opposed to the shifting of the burden of the economic crisis onto the backs of the proletariat,...are sympathetic and friendly to the socialist countries...[ad nausea]."
As we have mentioned, sometimes the leadership of CPC(M-L) calls the revolution a socialist revolution for the purposes of ornamentation. But in such cases what emerges is the strategy for a revolution where the proletariat walks into socialism hand in hand with the bourgeoisie.
The prettification of the bourgeoisie by the leadership of CPC(M-L) is related to their criticism of our Communique. They claim that the Communique does not contain "class analysis." Actually the truth of the matter is that they disagree with the class analysis in the Communique and with our Party's stand that the fundamental contradiction in the U.S. is between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. For the leadership of CPC(M-L), "class analysis" means not looking at things from the point of view of the struggle of the proletariat versus the bourgeoisie, not taking the standpoint of the class struggle, but analyzing what section of the bourgeoisie one should ally with. They have gone to the extent of denouncing, in their 5th Consultative Conference, the Comintern slogan of "class against class" as allegedly denying that the proletariat has allies. Their denunciation of the Communique for lacking their sort of "class analysis" shows that even as regards the U.S., where they cannot present the revolution as anti-colonial, they are prey to the Maoist skepticism about the class struggle, the Maoist urge to find something to replace the class struggle.
** Since 1976, the leadership of CPC(M-L) has adopted the slogan "Make the rich pay!" as the "strategy and tactics" of the proletariat (in the pamphlet What Is the Issue? by the chairman of the CPC(M-L)) or as "the tactical line and slogan of the Party" (at the Third Congress). As a slogan of struggle on the economic front, there is nothing wrong with this slogan. But to adopt this slogan as the "strategy and tactics" of a party or as its overall "tactical plan and policy" is a glaring anti-Marxist-Leninist blunder, an expression of economism. It means to subordinate the political and ideological struggles to the economic struggle. In fact it shows a striving to chop down the communist program to what is acceptable to the trade union bureaucrats.
Furthermore the leadership of CPC(M-L) has never worked out what this slogan means in practice. They have continually issued statements that as the struggle develops or when the question comes on the agenda, then practical measures will be adopted and various forms will be developed. Here is the expression of bankruptcy and of economist blowing with every breeze. A slogan is adopted with great fanfare as the strategy and tactics, as the tactical plan and so forth. And it turns out that no one has the faintest idea of what the slogan means.
The consequences of the economist deviation expressed in the adoption of "Make the rich pay!" as the strategy and tactics were vividly shown in the election campaign for the federal election of early 1980. At that time the leadership of CPC(M-L) made their one attempt to work out exactly what this slogan meant. They produced an election program that appeared in PCDN on February 15, 1980 under the appeal to vote for the candidates of the Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada (the name under which the CPC(M-L) runs in elections). This program was a totally reformist, Browderite program of structural reforms. It proposed to be the solution that would solve the problems of inflation, unemployment and the "political, cultural, social, financial and credibility crisis." Yet this program was silent on the need for struggle and revolution (except for an appeal to struggle against the war preparations of the imperialist bourgeoisie of countries outside Canada). This program, this solution to the crisis, was to be realized by voting the MLP of Canada to power. And this solution was to be achieved within the confines of capitalism, with exploitation remaining but profits cut down. But, it should be noted, this program was consistent with the strategic aims proclaimed by the congresses of CPC(M-L) which call for an alliance with the "national bourgeoisie" and for a non-socialist sort of revolution. This program indeed was a program to structurally reform capitalism. This program showed how far the leadership of CPC(M-L) had strayed to the right in the liquidationist deviation. The leadership of CPC(M-L) has had a consistent penchant for semi-anarchist phrasemongering. Right from the founding of CPC(M-L) this semi-anarchism was very prominent. It included denunciation of the economic struggle as revisionist and opportunist.
But since the early 1970's the leadership of CPC (M-L) has moved to take up rightist positions. This does not mean that they abandoned their semi-anarchist phrasemongering, but simply that they tacked on rightist and economist positions to this phrasemongering. Thus for example the leadership of CPC (M-L) still curses "defensive struggles," "contract struggles" and so forth. They have consistently rejected the Marxist-Leninist teachings on the minimum program and the struggle for partial demands. At the same time, even the lowest form of defensive struggle becomes on the par with the revolution if the label "Make the rich pay!" is stuck on it.
A typical example of their semi-anarchist phrasemongering is exhibited in their criticism of our Communique. They denounce any mention of the democratic tasks of the proletariat as a violation of socialist principle. In fact, they go further and denounce the Communique for stating that: "The Marxist-Leninist Party defends the momentary interests and the immediate aims of the working class, but in the movement of the present, it also represents and takes care of the future of the movement." According to the leadership of the CPC(M-L), it is opportunism to mention "the momentary interests and the immediate aims of the working class." According to them, the only "momentary interests and immediate aims" of the proletariat in the epoch of imperialism is the seizure of state power. This is nothing but semi-anarchism. It is imperialist economism which is unable to correctly define the relationship between immediate struggles and the revolution. They believe that they are being very revolutionary when they resort to such semi-anarchist phrasemongering. But of course such phrasemongering is not only sectarian, but it is also a sorry fraud for, as mentioned above, they hold that the tacking on of the "Make the rich pay!" slogan would convert any "momentary interest or immediate aim" of the proletariat into a part of the struggle for the seizure of state power.
This combination of semi-anarchism and economism is typical of the confusion of the Maoists. They too have developed a similar amalgam of anarchism and economism. For example they have gone from reveling in economism to anarchist denunciation of the economic struggle as economist and reformist and back. The leadership of CPC(M-L) is deviating in the direction of Maoism with its similar combination of semi-anarchism and economism.
These and other grave errors which the leadership of CPC(M-L) defends show that they have let their Maoist blunders fester. These Maoist deviations show why the leadership of CPC(M-L) felt compelled to strike out against our Party with such extreme savagery and violence. The leadership of CPC(M-L) has put every obstacle in the way of our Party carrying forward the struggle against Chinese revisionism and Maoism because they are still determined to defend their own Maoist deviations. It is a striking fact that to this day, while posturing as opponents of Maoism, the leadership of CPC(M-L) has yet to systematically formulate any serious criticism of Mao Zedong Thought, while their incoherent polemics of June 1980 directed against "ideological struggle," "movements," "campaigns," "getting organized" and so on are all directed towards denigrating the anti-revisionist struggle. Unfortunately the determination of the leadership of CPC(M-L) to defend their Maoist errors has only meant compounding these errors. Under today's conditions, the deviation towards Maoism leads straight to the liquidationist deviation. Moreover, not only has the leadership of CPC(M-L) fought tooth and nail to defend their Maoist blunders, but they are also fighting to impose these blunders onto others such as our Party.
Thus, because the MLP,USA stands firmly on Marxist-Leninist principle, because the MLP,USA will never go along with any "special relationship" in violation of the Marxist-Leninist norms nor take part in any trend in the international communist movement other than the trend of revolutionary Marxism-Leninism, because the MLP,USA has fought and will continue to fight with determination to carry through to the end the repudiation of Maoism, along with the fight against the Soviet and other revisionist trends, because of all these things the leadership of CPC(M-L) has deemed it necessary to hurl themselves upon and attempt to strangle the MLP,USA.
For our part, we wish no harm to the CPC(M-L). On the contrary, we sincerely hope that the leadership of CPC(M-L) overcomes the Maoist and liquidationist deviations which are proving to be so detrimental to the CPC(M-L) itself. We American Marxist-Leninists have always and will continue to work for the closest fraternal bonds with the Canadian Marxist-Leninists. The MLP,USA continues to stand for true friendship with the CPC(M-L). We hope therefore that the leadership of CPC(M-L) repudiates their hostile war against the MLP,USA.
In the meantime, no one can deprive our Party of the right to defend its own integrity nor should anyone underestimate our determination to do so. As a loyal and militant contingent of the international Marxist-Leninist communist movement, the MLP, USA will continue to exert every effort to strengthen the party of the proletariat in the U.S., to defend the principled unity of the Marxist-Leninist communist parties of the world, and to defend the invincible revolutionary doctrine of Marxism-Leninism.
[Photos: On June 9, 14, 27 and 28, 1980, the leadership of CPC(M-L) published four major polemical articles condemning our Party. Printed above are reproductions of the headlines of these articles which were prominently featured on the front page of People's Canada Daily News, Organ of the CC of the CPC (M-L). These polemics were also issued in the July 1980 edition of The Road of the Party, Theoretical Organ of the CPC(M-L).]
November 29,1979
Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninists
National Executive Committee November 29, 1979
National Executive Committee
Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist)
Dear Fraternal Comrades:
Very soon the COUSML is holding an internal, secret conference. This conference is the "Preparatory Conference for the Founding of the Marxist-Leninist Party, USA." This is an important conference that will make the final preparations preliminary to the dissolution of the COUSML and the founding of the MLP,USA. It is not, however, the Founding Congress of the MLP,USA. The timing of this conference and of the founding congress are as explained to you by our delegate to the symposium on Mao Zedong Thought.
We warmly invite the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) to send a small delegation to this conference, to be observers. We request that the comrades of the delegation all be members of the Central Committee. It would be preferable if the delegation was composed of between one and three comrades. At this conference, as at previous conferences, it will be possible to get a remarkable picture of the views, activities and tactics of the COUSML. As well, it will be an occasion that can be used for some fraternal discussion between us and your delegation, of the type that have gone on continually whenever we meet. No other organization is being invited to this conference.
We hope that you will be able to attend this conference. We are sorry that we are giving you such short notice, but unfortunately the preparations for this conference were set back by many factors that were not expected, (including some that cannot be classified as altogether negative ones, as they include the vigorous development of the work in the present situation where all sorts of things are happening in the world). We have fallen behind our schedule, and the National Committee meeting that decided on the invitations took place only a few days ago.
If you can attend this conference.... We will meet it there. It would be very helpful if you could notify us in advance whether or not you intend to send a delegation, say by midnight on Wednesday, December 5.
As well, we take this occasion to also extend to you a fraternal invitation to attend the Founding Congress of the MLP,USA. This will be a great event for the Marxist-Leninist movement in the U.S. It is the culmination of ten years of work and struggle, and it is a starting point too. We request the same type of delegation as for the conference. We can give the necessary details to your delegation that attends the conference. If you cannot attend the conference, we will notify you separately of the necessary details. No other organization is being invited to the congress.
Deepest communist regards, J. Green, for the National Executive Committee COUSML
December 1,1979
Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninists
National Executive Committee December 1, 1979
National Executive Committee
Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist)
Dear fraternal comrades:
Our two Parties are fighters in the same trench against imperialism, revisionism and all sorts of opportunism. We have gone through thick and thin together. And this is not surprising in the least. The proletariat is an international class, and its parties in the individual countries are fighting contingents of the one international party of communism, of the international Marxist-Leninist communist movement. The norms and relations between these contingents are regulated by the principles of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism.
Today the international Marxist-Leninist communist movement is under tremendous attack from imperialism, revisionism and opportunism. Both internationally in general and in North America in particular the imperialists and revisionists are attempting to surround the proletariat and the Marxist-Leninist parties with a ring of fire. The "three worlders" and the international opportunist trend of Chinese revisionism are occupying one of the advance posts in this ring of fire. The struggle of the Marxist-Leninists against Chinese revisionism, "three worlds-ism" and so forth requires the closest international cooperation and the most serious and sober estimation.
Thus we are astonished by the recent action of the CPC(M-L) in selling the rights to the book by Jorge Palacios entitled Chile: An Attempt at "Historic Compromise'' to the utterly corrupt and rotten to the core American neo-revisionist and "three worlder" sect known as the so-called "Revolutionary Communist Party of the U.S.A.'' This act damaged the struggle against the "RCP,USA.'' It helped pave the way to the U.S. tour by Jorge Palacios on the "RCP, USA'' platform. Furthermore, the selling of the rights to this book was carried out without consultation with us. Indeed, it was carried out without even notifying us. It in fact amounted to a violation of the most elementary norms of fraternal relations between parties. And it shows an extreme underestimation of the struggle against opportunism in the U.S.
Therefore, in the interests of strengthening the relations between our two Parties and of strengthening the struggle against Chinese revisionism we are writing you this protest against the selling of the rights to the book by Palacios to the "RCP, USA." We stand for strengthening the relations between our two Parties. We believe that the cooperation of our two Parties in the struggle against imperialism and revisionism has great significance for North America. But the building and strengthening of our cooperation require that the problems and difficulties that emerge be dealt with straightforwardly, calmly and openly, they must be looked at square in the face. And the difficulties that have come up in this question of the selling of the rights to the Palacios book involve a major tactical blunder as well as a violation of principles. We hold that true friends are not those who sit still or who even applaud while errors are made, but those who have the deep love required to tell the truth even when it is unpleasant.
Now let us go into some details on the questions we are raising.
I
The selling of the rights to the book by Palacios to the "RCP,USA'' helped smooth the way to the Palacios tour of the U.S. This tour had great significance. With this tour, the RCP of Chile openly denounced its relations with the COUSML and publicly concluded an alliance with the "RCP,USA.'' The RCP of Chile broke its relations with us in a very unprincipled manner. It never indicated via letter or discussions what was on its mind, but acted unilaterally and by surprise. Nevertheless, it is clear that it has broken relations with us because we stand for carrying the struggle against Chinese revisionism through to the end, because we have denounced Mao Zedong Thought, and because we defend socialist Albania. Meanwhile it has taken the very dangerous step of concluding an alliance with one section of the international opportunist trend of Chinese revisionism (namely, the "three worlder" sect, the "RCP, USA") allegedly against the other sections. In fact, seeing the deepening of the struggle against Chinese revisionism with the condemnation by many parties of Mao Zedong Thought, the RCP of Chile has stopped halfway in the struggle against Chinese revisionism and even run back in panic into the arms of a section of the "three worlders." Instead of carefully sorting out the issue of Mao Zedong Thought, it has instead gone onto a very dangerous anti-Marxist path and has picked out its alliance with the "RCP, USA" as a reward for the gangster-like anti-Marxist and anti-Albanian stands of this contemptible sect of Avakian-ite "three worlders." We are in no hurry to come to a final conclusion on the RCP of Chile, and we hope that they desist from the path they have taken. It would be a pity and a loss to the international movement if this Party which has shed its blood in the struggle against reaction, does not stop and reconsider this very dangerous and slippery inclined slope that it has set foot on. But at the same time we refuse to compromise our principles; we refuse to take part in any alliance with "three worlders," or to stop the struggle against Chinese revisionism. Indeed, continuing and carrying through the struggle against Chinese revisionism is our duty in order, among other reasons, to help the RCP of Chile.
The fact that the rights to the Palacios book were in the hands of CPC(M-L) was an obstacle to the Palacios tour. Such a thing could not prevent the RCP of Chile and the "RCP,USA" from seeking each other out, it could not by itself prevent the Palacios tour, but it was a definite obstacle, a definite thorn in the side of the "RCP, USA." The agreements concerning this book were a complicated set of agreements between the RCP of Chile and the CPC(M-L), the RCP of Chile and COUSML, and CPC(M-L) and COUSML. As long as the rights for North America were held by CPC(M-L), then the fact the CPC(M-L) and COUSML were the Parties with the agreement with the RCP of Chile and responsible for the book would always be evident. This would be an embarrassment for the "RCP,USA" and indeed for any unprincipled change of relations by the RCP of Chile. It would expose more blatantly the RCP of Chile's unprincipled dropping of relations with us and the establishment of relations with the "RCP, US A" and what that signified.
Once the rights to the book were sold, then the fact that the "RCP,USA" had the rights was used as the justification for the trip by the "People's Front (Chicago)." It was said that the "RCP,USA" had gotten the rights by some means or other which were unknown to the "People's Front (Chicago)," and so what could one do, etc., etc. The trip was made to appear natural in the eyes of the public. As well, the "RCP,USA's" publishing of this book was used as a way to make it appear that the "RCP,USA," which in actual fact had never done any work at all for the support of the resistance movement of the Chilean people, was actually a supporter and enthusiast of the solidarity movement. And it served as a way for the "RCP,USA" to cement its side of the alliance with the RCP of Chile. And it made it easier to present the issue as if the RCP of Chile had never had any relations with the COUSML.
Naturally, even if the CPC(M-L) had kept the rights to the book by Palacios, then of course this alone could not have stopped the alliance between the RCP of Chile and the "RCP,USA." But CPC(M-L)'s holding of the rights to the book would have been a thorn in the sides of this alliance. By selling the rights, this thorn was removed. Moreover, the COUSML instead of the "RCP,USA" was put into a somewhat embarrassing position on the question of this book. And furthermore the CPC(M-L) puts itself in the apparent position of having worked with the "RCP,USA," even though only on this transaction, even though for the present apparently neither the "RCP,USA" nor you yourself wish to publicize this particular transaction. And today, when the issue of "no united front with 'three worlders'" is such a burning issue, to even give the appearance of working with them when it is completely avoidable -- even if only on a question of the rights to the book by Palacios -- is a tactical blunder.
II
The selling of the rights to the book by Palacios was carried out without consultations with us and indeed without even notifying us.
The trip by Palacios and the alliance with the "RCP,USA" hits first and foremost at us. The selling of the book to the "RCP,USA" gives the "RCP, USA" a weapon which is being used first and foremost against us. In practice, the selling of the rights to this book took the book out of our hands and turned it over to the hands of the "RCP, US A." Yet it was carried out without any consultations with us. You did not even notify us about it. Finally it came up in discussions in early November between our two Parties because our delegate, asked you a direct question about how the "RCP,USA" got the lights to the book.
To us, this lack of consultation is truly astonishing. It is quite clear that the selling of the rights to the book was not simply an ordinary commercial operation related to the routine business dealings in the book and pamphlet trade which are part and parcel of the operation of the National Publications Centre. On the contrary, the selling of the rights to the book by Palacios was first and foremost a political act. And this act involved a political significance that affected us, first and foremost, although it has a general international significance too. The selling of the rights to the book by Palacios involved a contact with the "RCP, US A," and this was objectively a political contact, not just a run-of-the-mill business dealing.
We would have firmly believed that you would not undertake such an act without our approval, since it affected us first and foremost, but you have not even notified us. We believe that when our fraternal comrades are undertaking actions in the U.S., they have an obligation to consult with the Marxist-Leninist Party in the U.S. Our two Parties may not always agree on certain tactical issues, but that does not give you the right to unilaterally undertake actions such as the selling of the rights to the Palacios book that affect us first and foremost and undermine our stands and struggle. It shows how much this act violates the elementary norms of fraternal relations, that it is an act in which you fail to even consult us even though it concerns a dealing with a group that you hate, namely, the "three worlders" of the "RCP,USA."
This question of consultation and cooperation is, in our view, one of the most important questions of principle involved in the issue of the selling of the rights to the Palacios book to the "RCP,USA." This question of consultation and cooperation is important in itself in the strengthening of the relations between our two Parties. But it is also important in particular in the question of the struggle against revisionism and opportunism. We hold that there should be cooperation between our two Parties in the struggle against opportunism. This cooperation can be a tremendous force on which the opportunists will break their teeth in vain.
III
Furthermore, the act of selling the rights to the book by Palacios to the "RCP,USA" shows an extreme underestimation on the part of the NEC of the CPC(M-L) for the struggle that the COUSML is waging against the American opportunists. The selling of the rights to the book by Palacios to the "RCP, USA" is related to your wrong assessment of our polemical struggle against the "RCP,USA." For some time now you have been taking a hostile attitude to the polemics against the "RCP,USA," to the polemics showing that U.S. neo-revisionism is the American expression of the international opportunist trend of Chinese revisionism, etc. You have not publicly supported them while privately you have constantly opposed them. This has amazed us. Your comments on our work have not been directed towards helping us to carry out the polemical struggle more vigorously, but have been directed towards casting doubt on this struggle. Thus your remarks have not been a motive force for the further development of the struggle, as fraternal criticism should be, but have served as a damper on the struggle. It appears that you underestimate the struggle against the American opportunists. Indeed, over the last period you have floated informally to us and in fact urged upon us insistently, if in an offhand manner, a number of theses directed against the polemical struggle against the opportunists.
(A) First of all, you began by opposition to the struggle against the forces that might roughly be called "centrist." You began to express opposition to our polemics on the occasion of the publishing of the article "How to Advance the Struggle Against Social-Chauvinism" in The Workers' Advocate of February, 1978. This article began the open polemical struggle against the "obstacles in the struggle against social-chauvinism," that is, against what might be called "centrism." You opposed the attack in this article on "idealist anti-revisionism." With respect to our pamphlet Reply to the Open Letter of the MLOC, you advocated that the only issue on which this miserable sect of "Klonskyites without Klonsky," the MLOC should be openly opposed on was on vacillation on certain theses of "three worlds-ism." According to your view of the time, only open "three worlds-ism" or direct vacillation should be attacked. Nor did our pamphlet Why did the "RCP, USA" Split? of March, 1978 meet with your approval. Picking out this or that issue, you also opposed it. Under one pretext or other you opposed all the attacks on what might be called the "centrist forces."
(B) From opposition to the struggle against what might be called the "centrist" forces, you passed over to reconsidering your stand on our struggle against the open social-chauvinists and "three worlders." You advocated to us insistently that the issue was that we should not be opposing the local American opportunists in public polemics at all, but dealing with international issues. In your view, these two things were two mutually exclusive categories which you counterposed to each other. This you advocated to us as a matter of principle. On this question you have informally but very sternly floated to us a number of different theses, which however all agree with each other in counterposing the struggle against the domestic opportunists to the question of the international struggle against revisionism; and counterposing the struggle against revisionism to the elaboration of Marxism-Leninism and the defense of its purity.
It should be recalled that at the end of 1976 our two organizations agreed, on your suggestion, to a certain tactical coordination in the struggle against Chinese revisionism. You were to openly take on the Chinese revisionists, while we were to refrain from openly attacking them and to instead continue the attack on the domestic social-chauvinists (Klonskyites and co.). Of course, in attacking the domestic social-chauvinists we did not refrain from sharply attacking the "three worlds" theory, nor did we refrain from, at the proper time, passing over to the open attack on the Chinese revisionists themselves. The tactics you suggested were very successful and we have to this day been very satisfied with the results of this temporary tactic suggested by you. But naturally, the proposal of such a tactic even temporarily means that it could not be a principle to not attack the domestic opportunists. Today of course we continue to attack openly both the domestic opportunists and the Chinese revisionists (and other international revisionist and opportunist trends).
For that matter, the CPC(M-L) made a number of suggestions to us in 1976 and 1977 in regard to attacking the Klonskyites. We enthusiastically took up various suggestions from the CPC(M-L) concerning this struggle and to this day have been very happy with the results and with the wisdom of the original suggestions.
Nevertheless, later on you made it into a principle that it is a mistake to deal with the domestic opportunists. Most recently, you have retracted the absolute opposition to such attacks. (Naturally it is impossible in practice to refuse to attack the opportunists over a long period of time -- the issue is thus how the opportunists are attacked. There can be good polemics and there can be miserable polemics, but without committing suicide it is not possible to avoid all polemics.) But you still have maintained to us that such attacks should have a certain very restricted role, that they should only expose certain misdeeds of the opportunists, with the idea of the misdeeds of the opportunists or their role apparently regarded rather narrowly. Thus you still counterpose the polemics against the domestic opportunists to articles on international issues and to the elaboration of Marxism-Leninism.
(C) You have also opposed the slogan "Build the Marxist-Leninist Party Without the Social-Chauvinists and Against the Social-Chauvinists." (But you waited until we had gone public with this slogan to oppose it, although we had consulted with you ahead of time.) You have opposed this slogan so vehemently that you have let it get in the way of giving public support to our campaign to found the Marxist-Leninist Party of the USA. You have opposed the slogan by the means of counterposing the struggle against the opportunists to the other work in building the Party. You have gone to the extreme of insisting that the slogan of "Build the Marxist-Leninist Party Without the Social-Chauvinists and Against the Social-Chauvinists" is in fact in your view a manifestation of Chinese revisionism and the Chinese revisionist type of "two-line struggle." It is hard for us to express our sheer astonishment at seeing that our struggle against revisionism is denounced as a manifestation of the ideology of Chinese revisionism. Our denunciation of Chinese revisionism and Mao Zedong Thought and of its theory of "two (or many) headquarters in the party" is not that it fights revisionism too hard, but that it conciliates revisionism and is opposed to the principled struggle against revisionism. The errors and monstrous crimes of the Chinese revisionists did not stem from fighting revisionism too hard or from issuing too many public polemics against Khrushchovite revisionism. The Chinese revisionists did not fail to take a sound Marxist-Leninist stand because they were too busy waging a polemical struggle. On the contrary, the failure of the Chinese to wage a stern, consistent, protracted struggle against the Khrushchovite revisionists, including the open polemical struggle, was and is one of the glaring manifestations of their failure to base themselves on the sound, principled positions of Marxism-Leninism. It was one of the manifestations of their failure to defend the purity of Marxism-Leninism. The theory of Mao Zedong of the "many headquarters in the party" was not a theory to justify fighting too hard against revisionism, but a theory to justify a liberal, conciliationist, social-democratic and nonchalant stand towards the defense of the purity of Marxism-Leninism, the defense of the monolithic unity of the party and the stern, unyielding struggle against the modern revisionists.
All these transcendental principles against the polemical struggle that you have urged us to follow were based on two things:
(a) counterposing one thing to another, the struggle against the domestic opportunists to the struggle on the burning international issues, the polemical struggle to the elaboration of Marxism-Leninism, the struggle against opportunism to the struggle for the building and strengthening of the party, and so forth; and
(b) an underestimation of the struggle against opportunism in the U.S., an underestimation based on general, abstract, high-sounding principles and devoid of a serious, detailed consideration of the struggle here, which is brushed off in an offhand manner.
It is our view that these principles that you are urging on us would amount to, if taken to their logical conclusion and followed consistently, conciliation. We have expressed this assessment to you previously. We believe that your act of selling the rights of the book by Palacios to the "RCP,USA'' is a verification of the accuracy of our views on the general direction in which the principles you are urging on us can lead, if taken to their logical conclusion, if errors are allowed to grow.
IV
The selling of the rights to the Palacios book to the "RCP,USA" is also a tactical blunder when regarded front the point of view of the international struggle in general and not just that in North America.
First of all, we wish to stress that time has shown that the polemics we launched against the domestic American opportunists were well-chosen and did raise the burning international issues. This has been verified to the extent that even the groups that we hit at proved to be of significance internationally. For example in 1979 it has become crystal clear to everyone that both the "RCP,USA" and the Barry Weisberg MLOC/"CPUSA(ML)" social-democratic sect, even when taken just in themselves, have their international significance and that the duty of the COUSML to protect the international Marxist-Leninist communist movement included our duty to sound the alarm against these groups. And it is also crystal clear that without public polemics no real alarm could be sounded to the international communist movement.
But more on the "RCP,USA.'' For some time and especially since the open condemnation of Mao Zedong Thought, an international trend has been attempting to form and crystallize itself. This trend or, to be more precise, jumble of forces trying to crystallize itself and align itself into a trend, can roughly be called "centrism." For convenience, we shall call these forces the "centrists" in the rest of this letter. This trend is not crystallized yet. And it is having great difficulties. Its ideological and theoretical poverty can be seen in that it has had to stoop to pick up the "RCP,USA,'' to begin an open alliance with the "RCP,USA," and so forth. On its part, the "RCP, USA" has seen its opening and is trying to make contacts in the international movement. The "RCP, USA" says that it is translating its "theoretical" works on Mao Zedong Thought and sending them internationally and it is quite happy to try to come out as the standard-bearer of this "trend."
By picking up the "RCP,USA" and rewarding it for its gangster-like anti-communist attacks on Comrade Enver Hoxha, the Party of Labor of Albania and Marxism-Leninism, the forces trying to form a centrist trend are committing a despicable act. Some of them may hypocritically insist on their loyalty to Albania, while standing on the platform next to the anti-Albanian gangsters of the "RCP,USA." But it is not enough to see that such acts are despicable. There is yet a further point of great importance tactically. And that point is that the alliance with the "RCP,USA" is also an act of great desperation for the centrists, that it leads them to the brink of a great fiasco and self-exposure, and that the "RCP. USA" is a weak link for this trend trying to crystallize itself.
We hold that the alliance of the centrists with the "RCP,USA" should indeed be made into a total fiasco for the centrists, that it should be used to throw this would-be trend into greater disorder.
Why is the "RCP,USA" a weak link?
--First of all, the "RCP,USA" is a "party" that has never done anything praiseworthy.
--The "RCP,USA" still holds to the "three worlds" theory. Furthermore, it admits that Mao Zedong is responsible for what it oh so delicately calls the "opening to the West" and for the allegedly good version of the "three worlds" theory. It also upholds most of the unofficial writings of Mao (except possibly Mao's interviews with John Service and similar material -- we shall see what stand the "RCP,USA" takes on them in the future).
--The centrists are using the "RCP,USA's" attacks on Albania for their own purposes, but the knife can be pointed in the other direction. The "RCP,USA's" nauseating attacks on Albania can be used to discredit centrism, especially now when many centrists are not yet prepared to come out into the open with all-out attacks on Albania.
--The "RCP,USA" is opposed in its own country by the dedicated Marxist-Leninists of the COUSML, who know the "RCP,USA" at close range and have the enthusiasm and the ability to strike heavy blows at them.
Thus at the present time an international condemnation of the "three worlds-ism" and the gangster-like attacks on Albania of the "RCP,USA" would put certain opportunist forces into disarray. It would give certain forces who have set foot on the dangerous inclined slope of centrism the maximum opportunity to reconsider this dangerous anti-Marxist path they have set out upon. But independently of what happens to the centrists or to any forces flirting with centrism, such a condemnation of the "RCP,USA" would give an impetus to the struggle against centrism.
But to sell the rights of the Palacios book to the "RCP,USA" and to underestimate the struggle of the COUSML against the "RCP,USA," instead of recognizing the significance of the fight against the "RCP,USA," amounts to:
--Taking the "RCP,USA" and its friends off the hook and to fail to go all out to fight the infiltration of the "RCP,USA" into the international movement as an allegedly legitimate force with the same rights and prestige as anyone else.
--Helping the "RCP, USA" to find a way to promote itself internationally, especially among certain forces in Latin America which are still considering the question of Mao Zedong Thought and which have respect for the RCP of Chile, although they do not presently follow the position of the RCP of Chile.
--Taking off the hook all those who, by allying with the "RCP,USA," are allying with one section of the "three worlders" allegedly against the other section.
--Shifting the point of attack to those forces among the centrists with more prestige and who may have accomplished some merit-worthy deeds in the past and w ho may indeed in some cases still not have revealed whether they will degenerate all the way or turn back. Thus it is shifting the attack away from the weak link of the centrists, a weak link which is completely black.
--Possibly to replace the denunciation of the "RCP,USA" with a premature precipitation of an open break with certain forces that should be allowed time to come to their senses, although (a) without refusing to fight their errors in the meantime; (b) without excessive expectations of change on their part; and (c) without ceasing the ideological clarification that is so vital at this time of confusion and disarray internationally -- indeed, this ideological work should be stepped up and for one thing the centrists should be stuck to the wall by condemning alliances with the "three worlders" like the "RCP, USA," while at the same time the ideological clarification of all the issues related to Mao Zedong Thought, Chinese revisionism, etc., should be stepped up. Here we stress that it is not a matter of benevolence towards certain forces, of softness, but of not artificially inciting the struggle, and of instead patiently, coolheadedly leading the struggle onto the right path. It is also a matter that certain forces should be forced to expose their own dark acts by being in front of the whole world the author of the split between themselves and the Marxist-Leninists -- this is a matter of tactics, but this tactic may also be interwoven with matters of principle, especially in regard to a proper attitude towards certain forces whose destiny may not yet be determined.
--This concludes our exposition of some of the issues involved in the sale of the rights of the book by Palacios to the "RCP,USA." We have written this letter because we wish to resolve this issue and to strengthen the relations between our two Parties.
Deepest communist regards,
Joseph Green, for the
National Executive Committee
Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninist
December 5, 1979
To:
The National Committee of the Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninist
Dear Comrades;
We are enclosing our letter addressed to Joseph Green who claims that he speaks "for the" National Executive Committee of the Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninists. As you study our letter, our views regarding the matters raised by Joseph Green for his purposes of disrupting the extremely warm and profound relations which exist between the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) and the Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninists will become clear to you.
More than two years ago, we communicated to COUSML that, "Some of you are behaving like imperialist gangsters." We are firmly convinced that Joseph Green is one such individual. Such individuals have no place in the ranks of the genuine Marxist-Leninists, let alone in any kind of leadership position.
We are writing this note to you to firmly condemn the imperialist gangster and agent-provocateur activities of Joseph Green and to call upon you to firmly repudiate the provocations which he has organized against our Party through the concoction of various lies and slanders. At the same time, we propose that a meeting of the delegation of the National Committee of the Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninists and the delegation of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) should take place at the soonest possible time. Until such a meeting can be convened, the CC of CPC(M-L) cannot accept your invitation to send a delegation to your Preparatory Conference for the Founding of the Marxist-Leninist Party, USA, or to the Founding Congress of the MLP,USA. Furthermore, we will not participate in any meeting which will include Joseph Green or in any meeting where any provocations are organized against our Party.
We urge you to pay serious attention to our proposal and inform us at the earliest possible time of your response.
With sincere greetings,
Central Committee, CPC(M-L),
December 5, 1979.
[Photo: Photo of the Letter of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) to the National Committee of the Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninists, December 5,1979.]
December 5, 1979
(Page 1.)
To:
Joseph Green
"For the" National Executive Committee Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninists
We have received the letter dated December 1, 1979, which you have written "for the" National Executive Committee of the Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninists. This letter was received by us on December 3, 1979.
We have studied the contents of your letter seriously and thoroughly and we differ with you on every point. We will begin making our reply to this letter from the first sentence of the first paragraph and we will carry on sentence-by-sentence to the end of the fourth and final paragraph of page one, as well as deal with the entire letter in the second and third part of our reply. Our detailed reply will conclusively show that we stand on unshakeable Marxist-Leninist positions and that we are firm proletarian internationalists and that our Party stands for the further strengthening of the unity between the CPC(M-L) and the COUSML on the basis of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism. We will also clearly show that your views are not Marxist-Leninist. Nay more, these views are designed to damage the relations between CPC(M-L) and COUSML. We are keeping our comments brief because of the urgency with which we feel is necessary to reply to this letter and because of the lack of time. The COUSML is soon going to found the Marxist-Leninist Party, USA and we firmly believe that the new Marxist-Leninist Party in the USA will be established on a really firm foundation only if the political and ideological ideas and views you are presenting are thoroughly repudiated and denounced by the Founding Congress. As you yourself state: "We hold that true friends are not those who sit still or who even applaud while errors are made, but those who have the deep love required to tell the truth even if it is unpleasant." Naturally, this is the sole sentence in your entire letter with which we cannot really quibble, as far as the sentence itself is concerned. But let us "tell the truth" to you, "even if it is unpleasant", which is that you are not our true friend, because you are concocting lies to support your base and outlandish theses against our Party. Because you are lying, you have to be demagogic and use high-falutin phrases, of which this sentence we have quoted is but merely one example.
1. You open your letter with a lot of sinister demagogy: "Our two parties are fighters in the same trench against imperialism, revisionism and all sorts of opportunism." What does this mean? This is the lowest form of trickery with which your letter is filled and this concretely shows that you are two-faced. On the one hand, "our two parties are fighters in the same trench against imperialism, revisionism and all sorts of opportunism" while, on the other hand, you write that "it (CPC(M-L)) shows an extreme underestimation of the struggle against opportunism in the U.S." Your treacherous and lying behaviour goes so far as to suggest that CPC(M-L) advocates the "United front with the 'three-worlders'." You then persist in slandering our Party with the wild accusations that "you began by opposition to the struggle against the forces that might roughly be called 'centrist'... From opposition to the struggle against what might be called the 'centrist' forces, you passed over to reconsidering your stand on our struggle against the open social-chauvinists and 'three-worlders'... You have also opposed the slogan 'Build the Marxist-Leninist Party without the Social-Chauvinists and Against the Social-Chauvinists'." Only a shameless liar can attribute such lines to our Party and, in the same breath, still write the nonsense that, "Our two parties are fighters in the same trench against imperialism, revisionism and all sorts of opportunism." If you were a true friend of our Party, then you would not have concocted these disgraceful lies, degenerated to the level of agent- provocateur and attempted to involve our Party in the well-known and infamous U.S. imperialist "Have you stopped beating your wife?" technique. Only a sworn enemy of our Party and the International Marxist-Leninist Communist Movement can accuse our Party of such heinous crimes!
2. You then write: "We have gone through thick and thin together." How does it follow that "we have gone through thick and thin together" when you are accusing our Party of not only advocating "united front with the 'three-worlders'" but also many other such concocted charges besides? It can only be that while you have been waging struggle against "imperialism, revisionism and all sorts of opportunism", which is "thick", and while we have been telling you to conciliate with "imperialism, revisionism and all sorts of opportunism", which is "thin", and that is an excellent example of going "through thick and thin together." This is demagogy and treachery and nothing else. It is true that while CPC(M-L) and COUSML are "fighters in the same trench against imperialism, revisionism and all sorts of opportunism" and "have gone through thick and thin together", and are still doing so today, that this cannot be said about you. You have concocted every sort of slander and lie against our Party and you are using demagogy to hide your sinister aim of poisoning the warm and profound fraternal relationship which exists between the CPC(M-L) and COUSML.
(Page 2)
3. Furthermore, you write: "And this is not surprising in the least." For anyone who merely peruses your letter in a cursory manner it will, indeed, be "surprising" that CPC(M-L) which is being accused of "united front with the 'three-worlders'" and stopping COUSML from fighting "American opportunism", and so on and so forth, can at the very same time be in the same "trench" and going "through thick and thin together". It will be surprising, to say the least.
4. Then follows the explanation as to why "our two parties are fighters in the same trench against imperialism, revisionism and all sorts of opportunism" and "have gone through thick and thin together", which "is not surprising in the least." Joseph Green writes: "The proletariat is an international class, and its parties in the individual countries are fighting contingents of the one international party of communism, of the International Marxist-Leninist Communist Movement." This is an intellectualist balderdash to cover up the entire history of the fraternal relations between COUSML (and before it, the American Communist Workers Movement) and CPC(M-L) (and before it, the Internationalists) which have been based on Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism. These relations began with working closely together in an all-sided manner and sharing weal and woe, and it is during this "past period" that a repeated attempt has been made to disrupt the extremely close and fraternal relations, this poison pen letter by you being the latest example. This intellectualist hyperbole is dished out for the purposes of insinuating that there is nothing whatsoever between the CPC(M-L) and COUSML, no history and no common struggle, all with the ulterior motive of rewriting this history and disrupting the relations between CPC(M-L) and COUSML.
5. You assert: "The norms and relations between these contingents are regulated by the principles of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism." But what are these "norms and relations" in concrete terms? To concoct lies and spread slanders against a fraternal Marxist-Leninist party as you have done against our Party? Are these the "norms and relations" which you have in mind? You are using these phrases for demagogic purposes to mystify your real objectives of disrupting the relations between CPC(M-L) and COUSML. There can be no other reason for this sophistry.
6. Now, here comes your own peculiar analysis which is diametrically opposite to the analysis of our Party. We tell you "even if it is unpleasant" that we are not in agreement with this analysis, that we are not with you in the same "trench" and that we are not nor will we ever go "through thick and thin together" with you or anyone else on this or any other anti-Leninist and opportunist position. And this should not be "surprising" to you "in the least." You write: "Today the International Marxist-Leninist Communist Movement is under tremendous attack from imperialism, revisionism and opportunism" and, later on, you become really wild and declare without any sense of shame that it is in "confusion and disarray". As far as the International Marxist-Leninist Communist Movement being "under tremendous attack from imperialism, revisionism and opportunism", this is nothing new, because "imperialism, revisionism and opportunism" have always attacked the International Communist Movement right from the period of Lenin to date. But what is sinister about your phrase-mongering is that there is something which you are not telling us, which is that the International Marxist-Leninist Communist Movement has made and is making great and ever- fresh advances in the historic struggle against imperialism, social-imperialism and all reaction and against revisionism and opportunism of all hues. The resolute and implacable stand of the glorious Party of Labour of Albania and the genuine Marxist-Leninist parties and our vigorous opposition to modern revisionism in all its dangerous variants, against Chinese revisionism and "Mao Zedong Thought" and against Khrushchovite, Titoite, "Euro-Communist" and others and in the courageous defence of Marxism-Leninism and the cause of the revolution and socialism is the proof. The revolutionary struggles of the proletariat and people for their genuine social and national liberation are mounting and growing stronger and this is the proof. Our Party correctly analyzes that the genuine Marxist-Leninist parties are growing stronger and steeling themselves in the titanic struggle against imperialism, social-imperial- ism and all reaction and against revisionism and opportunism of all hues, which is also the case with our Party. The great and historic struggle for the revolution and socialism, despite the set-backs and betrayals of the modern revisionists, the enemy of the proletariat and peoples of the world, are forging ahead and will certainly triumph on a world scale. All these tenacious achievements you are denouncing as "confusion and disarray" and you one-sidedly highlight the set-backs to the revolutionary movement at the hands of the revisionists and opportunists of all hues in the most disparaging terms to the genuine Marxist-Leninist parties, especially to the PLA and Comrade Enver Hoxha and to the International Marxist-Leninist Communist Movement on the world scale. We have our analysis and you have your own peculiar analysis that the "International Marxist-Leninist Communist Movement is under tremendous attack from imperialism, revisionism and opportunism" and there is a great and insurmountable gulf in-between. Your peculiar analysis is empty phrase-mongering, while your real motive is to attack the International Marxist-Leninist Communist Movement
(Page 3)
which you denounce as being in "confusion and disarray". It is you who are really in "confusion and disarray" and your provocative letter against CPC(M-L) is one of the real examples of your chaotic state. You are spreading pessimism, gloom and a siege mentality because you are kow-towing and capitulating under the imperialist-revisionist pressure, and have gone over to their side.
7. Hard on the heels of this peculiar analysis emerges the Second Coming of the well-known and notorious theory of American exceptionalism of the American revisionist and anti-Marxist Browder, which is being peddled by this little Messiah who is so much against "American opportunism". Yes, we will tell you this with "the deep love required to tell the truth even if it is unpleasant." Your gem begins: "Both internationally in general and in North America in particular the imperialists and revisionists are attempting to surround the proletariat and the Marxist-Leninist parties with a ring of fire." Now, our little Moses has finally found his burning bush and all has been revealed unto him. Just imagine the America-the-beautiful phrase, "both internationally in general and in North America in particular..." What utter shamelessness! "...the imperialists and revisionists are attempting to surround the proletariat and the Marxist-Leninist parties with a ring of fire" -- and, of course, this is only an "attempt" -- "internationally in general and in North America in particular" -- and, of course, the imperialists and revisionists have simply forgotten about the Party of Labour of Albania with Comrade Enver Hoxha at the head and the People's Socialist Republic of Albania, the only genuinely socialist country in the world. They are not at all "particular" about crushing Socialist Albania with a savage imperialist-revisionist encirclement, but they are "particular" about surrounding the "proletariat and the Marxist-Leninist parties" "in North America". These are the chosen targets of the wrath of the imperialists and revisionists. Imperialism and revisionism, of course, are not "particular" about Iran, Spain, Portugal, Nicaragua, Ireland, and so on. They are only "particular" about North America. Is this not the reduplication of the old and discredited Daya Varma theory which is now being pushed by these American chauvinists? Daya Varma asserted that Afro-Asians are more revolutionary than North Americans. Now you imply that North Americans are more revolutionary than anyone else, and the proof of this theory of American exceptionalism is your chauvinist concoction that "both internationally in general and in North America in particular the imperialists and revisionists are attempting to surround the proletariat and the Marxist-Leninist parties with a ring of fire." Our Party is also a genuine Marxist-Leninist party which exists in North America, along with the genuine Marxist-Leninist forces in the USA and Mexico. Not for a minute does our Party believe that imperialism and revisionism is so "particular" about the "proletariat and the Marxist-Leninist parties" in North America. Genuine Marxist-Leninist parties, the parties of revolution and socialism, which translate their words into deeds, inspire mortal fear and terror in "imperialism and revisionism" wherever they exist. Whether they are militating in Europe North America, Asia, Africa, Latin America or Oceania, it does not matter a whit for the capitalist-revisionist world and they have surrounded "the proletariat and the Marxist-Leninist parties with a ring of fire", which we correctly call "imperialist and revisionist encirclement" and from which all the genuine Marxist-Leninist parties and Socialist Albania under the leadership of the PLA with Comrade Enver Hoxha at the head are resolutely organizing to break out through revolution and socialism. Joseph Green even goes further, later on, whereby for him the sole struggle against "imperialism and revisionism" is the struggle against the "RCP,USA", the so-called "weak link" in the centrist trend and to curse and damn our Party for not supporting this "struggle" of his! What a shameless American chauvinist!
8. Here is pontification of the basest kind: "The 'three-worlders' and the international opportunist trend of Chinese revisionism are occupying one of the advance posts in the ring of fire." What does this reactionary chauvinist lecturing mean? It means that we should also follow you down your reactionary freeway of American exceptionalism which you have lit up with these concoctions that "Chinese revisionism... (is) occupying one of the advance posts in this ring of fire." How profound this sounds, but it is empty and has nothing in it. It is a typical example of an empty vessel making much noise. Chinese revisionism, along with revisionism and opportunism of all hues, is the sworn enemy of the revolution and socialism, Marxism-Leninism, and the freedom and peace of the peoples of the world. But you are using scare-crow tactics to divide the genuine Marxist- Leninist parties from taking up the historic task of proletarian revolution for solution in their own countries and vigorously and resolutely fighting hard against imperialism, social-imperialism and all reaction and against revisionism and opportunism of all hues. Your scare-crow does not scare anyone. It only makes you feel oh so clever that your head, without any respect whatsoever for the International Marxist-Leninist Communist Movement, your so- called "one international party of communism", is able to conjure up these peculiar theses and float them without any sense of shame, all the while accusing others of "united front with the 'three-worlders' " to cover up your sinister tracks.
9. Here is the crux of the matter: The struggle of the Marxist-Leninist
(Page 4)
against Chinese revisionism, 'three-worldism' and so forth requires the closest international cooperation and the most serious and sober estimation." This is yet another concoction from your head. It is not just the "struggle of the Marxist-Leninists against Chinese revisionism, 'three-worldism' and so forth" which "requires the closest international cooperation and the most serious and sober estimation", but it is first and foremost the unity based on the principles of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism against imperialism, social-imperialism and all reaction and against revisionism and opportunism of all hues and in the defence of the purity of Marxism-Leninism and the principles of proletarian internationalism and for the triumph of the revolution and socialism. Your logic is two-faced. Thus, if you are denounced by our Party for only highlighting "Chinese revisionism, 'three-worldism' and so forth", then, you can, of course, beat your breasts and scream blue murder that all along you really meant the struggle against imperialism, social-imperialism and all reaction and against revisionism and opportunism of all hues. But you do not mean this at all and you will not be able to squirm and wriggle out of the sentence you have written which we have quoted above.
10. Now, after preparing the terrain with the mission of slandering CPC(M-L) for "united front with the 'three-worlders' ", you take your pants down and show the most ugly features of an agent-provocateur. No-one who has even the most elementary sincerity and honesty would do such a perfidious thing to their "dear fraternal comrades" for whom the "deepest communist regards" are presented. Here is the criminal big lie on which the entire thesis of this Joseph Green is built up against CPC(M-L): "Thus, we were astonished by the recent action of the CPC(M-L) in selling the rights to the book by Jorge Palacios entitled Chile: An Attempt at Historic Compromise to the utterly corrupt and rotten to the core American neo-revisionist and 'three-worlder' sect known as the so-called 'Revolutionary Communist Party of the U.S.A.' " Here the tricks of the entire lying trade have been used by Joseph Green. This letter is dated December 1, 1979, which we received early on December 3, 1979. But a few days earlier, we received another letter also signed by Joseph Green "for the" National Executive Committee of the Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninists and dated November 29, 1979. In this previous letter, not a word was mentioned with regard to how "we were astonished...", and so on and so forth. But Joseph Green has a forked tongue. In this letter, he is "warmly invit(ing) the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) to send a small delegation" of "members of the Central Committee" and "composed of between one and three comrades" to attend the '"Preparatory Conference for the Founding of the Marxist-Leninist Party, USA' " where, as he writes, "it will be possible to get a remarkable picture of the views, activities and tactics of the COUSML", and this letter also included "a fraternal invitation to attend the founding Congress of the MLP,USA." And this letter also stresses several times that this "possibility" of "get(ting) a remarkable picture" is uniquely available to CPC(M-L) because "no other organization is being invited" either to this conference or to their congress. The "remarkable view" is remarkable, indeed, that there will be at this Conference the "two parties" which "are fighters in the same trench against imperialism, revisionism and all sorts of opportunism", which "have gone through thick and thin together" and which "is not surprising in the least", because now CPC(ML) is "warmly" offered and it will even be made possible for it "to get a remarkable picture of the views, activities and tactics of the COUSML." And if this letter of December 1,1979, written by one Joseph Green "for the" National Executive Committee of COUSML is one of the "remarkable pictures of views, activities and tactics of the COUSML", then, of course, we are being invited to a real panoramic American treat of lies and slanders. America is so famous for it!
When a representative of COUSML was visiting our Party in Canada at the end of October and the beginning of November, we pointed out to him that the latest edition of the Workers' Advocate had an oblique attack against CPC(ML). He telephoned back to the USA. The authors were flabergasted, expressed "shock", and heatedly denied the accusation. We dropped the matter and said nothing more. But now, in less than a month, the attack resurfaces in this letter of December 1, 1979, with all its attendant fire and brimstone. Their "shock" was nothing more than sheer dismay at being caught out so fast. This further shows the two-faced nature and double-dealing method of the author of this vile provocation against our Party. In the same despicable style and manner, you have laid this charge against the Party of the "united front with the 'three worlders' ", and this accusation is here all consciously prepared with every trick of the lying trade in order to confuse the entire matter and camouflage your aim of disrupting the warm and profound relations between CPC(M-L) and COUSML.
Here are the facts of the case. In the early-August-- mid-September period, that is, between August 4th and before September 15th, a publishing company in Chicago, named Banner Press, negotiated with People's Canada Publishing House to purchase the English-language translation of Chile: An attempt at Historic Compromise. These entire negotiations were carried out by the staff of People's Canada Publishing House and the contract was signed and sealed and the entire transaction was carried out. Just after the contract was signed and the trans-
(Page 4a)
action completed, the leadership of the Party found out about it and immediately denounced it. This is a matter of historical record. But the transaction had already been carried through. Furthermore, the Central Committee met on September 15, 1979, and, among other things, decided to stop the publishing of ANCHA or any other materials for the International Commission of the Central Committee of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Chile. This decision of the CC of CPC(M-L) that our Party was unable to provide any further financial or technical assistance at this time was duly communicated to this International Commission. It was not known at that time that the RCP of Chile was in touch with the "RCP, USA", nor that the tour of Jorge Palacios from the platform of the "RCP,USA" was being organized, nor did the staff at PCPH know that they were dealing with the "RCP,USA" when they were negotiating with this Banner Press of Chicago. Furthermore, our Party proposed in some detail to the representatives of COUSML on October 9 that COUSML should launch an open attack on the RCP of Chile and Jorge Palacios for his hobnobbing in the US with "the utterly corrupt and rotten to the core American neo-revisionist and 'three worlder' sect known as the so-called 'Revolutionary Communist Party of the USA'", and develop this attack into a political and ideological offensive against the entire centrist trend which had already crystallized around the "defence of 'Mao Zedong Thought" and the "contributions" of Mao Zedong, under the mask of their so-called "opposition" to Chinese revisionism and the notorious theory of "three worlds", the offspring of Mao Zedong Thought". We offered every political and ideological assistance to the American Marxist-Leninists to develop this offensive within the USA which we estimated would highly contribute to the defence of the monolithic unity of the International Marxist- Leninist Communist Movement and its common political and ideological line based on Marxist-Leninist principles. We offered to do this with the purest proletarian internationalist sentiment even at the expense of disrupting our existing programmes. But COUSML did not agree with this proposal. While Palacios was stomping around the USA as the fraternal guest of this "utterly corrupt and rotten to the core American neo-revisionist and 'three-worlder' sect known as the so-called "Revolutionary Communist Party of the USA'", you were satisfying yourself with a concealed attack on the RCP of Chile about whom you have "the most serious and sober estimation" because as you yourself write, "we are in no hurry to come to a final conclusion on the RCP of Chile" ad nauseum. Instead of launching a fierce attack on this entire centrist alliance which is the creature of imperialism and social-imperialism, you have launched this dastardly provocation against
(Page 5)
our Party. The sale of the English-language translation became "selling the rights to the book", which only Palacios himself can sell, and no-one else, and by the "fact" of this deal negotiated by the individual staff of the PCPH it now becomes the conscious policy of CPC(M-L) which under-estimates the struggle against "American opportunism" and, thus, by the sleight of hand, CPC(M-L) has been put into bed with the "three-worlders". Your"dear fraternal comrades" for whom you have the "deepest communist regards" are in bed with the opportunists -- even though only once! What two-faced and shameless behaviour! Both in theory and practice, our Party has consistently and resolutely fought against the united front with revisionism and opportunism of all hues and firmly upheld the hegemony of the proletariat and its Marxist-Leninist Party in the proletarian revolution and it scarely needs mentioning that CPC(M-L) has never advocated such a line. But you provocateur dish out this straightforward, unadulterated lie and shamelessly peddle it. We can only reserve our utter contempt for you and tell you so "even when it is unpleasant."
11. Having presented in your puffed-up manner the first lie, now you begin to weave your web. You write: "This act damaged the struggle against the 'RCP,USA' ". Which act are you talking about? Your criminal act of concocting this white lie against CPC(M-L) is certainly damaging the "struggle against the "RCP,USA" Or, are you talking about your kid-glove, soft and lovable attitude towards Jorge Palacios and your refusal to take an open and direct stand against the criminal and counter-revolutionary activities of Palacios and his host? They did not stop even for a moment to think about totally disregarding you in carrying out this adventure and they did not think twice before creating the provocation at the 3rd International Marxist-Leninist and Revolutionary Youth Festival in El Salar in Spain in mid-August. Nor did they pay any attention to you when they were writing slanderous letters to our Party (which were shown to the representative of COUSML at the beginning of November) and so on and so forth. They are casting mud and heaping every abuse on the genuine Marxist-Leninist and revolutionary forces, but you are so nice to these agent-provocateurs because you yourself have degenerated to the level of creating provocations against your "dear fraternal comrades" for whom you have "deep communist regards". You knew very well, as we explained to the COUSML representative at some length, that because of our fraternal relations with the RCP of Chile, we could not attack the International Commission including Palacios publicly. Thus, we carried the struggle prudently and worked out a tactic for this, until such time as the RCP of Chile breaks relations with our Party publicly, or we decide to do so. But you were free to act and yet refused to do so. Instead, you created this provocation against our Party which you are claiming is with you "in the same trench". Which trench is that? We will never agree to be in the same trench with some-one who has his guns cocked not at the enemy but against us, just "to tell (you) the truth even (though) it is unpleasant". We have never for a minute united with our enemies, not even once, and we could never even think of doing such a thing in a million years. You swear you are "astonished''but it is we who are astonished at your 180-degree turn against our Party. From being the Party which is leading in North America, CPC(M-L) now "underestimates the struggle against American opportunism". What a fraud!
12. Then, you blithely claim that "it helped pave the way to the U.S. tour by Jorge Palacios on the 'RCP, USA' platform". First concoct the lie, then keep on repeating it. This is the sinister style of a provocateur. We will repudiate your lie as many times as you repeat it. We neither sold "the rights to the book ... to the utterly corrupt and rotten to the core American neo-revisionist and 'three-worlder' sect known as the so-called 'Revolutionary Communist Party if the U.S.A.'", nor did this "act damaged the struggle against the 'RCP,USA'", and it certainly did not "help(ed) pave the way to the U.S. tour by Jorge Palacios on the 'RCP,USA' platform." Only an idiot could think of such a thing. And Joseph Green and whosoever supports him are such idiots.
13. "Furthermore, the selling of the rights to this book was carried out without consultation with us." It is truly amazing what this book has done! Here you are shameless to the extreme. You very well know as the Party informed the representatives of COUSML that the "selling" of the English-language translation of Palacios' book "was carried out" even "without consultation" with the leading organs of the Party and as soon as the NEC found it to be the case, this entire transaction was criticized and denounced. Thus, because the Party did not know about it, there was no question whatsoever of our Party having consultation with COUSML. The COUSML full well knows and all sincere and honest Marxist-Leninists who comprise COUSML well know that our Party is always eager to have consultation and mutual support and firmly stands for revolutionary co-operation and that only the agents of the blackest reaction could level such a heinous slander against our Party.
(Page 6)
14. Now, the tempo of this lying crusade gains momentum. "Indeed, it was carried out without even notifying us." You have a great deal of difficulty even remembering what has been told to you because your charges have ulterior motivation and for this reason you are carrying on this provocation against the Party. The question of "notifying" you could only have arisen if any of the central organs of the Party had participated in this transaction with Banner Press. Your raving is based on quick-sand, and not on fact.
15. Thus, you sink lower and lower. "It in fact a- mounted to a violation of the most elementary norms of fraternal relations between parties." What unbridled arrogance and utter shamelessness! To concoct lies and keep on repeating them are the norms which you are trying to impose on us. We reject such norms a hundred and a million times and in the future we would reject such norms even more times. Joseph Green who is writing this provocation against our Party is such a shameless liar and a two-faced character that it is you who not follow even "the most elementary norms of fraternal relations between parties," that, if they had sincerely felt that CPC(M-L) had gone to bed with 'RCP,USA", you or another representative of COUSML could have come to Canada, which is not too far from the United States of America, and verified the facts before venting your spleen against our Party. But you did not do so. Nor did you inquire verbally at the time of the visit of your last delegation, or by telephone, or through correspondence. And your diatribe written "for the" National Executive Committee of COUSML which is based on straightforward lies does not mention even once throughout the entire letter as to what should be done about this matter, as to what you practically propose. This is the reactionary style and gangster logic of the Chinese revisionists who sought to peddle various so-called technical reasons as their "excuse" to justify their savage attack on socialist Albania when they tore up the agreements on trade and loans in July, 1978, and you are following in their footsteps by inventing such reasons as the so-called "selling" of the translation of Palacios' book as the "reason" to prove that CPC(M-L) is in league with "American opportunism". So much for your "norms" as well as your demagogic nonsense of "the building and strengthening of our cooperation require that the problems that emerge be dealt with straightforwardly, calmly and openly, they must be looked squarely in the face." Is this invented slander and the provocation you have created the model example of looking at "the problems that emerge" "squarely in the face"? No, it is not the example because you are neither Marxist-Leninist nor proletarian internationalist and are afraid of mutual consultation on the Marxist-Leninist basis. As we will show later, it is an attempt to provide "facts" for the anti-Leninist posturing of Joseph Green.
16. Finally, the bone you are chewing has been spit out. Because our Party has, in fact, "straightforwardly, calmly and openly" expressed certain opinions concerning the content of the political and ideological line of COUSML and their tactics, this Joseph Green has replied to our criticism with the villainous accusation that our Party "shows an extreme underestimation of the struggle against opportunism in the U.S." When you could not refute our principled criticisms on the basis of upholding the Marxist-Leninist political and ideological line "straightforwardly, calmly and openly", you have degenerated to agent- provocateur activity as was shown late this summer when one of your representatives in a discussion with the representatives of our Party could only whimper in response that "we do not let him speak' '. This feeble whimpering was his maneouvre to create a calculated diversion away from the argument of our Party on the question. Now, we have received the "reply" for these erroneous views which are being enshrined as the "remarkable picture of the views, activities and tactics of COUSML".
17. Your two-faced nature and double-dealing method against our Party is further revealed when you next write: "Therefore, in the interests of strengthening the relations between our two Parties and of strengthening the struggle against Chinese revisionism we are writing you this protest against the selling of the rights to the book by Palacios to the 'RCP, USA"'. Now, Joseph Green who is writing "for the" National Executive Committee has become "we are writing you..." Which will it be? Thus, their proposal is that our Party should actually "strengthen the relations" with the authors of this provocation by accepting this "When did you last beat your wife?" imperialist technique. Far from submitting to it, we denounce it with passion and without any reservation and we urgently call upon the National Committee of the COUSML to put an end to this provocation against our Party, at once. This individual(s) has reduced the fraternal relations between our two Parties to the "struggle against Chinese revisonism". Then, this hoax of "selling the rights" is used to brow-beat us and, proceeding from this criminal slander, even more are added in this letter for the purposes of completely falsifying our Marxist-Leninist viewpoints and stands. But this house of cards you are building on the basis of this false and criminal slander only serves to better expose you as anti- Marxist, deviationist and opportunist. Underneath your pomposity about "strengthening relations" you have exposed that you do not even recognize "American
(Page 7)
opportunism". You only recognize "neo-revisionism" as the "American expression" of Chinese revisionism in the United States which is distortion of the entire historical revisionist and opportunist trend and the facts on your part. Not only that you do not recognize "American opportunism" but your perfidy is such that you have gone to the extent of accusing CPC(M-L) of "damaging" your "struggle", and so on and so forth.
18. Having reduced the relations of our two Parties to this level, you carry on with your demagogy. "We stand for strengthening the relations between our two Parties." Do you really? What does this mean in concrete terms? Is this putrid and foul letter of December 1, 1979, a model example of your windbaggery of your "stand for strengthening the relations between our two Parties"? With such a stand of "strengthening", you do not need any wreckers, splitters or disruptors at all. These "strengtheners" will amply do the job for you.
19. Then yet another shameless and demagogic example of "American exceptionalism" with which you want to bedazzle us. "We believe that the cooperation of our Parties in the struggle against imperialism and revisionism has great significance for North America". You can believe whatever you like because you are hell-bent on provocation, but the genuine and revolutionary cooperation between CPC (M-L) and the COUSML has inestimable significance everywhere for the struggle for revolution and socialism because, even according to you, the "proletariat is an international class..." Thus, our genuine and revolutionary cooperation has "great significance" to, just to repeat to you your words, the "one international party of communism, of the International Marxist-Leninist Communist Movement." But such is your peculiar analysis and exceptionalism that you want to carve out the proletariat of the United States and the proletariat of Canada and the proletariat of Mexico from the international proletariat and isolate and detach it from the struggle of the international proletariat against imperialism, social-imperialism and all reaction and against revisionism and opportunism of all hues. Our Party has always cherished and defended our mutual cooperation because we are fighters in the same struggle against a common enemy and we will do everything possible within our power to further develop this cooperation and all those who wish to smash this cooperation under the pretext of creating a private "Marxist-Leninist"movement of North America will come to no good end. We will always be united with all the genuine Marxist-Leninist parties of all lands on the basis of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism, and no other basis.
20. But you just shamelessly carry on and on. "But the building and strengthening of cooperation require that the problems and difficulties that emerge be dealt with straightforwardly, calmly and openly, they must be looked at square in the eye." We are always straightforward. It is you who are double-faced and shifty-eyed to boot. An opportunist and a coward never looks a Marxist-Leninist Party such as ours ''square in the eye". We would never be calm in the face of a dastardly provocation like yours but we will always be open and resolute in opposing this provocation. We do look at the problems squarely in the eye and what we see clearly is this ugly provocation which the National Committee of COUSML must put an end to at once.
21. But when you look at the provocation you are generating "in the eye", what do you find? "And the difficulties that have come up in this question of selling of the rights to the Palacios book involve a major tactical blunder as well as a violation of principles." It does not matter how many times you repeat this slanderous mumbo-jumbo over and over and over, we will oppose it and absolutely repudiate it the same number of times and many more again, if necessary. There was no "selling of the rights" by the Party and, therefore, no "major tactical blunder" nor any "violation of principles", either. Rather, it is you who have committed the "major tactical blunder" because you have stripped yourself bare so well and you should dip your face in a pan full of water for creating such a dirty and filthy slander against us.
22. Joseph Green throws up some more demagogic refuse as a cover for his provocation.''We hold that true friends are not those who sit still or even applaud while errors are made, but those who have the deep love to tell the truth even when it is unpleasant." When you have concocted such lies against our Party, then we resolutely hold that you are not "true friends" but false friends, provocateurs, and that you have as much "deep love" for our Party as the hangman for his victim. We tell you not to sing these hosannahs to us because your real deeds and practice as agent-provocateurs have been thoroughly exposed. Now, it is the duty and communist responsibility of the National Committee of the COUSML to thoroughly and severely deal with those responsible for this provocation against our Party and the fraternal relations between our two Parties. For this reason, we are also proposing an urgent meeting between the delegations of the CC of CPC(M-L) and the NC of COUSML at the earliest possible time. Because of the extremely serious and grave nature of these charges, this provocation must be ended before the Marxist-Leninist Party, USA is founded.
(Page 8)
Part Two
23. We will now repudiate some so-called "details" which this Joseph Green is raising. Thus far, we have resolutely repudiated your entire thesis and shown that it is based on straightforward lies and slander. We will further show that not only is the entire theses against CPC(M-L) based on a lie, but that other lies are piled up one on top of the other. The entire flimsy effort of this Joseph Green is to wriggle through an opening like the worm he is for the sole purposes of damning is, his "dear fraternal comrades" for whom he has the "deepest communist regards". Now, this Joseph Green, having gotten to the bottom of his first page of the December 1, 1979, letter, is putting on airs in a lofty manner and with his neck puffed up like a seasoned lizard, he asserts, "Now let us go into some details on the questions we are raising", as if he has "some details" and as if he is "raising" "the questions". This entire letter is orchestrated in this manner and constitutes a planned and calculated provocation in the nefarious style of the Chinese revisionists who presented themselves as "fraternal comrades" in words and with words of "love" and solidarity on their lips only to carry out the most vile and reactionary activities which cannot even be expected from our worst enemies.
Let us proceed and look at "some details on the questions' which this Joseph Green has so highhandedly promised to raise "for the" National Executive Committee of the Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninists.
24. Joseph Green has divided his December 1st letter into four parts following upon his introductory remarks. These remarks contained 23 sentences and we have repudiated them all, one-by-one. In Part One of his letter, Joseph Green does not, however, provide any further "details" but insistently re-asserts the same gems dashed out in the introduction such as the "selling of the rights to the book by Palacios to the 'RCP,USA' helped smooth the way to the Palacios tour of the U.S." Look at the smelly, slithering and slimy language of this charlatan - "helped smooth the way". This is to say that our Party deliberately decided to "help smooth the way"! This is the vilest slander yet to be dished out by this individual Joseph Green who has taken it upon himself to be the author of these provocations against our Party, as well as writing "for the..." that is, his collaborator or collaborators in this criminal deed against the genuine Marxist-Leninist forces organized in our Party and in COUSML. We ask: Why did it "help(ed) smooth the way"? Because, as he answers, "the fact that the rights to the Palacios book were in the hands of CPC(M-L) was an obstacle to the Palacios tour." This is an archetypical lie in the imperialist and Nixonian style. In order to prove his criminal thesis that it was the CPC(M-L) which "help(ed) smooth the way" to the collaboration between Palacios and the 'RCP, USA' arid his tour of the USA, Joseph Green had to concoct "the fact that the rights to the Palacios book were in the hands of CPC(M-L)". But facts are facts and the fact of the matter remains the same that the author of this book, Jorge Palacios, never gave up these "rights" to CPC(M-L). Not only this fact, but there are some more facts. The representative of the of the RCP of Chile who attended the historic Internationalist Rally of Marxist-Leninist Parties held in Montreal on April 30, 1978, at that time also asked COUSML to investigate the possibility of publishing this book in the USA. Furthermore, the representative of the International Commission of the RCP of Chile to the Sixth Consultative Conference of CPC(M-L) held between March 24-30 of this year, Pedro, informed our Party that the Chileans were looking for a publisher in the USA. Thus, CPC(M-L) had neither the "rights to the book by Palacios" nor was this "an obstacle to the Palacios tour". Both Palacios and Pedro from the International Commission of the CC of the RCP of Chile had fully decided on their perfidious and treacherous path against the International Marxist-Leninist Communist Movement for some time already. Our Party had fully briefed COUSML on these questions, the last briefing of which was given during the first week of November when the COUSML representative was shown the latest and most slanderous letter written to our Party by this same International Commission in response to the decision of our CC of September 15, 1979. But this Joseph Green is not so green a fellow: he is well aware of all the facts but he will not analyse them, because the analysis of these facts will shut him up forever, which he does not want to do. Thus, he created this provocation and has issued these wild and groundless charges against CPC(M-L) in order to cover up his own conciliation with this entire centrist trend which unfolded right under his nose across the USA this fall. His two-faced nature and base and criminal character is still further shown in the final paragraph on his Part One wherein, like the slimy worm he is, he raises this innuendo to slur the integrity of CPC(M-L). "And, furthermore, the CPC(M-L) puts itself in the
(Page 9)
apparent position of having worked with the 'RCP, USA', even though only on this transaction, even though for the present apparently neither the 'RCP, USA' nor you yourself wish to publicize this particular transaction." Then, we ask: why did you not do it, you smart-assed, two-faced character? You are charging us with all manner of vile things -- "By selling the rights, this thorn was removed", "a thorn in the sides of this alliance" because of "CPC (M-L)'s holding of the rights to the book", etc? Then, why couldn't you make it public? You couldn't make it public because you know quite well that our Party would have given you the fitting and proper reply. The fact that you even raise this innuendo and slur shows that you will go to any lengths to slander our Party and create provocations against it. Marxist-Leninists never make innuendos, only revisionists and opportunists. Our Party has a long-standing and proud history of opposing the revisionists and opportunists to the end and it is well-known that CPC(M-L) would never for a moment cooperate with them, not "even though only on this transaction". Rest assured that we will never let you forget this, not even for one minute.
Now we ask just who "help(ed) smooth the way to the Palacios tour of the U.S.? It is you, no-one else. It is you who are the guilty party and in order to whitewash your guilt, you are jumping up and down like the thief crying "stop thief!" And let us give you some more facts. After attending the Sixth Consultative Conference, Pedro travelled to the USA. To our surprise, he never contacted COUSML when he was there. We raised this question with you, but you did not take any action. You were extremely understanding about the question. Such magnanimity! Then our Party proposed to you to denounce Palacios while he was on his tour of the USA from the platform of the 'RCP,USA' and make life difficult for him and this entire international opportunist alliance of revisionists and opportunists posing as "genuine Marxist-Leninists". But no, you were satisfied with writing your concealed attack through your press which was more directed against CPC(M-L) than them, as your letter of December 1, 1979, has now fully exposed. Furthermore, you informed our Party that you will also be writing a private letter to the Chileans. It is very convenient for the Chileans and the common enemies of CPC(M-L) and COUSML for you to be sitting mum with your arms folded while they carry out their vicious activities unopposed against the genuine Marxist-Leninist and revolutionary forces, against the revolution and socialism. And now that they have carried out his entire jaunt through the USA, just who is it now that you are venting your spleen against? Against CPC(M-L) and while you and the Chileans think to wriggle away scot-free. But it is not us but you who are nailed with all the lies and slanders you have dished out against CPC (M-L) and you will never wriggle off this hook.
As far as your innuendo - "even though only on this transaction" - which you insinuate as the basis to justify your slur that CPC(M-L) has "worked with the 'RCP,USA'", you have totally exposed yourselves as being utterly devoid of principle and thoroughly treacherous. It has been the long-standing practice of the National Publications Centre that it would sell books, periodicals, etc. to anyone who so desires in the USA, or anywhere else for that matter. This practice is long-standing and well-known to you. Then, how is it that you are tearing your hair off at "this transaction" which was carried out by the staff at the Peoples Canada Publishing House, the transaction of selling the English-language translation of the Palacios book for a song to a publishing firm in Chicago? Many opportunist bookstores, as well as individuals, order books and periodicals from NPC. You have never once objected to this before. Then, why now and in this manner? It is because you are carrying out this dastardly provocation against our Party and are actually shielding Palacios and Pedro and the Chileans, exonerating them of responsibility, transferring the blame onto our shoulders. You are not only actively aiding and abetting them to carry on with their intriguing and conspiring against the International Marxist-Leninist Communist Movement but you have also concocted some pragmatic and opportunist theories to justify your colloborative activity, which we will deal with later on.
Thus, all the airy promise of providing "some details on the questions" has not been fulfilled in Part One except the regurgitation of the same base lie from your introduction, and then drawing your so- called conclusions from that which we totally reject and denounce with the contempt they deserve. Let us now see if "some details on the questions" are given in Part Two.
25. You raise the curtain on Part Two with the repetition of the same lie followed up by the accusation that this "transaction" was "carried out without consultations with us and indeed without even notifying us." Then, how did you find out about this "transaction"? "Finally, it came up in the discussions in early November between our two Parties because our delegate asked you a direct question about how the 'RCP,USA' got the rights to the book." Joseph Green is now really catching the colour of his bile by uttering such a big lie. Did you ask "your delegate" to ask "a direct question"? No, you did not do such a thing. Your delegate did not know anything about these questions.
(Page 10)
Let us first elaborate how your delegates behave. They have never been straight with us, because they are not "authorized" to exchange views "informally". Thus, they arrive here in Canada with a grocery list which usually concerns some matters of detail to shop around with in the Marxist-Leninist store. Then, whatever we take the initiative to raise in terms of general, political and ideological and other questions of mutual concern to the genuine Marxist-Leninist forces, they have their standard refrain: "We will take these ideas back". There are also occasions when we have invited COUSML to send a formal delegation to have definite discussions on particular questions. One such example is on the question of building the Marxist-Leninist Party, USA, which you have reduced in this letter to a mere question of liking or disliking that slogan. And during this encounter on the question of building the new Marxist-Leninist Party and on the question of your support for the anti-Marxist-Leninist thesis of "two-line struggle", your delegate either on the one hand whimpered that he was not being permitted to speak or hinted on the other hand in an extremely oblique and obsequious manner that if our Party follows this line, then we may end up conciliating with opportunism. Our delegate encouraged him to pluck up his courage and speak to us in a straightforward manner and say just what was on his mind. Between Marxist-Leninists nothing is reserved, particularly between our two organizations which know each other so well and have such a long-standing history of common struggle against our common enemies, which have fought together and even have shed blood together. Even more so should this be the case when your fraternal comrades, in your considered estimation, are faced with the possibility of deviating from the Marxist-Leninist road and conciliating with opportunism. Then, it is your communist duty and internationalist responsibility to speak out and warn the comrades to be vigilant and avert the rocks ahead. But a two-faced character can never do such a thing because his positions are shaky and he fears exposure from the Marxist-Leninist angle of his true views, which are devoid of any content. Thus, he is neither sincere and straight with our Party, nor does he fire at the enemy. As we will conclusively show later on, this entire account contained in this letter of one-plus-one is equal to... ideologue, who needed some "proof" to show that CPC(M-L) was conciliating with the opportunists in the USA. He did not have the guts to spout such a slander against our Party to our faces and "look at us square in the eye", because he had a guilty conscience and knew that there was nothing of principle in this comment he dropped out of the side of his mouth - that if our Party follows this line, then we may end up conciliating with opportunism. This drool could only insinuate and cast aspersions and now you are doing the dirty work for him -- or are we to believe that Joseph Green and this individual delegate are one and the same? It is of no consequence, because the truth will soon come out.
But, returning to your delegate allegedly asking us "a direct question", your delegate did not ask "a direct question". You are lying through your teeth. This shows how base and shameless you are towards those whom you address as your "dear fraternal comrades" and to whom you send "deepest communist regards". The fact of the matter was that our representative was hopping mad with the PCPH for selling the translation of this book and your delegate was a witness to this. He actually saw with his own eyes our comrade repeatedly raising this question and criticizing those individuals responsible. Thus, your flimsy effort to buttress your criminal slander and your demagogic nonsense about your following the "norms" through this fresh lie of "our delegate asked you a direct question about how the RCP, USA' got the rights to the book" is futile.
Our Party has always carried out its activities with full consultation with COUSML which we have developed on the basis of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism. We have, indeed, extremely warm and deep-going fraternal ties between our two Parties and between the proletariat of Canada and the United States. But you can never appreciate such an unshakeable friendship and comradeship because you have taken up the sinister mission of imperialism and social-imperialism to wreck, split and disrupt these ties between our two Parties and peoples. You have been actively creating provocations against us since August of 1977, and you have been harbouring those under your wing who have even confessed outright that they were social and national chauvinists: only when it suited you did you force this individual to leave. You have never looked at the previous provocations which occurred in 1977 seriously and from the point of view of punishing the guilty party, It is we, our Party, which has dealt with these matters "straightforwardly, calmly and openly" and "looked at (them) square in the eye", in spite of your calculated and planned provocations and diversions, first, through letters, later through your delegation in 1978, and so on. We have tried to educate you and ensure that your provocations do not damage the extremely warm and profound relations between CPC(M-L) and COUSML. But your latest letter shows that you have proven yourself to be incorrigible and unrepentant with the sinister aim of once and for all wrecking our fraternal relations. But you will miserably fail in this reactionary endeavour as you failed before, only this time your defeat will be final.
(Page 11)
Furthermore, your self-riotous hue and cry with regard to "without consultations with us and indeed without even notifying us" prompts us to make an additional comment on the manner of "consultations" of this Joseph Green. We raised the issue with the COUSML delegates that the Placios tour on the platform of the 'RCP,USA' should be publicly denounced. We elaborated to the comrades our reasons which we shall dwell on in due course. And what did Joseph Green do "for the" National Executive Committee of the Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninists? He sent us a verbal reply that they would not do such a thing. Some spurious reasons were given and it is interesting, indeed, that these reasons were not the ones which have been included in this letter of December 1, 1979. Still, we repeated that they were making a serious mistake to which, of course, your delegate did not reply, because he has to return to Joseph Green or whichever individual or individuals "authorizes". There was no discussion on this disagreement on this question of the Palacios tour, even though there was ample opportunity. All along, this has been the case with every divergence we have had with these elements who deal with our Party "for the" National Executive Committee of the Central Organization of the U.S. Marxist-Leninists. In other words, no "consultations" in fact, except on some questions of trivia and technique, but only your declarations and that is that. This is the manner and style of social and national chauvinists swollen with arrogance. This letter full of lies and slanders against our Party is precisely such an example of their "consultation". First and foremost, there is no discussion whatsoever concerning the matter at hand or simple verification of the pertinent facts. For instance, it is extremely important for any serious fraternal comrade or any sincere and honest Marxist-Leninist for that matter to ascertain for himself the declared and official policy of the Party. What is the declared policy of our Party? No united front with the revisionists and opportunists and resolute opposition to united front with the revisionists and opportunists. Then, they must verify the facts. Is the act of selling the English-language translation of the Palacios book to a publishing house in Chicago a change in policy? No, it is not a change in policy. But this Joseph Green is so deeply interested in "consultations" that he is not at all interested to scientifically verify such facts. Instead, he has already and in a premeditated manner concocted his lies and slanders against the Party which he has dressed up as "some details on the questions". He has neither verified the objective facts nor carried out any consultation or discussion before arriving at such reactionary conclusions.
What is the ulterior motive behind the provocative actions of Joseph Green? The real motive lurking underneath this perfidious activity is to push his anti- Leninist tactics on the question of building and strengthening the unity amongst the genuine Marxist-Leninist forces in one country and between genuine Marxist-Leninist parties and groups and shield "American opportunism". Joseph Green only finds the "expression of Chinese revisionism in the U.S." and considers this is the most important and indispensable struggle while he does not recognize American opportunism. This is his motive. For our part, CPC(M-L) has repeatedly opposed this erroneous and dangerous view', but he considers our opposition to this view as "extreme underestimation of the struggle against opportunism in the U.S." Our Party has definite Marxist-Leninist tactics to deal with the profound questions relating to unity which we have successfully implemented. But Joseph Green to-date has not repudiated them, neither verbally nor in writing. We ask: if he is so hot and bothered with regard to the "extreme underestimation of the struggle against opportunism in the U.S.", then is it not his business and responsibility to carry "consultations" with his "dear fraternal comrades" and try to win them from their "erroneous" positions and "major tactical blunders"? But this Joseph Green cannot accomplish this. Thus, he has resorted to fabrications of lies and slanders against the Party to camouflage the matter. So much for the hue and cry of "without consultations with us and indeed without even notifying us", and so on and so forth.
Joseph Green further expands his horizon in his Part Two. He goes so far as to claim that the selling of the English-language translation to the publishing firm in the USA "was objectively a political contact, not just a run-of-the-mill business dealing". Then this individual starts pulling his hair all over again and writes: "We would have firmly believed that you would not undertake such an act without our approval, since it affected us first and foremost". Telling lies and issuing vile slanders does not seem to affect Joseph Green, but this imaginary "political contact" and this hocus-pocus that this fantasy of his mind was carried out without "consultation" with his mind is "truly astonishing" to this slithery character. Besides pulling out his hair, Joseph Green goes on lashing his body and flagellating himself in true masochistic fashion: "Our two Parties may not always agree on certain tactical issues, but that does not give you the right to unilaterally undertake actions such as the selling of the rights to the Palacios' book that affect us first and foremost and undermine our stands and struggle". This is not a Marxist-Leninist, fraternal comrade seriously and sincerely trying to correct his wayward, fraternal comrades, but a dyed-in-the-wool trotskyite, who is
(Page 12)
speaking with a forked tongue, and whenever he thinks he has gotten a little opening, he wriggles into it. Our Party will never seek "approval" from any fraternal Party for any of our actions, either before taking actions or after taking actions. Our unity with all the genuine Marxist-Leninist parties, organizations and groups, COUSML included, is based on Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism.
Thus, we will never seek "approval" from His Highness Joseph Green or from anyone else, for that matter. While our Party works out its Marxist-Leninist political and ideological positions on the independent basis, we also give ourselves the right to criticize any Marxist-Leninist party, or anyone else for that matter, on the basis of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism and in the interests of the cause of the revolution and socialism. We also give the same rights to all the genuine Marxist-Leninist parties. That is, they not only ("only" was inserted in handwriting -- ed.] have the right, but they must work out their line independently on the basis of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism and also carry criticism-self-criticism on this Marxist-Leninist basis. Our Party is always eager to listen to any criticism of its work which is based on Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism. We adhere to this line because it is Marxist-Leninist and proletarian internationalist and serves the interests of the revolution and socialism on the world scale and a great weapon against revisionism and opportunism of all hues which tramples these principles underfoot in the service of their imperialist and social-imperialist masters. But this Joseph Green, having presented his pet peeve based on a straightforward lie, then tries to hide himself under the shade of "elementary norms of fraternal relations". A worm needs cover and cannot be in the open for too long. This is the case with Joseph Green. Joseph Green, as we have pointed out, is not the slightest at all interested to settle any differences on tactical or any other matters. He is exploiting the imperialist logic of "have you stopped beating your wife". Thus, his dastardly and perfidious activities deserve resolute and firm condemnation.
Our Party has no political or ideological contacts with any revisionist, opportunist, imperialist or reactionary organization in the USA or anywhere else in the world. What has damaged the interests of COUSML and the proletariat in the United States is the anti-Leninist stand of Joseph Green on the question of building the unity of the Marxist-Leninists and his anti-Leninist analysis of American opportunism, as well as his clinging to the Maoist theory of "two-line struggle". The stand of Joseph Green on Party-building is also anti-Leninist and will do grave damage to the founding and the building of the Marxist-Leninist Party, USA, if this line is permitted to flourish unopposed. The stand of Joseph Green in terms of "elementary norms of fraternal relations" is anti-Leninist and it will do further damage to the profound and warm relations which exist between CPC(M-L) and COUSML. To our estimation, this Joseph Green is an agent-provocateur, and his recent letter of December 1, 1979, is an excellent self-exposure and example of his real nature, but he has carried out similar provocations in the past, as well. The anti-Leninist theory of the "weakest link" which, according to Joseph Green, is a devastating example of his own brilliant tactics is nothing more than a refurbished version of American pragmatism, the philosophy of U.S. imperialism, and other imperialists and social-imperialists. For Joseph Green, neither Marxist-Leninist theory and the principles of proletarian internationalism nor the resolute and implacable struggle of the genuine Marxist-Leninist parties which they are waging in their courageous defence of socialist Albania, the cause of revolution and socialism and against imperialism, social-imperialism and all reaction and against revisionism and opportunism of all hues has any importance whatsoever. What matters to him is American exceptionalism as we have exposed before and he is making use of pragmatism, the putrid and vile philosophy of imperialism and social-imperialism of basing himself on changing circumstances, interests of the moment and passing events. For instance, Joseph Green full well knows, unless he is a dithering idiot which he is, ("which he is," was inserted in handwriting -- ed.] with extremely fuzzy memory or is consciously trying to forget, that the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) does not advocate unity or any kind of cooperation with imperialism, social-imperialism and all reaction and with revisionism and opportunism of any hue. Indeed, it fights these reactionary and obsolescent forces with all its might. For Joseph Green, this Marxist-Leninist line of our Party is of no consequence whatsoever. Thus, he is extremely gleeful and boisterous when he picks up from his emissary that CPC(M-L) is extremely upset and indignant that the PCPH has sold the translation of a book to a publishing house in the USA. This pragmatic worm wriggles and writhes and raises his spineless body to emit his puny little scream: "NAIL the CPC(M-L)!" "I have got the 'facts' now in my hot little hands!" "This simply cannot be excused as 'just a run-of-the-mill business dealing! " And so on and so forth! And, viola, he accuses the CPC(M-L) for the "united front with 'three-worlders'", which has ruined and "undermined our stands and struggle". Thus, the Marxist-Leninist line of CPC(M-L) does not matter, and an event is used to run the wild accusations against CPC(M-L) is in bed with the opportunists and, actually, and even more deviously, produce a proof-positive for the slander that this individual delegate of COUSML so feebly tried to float during the summer meeting (that if
(Page 13)
CPC(M-L) follows this line, then it could end up conciliating with opportunism), but who could not screw up his courage to do so openly. Now, Joseph Green has gotten the "facts". This is American pragmatism in its most ugly, planned and calculated form. It is no wonder then that Joseph Green, who doesn't hesitate for a moment to use American pragmatism against our Marxist-Leninist principles and norms, is such a wild defender of American opportunism and the opportunist theory of American exceptionalism.
This sliminess and pragmatism of Joseph Green is still further shown when he actually acknowledges openly that "it (i.e., this transaction) concerns a dealing with a group you hate". All the while, this charlatan has been accusing our Party of having a "united front with the 'three-wordlers'", that is, "with a group you hate". Of course, for Joseph Green, love and hate are merely pragmatic and class love and class hatred simply do not exist. Thus, you can hate an opportunist group yet form a united front with it while you can present love for a Marxist-Leninist Party and create lies and slanders against it. According to the pragmatic and gangster logic of Joseph Green, even though we hate this counter-revolutionary group, our Party formed a "united front" with it, "even though only on this transaction" while, on the other hand, his "dear fraternal comrades" for whom he has the "deepest communist regards" and for whom he reads a lecture that"true friends are not those who sit still... but who have the deep love required to tell the truth even if it is unpleasant" and thus can be simply blackened and maligned by him in the basest form. Everything goes for this two-faced and double-dealing element. There are no principles and there are no inviolable rights and the truth is whatever best works to serve his own cold self-interest.
In the final paragraph on page three of his Part Two, Joseph Green again uses demagogy in the most shameless fashion in order to serve his pragmatic ends. He writes: "This question of consultation and cooperation is, in our view, one of the most important questions of principles involved in the issue of the selling of the rights to Palacios' book to the RCP,USA'". Why is this "one of the most important questions of principle"? It is because this worm has found out through this so-called "consultation" a "fact" through which he can wriggle with to nail the CPC(M-L). There is no other reason whatsoever. This worm pays lip-service to the norms and forms in words because for him these bi-lateral discussions are "one of the most important" instruments for his own sinister ends, to pick up information like a garbage collector which he can then hurl back against the genuine Marxist-Leninist and revolutionary forces. The CPC(M-L) has always and consistently fought for "consultation and cooperation" on the Marxist-Leninist basis and in the revolutionary way which this worm thinks to merely reduce to the question of his emissary arriving with his grocery list, sitting mum and then, despite all the efforts by our comrades to involve him in "consultation" to simply reply time and time again: "We will take these ideas back". It is reminiscent of Charlie's Angels w ho descend on the scene all a flutter with their mission and then go back to report to their voice-box Charlie. This is neither an example of "consultation" nor "cooperation". The sheer fact that Joseph Green is even raising it in his December 1, 1979, letter of slander as "one of the most important questions of principle" further shows that the man is pragmatic who has the aim of neither "strengthening" the fraternal relations between COUSML and CPC(M-L) nor defending the "elementary norms of fraternal relations" but of wrecking the relations between COUSML and CPC(M-L) and doing serious damage to the genuine Marxist-Leninist and revolutionary forces in the United States, Canada, and elsewhere. Our Party, as we have mentioned to you, has always fought for genuine consultations and rigorously strove to uphold the Leninist norms governing relations between the Marxist-Leninist parties, but when this worm comes to know that he has unearthed some "fact" which he can use to nail CPC (M-L), then he uses these phrases for demagogic reasons. We resolutely oppose and denounce this nefarious activity of Joseph Green and whosoever he is the spokesman of.
The last sentence on page three of Part Two further expresses his use of demagogy is the most shameless and brazen manner, but again he fails miserably. "This cooperation can be of tremendous force on which the opportunists will break their teeth in vain". Thus, this puny little American worm who writes in the future tense has already forgotten and written off the history of profound friendship and unity between COUSML and CPC(M-L). He is dreaming about the time when this lost paradise will come back to earth and this little worm will enjoy such a wonderful moment of gazing on the opportunists "breaking their teeth in vain". What charlatanism! It is truly astonishing, isn't it, and we have to tell you "even when it is unpleasant". First, this Joseph Green uses his "fact" to villify the Party for allegedly forming a "united front with the 'three-worlders' " "even though only on this transaction". Then, the plot is thickened and the transaction becomes "objectively a political contact". Now, he conjures up "one of the most important questions of principle" and, voila, there is no "consultation and cooperation" between COUSML and CPC(M-L). It will be so nice if it does exist, mind you, but the "fact" are "facts". The true fact is that there is deep and profound, all-sided cooperation and consultation
(Page 14)
which has been built, developed and defended between the COUSML and CPC(M-L) for over a decade which this Joseph Green has been trying to pull down and destroy for over the past two years. The strength of this relationship is such that your over two years of repeated efforts have not yet destroyed these relations because they are built on the granite foundations of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism. Now, today, you have become desperate and are driving your head against granite because the peculiar theses which you have been attempting to float around and about have been proven politically and ideologically bankrupt. To stave off his own political extinction, meeting with failure at every pass, this worm has concocted all these lies and slanders to have his "proof" that the criticism and repudiation by CPC(M-L) of his tactics on the questions of building the unity of the genuine Marxist-Leninist forces in the USA, on the questions relating to the defence of the purity of the principles of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism and on the questions relating to the founding and building of the Marxist-Leninist Party, USA, is tantamount to "extreme underestimation of the struggle against opportunism" and so on and so forth. This demagogy and maneouvre is to NAIL CPC (M-L)! -- your "dear fraternal comrades" for whom you have the "deepest communist regards". What utter shamelessness! "Truly astonishing", isn't it!
26. In his Part Three, Joseph Green is now providing us with "some details" as to just how "the act of selling the rights to the book by Palacios... shows an extreme underestimation on the part of the NEC of the CPC(M-L) for the struggle that the COUSML is waging against the American opportunists." Very interesting, indeed! And, soon we will discover overnight that it is not the "NEC of CPC(M-L)" but an individual who is the culprit. But we will wait for that great occasion. Let us just deal with the question of the "NEC of the CPC(M-L)" showing an "extreme underestimation... for the struggle that the COUSML is waging against the American opportunists." The National Executive Committee is not the organ of the Party which establishes policy for the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist). This much Joseph Green, who is not so green in these matters, should know. We are a genuine Marxist- Leninist Party. The policy of CPC(M-L) is established by the National Congresses of the Party. We have held three regular and one special congresses during this period of over nine years since the founding of CPC(M-L) in March, 1970. The Congress elects the Central Committee which then leads in executing this policy. When the Congress of the CPC(M-L) is not in session, it is the Central Committee which is the highest organ and which implements the decisions of the Congress. The NEC which is elected from the Central Committee is merely the executive organ which implements the decisions of the Central Committee arising out of the policy established by the Congress. Thus, the peeve of this Joseph Green is not against the "NEC of the CPC(M-L), but is actually against the CC of the CPC(M-L) and against the decisions of the plenums of the CC of CPC(M-L) and against the policy established by the national Congresses of CPC(M-L). To date, this Joseph Green has never once shown any disagreement with the decisions of the Congresses or the plenums of the Central Committee. Now, this December 1st letter raises this wild accusation against the "NEC of the CPC(M-L)". And just what precipitated this hue and cry is "the act of selling the rights to the book by Palacios", a straightforward lie in its own right, because we repeat to you again that the "NEC of the CPC(M-L) never agreed to sell the English-language translation of the book by Palacios to any publishing firm in the USA, nor for that matter were "the rights to the book" ever sold by our Party or the PCPH as they were only "the rights" which alone Palacios could sell. The transaction of selling the English-language translation, and that and that alone, was carried out by the staff at the PCPH who had no clue whatsoever about the associations of this publishing house in the USA to which they sold the translation. The Marxist-Leninist line of the Party against unity with the revisionists and opportunists of all hues is so solid that if the staff at PCPH had known that this publishing house was in association with the American opportunists, or that the publication of this edition of Palacios' book in the USA was in preparation for his tour from the counter-revolutionary platform of the 'RCP,USA', they would not have carried out this business transaction nor even for a moment considered such a thing. Still, when the NEC of CPC (M-L) came to know about this particular transaction, it condemned it. This much has been told to your emissary. Thus, what precipitates your so-called conclusion quoted above is a baseless lie, which also serves to disprove that the "NEC of the CPC (M-L)... shows an extreme underestimation on the the struggle that the COUSML is waging against the American opportunists". The views which we have presented to you through the "informal" channels are indeed the views of the Third and the Special Congresses, as well as the views of the successive CCs elected by the respective Congresses. As we have already were forced to mention before, the sole way to present any views to you on the important questions of the contemporary class struggle over the past two years has been through the "informal" channels. We have always disagreed with your arrogance and high-handedness in your repeated efforts
(Page 15)
to try to dictate to us just what we can and cannot say when the representatives of our two Parties meet. We adhere to the Leninist norms but you have been adhering to the norms of the Khrushchovite and Chinese revisionists and others of their ilk. Our Party is based on democratic centralism, the Leninist organizational principle. Our members and candidate members, as well as the comrades elected to organs of the Party at various levels in order to execute various responsibilities,have the right enshrined in our constitution to raise any questions whatsoever in their respective organs, organizations and committees, irrespective of whether or not these questions are on the agenda, or not. This is the same norm our representatives have consistently followed when we hold discussions with our fraternal comrades. We are opposed to the grocery list mentality and we are opposed to the antics of these dummies coming around our Party and communicating some message from this voice-box Charlie and then simply dashing off. We have communicated this to you many, many times. We have always carried this correct Leninist norm in our dealings with COUSML but you on the other hand have exposed yourself as a trickster and a two-faced, double-dealer. You cunningly wait for some slip, some opening, a crack, and then slip through to NAIL CPC(M-L) -- your "dear fraternal comrades" for whom you have the "deepest communist regards". You did this in August, 1977, when an obviously and transparently wrong message was communicated to COUSML. This is pointed out at once to the COUSML emissary who "could not and was not authorized to discuss anything." Individuals like you, and, most probably it was you who spearheaded the subsequent reactionary campaign to insult our leadership and damage the relations between COUSML and the CPC(M-L), or others of the same criminal mentality, deliberately suspected our sincerity and integrity at that time and you have deliberately spread suspicion our sincerity and integrity at this time. We dealt with this provocation against us then "straightforwardly, calmly and openly" and told you them "square in the eye" that if you have any views you should present them to our Party. But we are opposed to any exchanges of incriminations and insults and we will never degenerate to the level of gutter politics. We are Marxist-Leninists. We returned your despicable letters then, But, this time, the cup is now filled to the brim. We have no more patience with the likes of you two- faced and double-dealing elements. This is the reason why we have organized a meeting of the Central Committee of CPC(M-L) regardless of the effort and expense and this letter has been fully and in detail discussed and deliberated in this session and is formally the letter of the CC of CPC(M-L) in reply to the letter of December 1, 1979, written by Joseph Green "for the" National Executive Committee of the Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninists. Our NEC is the NEC of the CC of our Party and is subordinate to the CC. It is not run by some Charlies but on the basis of very definite ideological, political and organizational positions which are openly disseminated far and wide with the entire Party educated on these positions and defending these positions. Your criminal insinuations and innuendos that it is the "NEC of the CPC(M-L)" is your deliberate attempt to separate the Marxist-Leninist political, ideological and organizational lines of the Party from the Marxist-Leninist line of the NEC of the CC of CPC(M-L). This is a typical splittist, Trotskyite tactic. You will not succeed in this nefarious endeavour either and it is you who will drown in shame for carrying out such dastardly and criminal activities against "dear fraternal comrades" for whom you have "deepest communist regards".
27. After regurgitating the same lie and his now standard refrain of "the act of selling the rights" as the "reason" for his reactionary attack, Joseph Green then serves up and dishes out a whole parcel of "facts" from the past in order to nail down his "case". What are these "facts" which Joseph Green has raked up to prove that the "NEC of the CPC(M-L)... shows extreme underestimation of the struggle that the COUSML is waging against the American opportunists"? These so-called "facts" are the lowest and most base yet which only a representative of the blackest reaction could peddle against our Party. And Joseph Green has has accomplished this despicable task! Joseph Green dishes out his first base lie: "First of all, you began by the opposition to the struggle against the forces that might be called 'centrist' ". This is a complete fabrication and an bald lie and our Party resolutely denounces this lie and fabrication which this two-bit Joseph Green has invented against our Party. Later, Joseph Green attempts to weave some "detailed facts". Thus, he blurts out like a mad dog beyond rescue: "You opposed the article on 'idealist anti-revisionism' ". Our Party denounces this vile lie and fabrication, as well. Then, this paragraph on page four in Part Three ends with the repetition of the lie that, "Under one pretext or another you opposed all the attacks on what might be called the 'centrist' forces." What are the facts? Our Party disagreed with the theses emanating from these Joseph Greens and provided comradely criticism and principled line on the question of the building of the unity of the genuine Marxist-Leninist forces in the USA. One of the elements of our comradely criticism was our opposition to the use of peculiar jargon which is not only concocted but also characteristic of typical intellectualism; within this context, the use of the phrase "idealist anti-revisionism" was opposed. Historical facts cannot be denied. But Joseph Green is an honest double-dealer. He does
(Page 16)
not want to raise these issues. Thus, exactly in the same manner that as before propaganda was carried out on the one hand calling for the unity of the genuine Marxist-Leninist forces in the USA while, on the other hand, without exhausting the full possibilities of this opportunity of building the unity of the genuine Marxist-Leninists, hidden attacks are launched against others, today mud is dumped onto our Party from those who are calling themselves our "dear fraternal comrades" for whom they have the "deepest communist regards". Joseph Green also mentions various other so-called "facts" and then degenerates even further to the slander of our Party that from "opposition to the struggle against what might be called the 'centrist' forces, you passed over to reconsidering your stand on our struggle against the open social-chauvinists and 'three-worlders'". Joseph Green slanders CPC(M-L) that we "advocated... insistently that the issue was that we (COUSML) should not be opposing the local American opportunists in public polemics at all, but dealing with international issues", then goes on to add and "recall" some things to the extent that "at the end of 1976 our two organizations agreed..." to build up to yet another vile slander that, "Nevertheless, later on you made it into a principle that it is a mistake to deal with the domestic opportunists". The utter shamelessness and criminal nature of this Joseph Green takes on further proportions when he accuses the Party of opposing "the slogan 'Build the Marxist-Leninist Party without the Social-Chauvinists and Against the Social-Chauvinists!" And, like the worm he is, he sneaks in a parenthetical comment: "(But you waited until we had gone public with this slogan to oppose it, although we had consulted with you ahead of time)". Now why did Joseph Green not bare himself to his "dear fraternal comrades" and write this comment without parenthesis? Because his entire logic is based on the imperialist "have you stopped beating your wife?" technique. Our Party gave definite views on the question of Party-building, but this charlatan is hell-bent on tearing out his hair from his skull and, thus, he screeches: "(CPC (M-L) have opposed this slogan so vehemently that you let it get in the way of giving public support to our campaign to found the Marxist-Leninist Party of the U.S.A." In this frantic way, this Part Three of the December 1, 1979, letter is concluded with the most intellectualist hyperbole and another vile accusation against CPC(M-L). This reads as follows:
"All these transcendental principles against the polemical struggle that you have urged us to follow were based on two things:
counterposing one thing to another, the struggle against the domestic opportunists to the burning international issues, the polemical struggle to the elaboration of Marxism-Leninism, the struggle against opportunism to the struggle for the building and strengthening of the Party, and so forth;
and
an underestimation of the struggle against opportunism in the U.S., and underestimation based on general, abstract, high-sounding principles and devoid of a serious, detailed consideration of the struggle here, which is brushed off in an off-hand manner."
Now, the world should stand still for a minute, and you will find the pragmatic necessity which Joseph Green felt to concoct the initial lie. And, here it comes: "We believe that your act of selling the rights of the book by Palacios to the 'RCP,USA' is a verification of the accuracy on our views on the general direction in which you are urging on us can lead, if taken to their logical conclusion, if errors are allowed to grow."
But dear Joseph Green, our Party never did such a thing! We completely disagree and fiercely condemn the entire chronology of events which you have created from 1976, as well as the wild accusations and slanders you have dished out against us. You have one main and abiding aim: NAIL CPC(M-L)! -- your own "dear fraternal comrades" and for whom you have the "deepest communist regards" and nail them regardless, even if lies are to be concocted to "verify" the "accuracy" of the lie. You are desperate, indeed, and thoroughly bankrupt. You were in search for a crack through which you could crawl and you found the crack, even though our Party resolutely condemns you for carrying such vile slanders against us.
In the late summer of 1979, the representatives of COUSML arrived in Canada to deal with questions of a political and ideological nature concerning the building of the Party, as well as the question of "two-line struggle". Both sides gave views, even though the COUSML representative felt the need for maneouvring and diversion away from the argument and thus whimpered: "You are not letting me speak". Now, three months later, Joseph Green has spoken. He had to concoct the sinister lie that the CPC(M-L) is conciliating with the opportunists and "urging" COUSML to do the same. This is the way Joseph Green and his cohorts carry out discussion and consultation with their "dear fraternal comrades" for whom they have the "deepest communist regards".
First, to set the facts of the matter and history itself straight, CPC(M-L) only presents its views and does so in various ways. One of the ways is through the Congresses, the plenums of the CC and their communiques, and through its organs and documents and materials. Nowhere will you find that
(Page 17)
the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) advocates the policy that the Marxist-Leninist and revolutionary forces should not struggle against "domestic opportunists". The COUSML delegation attended the Sixth Consultative Conference and its Closing Rally, to give an event from recent memory. The COUSML delegation heard with their own ears the concept of the united front with the revisionists and opportunists of all hues, the revisionist line of "unity of the 'left'-democratic forces", etc., resolutely and thoroughly denounced as counter-revolutionary. Our Party also carried many editorials on this question through the organ of the Central Committee, People's Canada Daily News. These views of the Party and its practice are simply thrown over-board by this Joseph Green who was forced to concoct a lie to establish the "accuracy: of his slanders which he euphemistically calls "our views". Nowhere could this individual find any such position advocated by CPC(M-L) that we should neither oppose "domestic opportunists" or underestimate the struggle against the American opportunists.
Furthermore, this Charlie who sends his Angels to check out their grocery list in Canada never gave their views on any of these fundamental political and ideological questions,except for the one time, during the meeting of the two delegations in the late summer of this year, when the leader of the COUSML delegation started to whimper that we were not letting him speak. We have the full notes and minutes of his views. The general understanding reached between the two delegations was to further carry on the discussions and arrive at unanimity of views through discussion. But, meanwhile, this Joseph Green has leeched upon a "fact" that CPC (M-L) is conciliating with the opportunists and, voila, the entire hyperbole was complete and the vile slander that the CPC(M-L) is "urging" COUSML not to oppose the "domestic opportunists" is substantiated.
What political and ideological positions COUSML is to adopt on the national and international questions is their business. Our Party has never dictated to them as what they should do or what stands they should adopt. But this Joseph Green is a clever fellow. First, he denounces our Party for the fact that we have always and consistently given our viewpoint, then he attributes to our Party views which are so diametrically opposed to anything our Party has ever done in Canada in theory or in practice, and then he denounces these views. This is the activity of a two- faced element. Our Party advocates very definite Marxist-Leninist political and ideological lines on all the fundamental questions of the revolution and socialism. These views are well-known and Joseph Green is deliberately falsifying these views.
For example, at no time did our Party advise the COUSML representatives that their organization should not wage struggle against domestic or international opportunism and revisionism. It is Joseph Green who is making this distinction and he is blaming others for doing so. Let us give but one example, you have concocted the intellectualist hyperbole that "U.S. neo-revisionism is the American expression of the internationalist trend of Chinese revisionism, etc," and you accuse the "NEC of the CPC(M-L)" of "taking a hostile attitude... to the polemics showing that U.S. neo-revisonism is the American expression of the international opportunist trend of Chinese revisionism, etc." What does this intellectualist hyperbole mean? It means that there is no American opportunism whatsoever, and that there is only "the American expression of the international opportunist trend of Chinese revisionism". Thus, the only necessity for them is to prove that this, indeed, is the case, against which he asserts our "hostile attitude" is directed. You are accusing "NEC of the CPC(M-L)" of "taking a hostile attitude... to the polemics showing" that "U.S. neo-revisionism is the American expression of the international opportunist trend of Chinese revisionism, etc." Thus, through this and other such intellectualist hyperboles, you have accomplished three things:
"(a) counterposing one thing to another, the struggle against the domestic opportunists to the burning international issues, the polemical struggle to the elaboration of Marxism-Leninism, the struggle against opportunism to the struggle for the building and strengthening of the Party, and so forth;
"(b) an underestimation of the struggle against opportunism in the U.S., an underestimation based on general, abstract, high-sounding principles and devoid of a serious, detailed consideration of the struggle here, which is brushed off in an off-hand manner"; and (c) accuse the "NEC of the CPC(M-L)" of the very crimes which you are committing and have been doing so for some time.
Let us take another example. You write: "Our denunciation of Chinese revisionism and Mao Zedong Thought and its theory of 'two (or many) headquarters in the Party' is not that it fights revisionism, but that it conciliates with revisionism and is opposed to the principled struggle against revisionism."
Look at how this worm poses the question: how the fundamental problem with "Chinese revisionism and Mao Zedong Thought
(Page 18)
is "not that it fights revisionism, but that it conciliates with revisionism and is opposed to the principle struggle against revisionism". This is the grossest example of "general, abstract, high-sounding principles and devoid of a serious, detailed consideration" of the matter. This fundamental question "is brushed off in an off-hand manner", The fact of the matter is that Chinese revisionism and its ideological base, Mao Zedong Thought, and "its theory of two (or many) headquarters in the Party" is an anti- Leninist and revisionist trend itself, while this worm is accusing it of "conciliating with revisionism and is opposed to the principled struggle against revisionism." Chinese revisionism and Mao Zedong Thought are a departure form Marxism-Leninism and between Chinese revisionism and Mao Zedong Thought and Marxism-Leninism there is an insurmountable gulf. Chinese revisionism and Mao Zedong Thought do fight against Soviet social imperialism and the Khrushchovite revisionists, but they do so on the basis of anti-Leninism and revisionism and to serve their own pragmatic ends. It is to satisfy your pragmatic ends that you are creating this intellectualist hyperbole.
And now let us rewrite this for you: "Our denunciation of Joseph Green and his intellectualist hyperbole including his theory of 'two (or many) headquarters in the Marxist-Leninist Movement in the U.S.' is not that it fights revisionism too hard, but that it does not even recognize American opportunism and is opposed to the principled struggle against revisionism and opportunism of all hues both nationally and internationally."
These intellectualist hyperboles which you have dished out, including the wildest and basest form of lies and accusations against our Party "amount to, if taken to their logical conclusion and followed consistently, conciliation". And that "logical conclusion" of Joseph Green's has already come home to roost in Part Four of his letter of December 1, 1979, with your fantastic intellectualist hyperbole of the "weakest link" in the "centrist trend" which, according to you, has "not crystallized yet" or is having great "difficulty", etc. You advance this "logical conclusion" with extreme shamelessness. Thus, Joseph Green is going to attack the "weakest link" in the same manner that the Chinese social-imperialists are attacking the "most dangerous enemy" and he will conciliate openly and shamelessly with this centrist trend which has already crystallized around the Revolutionary Communist Party of Chile, Marxist-Leninist Party of Austria, "In Struggle" of Canada, "Revolutionary Communist Party, USA", Mass Line Group in India, and similar opportunist groups in Turkey, Cyprus, New Zealand and other countries. Thus, in order to cover up his tracks of conciliating with this centrist trend, Joseph Green concocts this intellectualist hyperbole, the one-plus-one mental gymnastic of the "weakest link." Through this intellectualist hyperbole, he will let the centrist trend go scot-free, but attack its "weakest link", which is not revisionism and opportunism of all hues both domestically and internationally, but is the "American expression of the international opportunist trend of Chinese revisionism, etc." But these centrists are also not only "opposed" [the quotation marks were added in handwriting -- ed.] to the "international trend of Chinese revisionism" but to its "American" or any other expression, as well. Thus, you are in good company with these centrists. Truly astonishing, isn't it! In two letters, one written on November 29th and the second on December 1, 1979, the "logical conclusion" of conciliation with revisionism has been totally exposed and it is a "remarkable picture of the views, activities and tactics" of this two-faced worm, Joseph Green. We are really amazed at the speed with which he has exposed himself and revealed just what he truly is.
You had to concoct that lie of "selling the rights" in order to launch this diabolical and perfidious attack on our Party. In order to make it stick, you then had to concoct more lies and intellectualist hyperboles and accuse us of going to bed with the "three-worlders" which, according to you, is the "logical conclusion" of our "urging". But this has failed miserably. You have committed suicide by jumping in bed with the centrists. Any attempt to emit more foul smell will fail miserably,as well.
You have laid the outlandish charge that, "Indeed, over the last period you have floated informally to us and urged upon us insistently, if in an offhand manner, a number of theses directed against the polemical struggle against the opportunists." And just what have you ["you" was added in handwriting -- ed.] been "urging" our Party to do during this "over the last period", when Charlie's angels have been frequently listening to our "urgings"? Perhaps you will need to do some thinking in order to concoct some more intellectualist hyperboles in order to cover up this"last period" when we "have floated informally to" Charlie's angels and "urged upon"
(Page 19)
them "insistently, if in an off-hand manner, a number of theses directed against the polemical struggle against the opportunists." But let us tell you this much -- none of our views or theses were "informal" or given "in an off-hand manner" but are official and formal views of CPC(M-L) duly approved by the Congresses of the Party and the plenums of the Central Committee which we have given to your angels in an extremely serious manner during the "last period", when you have been concocting one intellectualist hyperbole after another and doing everything possible to stop serious discussion on fundamental questions of mutual interest to CPC(M-L) and COUSML. Thus, we denounce this slander of yours with the same vehemence as we do all of our other lies, slanders and accusations.
(Page 20)
Part Three
28. In our third and final part of our detailed and thorough-going repudiation of the letter of December 1, 1979, we will resolutely expose still further the perfidious and treacherous nature of Joseph Green. This constitutes a solid and unquestionable "verification of the accuracy of our views on the general direction to which the principles you are urging on us can lead, if taken to their logical conclusion, if errors are allowed to grow", which is to say, the "general direction" of creating provocations against our Party, poisoning the relations between CPC(M-L) and the COUMSL by creating the most vicious lies and slanders against our Party and conciliating with revisionism and opportunism of all hues.
Representatives of the COUSML attended the second All-Canada National Youth Festival held in Toronto on October 5-7, 1979. Our Party requested them to take back some messages from our Party on various questions to COUSML. This meeting between the representatives of CPC(M-L) and COUSML took place on October 9th. Among other things, our representative communicated to them:
"Thirdly, we think that we should be very vigilant on international developments. We would like to have formal discussions on this question. Of course, by this, we don't mean these discussions are not formal. For us, formal means that with preparation on very definite topics and informal means just the exchange of views on already known and adopted positions. We propose, if you like, and whenever you like, whenever it is convenient, to discuss this concept that we have advanced that the Internationalist Movement came up as one movement and merged with the International Marxist-Leninist Communist Movement, with no exception. This is a very important issue." (From minutes of the discussion between the representatives of CPC(M-L) and COUSML, October 9, 1979) Further on in this talk, our representative requested: "You should discuss this question. We have very important views on this matter. At the same time, if I for some reason am not available, then any comrade on the Central Committee can discuss this question with you."
CPC(M-L) has received to-date no ["no" is inserted in handwriting -- ed.] answer to our formal request to COUSML, except this wild "off-hand" provocative letter against our Party. This further reveals the hypocrisy and demagogy of this Joseph Green with regard to his preachings on "discussion and consultation" and "notification" and "approval", etc. Joseph Green claims that he speaks "for the" National Executive Committee of the Central Organization of the U.S. Marxist-Leninists, but how can it be that he does not once mention in his provocative letters the request of CPC(M-L) for "formal discussions"? If Joseph Green had such "deep love required to tell the truth", which he hypocritically and demagogically claims to have, then how is it that he does not tell the truth concerning our request for "formal discussions"? Furthermore, if Joseph Green had such concern about what he asserts to be the "logical conclusion" of our Party going to bed with the "three-worlders", then how is that he refused to avail himself of our request for "formal discussions" where he could have presented his views and warned his "dear fraternal comrades" for whom he professes his "deep communist regards" as to the consequences or so-called "logical conclusion" of "the principles you are urging on us" "if errors are allowed to grow"? But Joseph Green did no such thing. He had no intention of presenting his "views" "straightforwardly, calmly and openly". Joseph Green had no intention of assisting our Party. On the contrary, he was waiting for "verification of the accuracy" of his own lies and slanders and to vindicate his prior provocative activities against our Party. Joseph Green was anxiously waiting for a fresh opportunity to launch this new wild provocation against our Party. He bided his time, simply ignored our request and now has concocted his lie of "sale of the rights of the book", and so on and so forth, to launch the most vicious provocation against CPC(M-L) in contemptuous disregard of even "the most basic and elementary norms" which govern the relations between genuine Marxist-Leninist parties. Did he ask for discussion on the matter? No, he did not. Did he verify the facts? No, he did not. Did he ascertain the policy of our Party? No, he did not. Did he alert our Party and warn it of the dangers in no uncertain terms of carrying on down the path of "conciliation" with the "three-worlders"? No, he did not. Did he provide any proposals to deal with this question? No, he did not. Did he propose any means of strengthening the relations between CPC(M-L) and COUSML? No, he did not. The single aim which was possessing his evil mind, blinding him to everything else, was to create a provocation against our Party in order to poison the extremely warm and profound relations which exist between CPC(M-L) and COUSML. To accomplish this nefarious ambition, he was forced to create the basest lies and slanders against our Party which he has dished out in these provocative letters. Yes, he got his "verification of the accuracy of our views on the general direction in which the principles you are urging us can lead". One lie is created to prove another lie with more lies piled on top of this heap of refuse "ad infinitum" and "ipso facto" -- "verification of accuracy".
(Page 21)
In this talk between the representatives of CPC (M-L) and COUSML held on October 9, 1979, CPC (M-L) made a further proposal to COUSML with regard to strengthening our common struggle against modern revisionism and opportunism of all hues and in defence of the monolithic unity of the International Marxist-Leninist Communist Movement and the cause of revolution and socialism. He said, in part: "Fourthly, we think that you should attack the RCP. This is a very serious proposal. They should be violently attacked with the struggle waged with the same calibre as your assault against October League."
Our representative further warned COUSML in no uncertain terms of the danger of the entire centrist trend which is attempting to smuggle revisionist and opportunist ideology into the International Marxist- Leninist Communist Movement and stressed to these representatives that, "We should not underestimate the level of the(ir) perfidy internationally." He further pointed out and proposed that, "It is within the United States of America that the front should be developed against centrism. This will be of tremendous assistance internationally, and we will provide you with first-rate assistance." In conclusion, our Party proposed in detail various practical proposals which he recommended be undertaken to denounce the impending visit of Jorge Palacios to the USA and promised our Party's resolute political and ideological assistance and cooperation to COUSML in this revolutionary work.
At this time, the representatives of COUSML did not raise anything with regard to the so-called "sale of the rights of the book", and so on and so forth, nor did they give any opinions regarding the proposals of our Party, except to communicate to us that Jorge Palacios is either visiting, or will be imminently visiting the USA at the invitation of the "utterly corrupt and rotten to the core American neo-revisionist and three-worlders' sect known as the so-called "Revolutionary Communist Party of the U.S.A." While our Party presented very definite proposals and called upon COUSML to take resolute action to open this front against centrism, the COUSML representatives did not present any proposals as to what should be done with regard to this tour of Jorge Palacios and the 'RCP,USA\ It was mutually decided that COUSML will subsequently inform our Party as to whether or not they would take up our proposal or undertake any initiatives on this question, and we subsequently received the answer by telephone -- "no". Nothing more was heard by our Party about this matter until the end of October and the beginning of November. At that time, another representative of COUSML arrived in Canada to participate in a programme organized by our Party. He presented, "if in an off-hand manner", a "remarkable picture of the... tactics of COUSML" which it was adopting towards the trip of Jorge Palacios. These tactics constituted (1) publishing a concealed attack on the RCP of Chile in the Workers Advocate; and (2) writing the RCP of Chile a private letter. We again expressed our views on this matter, reiterating that we still held to them, expressed our deep anger at the sale of the English-language translation of Palacios' book and patiently explained that this was not the policy of our Party. Our Party resolutely stands against any kind and form of cooperation with the revisionists and opportunists of all hues. This representative of COUSML said not a word about "the sale of the rights of the book" or making any inquiry as to how the translation was sold. Neither did he express any anger, nor did he present any "protest", and he simply took the information back to Charley and that was that. Finally, it was mutually agreed with the COUSML representative to make a return trip to Canada before the departure of the delegation of the Central Committee to attend and participate in the jubilee celebrations of the 35th anniversary of the complete liberation of Albania and the triumph of the people's power.
But CPC(M-L) did not hear anything from COUSML until the receipt of the letter dated November 29th, which was full of innuendoes, and the letter of December 1, which contains the wildest possible lies and slanders against the Party, the two letters which Joseph Green claims he has written "for the" National Executive Committee of the Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninists. This letter of December 1st itself speaks volumes and totally exposes Joseph Green as an agent-provocateur. It is a fact that the National Committee nor any authoritative Congress of the COUSML has ever accused our Party of "underestimating the struggle against American opportunism", nor has it ever levelled the accusation that the views of CPC(M-L) on the questions of the unity of the Marxist-Leninists, on Party-building and the struggle against revisionism and opportunism of all hues "can lead, if taken to their logical conclusion" to conciliation. Joseph Green has already put our Party into bed with the "three-worlders", but no authoritative body of the COUSML has ever requested our Party to have discussion on these matters, formal or informal, nor have they ever communicated such slanders and lies to us. Only the Congress
(Page 22)
and the Central Committee, which is the central and leading body when the Congress is. not in session, and no other bodies, can take a 180-degree-turn in its relations to a fraternal and genuine Marxist-Leninist party, but this individual Joseph Green has already given his verdict through these vicious lies and slanders.
Why is it that Joseph Green has created such a vile provocation against CPC(M-L)? Why is it that he did not see any necessity for "formal" or "informal" discussions with our Party before arriving at these wild intellectualist hyperboles? The answer is to be found in the fourth part of his December 1, 1979 letter of provocation which we shall also thoroughly repudiate and denounce.
29. Joseph Green repeats his big lie: "The selling of the rights to the Palacios book to the 'RCP,USA' is also a tactical blunder from the point of view of the international struggle in general and not just in North America." Listen to the language of this charlatan replete with all the tricks of the lying trade: "First of all, we wish to stress that time has shown that the polemics we launched against the domestic American opportunists were well-chosen and did raise the burning international issues." However, this worm has simply forgotten in his frantic haste to villify CPC(M-L) with a devastating political-ideological denunciation that he has already written and confessed that it is not these elements who "chose" to "launch" the "polemics"! he has already "recalled" to us earlier, on page four, "that at the end of 1976 our two organizations agreed, on your suggestion, to a certain tactical co-ordination in the struggle against Chinese revisionism". What he has written here is inaccurate itself, but this is not the central point here. The point is that Joseph Green forgets to mention that it was "on your suggestion", that is, it was our Party which advanced these proposals. But these proposals advanced by CPC(M-L) were "against the domestic American opportunists" which Joseph Green, with his usual criminal lying and demagogy,reduces to the question of "struggle against Chinese revisionism". Joseph Green has an ulterior motive in so doing, which we will expose in due course. What was this "agreement"? He himself writes: "You were to openly take on the Chinese revisionists, while we were to refrain from openly attacking them and to instead continue the attack on the domestic social-chauvinists (Klonskyites and co.)." What were the results? He himself writes: "The tactics you suggested were very successful and we have to this day been very satisfied with the results of this temporary tactic suggested by you." What happened then? Now, this worm is squirming: "But naturally, the proposal of such a tactic even temporarily means that it could not be a principle to not attack the domestic opportunists. Today, of course, we continue to attack openly both the domestic opportunists and the Chinese revisionists (and the other international revisionists and opportunist trends)". Here is a worm in its true slithering form. Joseph Green does not wish to openly express the line of CPC(M-L) nor to analyze the beginning of the emergence of the political and ideological divergences and differences. Thus, he is reduced to lying through his teeth to cover up the views of CPC(M-L) when he dishes out the base slander that our Party has a "principle" of not attacking the "domestic opportunists "of the USA. There is neither official nor unofficial documents of CPC(M-L) which can "verify" the "accuracy" of his wild slander and intellectualist hyperbole, but his provocative letter tells the entire story.
Following the initial attack on the "domestic opportunists", the Klonskyites, etc., our Party further proposed to COUSML that this political and ideological offensive should be deepened and broadened through "a serious, detailed consideration of the struggle" both nationally and internationally. Our Party advocated that COUSML adhere to the line of being the militant contingent and defender of the International Marxist-Leninist Communist Movement in the USA and expressed the view and hope that COUSML will strengthen itself ideologically, politically and organizationally on this revolutionary path, instead of concocting its own peculiar theories. What Joseph Green writes today is slander and utter distortion when he baldly states that CPC(M-L) are "counterposing one thing to another, the struggle against the domestic opportunists to the burning international issues, the polemical struggle to the elaboration of Marxism-Leninism, the struggle against opportunism to the struggle for the building and strengthening of the Party, and so forth". In actual fact, this is precisely what Joseph Green is himself doing by concocting his own peculiar theories in order to cover up, mystify and dampen the struggle against the "domestic opportunists". What Joseph Green concocts is one thing, but reality is quite different. The true facts are that after the initial attack against the "domestic opportunists", he has today gone off into a tangent and begun to concoct his peculiar theories "if in an off-hand manner". His theory of the so-called "weakest link" is precisely the latest example of these peculiar theses. "U.S. neo-revisionism is the American expression of the international opportunist trend of Chinese revisionism" is another peculiar theory, and there are many more. This is why he is so diametrically opposed to founding the Marxist-Leninist Party, USA, on the Leninist basis and why he is raising his puny head wildly in all directions like a little worm terrified of the sun. His claim that they launched
(Page 23)
polemics against "domestic American opportunists" is half-truth. According to what Joseph Green himself admits, he wants the support of our Party for his opposition to the "American expression of...Chinese revisionism" which means that he is neither resolutely against Chinese revisionism nor is he against "domestic opportunism", but content to fight the "American expression of Chinese revisionism". Look at the way he concocts in order to present his intellectualist hyperboles: "For example, in 1979, it has become crystal clear to everyone that both the 'RCP,USA and the Barry Weisberg MLOC/'CPUSA (ML)'... have their international significance". What is this intellecutalist hyperbole presented for? It is presented to "prove" that they are "international", which is, as he so colourfully and so shamelessly admits, that he is not the defender of the International Marxist-Leninist Communist Movement nor its militant contingent, but rather is one who "sounds" the "alarm" against these "domestic opportunists" to the "International Communist Movement". Thus, apparently, it is the sounding of these "alarms" and the proving that this "U.S. neo-revisionism is the American expression of the international opportunist trend of Chinese revisionism", and so on and so forth, which is what the "NEC of the CPC(M-L)" has been and is so "hostile" to. Here is a further self-exposure of Joseph Green's peculiar concoctions. Joseph Green has previously scribbled that the proletariat is an international class. If this is the case, then all Marxist-Leninist parties, organizations and groups are the political and most advanced representatives and vanguard of this international class. The bourgeoisie also is an international class and thus the revisionist parties, organizations and groups are also the social prop of this bourgeoisie and in the service of its counter-revolutionary aims, and thus has "international significance". But, according to this green Joe, "...in, 1979, it has become crystal clear to everyone that both the 'RCP,USA' and the Barry Weisberg MLOC/'CPUSA(ML)'... have their international significance." Thus, the "international significance" of these opportunist groups became "crystal clear" in 1979. We are the Party of the international proletariat and to us, the "international significance" of these opportunist groups has been known for a long time and we have carried vigorous and firm opposition to them. But with his peculiar theory of "weak link", Joseph Green is desperately attempting to rescue the centrists and put us in the camp of those who have "gone to bed" with this "weak link" and NAIL CPC(M-L)!
It does not matter how much this Joseph Green tries to cover up and hide the ideo-political differences and issue lies and slanders against our Party, the fact remains that CPC(M-L) has never under-estimated the struggle against the "domestic opportunists" and has never "urged" anyone to do such a thing. Our Party has boldly presented its views on how to further develop the struggle against imperialism, social-imperialism and all reaction and against revisionism and opportunism of all hues and has resolutely implemented these views in practical terms. It is this strong opposition of our Party to the concoction of various peculiar "theses" and pet "theories" which has put the damper on this worm to the extent that he is wildly swinging his head in all directions.
Consequently, it is this nefarious stand of refusing to oppose the American opportunists, willfully advancing the notorious theory of American exceptionalism and concocting diverse intellecualist hyperboles used to justify the treacherous and counterrevolutionary path which is the real exposure of the true conciliatory and centrist nature of this individual, Joseph Green, who is claiming to speak "for the" National Executive Committee of the COUSML.
Let us examine his latest intellectualist hyperbole which he is using to justify his opposition to attacking the centrist trend. Joseph Green writes: "But more on the 'RCP,USA'. For some time and especially since the open condemnation of Mao Zedong Thought, an international trend has been attempting to form and crystallize itself. This trend or, to be more precise, jumble of forces trying to crystallize itself and align itself into a trend, can roughly be called 'centrism'. For convenience, we shall call these forces the 'centrists' in the rest of the letter. This trend is not crystallized yet. And it is having great difficulties. Its ideological and theoretical poverty can be seen in that it has had to stoop to pick up the 'RCP,USA', to begin an open alliance with the 'RCP,USA', and so forth. On its part, the 'RCP, USA' has seen its opening and is trying to make contacts in the international movement. The 'RCP,USA' says that it is translating its 'theoretical' works on Mao Zedong Thought and sending them internationally and it is quite happy to try to come out as the standard-bearer of this 'trend'.
"By picking up the 'RCP, USA' and rewarding it for its gangster-like anti-communist attacks on Comrade Enver Hoxha, the Party of Labour of Albania and Marxism-Leninism, the forces trying to form a centrist trend are committing a despicable act. Some of them may hypocritically insist on their loyalty to Albania while standing on the platform next to the anti- Albania gangsters of the 'RCP,USA'. But it is not enough to see that such acts are despicable. There is yet a further point of importance tactically. And that point is that the alliance with the 'RCP,USA' is also an act of great desperation for the centrists, that it leads them to the brink of a great fiasco and self exposure, and that the 'RCP,USA' is a weak link for this trend trying to crystallize itself.
"We hold that the alliance of the centrists with the 'RCP,USA' should indeed be
(Page 24)
made into a total fiasco for the centrists, that it should be used to throw this would-be trend into greater disorder."
Following this, Joseph Green becomes even more puffed-up and further develops his intellectualist hyperbole. Seeing himself as a great tactician, he raises the question -- "Why is the 'RCP,USA' a weak link" -- and he presents the layers of his concoction. He writes:
"--First of all, the 'RCP,USA' is a 'party' that has never done anything praiseworthy.
"--The 'RCP,USA' still holds to the "three worlds" theory. Furthermore, it admits that Mao Zedong is responsible for what it oh so delicately calls the 'opening to the West' and for the allegedly good version of the 'three worlds' theory. It also upholds most of the unofficial writings of Mao (except possibly Mao's interviews with John Service and similar material -- we shall see what stand the 'RCP,USA' takes on them in the future).
"--The centrists are using the 'RCP,USA's' attacks on Albania for their own purposes, but the knife can be pointed in the other direction. The 'RCP,USA's' nauseating attacks on Albania can be used to discredit centrism, especially now when many centrists are not yet prepared to come into the open with all- out attacks on Albania.
"--The 'RCP,USA' is opposed in its own country by the dedicated Marxist-Leninists of the COUSML, who know the 'RCP,USA' at close range and have the enthusiasm and the ability to strike heavy blows at them."
Then Joseph Green concludes with a flourish: "Thus, at the present time, an international condemnation of the 'three' worldism' and gangster-like attacks on Albania of the 'RCP,USA' would put certain opportunist forces in disarray." Note this gem -- ''certain opportunist forces in disarray" -- that is, create maximum political and ideological illusions about these ''certain opportunist forces" and give these certain forces who have set foot on the dangerous inclined slope of centrism the maximum opportunity to reconsider this dangerous anti-Marxist path they have set upon." Look at this ''Have you stopped beating your wife?" imperialist logic. Joseph Green vents his spleen against CPC(M-L) but shamelessly declares that: ''But independently of what happens to the centrists or to any forces flirting with centrism, such a condemnation of the 'RCP, USA would give an impetus to the struggle against centrism." In other words, hands off the centrist trend which organized the provocation against the Internationalist Marxist-Leninist Communist Movement at El Salar, Spain, but condemn the 'RCP, USA', which is the "American expression of the international opportunist trend of Chinese revisionism." This charlatan openly advocates that we should not beat the beast but only its shadow! This is precisely what he has been doing for the ' 'past period" and breaking his neck on the slippery slopes of rank opportunism.
This theory of "weak link" is precisely the "accurate verification of our views" that, for some time now, Joseph Green has been tearing his hair out because our Party has been opposing his anti-Marxist-Leninist road on the fundamental questions of the unity of the Marxist-Leninists, Party-building and the struggle against opportunism, as well as other, related questions. Today, he is shamelessly, openly and brazenly pleading that the centrists must not be attacked. Only the "American expression" should be attacked, which, according to his intellectualist hyperbole, is the "weak link". Thus, he zealously slanders our Party:
"But to sell the rights of the Palacios book to the 'RCP,USA' and to underestimate the struggle of COUSML against the 'RCP,US A", instead of recognizing the significance of the fight against the 'RCP,USA', amounts to:
besides other things,
"Possibly to replace the denunciation of the 'RCP, USA' with a premature precipitation of an open break with certain forces which should be allowed time to come to their senses"
and then comes his disgraceful demagogy, that is:
"(a) without refusing to fight their errors in the meantime; (b) without excessive expectations of change on their part; and (c) without ceasing the ideological clarification that is so vital at this time of confusion and disarray internationally..."
Fantastic intellectualist hyperboles, slanders and accusations, indeed, which Joseph Green has concocted with the main aim of rescuing the centrists. Truly astonishing, isn't it?! The Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) asked the COUSML to have "formal discussion" with our Party on the important International Marxist-Leninist Communist Movement. No reply was given to it. We proposed that the resolute struggle against the centrist alliance be opened up within the U.S. but, as is their usual practice, COUSML representatives and their Charlie gave no reply. Now a month later, this agent-provocateur has launched this open provocation against our Party for the purpose of disrupting the irreconcilable struggle against imperialism, social-imperialism and all reaction and against revisionism and opportunism of all hues, frustrate the
(Page 25)
building of the genuine Marxist-Leninist party of the proletariat in the USA, and poison the extremely warm and profound relations between CPC(M-L) and COUSML. All his gilt-edged scenario is artfully painted and stage-managed for the purposes of confusing and falsifying everything. Amazing declarations are tossed out, such as "at this time of confusion and disarray", right at the time when not only the genuine Marxist-Leninist parties are steeling and strengthening themselves and the unity of the international Marxist-Leninist Communist Movement is irresistibly developing, but also when the PLA with Comrade Enver Hoxha at the head has eliminated all attempts by imperialism, social-imperialism and all reaction and revisionism and opportunism of all hues to create "confusion and disarray" in the International Marxist-Leninist Communist Movement. What a vile, Trotskyite attack on the PLA and Comrade Enver Hoxha, the foremost and leading party of the International Marxist-Leninist Communist Movement! He brazenly advocates that there is "confusion and disarray internationally" on the one hand, while there is clarity and solidity in the intellectualist hyperboles of this agent-provocateur, Joseph Green. It is little wonder that our Party's request for "formal discussion" was not replied to, because this little worm would not have dared to open his mouth which is so full of this wild defence of centrism and the foul damnation of the International Marxist-Leninist Communist Movement, including the PLA with Comrade Enver Hoxha at the head. In our request to the COUSML representatives for "formal discussion", we mentioned that we would be available "whenever it is convenient for you". How convenient and nice it is for Joseph Green to throw this dung at our Party from a safe distance down south of the border.
Thus, Joseph Green has conjured up various reasons for the "sale of the rights of the..." and one of which is
(1) "Possibly to replace denunciation of the RCP,USA'
(2) "with a premature precipitation of an open break with certain forces which should be allowed to come to their senses."
In other words, the CPC(M-L) should be nailed for not only going to bed with the "RCP, USA", but also for possibly "replac(ing) denunciation of the 'RCP, USA' with a premature precipitation of an open break with certain forces which should be allowed to come to their senses."
Thus, what is the conclusion? CPC(M-L) MUST BE NAILED! By nailing CPC(M-L), the struggle against the "American expression of the international opportunist trend of Chinese revisionism" will be nailed and it would end the wild schemes of CPC(M-L) of "premature precipitation of an open break..." So Joseph Green conjured up his "facts" and developed his "tactics" for the singular aim of nailing his "dear fraternal comrades" for whom h has the "deepest communist regards" while he zealously defends the entire centrist trend and gives it time to prepare and organize its forces and be good and ready to cause further disruption of the International Marxist-Leninist Communist Movement.
Joseph Green is a brilliant offshoot of the Hua-Teng ruling clique. Teng Hsiao ping and Hua Kuo Feng, as with Mao Zedong and Chou En-lai came forward with the slogan that Soviet social-imperialism was the "most dangerous" superpower and because the Soviet Union presented itself as "socialist", it became the"main enemy", while it prettified the U.S. imperialists as the "declining superpower" which could be united with. This demagogy was a camouflage for their warmongering, great state aims. Because the 'RCP,USA' is the "most discredited" "that has never done anything praiseworthy", for this reason and for others besides, this then is the "weak link" and must be nailed. And along with this, all those who go to bed with it, must be denounced, albeit "tactfully", by allowing them time to "come to their senses". And listen to is demagogy: "Here we stress that it is not a matter of benevolence towards certain forces, of softness,but of not artificially inciting the struggle..." This is a direct and wild attack on CPC(ML). When the representative of COUSML in late October and early November was in Canada, he was briefed that CPC (ML) is going to send a fitting and proper reply to the vile attacks of the International Commission of the RCP of Chile against CPC(M-L). Joseph Green is extremely joyful about the attacks of the International Commission of the RCP of Chile and for this reason is defending them and creating every possible illusion about them while accusing CPC(M-L) of "artificially inciting". Now the curtain has fallen on the entire drama created by Joseph Green. NAIL CPC(M-L)! by concocting every kind of lie and slander and RESCUE THE CENTRIST TREND! Exactly in the criminal manner of the Chinese revisionists and their ilk who denounce all those who consider the two superpowers to be the main enemy as "agents of the KGB", this Joseph Green is denouncing all those who firmly stand against revisionists and opportunists of all hues, including the centrist trend, as the standpoint of those who are "replac(ing) the denunciation of "RCP,USA"..." and so on. And all this is conjured up because of the "sale of the rights of the book by Palacios..." etc. This completely exposes Joseph Green as the most despicable agent-provocateur whose aim was to create this provocation against CPC(M-L). He shamelessly admits that "this is a matter of tactics" and confesses that "this tactic may also be interwoven with matters of principle". This means that Joseph Green has advanced these nefarious tactics of creating this
(Page 26)
provocation against CPC(M-L) in order to serve imperialism, social-imperialism and all reaction and revisionism and opportunism of all hues, with his most desperate aim being to disrupt the extremely warm and profound relations between CPC(M-L) and COUSML.
This concludes our resolute and firm denunciation of some of the wild slanders and accusations you have hurled at our Party in order to poison the extremely warm and profound relations which exist between CPC(M-L) and COUSML. These are all based on the one concocted lie with regard to "the sale of the rights of the book" and so on and so forth. The Central Committee is sending this letter to you to thoroughly denounce this vile provocation engineered by you, and to strengthen still further the relations between CPC(M-L) and COUSML on the basis of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism. We call upon the National Committee of the Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninists to take resolute action against this agent-provocateur. As well, we propose that a meeting of the delegations of the National Committee of COUSML and the Central Committee of CPC(ML) meet at once to resolve this issue -- the elimination of this vile provocation against our Party by Joseph Green. We are available to have discussion at any time. Fraternal discussions are the only way for dealing with such questions and are a Leninist norm, a norm which Joseph Green hates most of all and opposes with all his demagogy and deceit.
Central Committee
Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist)
December 5, 1979.
[Photo: First page of the Letter of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) to the National Executive Committee of the Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninists, December 5, 1979.]
The above letter is reproduced exactly as in the original. For reasons of authenticity, as well as because the incoherence of the letter made it difficult to make changes with any confidence, no typographical corrections have been made and the document is reproduced letter-for-letter as in the original.
The letter of the CC of the MLP of June 16, 1980 refers back to this letter and gives a detailed set of page references. Therefore, in order to preserve the original paging of this letter, so that these page references can be used, we have marked each point in the text where a new page began in the original with a blank line and the designation "Page X."
January 19,1980
To:
National Executive Committee
Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninists
Dear Comrades;
The National Publications Centre has forwarded to us a letter signed by the Chicago Branch of an organization calling itself "Marxist-Leninist Party, USA", account F-388. Since the National Publications Centre only conducts business with the Chicago Branch of the Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninists under this account number, they have brought this matter to our attention.
We consider this letter from the Chicago Branch of the "Marxist-Leninist Party, USA" to be a sign of the very inauspicious manner in which you are conducting the relations between our two organizations. Our letter dated December 5, 1979 remains without an answer which is highly irregular, to say the least, and we are informing you that neither the National Publications Centre, nor any of the Institutions associated with CPC(M-L) will have anything whatsoever to do with any "Marxist-Leninist Party, USA" until such a time as it is clarified what this organization is, what are its relations to COUSML and whether this "Marxist-Leninist Party, USA" is interested in establishing relations with us, or merely in receiving literature.
We urge you, once again, to pay serious attention to our proposal contained in our letter addressed to the National Committee of COUSML from the Central Committee of CPC(M-L), dated December 5, 1979 and that we be informed at the earliest possible time of the response.
National Executive Committee, Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist)
January 19,1980.
The above letter was delivered to us on February 4 via rapid inter-party channels. For reasons of their own, the leadership of CPC(M-L) backdated it to January 19. As well, along with this letter we also received a form letter dated December 15,1979. This letter was a cover letter for their letter to the CC of the RCP of Chile, which was enclosed.
May 29, 1980
Central Committee,
Marxist-Leninist Party of the USA.
The ZZZ has reported to our Party with documented facts that you are dishing out slanders and gossips against our Party amongst their supporters in the U.S.A. and that you are inciting your membership and supporters to attack and slander CPC(M-L). According to this report, the gossips and slanders being spread in various areas of the United States also include the repetition of the same lying assertions and slanderous accusations which were included in the letter written by Joseph Green for the National Executive Committee of COUSML to our Party dated December 1, 1979, to which the CC of CPC(M- L) gave a fitting reply in detail in our letter of December 5, 1979 which was delivered into the hands of the COUSML representative on December 7, 1979. COUSML never replied to our letter before it folded at the end of last year.
The provocative activity being carried out by cadre of the MLP, USA from coast-to-coast in the U.S.A. shows conclusively that you want to settle the outstanding matters between CPC(M-L) and COUSML, to which COUSML could not reply before breathing its last, by spreading gossips and slanders through your supporters amongst the supporters of the ZZZ in the U.S.A. and amongst others, as well. These provocative activities and other known and related anti-CPC(M-L) actions which have been carried out by your organization clearly shows that you have no principles to stand on. In the absence of any justness and integrity on your side, you have been forced to go down the well-travelled path of all agent-provocateurs, the notorious path of the revisionists and opportunists of all hues, the path of settling important and serious matters of Marxist-Leninist principle through gossip, rumour, slander, insinuations and innuendoes, pressure and blackmail. These activities also reveals the deep anti-CPC(M-L) feeling and resentment you are harbouring in your hearts while, at the same time, proclaiming from the roof-tops to the whole world that the MLP,USA is the "fraternal party" of CPC(M-L).
Our Party holds that the MLP, USA has no business whatsoever to spread gossips, rumours and slanders publicly, or privately for that matter, with regard to the nature and content of the fraternal relations between COUSML and our Party. If there was anything which COUSML wished to communicate to our Party on any question, then it had ample time and opportunity to do so before its dissolution on December 31, 1979. Secondly, the MLP,USA is not a "fraternal party" of the CPC(M-L), nor can you settle the major differences of principle which arose between our two fraternal Marxist-Leninist organizations, the CPC(M-L) and COUSML. Finally the fact that COUSML saw fit to not reply to the letter of the CC of CPC(M-L) of December 5, 1979 before its dissolution shows that it must have considered our criticism and repudiation of the false charges and lying assertions in the letter of Joseph Green for the NEC of COUSML to the NEC of CPC(M-L) to be correct and just. This is the only conclusion which can be drawn from its silence.
Our Party also rejects the bizarre reportage in the April 15th edition of The Workers' Advocate by a so-called "delegation of the Central Committee of the Marxist-Leninist Party of the USA" to the Internationalist Rally organized by CPC(M-L) on March 30, 1980 on the occasion of the 10th anniversary celebrations of the founding of our Party. This "report" deliberately gives the deceptive impression that your Party was invited to the Internationalist Rally, which was not the case. Besides this, through the publication of a public letter from your Founding Congress to CPC(M-L) and a second letter printed in the same April 15th edition of Workers' Advocate ostensibly "hailing" the 10th anniversary of the founding of our Party, a message signed by the CC of the MLP, USA and dated March 30, 1980 which to date has not been received by our Party, and so on, you have been sedulously trying to create the impression at home and abroad that not only has your Party established fraternal relations with CPC(M-L) but close and developed fraternal relations, which is also not the case. These high-handed and provocative activities on your part are unprincipled maneouvres to use pressure and blackmail for the purposes of accomplishing your own ends of forcing our Party to accept your anti-Leninist views and positions on the important questions of founding and building the Marxist- Leninist party of the proletariat in the U.S.A., of the unity of the Marxist-Leninists, on the proletarian strategy and tactics for the proletarian revolution and on other vital problems of the revolution and socialism. Such activities are not the activities characteristic of a sincere and genuine fraternal Marxist- Leninist Party. We denounce and completely dissociate ourselves from such activities.
Our Party, and the Internationalists before, has always looked at the question of establishing and building unity, fraternal relations and revolutionary co-operation with the Marxist-Leninist and revolutionary forces in the United States and on the world scale from the standpoint of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism and with utmost seriousness. Over the years, we have consistently built firm and warm ties of fraternal unity and friendship with first the American Communist Workers Movement (Marxist-Leninist) and then the Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninists, as well as with the genuine Marxist-Leninist parties of other lands.
At the end of 1979, COUSML ceased to exist. However, the organization established by COUSML neither established relations with CPC(M-L) nor did it make any effort whatsoever to seek to do so. On the contrary, your organization has carried out provocateur activities, blackmail and pressure and gross and flagrant interference for the purposes of forcing our Party to accept your anti-Leninist positions. Thus you have been issuing public declarations in a lofty manner that the MLP, USA is the "fraternal party" of the CPC(M-L) and distributing these internationally, and so on. The truth of the matter is that CPC(M-L) not only never established any relations whatsoever with your Party, but it also never engaged in any discussions to this end. Furthermore, the letter of the NEC of CPC(M-L) written to COUSML on January 19, 1980, after we received an order for literature from a local branch of the MLP,USA, requesting information on this organization, and so on, remains unanswered to date. Of course, you knew perfectly well that CPC(M-L) did not support the principles enunciated in the Call issued by COUSML in 1979 to found and build the Marxist- Leninist party in the U.S.A., and the ideo-political differences and divergences on this and other questions of Marxist-Leninist principle were never resolved before the dissolution of COUSML. Thus, for you to vainly strive to blackmail our Party by simply issuing declarations that CPC(M-L) is the fraternal party of the MLP, USA, not only flies in the face of the known facts but also can serve no other purpose but to harm the interests of the Marxist-Leninists in the U.S.A., as well as to cause damage to CPC(M-L) and the monolithic unity of the International Marxist-Leninist Communist Movement. The outstanding fact that our Party did not agree with the analysis and principles embodied in the Call issued by COUSML taken together with the fact that our Party presented its views in detail to COUSML on this question should have been enough to bring home to you that our Party would not establish any fraternal relations of friendship and co-operation with a Party based on this Call. However you have further degenerated into trying to fool public opinion, cover-up and spread confusion in order to exert pressure against our Party on this question. This amounts to abandoning both unity on the basis of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism and unity in action against the common enemies. Our Party resolutely condemns this perfidious activity of yours and we shall carry on condemning this provocateur activity to the end unless you put a stop to it at once.
Our unity with the fraternal Marxist-Leninist parties is based on the principles of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism. Our Party does not believe that the general line presented in the Communique and the resolutions publicly issued by the Founding Congress of your Party are based on the revolutionary theory of Marxism-Leninism and the principles of scientific socialism. On the contrary, the line advocated by the Founding Congress consists of a hodge-podge of concepts and views taken from the arsenal of American opportunism, which is based on the anti-Leninist theory of American exceptionalism, mixed with phrases from the classics of Marxism-Leninism and the revolutionary theses of the International Marxist-Leninist Communist Movement. The Communique itself neither proceeds from the laws and facts of social and historical development nor gives any concrete analysis whatsoever from the Marxist-Leninist standpoint of the present- day conditions, the class struggle and the forces in combat in the contemporary period in either the U.S.A. or on the international plane. Hence, the strategy and tactics advocated in this Communique do not conform to the science of Marxism-Leninism nor to the interests of the proletariat and its hegemonic role in the revolution. Our Party which has taken up the historic task of proletarian revolution for solution is firmly opposed to such a line enunciated in this Communique. It is our conviction that a Party whose Founding Congress has issued such a Communique has not been founded on the sound basis of the Marxist-Leninist political, ideological and organizational principles, and is not a genuine Marxist-Leninist party. Hence, there can be no relations established with such a Party on the basis of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism.
The Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) has a long and glorious history of over ten years of fraternal friendship and revolutionary co-operation with the genuine Marxist-Leninists in the U.S.A. The unity of the Marxist-Leninists of our two countries is unshakeable and can never be undermined nor sabotaged by the fact that you are brandishing your own peculiar analysis based on American exceptionalism, nor does our Party permit anyone to undermine this Marxist-Leninist unity.
Our letter to you and the activities we have carried out to build the unity of the Marxist-Leninists of the two countries is motivated solely by the purest sentiments and principles of proletarian internationalist solidarity and unity in the great cause of revolution and socialism against the common enemy with the genuine Marxist-Leninist and revolutionary forces in the U.S.A., with whom we have neither quarrels nor conflicts.
It is our firm conviction that the confusion spread by the erroneous analysis presented in your Communique and resolutions and your provocateur activities to mislead and deceive the genuine Marxist-Leninists in the U.S.A. can only cause temporary confusion. The fact that your Party has adopted anti-Leninist theses as presented in the Communique and the resolutions of your Founding Congress is a matter of grave concern to us and we are neither happy nor joyful about this turn of events organized by yourselves. The fact that you have gone to the extent of publicly spreading gossips and slanders against CPC(M-L) amongst the Marxist-Leninists and revolutionary forces in the U.S.A. is also not a matter of joy or happiness for our Party. These provocateur activities are extremely harmful to the cause of the revolution and socialism on the world scale. You have created an extremely dangerous situation for the Marxist-Leninist forces in the U.S.A. We are also well aware that you are carrying out provocative activities internationally. The anti-Leninist theses proclaimed by your Party and these provocative activities internally and externally are extremely harmful to the monolithic unity of the International Marxist- Leninist Communist Movement, as well as to the cause of the unity of the Marxist-Leninists in the U.S.A. itself. Our Party calls upon you to immediately desist from engaging in such dastardly activities, rectify and take up the historic task of building the Party on the basis of the sound principles of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism, and on no other basis.
You should examine this matter carefully and put an immediate and unequivocal end to the slanderous propaganda such as that which has been unleashed against CPC(M-L) in the United States. Our Party has always in theory and in practice supported the vigorous exchange of viewpoints and opinions between the genuine Marxist-Leninist parties for the purposes of mutual enlightenment, arriving at the correct Marxist-Leninist conclusions on common problems and consolidating and strengthening the unity and revolutionary co-operation between the Marxist-Leninist parties in the revolutionary struggle against the common enemies. These bilateral and multilateral discussions and exchanges strengthen the unity of the International Marxist-Leninist Communist Movement and are a powerful blow against imperialism and social-imperialism and revisionism and opportunism of all hues. This is the correct Leninist norm. Instead of adhering to this norm, you have resorted to gutter politics which is the hallmark of revisionism and opportunism of all hues. Your activities are not Marxist-Leninist. For your part, you are being "diplomatic" and two-faced with one view "over the table" and another view "under the table". You are claiming to the whole world that you are the "fraternal party" of the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist). You profess that you are for the "unity" of the International Marxist-Leninist Communist Movement and call yourself its "loyal contingent". But you are using the method of gossips and rumours, innuendo and insinuation, provocation and incitement and blackmail and pressure and gross and flagrant interference which is not only harmful to the interests of CPC(M-L) but also to the interests of the genuine Marxist-Leninist forces in the United States as well as to the International Marxist-Leninist Communist Movement. To carry such disruptive activities does not behoove a genuine Marxist-Leninist party and can only bring joy to the common enemies. In spite of all the activities you have been carrying out, we reaffirm the great confidence of our Party in the sincerity, integrity and dedication of the genuine Marxist- Leninist forces in the U.S.A. to the victory of the revolution and socialism, the lofty goal and aspirations of the proletarians and peoples of all lands. They will always receive our sympathy and resolute support.
If you continue these activities you have been resorting to, you will certainly emerge into open struggle against Marxism-Leninism and the forces of revolution and socialism. It is your communist duty and responsibility to put an immediate end to them. You have publicly declared your allegiance to the cause of the revolution and socialism. Yet, at the same time, you are resorting to tactics and forms of struggle characteristic of the revisionists and opportunists as well as adopted the analysis for which they have earnt such a notoriety. We rightly ask: why are you carrying on such activities? From the report sent to us by ZZZ on your activities amongst their supporters and the other known and related activities, it seems that you are indignant that CPC(M-L) does not have "fraternal relations" with you. Yet, at the same time, you have zealously taken measures which are pushing you farther and farther from Marxism-Leninism and the forces of revolution and socialism. On what basis do you establish relations with other genuine Marxist-Leninist parties? Do you sincerely believe for a minute that you can establish fraternal relations with other genuine Marxist-Leninist parties through pressure and blackmail and gross interference in their internal affairs? Fraternal relations can only be established with revisionist and opportunist organizations and sects on this basis.
Our Party is not happy that we have not established fraternal relations with your organization, but it is you who bear the sole responsibility for the situation. Nor should you idly draw the erroneous conclusion that our unhappiness with this situation is because of your provocateur activities. If you persist in such a path, we, of course, will fight you as we fight all revisionists and opportunists and the bourgeoisie and all reaction. We call upon you, once again, to put an end to such dastardly activities and take the path illuminated by the ever-fresh theory of Marxism-Leninism.
In conclusion, we point out to you that these are harsh criticisms but they are being sent to you for the purposes of assisting you to take up the glorious path of building the Marxist-Leninist party of the proletariat in the U.S.A. on the basis of Marxism- Leninism and the principles of proletarian internationalism. If you wish to obtain our views and analysis in detailed form, we invite you to send a delegation of the CC of your Party to pay a visit to Canada, and we will present to you our detailed analysis and study of your communique and the resolutions of your Founding Congress as well as our views on other pertinent questions. Because you have declared that you are the "fraternal party" of CPC(M- L), then we are certain that you will accept our proposal and send a delegation of your CC to receive the detailed views of our Party. This will assist you to understand and comprehend the positions of our Party thoroughly and deeply. At the same time, this will also give you ample opportunity to actually acquaint yourself with the views on these and other important and serious questions of the Party with which you have proclaimed that you have fraternal relations with. We can only reiterate, in conclusion, our call to you to end your provocateur activities and to base your Party on the immortal theory of Marxism-Leninism and the principles of proletarian internationalism, but that choice is yours, and yours alone to make.
Central Committee,
Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist).
May 29, 1980.
In the above letter the name of a certain Marxist-Leninist organization in a country outside North America has been replaced by ZZZ.
June 16, 1980
Central Committee Marxist-Leninist Party, USA June 16, 1980
Central Committee Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist)
Dear Comrades,
In May 1969 the nucleus of the Marxist-Leninist Party of the USA was established. Right from the start, first the ACWM(M-L) and then the COUSML and the MLP,USA have stood as the reliable fraternal comrades of the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) and its predecessors. The MLP, USA stands for the closest fraternal relations between itself and the CPC(M-L). In our letter of December 1, we declared that "Our two Parties are fighters in the same trench against imperialism, revisionism and all sorts of opportunism. We have gone through thick and thin together." We believe that the close fraternal unity of our two Parties is a powerful force for revolution. We are determined to fight for the revolutionary tempering and strengthening of this unity, for the directing of this unity always along the path dictated by Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism and for the implementation of the Marxist-Leninist norms. Unity on the basis of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism is a tremendous force on which the imperialists, the revisionists and all the enemies always break their teeth in vain.
It is this spirit which we have always and continuously inculcated in the ranks of the Party. For example, in early 1979 you accepted our invitation to attend our internal conference "Build the Marxist- Leninist Party Without the Social-Chauvinists and Against the Social-Chauvinists." There you saw with your own eyes what profound proletarian internationalist sentiment we cherish for the CPC(M-L) and how our Party carefully assesses and takes account of the lessons taught by the struggle of the Canadian Internationalists and the CPC(M-L). You chose for your own reasons not to accept our invitation for you to send a fraternal delegation to the Preparatory Conference for the Founding of the Marxist-Leninist Party of the USA and similarly you did not accept our invitation for you to send a fraternal delegation to the Founding Congress of the Marxist-Leninist Party of the USA. There too, at the Conference and the Congress, we continued on the same path. The Founding Congress unanimously passed a resolution sending to you, our dear fraternal comrades, our ardent revolutionary greetings. The pure proletarian internationalist sentiments of the Founding Congress shine forth in all their glory in that resolution and the other internationalist resolutions of the Congress. These are the feelings of the National Committee that led the preparations for the Founding Congress, of the Central Committee elected at the Founding Congress, and of the entire Marxist-Leninist Party, USA.
The fraternal unity between our two Parties is not unity for unity's sake. On the contrary, it is unity in the common struggle against imperialism and revisionism. It is unity on the basis of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism. This unity puts stern demands on our Marxist-Leninist Parties. These demands cannot be waived or set aside or replaced by some "special relationship." It is our duty and yours to stand for principle. We said in our letter of December 1: "...the building and strengthening of our cooperation require that the problems and difficulties that emerge be dealt with straightforwardly, calmly and openly, they must be looked at square in the face.... We hold that true friends are not those who sit still or who even applaud while errors are made, but those who have the deep love required to tell the truth even when it is unpleasant." But this has not met with your approval. You have replied savagely to our letter of December 1. You did not even stop for a few days to consider the serious and weighty issues we were raising. Instead it was enough for you that our letter disagreed with this or that view of the leadership of the CPC(M-L). Thus you received our letter on December 3 and yet had your allegedly "serious and thorough" study of our letter and your more than two dozen pages of reply done by December 5.
You replied instantaneously with your raving and incoherent letters of December 5 signed by the Central Committee of the CPC(M-L). These letters are nothing but a brutal ultimatum. They threaten that "the cup is now filled to the brim" and that you "have no more patience" (p. 15) and that "this time your defeat will be final" (p. 10). Blinded by arrogance, you look down on us from the heights of Mount Olympus and curse and mock us. You curse our deep fraternal love for you as the love of "the hangman for his victim" (p. 7), you strike with deep hostility at us, you accuse us of being "agent-provocateurs" (pp. 1, 4, 6, 12, 21, 24, 25, 26 and elsewhere), of being "the agents of the blackest reaction" (pp. 5, 15, etc.) and of being the "sworn enemy of" the CPC(M-L) and the international Marxist-Leninist communist movement (p. 1), of being criminals (pp. 15, 16, 22, etc.) and of acting like Nixon and like "imperialist gangsters," you hurl an incredible number of fierce provocations against us, and you strain and do a tremendous amount of harm to the fraternal relations between our two Parties. Such open declarations of hostility written to a fraternal party; such a frank avowal that disregard and contempt for the party and constant intense pressure to split the leadership should be accepted as everyday norms among fraternal parties; such an open declaration that the Marxist-Leninist norms should be replaced by a "special relationship"; has few precedents in the entire history of the international communist movement. These letters are a black stain on the glorious history of the CPC(M-L).
And who are you striking at with such fury and such hostility? You are striking at our Party, which has stood beside you loyally and without flinching in the face of the savage attacks and calumny from imperialism, revisionism and reaction. You are striking at us while we have remained on the path of true friendship, the path of upholding Marxist-Leninist principle and our historic fraternal relationship. But Marxism-Leninism does not allow one to flinch at difficulties. We have walked through fire for Marxism-Leninism and the revolution and for the strengthening of our fraternal relations with you. Today too, we shall continue our march on the same principled Marxist-Leninist path. This is the only path for the strengthening of genuine fraternal relations. Only this path is worthy of fighting contingents of the international Marxist-Leninist communist movement, contingents such as the Marxist-Leninist Party of the USA and the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist- Leninist).
With this letter, the Central Committee of the MLP,USA calls upon the Central Committee of the CPC(M-L) to have the courage, the wisdom and the loyalty to Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism required to stop on this provocative and anti-Marxist path which you are more and more treading on in your relations with us. We call on the CC of the CPC(M-L) to repudiate the letters of December 5, 1979 and all the other hostile letters, to repudiate the path of public attack on our Party which the CPC(M-L) has started down, to repudiate all the savage and hostile actions taken against the COUSML and the MLP,USA and to return to the path of friendly fraternal relations. We call on the CC of the CPC(M-L) to respect the norms of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism in its relations with the Marxist-Leninists of the U.S., to give up its attempts to impose a "special relationship" outside the Marxist-Leninist norms upon us, to respect the integrity of the MLP,USA and of its party bodies, and to deal with the differences between the two Parties that may come up and with the problems of practical relations according to the Marxist-Leninist norms and the standards of revolutionary professionalism. The CPC(M-L) is the Marxist-Leninist Party of the Canadian proletariat for whom we have high regards. We trust that the CPC(M.-L) will demonstrate the revolutionary steadfastness and iron determination that the situation calls for, and that it will courageously, thoroughly, completely and without the slightest equivocation of any type repudiate its hostile acts against our Party.
Our letter is divided as follows:
| PART ONETHE LEADERSHIP OF CPC(M-L) HAS ORGANIZED AN UNPRINCIPLED SPLIT |
|
| SECTION I: The National Committee of the Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninists and the Central Committee of the Marxist-Leninist Party of the USA have unanimously condemned your letters of December 5....................................................................................... | 63 |
| SECTION II: The December 5 letters are a savage attack against our Party, declaring the openly hostile stand of the Central Committee of the CPC(M-L).............................................. | 65 |
| II-A: The letters were written to oppose the Founding Congress of the MLP, USA................. | 65 |
| II-B: A brutal attempt to split the leadership of our Party........................................................... | 67 |
| II-C: An attack on the integrity of the party committees of our Party......................................... | 67 |
| II-D: A declaration that CPC(M-L) will act in the U.S. independently of our Party................... | 68 |
| II-E: A brutal ultimatum by the leadership of CPC(M-L)........................................................... | 69 |
| SECTION III: The leadership of CPC(M-L) has started down the road of public attacks against our Party.......................................................................................................................... | 70 |
| SECTION IV: With your filthy, vile and slanderous abuse against our Party you have descended to sewer politics......................................................................................................... | 74 |
| SECTION V: Proposal of the Central Committee of the MLP,USA concerning meetings between our two fraternal Parties................................................................................................ | 76 |
| SECTION VI: Your letters are full of lies and distortions of fact............................................... | 79 |
| VI-A: Your accusations that our comrades are agents provocateurs are contemptible and vile lies............................................................................................................................................... | 79 |
| VI-B: You know very well that our Party has never accused CPC(M-L) of being in a united front with the "three worlders"................................................................................................... | 79 |
| VI-C: Your accusation that we had a "kid-glove, soft and lovable attitude" towards the Palacios tour of the U.S. is a vicious lie..................................................................................... | 79 |
| VI-D-F: Lies where you accuse us of things because it is in fact you who are moving in this direction...................................................................................................................................... | 80 |
| VI-G-H: Lies where you automatically accuse us of whatever we have criticized you for....... | 80 |
| VI-I-N: You resort to the method of "deny everything," even the most glaring facts, in order to avoid the issues at stake.......................................................................................................... | 81 |
| VI-O-S: Lies concerning our meetings and discussions............................................................. | 85 |
| VI-T: We propose an exchange of the "full notes and minutes" on our discussions.................. | 91 |
| SECTION VII: On your concept of a "special relationship" between our Parties..................... | 92 |
| VI-A: A marked feature of the "special relationship" is your repeated use of brutal pressure against our Party.......................................................................................................................... | 92 |
| VII-A-1: The expulsion of the COUSML delegation to the Third Consultative Conference of the CPC(M-L)............................................................................................................................. | 93 |
| VII-A-2: The "freezing of relations" of early 1977.................................................................... | 94 |
| VII-A-3: Your denunciation of us as"imperialist gangsters" for insisting on a meeting between delegations of the two Parties....................................................................................... | 95 |
| VII-A-4: With your letter of November 5, 1977, you declared your opposition to meetings of delegations and even to written exchanges................................................................................. | 95 |
| VII-A-5: Your walkout from the March 4, 1978 meeting is further proof of your opposition to a meeting to discuss the disagreements................................................................................... | 97 |
| VII-A-6: The hostile boycott of the MLP,USA........................................................................... | 98 |
| VII-B: The leadership of CPC(M-L) has consistently failed to elaborate or write down the views which it has insistently urged on us.................................................................................. | 98 |
| VII-C: The leadership of CPC(M-L) has consistently speculated on individuals in our leadership.................................................................................................................................... | 102 |
(This issue of The Workers' Advocate only includes Part I of this letter. Part II will be printed in a coming issue of the paper. The entire Table of Contents is being printed here.)
-Part Two-
IDEOLOGICAL ISSUES
SECTION VIII: More on the "special relationship"
VIII-A: The leadership of CPC(M-L) is striving to replace the Marxist-Leninist norms with the "special relationship"
VIII-B: We do not agree with your theory of "two (or more) trends" in the international Marxist-Leninist communist movement
VIII-C: The double standard and the question of equality
VIII-D: On the epithet "peculiar"
VIII-E: The leadership of CPC(M-L) vehemently rejects any and all criticism
VIII-F: Opposition to the Marxist-Leninist norms on consultation and cooperation
VIII-G: A double standard in everything
SECTION IX: Opposition to the struggle against opportunism and revisionism, Chinese revisionism in particular, is the main ideological content of the December 5 letters
IX-A: The ideological and polemical struggle against Chinese revisionism and the other revisionisms must be intensified and carried through to the end
IX-B: You have condemned our struggle without careful consideration and study, but solely on the basis of anti-Marxist-Leninist generalities against the anti-revisionist struggle
IX-C: Our December l letter criticized a number of your theses directed against the struggle against opportunism
IX-D: Your letters of December 5 have further confirmed as correct the criticisms raised in our letter of December 1
SECTION X: What you are denouncing as "peculiar" are the well-known orthodox theses of the Marxist-Leninist classics and the advanced positions of contemporary revolutionary Marxism-Leninism
X-A: Denial of the present-day activation of revisionism and opportunism
X-B: Opposition to "highlighting" the struggle against Chinese revisionism
X-C: The struggle against social-chauvinism is international
X-D: By denouncing the struggle against "one's own" domestic opportunists, you are coming straight out against one of the cornerstones of Marxism-Leninism
X-E: No amount of anti-Leninist word-chopping can deny the reality that the new Marxist- Leninist parties have been formed and have matured in the struggle against the modern revisionist betrayal
X-F: A truly "peculiar" thesis which relegates Lenin's teachings on the struggle against opportunism to the museum of historical antiquity
X-G: Your opposition to the "without and against" slogan is also anti-Leninist
X-H: Sniveling complaints against the ideological and polemical struggle are alien to Marxism-Leninism
X-I: The centrist thesis that polemics against revisionism disrupt building "unity"
X-J: Marxism-Leninism considers that the anti-revisionist struggle is essential and invigorating for the party and the revolution -- not a mere unfortunate diversion as you insist.
SECTION XI: An anti-Marxist crusade against ideological struggle and demagogical speculations on the slogan of opposing "the Maoist theory of 'two-line struggle'"
XI-A: Playing with the phrase "two-line struggle" to condemn the struggle against revisionism
XI-B: Your theory of "two (or more) trends in the international Marxist-Leninist communist movement" is close in spirit to Mao's theory of the necessity of two (or more) lines in the party
XI-C: When you condemn the ideological struggle you are renouncing one of the fundamental tenets of Marxism-Leninism
XI-D: The principles involved in the controversy over the term "idealist anti-revisionism"
XI-E: Turning on its head Lenin's fight against the opportunist slogan "freedom of criticism"
XI-F: A mutilation of Stalin's correct teachings on the monolithic unity of the party in order to extinguish the class struggle in the party
XI-G: To profess a purely formal and empty "official optimism" concerning the unity of the Marxist-Leninists is to profess "official optimism" in regard to opportunism
XI-H: Your tirades against "campaigns" and "movements" show your addiction to empty phrasemongering
SECTION XII: Under the cover of "unity in one party," pragmatic maneuvering with the opportunist chieftains replaces the principled struggle against opportunism
XII-A: More on "unity": The brilliant "tactics" of "we put unity in the forefront, and they expose themselves"
XII-B: The life and death conflict in the United States between Marxism-Leninism and opportunism is replaced by "pro-CPC(M-L)" versus "anti-CPC(M-L)," independent of ideological content
XII-C: Your support for the movement against social-chauvinism was only temporary because it was based on pragmatic considerations
SECTION XIII: Unity-mongering to oppose the struggle against conciliationism and "centrism" in particular
SECTION XIV: Panic-stricken speeches which manifest a sharp turn towards rightism
XIV-A: A treacherous attack on the Party of Labor of Albania
XIV-B: A thief cries "stop thief!"
XIV-C: It is wrong to inculcate distrust and disrespect for the international Marxist-Leninist communist movement
XIV-D: You restrict the criticism of Mao Zedong Thought to meaningless generalities and tend to present it as petty-bourgeois ultra-leftism.
XIV-E: An empty self-criticism: To profess a purely formal and empty "official optimism" concerning the unity of the Marxist-Leninists is to profess "official optimism" in regard to opportunism
XIV-F: A continuing crusade against ideological struggle
XIV-G: Negation and ridicule of the essential task of party-building
XIV-H: A sharp turn towards rightism on a series of important political issues
XIV-I: You deny the enigma of China in order to create an aura of your own infallibility
-- PART ONE --
THE LEADERSHIP OF CPC(M-L) HAS ORGANIZED AN UNPRINCIPLED SPLIT
SECTION I: The National Committee of the Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninists and the Central Committee of the Marxist-Leninist Party of the USA have unanimously condemned your letters of December 5
Our condemnation of your letters of December 5 is the unanimous stand of the Central Committee. We have given careful and detailed consideration to your letters of December 5, have gone over these letters repeatedly and have even put aside for a time other pressing work in order to give your letters and the history of relations between our two Parties our complete attention. We have studied both the letters and also the careful and detailed documentation of the course of relations between our two Parties of the last few years and the minutes of the discussions between the two Parties.
The National Committee of the COUSML began the study of these two letters. These two letters were delivered to us after the NEC had already left for the Preparatory Conference for the Founding of the Marxist-Leninist Party of the USA. The National Committee therefore discussed these letters immediately after the Preparatory Conference. The National Committee unanimously came to the following view about these letters:
"The entire National Committee read and discussed the two letters of December 5 from the Central Committee of the CPC(M-L) to the National Committee and National Executive Committee of COUSML. The National Committee totally disagrees with these letters. These letters are a brutal pressure to split the COUSML's leadership. They are totally provocative, astonishingly crude and brutal in style, and full of inaccuracies and outright lies. The National Committee decided that the further analysis of these letters and the decision on the appropriate course of action should be made by the Central Committee of the Marxist-Leninist Party of the USA." (Extract from the minutes of an NC meeting of December 1979)
The Central Committee of the MLP,USA also studied these letters. It looked into the historical record in detail. The Second Plenum of the CC took up the analysis of the present situation in the relations with the CPC(M-L) and these letters. The Second Plenum of the CC agreed with the earlier views of the National Committee, quoted above, and further elaborated the analysis of the present situation in the fraternal relations. The views of the Central Committee were unanimous. The CC decided to write this letter to the CC of the CPC(M-L) in order to put forward our views on a number of matters connected with these letters. This letter too is the unanimous letter of the CC, having been read and approved unanimously at the Fourth Plenum of the CC.
An extract from the minutes of the Second Plenum follows:
"The Central Committee discussed the two letters of the Central Committee of the CPC (M-L) to the National Committee and National Executive Committee of the COUSML.
"The Central Committee agrees with the assessment of the National Committee of the COUSML as expressed in the minutes of the meeting of December 1979.
"The basic stand of the letters of December 5 and [the present stand as expressed in those letters] of the leadership of the CPC(M-L) is that of hostility to the leadership of the Party, savage opposition to the Founding Congress of the Party, and contempt for the positions, views and activity of the entire Party. The letters openly call for a split in the leadership of the Party and shamelessly avow that the leadership of the CPC(M-L) has been working for over two years to that end. The leadership of the CPC (M-L) also declares in the letters that it will act unilaterally in the U.S. without regard for the Party. Such open declarations of hostility written to a fraternal party; such frank avowal that splitting activity, disregard for the Party and contempt for the Party should be accepted as everyday norms among fraternal parties; such an open declaration that the Marxist-Leninist norms should be replaced by a 'special relationship'; has few precedents in the international communist movement.
"The letters were written especially to oppose the Founding Congress of the Marxist- Leninist Party. That is why [the leadership of] the CPC(M-L) had to rush to complete and send the letters prior to the Preparatory Conference for the Founding of the Marxist-Leninist Party.
"The purpose of the letters is not mainly against this or that individual. Over the years, the leadership of the CPC(M-L) has attacked now this and now that individual, even simultaneously attacking one individual to the other and vice versa. A basic purpose of the letters is to destroy the National (Central) Committee as a coherent leading body that... refuses to give in to this or that pressure.
"The present series of problems in the relations between the CPC(M-L) and the Marxist- Leninist Party (and [its predecessor] the COUSML) go back to late 1975. They arose and developed over questions of the practical relations between fraternal parties, over the Marxist-Leninist norms of relations. The leadership of COUSML regarded them as problems in the practical relations between parties that should be sorted out in a professional and businesslike way on that basis. The leadership of the CPC (M-L) refused to do this and advocated that this was a matter of principle, that behind every difference in the practical relations lay a political line and that to attempt to solve the problems of practical relations as simply that, problems of practical relations, was a practice of executives meeting in a board meeting of a capitalist corporation. The problems of practical relations festered. At a certain stage, ideological differences either arose or came out into the open between the two fraternal Parties. These ideological differences became intertwined with the solution of the problems of practical relations. The leadership of the CPC(M-L) linked up its attitude to COUSML with whether or not COUSML accepted the views of CPC(M-L), used the practical relations as a method of putting pressure on the COUSML, and thus continually deepened the problems. These problems became acute especially in regard to the struggle against the MLOC/'CPUSA(ML),' the 'RCP,USA' and to what could for convenience be called 'centrism'; on the issue of struggle against opportunism in general; and on the question of whether the Internationalists and the parties that historically are related to the Internationalists form a separate or distinct 'trend' in the international Marxist-Leninist communist movement (the question of 'special relationship,' 'two (or more) trends in the international Marxist-Leninist communist movement,' special discipline and so forth)....
"These letters of December 5 of the [Central Committee of] the CPC(M-L) are a black stain on the Marxist-Leninist movement in North America. The entire hostile activity of the [leadership of] the CPC(M-L) against the Marxist-Leninist Party (and [its predecessor] the COUSML) constitutes a black stain on the history of warm, deep and fraternal relations between the two Marxist-Leninist Parties.''
As well, due to your traveling down the road of making your differences with our Party public, at a certain point it was no longer possible or desirable to restrict the discussion of the issues involved to the CC. After months of the most rigorous restraint by our side after receiving your brutal letters of December 5, the CC therefore mandated a full discussion of the issues involved with all the members and militants of our Party. They were shown all the appropriate material, including your letters of December 5 and subsequent correspondence. In this discussion, the entire MLP,USA condemned the hostile stand taken by you against our Party and unanimously approved the preliminary draft of this letter.
In order to further demonstrate the iron unity of our Party and its leadership, it is appropriate in this part of our letter to inform you that our letter of December 1 was in fact the letter of our National Committee. In your letters of December 5, you make a great show of pretending that our letter of December 1 was only the personal letter of an individual, Comrade Joseph Green. In this way, you denied the authority of the NEC to speak for the COUSML, opposed the integrity of the leading party committees of the COUSML and put yourself in the position of openly trying to split the leadership of our Party. On page 21, for example, you counterpose the National Executive Committee to the National Committee and the "authoritative Congress." We reject your mocking of the party principle and tell you frankly that we insist on the rigorous observation of the integrity of the Party in the course of fraternal relations. While as to the letter of December 1 itself the facts are that the November 24, 1979 meeting of the National Committee discussed the draft of this letter. It unanimously approved the letter in the main and mandated certain relatively minor alterations. Thus this letter was actually the unanimous letter of the National Committee. But since the leadership of the CC of CPC(M-L) had several times stated to us your opposition to such matters being handled at the National Committee or Central Committee level, as a matter of courtesy we addressed the letter of December 1 to your National Executive Committee from our National Executive Committee. We must however express our indignation to the fact that the leadership of the CPC(M-L) first repeatedly opposes our practice of bringing certain matters concerning the fraternal relations to our National Committee or Central Committee, and then turns around and tries to split our leadership by denying the authority of the NEC and counterposing it to the National Committee or "authoritative Congress."
We shall now proceed to elaborate a number of the issues raised by your letters of December 5 in more detail.
SECTION II: The December 5 letters are a savage attack against our Party, declaring the openly hostile stand of the Central Committee of the CPC(M-L)
The letters of December 5 are a savage attack against our Party. With these letters, you come out into the open with a hostile stand against our Party.
II-A: The letters were written to oppose the Founding Congress of the MLP,USA
One of the main purposes of the letters of December 5, 1979 was to oppose the Founding Congress of the Marxist-Leninist Party of the USA. This was why they had to be written in such a rush. Our letter of December 1 raised serious and weighty issues, but it did not require an instantaneous response. For that matter, you have let years go by and still not answered various of our other letters. In the case of the letter of December 1, it would have been better if you had thought over the issues involved, rather than replying instantaneously. You felt a great "lack of time" and were in such a rush because you wanted to get the letters to us in time to oppose the holding of the Preparatory Conference for the Founding of the Marxist-Leninist Party of the USA and the Founding Congress of the Marxist-Leninist Party of the USA.
Your letters themselves openly avow that they are against the Founding Congress of the MLP,USA. Thus you state in the letters the following views:
"We are keeping our comments brief [? -- ed.] because of the urgency with which we feel is necessary to reply to this letter and because of the lack of time. The COUSML is soon going to found the Marxist-Leninist Party, USA and we firmly believe that the new Marxist-Leninist Party in the USA will be established on a really firm foundation only if the political and ideological ideas and views you are presenting are thoroughly repudiated and denounced by the Founding Congress." (p. 1)
Thus you openly link up the rush in writing your letters to the Founding Congress. You also talk of repudiation of this or that view. This is just a ruse. Your letters do not contain a repudiation of this or that view, but instead consist of over two dozen pages of insults thrown at the Party. If you were interested in helping the Party and in repudiating incorrect views, you would have written on this or that ideological, theoretical or political question. Since you yourself admit that the differences are not new, and you even talk about an alleged "reactionary campaign" going back more than two years, clearly there was no "lack of time" as you pretend. In fact, what you are doing is setting an ultimatum that a split in the leadership of our Party and a firm commitment to agree to any sort of "special relationship" that catches your fancy is necessary for you to recognize the Marxist-Leninist Party, USA.
You yourselves admit that the issue is not political and ideological clarification for the purpose of having a "really firm foundation" on page 7. Here you drop all talk of "political and ideological ideas and views" and "really firm foundation" and bluntly say that the issue is a "provocation" that must be ended prior to the founding of the MLP,USA.
"Now, it is the duty and communist responsibility of the National Committee of the COUSML to thoroughly and severely deal with those responsible for this provocation against our Party and the fraternal relations between our two Parties.... Because of the extremely serious and grave nature of these charges, this provocation must be ended before the Marxist-Leninist Party, USA is founded." (p. 7, emphasis added) Thus you yourselves admit that the issue involved is that of "fraternal relations between our two Parties" and that of our "provocation," i.e., that we submitted comradely, fraternal criticism of certain of your views and actions to you. You further emphasize that this is the case in your letter to the NC of December 5. It states that you cannot attend the Preparatory Conference and the Founding Congress, not because of any "political and ideological ideas and views," but because of an alleged provocation against your Party. Furthermore, it states that you will refuse to attend any meeting if Comrade Joseph Green is there -- it is not totally clear whether that refers to any meeting of the delegations of the two Parties or to any congresses or conferences of the MLP,USA. But in either case it is blatant interference in our internal affairs, arrogant bullying and represents a hostile stand. You write:
"We are writing this note to you to firmly condemn the imperialist gangster and agent-provocateur activities of Joseph Green and to call upon you to firmly repudiate the provocations which he has organized against our Party through the concoction of various lies and slanders. At the same time, we propose that a meeting of the delegation of the National Committee of the Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninists and the delegation of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) should take place at the soonest possible time. Until such a meeting can be convened, the CC of CPC(M-L) cannot accept your invitation to send a delegation to your Preparatory Conference for the Founding of the Marxist-Leninist Party, USA or to the Founding Congress of the MLP,USA. Furthermore, we will not participate in any meeting which will include Joseph Green or in any meeting where any provocations [i.e., anyone disagrees with the leadership of the CPC(M-L) -- ed.] are organized against our Party." (emphasis added)
Here you openly admit that the issue is the alleged "imperialist gangster and agent-provocateur activities" and "provocations." You regarded any friendly or fraternal criticism of you, as in our letter of December 1, as "imperialist gangster and agent-provocateur activities." Thus you insisted as a precondition for the founding of the MLP,USA its absolute repudiation of any criticism of this or that view of the leadership of the CPC(M-L) and the MLP,USA's choosing of its leadership in accordance with the dictate of the CC of the CPC(M-L).
The hostile stand of the leadership of the CPC (M-L) against the Founding Congress has been continued. Your National Executive Committee sent us a letter via the ordinary internal intra-party channels. We received it on February 4 (although for your own reasons you backdate it to January 19). This informs us of your stand on the MLP,USA in the manner of the smart aleck in a letter allegedly about a literature order to the National Publications Centre. This provocative and hostile letter states:
"...neither the National Publications Centre, nor any of the Institutions associated with CPC(M-L) will have anything whatsoever to do with any 'Marxist-Leninist Party, USA' until such a time as it is clarified what this organization is, what are its relations to COUSML and whether this 'Marxist-Leninist Party, USA' is interested in establishing relations with us, or merely in receiving literature." (emphasis added)
Thus the leadership of the CPC(M-L) resorts to the pathetic ruse that they don't know what the Marxist- Leninist Party is nor what its relations are to COUSML. Mind you, this is the same CPC(M-L) whose leadership arrogantly dictates various preconditions for the founding of the Marxist-Leninist Party, USA and who can or cannot be in the delegations of the MLP, USA. It is the same leadership of the same CPC (M-L) that has been consulted every step of the way concerning the founding of the MLP,USA. But all of a sudden, the NEC of the CPC(M-L) allegedly has a bad case of amnesia. You have slapped yourself in the face in advance in your letters of December 5 when you raise the issue that someone is "insinuating that there is nothing whatsoever between the CPC(M-L) and COUSML, no history and no common struggle, all with the ulterior motive of rewriting this history and disrupting the relations between CPC (M-L) and COUSML." (p. 2)
Thus the NEC of the CPC(M-L) in its letter of early February ("Jan. 19") is openly mocking at the relations between the MLP,USA and the CPC(M-L). Strictly speaking, with this letter the NEC of the CPC (M-L) has announced that as far as they are concerned there are no relations between the MLP, USA and the CPC(M-L). Furthermore, the NEC of the CPC(M-L) in the next paragraph of this letter explicitly links this stand with the letter of the CC of the CPC(M-L) of December 5. Such a hostile stand from our fraternal comrades of over a decade pains us. We continue to stand for the continuation and strengthening of the fraternal relations between the MLP,USA and the CPC(M-L). Clearly this is only possible if the most resolute opposition is maintained to such hostile and provocative activity as that of the letter of the NEC of the CPC(M-L) of early February, 1980 and of the two letters of the CC of the CPC(M-L) of December 5, 1979.
II-B: A brutal attempt to split the leadership of our Party
The letters of December 5 go all-out to split the leadership of our Party and to discredit it. The letters throw unspeakable filth at Comrade Joseph Green and other comrades of the NEC and the NC of the COUSML. According to your letters, our comrades are "agent-provocateurs," "agents of the darkest reaction," "worms," "mad dogs," "idiots," "Charlie's angels" and "dummies"; they "behave like imperialist gangsters," have a "criminal mentality," and are "incorrigible." You make such fantastic claims as that we give shelter to avowed national and social-chauvinists and you present our internal life as "forc(ing)" someone or other out of the leadership, (p. 10) All these charges are slanderous, unsupported, filthy lies. Their purpose is to apply brutal pressure against the integrity of our Party and to split the leadership of our Party.
Your letters make no attempt to hide your attempts to split our leadership. You arrogantly proclaim that "we will not participate in any meeting which will include Joseph Green" and demand his removal from "the ranks of the genuine Marxist-Leninists," let alone from "any kind of leadership position." Actually, in your letter you brag about your activities to split the leadership of our Party. You admit that you have worked to that end for "more than two years." Thus you state that:
"More than two years ago, we communicated to COUSML that, 'Some of you are behaving like imperialist gangsters.' We are firmly convinced that Joseph Green is one such individual." (Letter of December 5 to the National Committee)
Here by the way you admit that Comrade Joseph Green is only "one such individual" and you intend to keep the charge of "behaving like imperialist gangsters" hanging over our entire leadership like the sword of Damocles. That is why you refer to Joseph Green as a plural, as "these Joseph Greens," on page 15. But as well you are bragging that your telephone message to us of Monday, August 8, 1977, the message which said that "You are acting like a bunch of imperialist gangsters. The kind of relations you will have with us in the future is up to you.", was in fact not a mistake but a deliberate attempt to split our leadership. You explicitly endorse this message. This shows that the NEC and NC of the COUSML were a thousand times correct in taking this telephone message very seriously and in refusing to accept that such messages could be accepted as the ordinary norm in day-to-day business. It also shows the complete hypocrisy of your provocative and shameful letter to us of September 9, 1977. At that time, faced with the principled and resolute stand of our NEC and NC that charges of "acting (or behaving) like imperialist gangsters" were serious matters, the leadership of the CPC(M-L) twisted and turned this way and that and wrote:
"We say to you: If we consider our fraternal comrades with whom we have shared weal and woe for so many years as 'imperialist gangsters,' and you believe that this is what we do, then for what reason do you want to maintain fraternal relations with us?"
Clearly this statement of yours was an impermissible and provocative statement. Then, as now, you were threatening us with the rupture of the fraternal relations. The issue was not whether we " believe(d) that this is what" the leadership of CPC(M-L) thinks, but that the leadership of CPC(M-L) had made a serious charge which it neither retracted nor provided evidence for. But the complete hypocrisy of this statement of September 9, 1977 is now fully revealed, when in the letters of December 5, 1979 the CC of the CPC(M-L) explicitly endorses that in fact it does hold that there are "agent-provocateurs" am1 people "behaving like imperialist gangsters" in our leadership. This shows that the original charges from back in August 1977, were even then a brutal method of bringing pressure on our leadership and a savage attempt to create splits.
II-C: An attack on the integrity of the party committees of our Party
Although the letters make savage personal attacks against Comrade Joseph Green and other comrades,
nevertheless the purpose of the letters is not mainly against this or that individual. A basic purpose of the letters is to attack the integrity of our party committees. This is not to say that the attacks on individual comrades aren't serious. Such attacks on individual comrades are deadly serious attempts to discredit and ruin this or that individual. They are attempts to maintain the political equivalent of "dossiers" on everyone for the purpose of political blackmail and to remove anyone who doesn't submit from "the ranks of the genuine Marxist-Leninists." But the overriding purpose of this political blackmail and these savage attempts to split the leadership is to wipe out the integrity of the party committees.
Thus the letters of December 5 make a number of direct attacks on the authority of the National Executive Committee. We have already pointed out above how these letters make a great show of pretending that our letter of December 1 was only the personal letter of Comrade Joseph Green. This was linked up by the letters of December 5 with their direct denunciation of the authority of the NEC of the COUSML to speak for the COUSML. We pointed out how on page 21 the letters counterpose the NEC to the NC and the party congress. Of course, this counterposition does not mean that the leadership of the CPC(M-L) has any respect for the NC or the party congress. We have seen above that in fact the letters of December 5 are written directly to oppose the Preparatory Conference and the Founding Congress. But by this counterposition of the party committees and congresses, the letters of December 5 express their opposition to the authority of any of these party institutions. The letters openly defend that in fact it is the leadership of the CPC(M-L) who can decide who represents the COUSML and make whatever agreement they want with that person. Thus the letters state:
"We have always disagreed with your arrogance and high-handedness in your repeated efforts to try to dictate to us just what we can and cannot say when the representatives of our two Parties meet." (pp. 14-15)
Thus with your own words, you admit that you have "always" given yourselves the right to decide the limits of the competences of our representatives. The leadership of the CPC(M-L) has given itself the right to claim that it can discuss matters with any comrade in the leadership of our Party and come to a decision binding on our NEC and NC. Indeed you have given yourself the right to talk to anyone around our Party, whether in or out of the leadership or even in or out of the formal Party organization, on any question. Our representatives have never refused to hear out the leadership of CPC(M-L), but our representatives have refused to usurp the powers of our party committees. In your letters, you denounce our representatives as "Charlies's angels" and "dummies" because they have upheld the integrity of our Party and the authority of our NEC and NC. You have repeatedly gone to the extent of simply calling down to our center and demanding that this or that comrade by name travel to meet you, instead of asking for discussion on this or that subject. You have made a point of generally refusing to specify the nature of the discussions in advance, but have demanded this or that comrade and sought to go around the NEC. And it has happened that the NEC has traveled to meet you, yet you have refused to have discussion -- either by walking out of a previously mutually agreed-on meeting or by refusing to talk to the NEC and instead choosing to talk only to certain other comrades in our delegation. (Meetings of early March 1978 and of early September 1978) This is another proof of the astounding hypocrisy of your letters of December 5, when you deny the authority of the NEC by counterposing it to the NC and the party congress, while in fact you have sought to replace the authority of the NC and the NEC by your own arbitrary assignment of authority to our representatives.
To deny the authority of the party committees is a hostile stand against a party. A party must rigorously insist on its organizational integrity. Friendship with a party is not just a question of abstract moral sentiments, but is also a question of respecting the organizational integrity of that party. By striking at the organizational integrity of our Party, the letters of December 5 do grave harm to the fraternal relations between the two Parties.
II-D: A declaration that CPC(M-L) will act independently of our Party in the U.S.
You openly declare in your letters of December 5 that the leadership of CPC(M-L) will act in the U.S. independently of the Marxist-Leninist center in the U.S. You wrote:
"Besides pulling out his hair, Joseph Green goes on lashing his body and flagellating himself in true masochistic fashion: 'Our two Parties may not always agree on certain tactical issues, but that does not give you the right to unilaterally undertake actions such as the selling of the rights to the Palacios' book that affect us first and foremost and undermine our stands and struggle'. This is not a Marxist-Leninist, fraternal comrade seriously and sincerely trying to correct his wayward, fraternal comrades, but a dyed-in-the-wool trotskyite, who is speaking with a forked tongue, and whenever he thinks he has gotten a little opening, he wriggles into it. Our Party will never seek 'approval' from any fraternal Party for any of our actions, either before taking actions or after taking actions." (pp. 11-12, emphasis added)
And for what type of action is the leadership of CPC(M-L) so fiercely asserting its independence? The action under discussion is of the following nature:
A) It is an action concerning the struggle in the U.S. between Marxism-Leninism and the "three worlders." It both immediately affected this struggle and objectively involved a political contact with the "RCP,USA."
B) It is an action which unilaterally cancelled agreements with our Party without even notifying us. The agreements concerning the distribution and promotion of Palacios' book, Chile: An Attempt at "Historic Compromise," were a complicated set of agreements between the RCP of Chile and CPC (M-L), the RCP of Chile and COUSML, and CPC (M-L) and COUSML.
C) It is an action in the U.S. taken independently of and without even notifying, to say nothing of consulting, our Party, which you have worked with and recognized as the Marxist-Leninist center in the U.S. for over a decade.
D) It is also worth mentioning that the action was a tactical blunder. And it is not at all surprising that actions taken in the U.S. independently of the Party run the risk of fiasco.
Your declaration that "Our Party will never seek 'approval' from any fraternal Party for any of our actions, either before taking actions or after taking actions," means that you have declared that you will act in the U.S. independently of your fraternal party. Thus you are in fact denying the necessity for a single Marxist-Leninist center for the U.S. and the necessity of the application of the party principle in the U.S. By giving yourself a free hand in the U.S., you are denying the existence of the party in the U.S. or denying the party principle.
In fact, you go on in your letter to mock at the necessity for a single directing center in the U.S. by mocking at the need for consultation and cooperation. Still defending your self-proclaimed right to act in the U.S. independently of the Marxist-Leninist center in the U.S., you write:
"In the final paragraph on page three of his Part Two [of our letter of the NEC of the COUSML of December 1 -- ed.], Joseph Green again uses demagogy in the most shameless fashion in order to serve his pragmatic ends. He writes: 'This question of consultation and cooperation is, in our view, one of the most important questions of principles involved in the issue of the selling of the rights to Palacios' book to the RCP,USA".' Why is this 'one of the most important questions of principle? It is because this worm has found out through this so-called 'consultation' a 'fact' through which he can wriggle with to nail the CPC(M-L). There is no other reason whatsoever." (p. 13, emphasis added)
With this statement, you shamelessly mock at the necessity for cooperation and consultation between fraternal parties and at the norms forbidding interference in each other's affairs. According to your statement, no one but worms could raise such issues, only shameless demagogues intent to "nail the CPC(M-L)." But the more you mock at the necessity for consultation and cooperation, the clearer it is that this is a very serious issue of principle. No, fraternal comrades, it is not "dyed-in-the-wool trotsky(ism)" to adhere to the party principle. On the contrary, the trotskyites oppose the party principle. It is Marxism- Leninism which teaches the necessity of the single leading center for the revolutionary movement, the necessity of the general staff of the proletariat. Your declaration that you are free without any limits to act with regard to the U.S. independently of your fraternal comrades is a gross violation of principle and displays a hostile stand to our Party.
II-E: A brutal ultimatum by the leadership of CPC(M-L)
These letters are a brutal ultimatum. With them, you are opposing discussion on the burning questions of interest between our two Parties. That is also why you ridicule the question of "consultation and cooperation" and say that "There is no other reason whatsoever" why we raise it as one of the most important questions of principle except our alleged desire to "nail the CPC(M-L)." These letters openly replace the Marxist-Leninist norms of fraternal relations and of consultation and cooperation with brutal dictate, with one side imposing its views on the other side and even dictating the composition of the other's leading bodies by sheer fiat.
In your letters you stress that you are delivering an ultimatum by your talk of losing patience. You write that:
"We returned your despicable letters [despicable in your eyes solely because they opposed certain of your erroneous actions -- ed.] then. But, this time, the cup is now filled to the brim. We have no more patience with the likes of you two-faced and double-dealing elements. This is the reason why we have organized a meeting of the Central Committee of CPC(M-L) regardless of the effort and expense and this letter [N.B.: the letter of December 5, not our letter of December 1 -- ed.] has been fully and in detail discussed and deliberated in this session and is formally the letter of the CC of CPC(M-L) in reply to the letter of December 1, 1979, written by Joseph Green 'for the' National Executive Committee of the Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninists." (p. 15)
Thus you explicitly state that you refuse to have any patience for normal fraternal relations. You have even lost the patience necessary to reject our letters offhand without any serious consideration (as you did in the past) or to simply return them. Therefore you put forward the ultimatum: either accept the December 5 letter -- or else! Either split the leadership of the COUSML -- or else!
Now, what is it you have lost patience with? You lost patience altogether and decided that "the cup is now filled to the brim" after our letter of December 1. This letter opposed the sale of the rights to the English translation of the book by Palacios, Chile: An Attempt at "Historic Compromise," to the "RCP,USA" and put forward, or more properly reiterated, our previously verbally expressed views on certain questions of tactics and principles. Hence it follows that you lost patience with comradely criticism and with listening to our views. This time even returning the letters will not suffice. This time you must ensure that, as you say in your letter, our "defeat will be final." (p. 10)
In the passage we have quoted, you talk of careful and detailed consideration of the issues. But it is obvious that the whole purpose of the letters of December 5 is to oppose careful and detailed consideration. Our views are called a "provocation" and they are to be banned from discussion in future meetings between our two Parties on the plea of avoiding "provocations" (you already put this into practice in the meeting of early March 1978 when you walked out). You call our views "devoid of any content" (p. 10) and thus indicate that you found nothing in them worthy of any careful consideration. You parody our letter and over and over again repeat the vile and out-and-out lie that we have charged that "CPC(M-L) advocates the 'United front with the "three wonders".' " (pp. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 12, 13, 20, etc.) You set out this red herring and straw man in order to inflame passions and to avoid at all costs any serious consideration of the actual issues we have raised. For the same reason, you shout over and over that we are allegedly out to "NAIL CPC(M-L)" (pp. 13, 14, 15, 16, 25, etc.) which you usually put in big capitals. What a frenzy to avoid the real issues at stake! Furthermore, you seem to have surely done things in record time. You called together the CC "regardless of the effort and expense" (which means that the CC was not otherwise meeting at the time and had to be gathered at considerable effort and expense); you considered the issues raised by our letter of December 1; you presumably would have had to study and consider the history of our relations of over one decade or at least consider the last few years in order to make the decision to launch your ultimatum of December 5; you accused Comrade Joseph Green and others of being agents provocateurs; you wrote, revised if necessary, "fully and in detail discussed and deliberated" on them and approved your letters of December 5 which are over two dozen pages long -- and did all this between December 3 when you received our letter and December 5, the date of your letters -- that is, in a space of not more than 48-72 hours, including transportation and notification time for gathering your CC. Can it be that you wanted to make up for not answering certain of our other letters for literally years, or for "losing" the promised solidarity message in support of the campaign to found the Marxist-Leninist Party and not finding it ever in the period between May, 1979 and the present, despite innumerable promises to us? We have been criticized by certain social-democrats for having said "when there's a will, there's a way," but life itself provides such convincing examples! The real reason for your haste, however, is that you are opposed to considering our letter and that you wanted to make haste to oppose the Founding Congress of the MLP,USA.
We have already shown in II - A that your ultimatum is delivered against the Founding Congress of the MLP,USA. You have threatened our relations. But our Party does not agree with the method of ultimatum and bullying. We shall build solid and powerful fraternal relations only by following the Marxist- Leninist norms. The only way to build such relations is to oppose such ultimatums, which are hostile acts against our Party.
SECTION III: The leadership of CPC(M-L) has started down the road of public attacks against our Party
You have gone to the extent of withdrawing any public support from us and have started down the road of public attacks against our Party. Indeed you have carried your unprincipled splitting activity to the point of a public split. You are now seeking to organize your own anti-party network in the U.S. And you are placing great pressure on the parties that you regard as part of your "trend" to take part in your boycott and hostile work against our Party.
For some time you have been cutting down on and eliminating public support for our Party from your press. This is not because People's Canada Daily News (PCDN) has not written about the U.S. or about the international Marxist-Leninist communist movement. It is precisely support for the Marxist-Leninist vanguard of the U.S. that has been withdrawn. This is quite apparent with regard to the campaign to found the Marxist-Leninist Party of the USA.
During the entire campaign to found the Marxist- Leninist Party of the USA, you expressed "support" publicly exactly twice.
The first time was when your representative attended our May Day meeting in Chicago at our invitation. This meeting was the opening of the public campaign to "Build the Marxist-Leninist Party Without the Social-Chauvinists and Against the Social-Chauvinists." Your representative delivered an enthusiastic message and hailed the coming founding of the Party. We requested if we could publish this message. Your representative agreed but then decided to bring the message back to Canada for some further editing prior to publication. That is, of course, quite acceptable and within the norms. But despite repeated promises, you then never sent us this message. You professed to have misplaced it. Instead of telling us why you didn't want to support our Party, instead you pretended that you would send the message to us in a few days. Despite repeated promises on your part, to this day we have never again seen that message.
Meanwhile, PCDN printed nothing about our campaign. Quite clearly, this message didn't get "lost" by accident. It was part of the pressure leading up to and preparing conditions for your letters of December 5 and early February (January 19).
Our two fraternal Parties have a long history together, a history of close relations and common struggle. It was the established and correct practice for our two Parties to give political support to each other. Our Party has always enthusiastically supported the CPC(M-L) in the most vigorous and open-hearted manner. We have every right to expect political support from the CPC(M-L) for the founding of the MLP,USA. The CPC(M-L) is a "recognized" party, compared to us. That is to say, the CPC(M-L) has received direct political support from other parties, and it was the duty of CPC(M-L) to in its turn extend political support to its close fraternal comrades in the U.S. But this support was withdrawn. And it was withdrawn because you, the leadership, were using the questions of practical relations and of public support as pressure upon us.
Thus things reached the point where we had to write to you to ask for public support. According to the decision of the NC of the COUSML, the NEC wrote a letter to the NEC of the CPC(M-L). This letter stated:
"Through the many years of existence of our two Marxist-Leninist Parties, we have steadfastly fought together against imperialism, social-imperialism and all reaction, and against revisionism and opportunism of all types. We have fought together for the purity of Marxism- Leninism and to defend proletarian internationalism. And we have always supported each other in our common struggle. The common front of our two Marxist-Leninist Parties has always been a major victory for Marxism-Leninism in North America.
"We request that CPC(M-L) express support in People's Canada Daily News for the campaign of COUSML to found the Marxist-Leninist Party of the USA. We would warmly welcome this proletarian internationalist assistance." (Letter of July 17, 1979 of the NEC of COUSML to the NEC of CPC(M-L))
You replied to us not by giving us support, but by urgently insisting that we drop everything and travel for discussion. At this discussion, in early August, you defended your previous lack of support on the grounds that you disagreed with the "Call of the NC of the COUSML" and with the slogan "Build the Marxist-Leninist Party Without the Social-Chauvinists and Against the Social-Chauvinists." Our representatives defended our positions. It should be stressed that you never wrote down and systematized your objections to the "Call of the NC of the COUSML" nor did you even indicate that you had objections during the period we set aside for discussion with fraternal comrades prior to going public with the campaign. And this was not for lack of knowledge of our plans. You were invited to and attended our conference "Build the Marxist-Leninist Party Without the Social-Chauvinists and Against the Social-Chauvinists" of early March 1979. You were also given the internal bulletin on the proceedings of this conference. As well, there have been innumerable other discussions with you on the questions of when and how to found the Party, right from the formation of the nucleus of the Party, the ACWM (M-L), in May 1969, and on up to the present. But you not only have withdrawn public support to put pressure on our Party. You have also defended your practice of acting in the most offhand way, of not working out your ideas, and of refusing any responsibility for your ideas and actions at the same time as you put tremendous pressure on us to follow these ideas. A typical example of this is that while in early August 1979 you justified your lack of public support for us by your opposition to our slogan "Build the Marxist-Leninist Party Without the Social-Chauvinists and Against the Social-Chauvinists," in your letters of December 5 you call us a "shameless liar" for saying that you opposed this slogan. (pp. 1 and 16)
In the discussions of early August 1979, after seeing that our representatives defended the Marxist- Leninist line of our Party, you stopped the discussion and agreed to publicly support the campaign to found the MLP,USA. But you never carried through on this agreement. Instead, you published but one article in PCDN. This was the article "Brother Marxist-Leninist Party to be Founded in the U.S. in the Near Future" in the August 1, 1979 issue of PCDN (Despite the official August 1 date of this PCDN, it appeared after the discussions of early August. It is possible and indeed probable however that the article was written prior to the discussions.)
With this article, you in fact took a big step on the road to public polemics against our Party. In this article, you put forward your objections to our campaign while allegedly praising the MLP,USA. With this article you tried to probe our organization and see if you could incite a split in it. By first not publishing for months anything on the MLP,USA, then publishing an article giving opposing views on how to found it, you clearly were hoping to incite part of the organization against the line of the Party and to promise it support. However, you failed, due to the iron unity of our Party, the unanimous enthusiasm of our Party for the campaign to found the MLP,USA, and the fact that our positions were well-founded on the principles of Marxism-Leninism and in accordance with the concrete conditions.
We were indignant at your article and told you so in later discussions. At the same time we took care to maintain public solidarity. We reprinted excerpts from your article of August 1 in the August 15, 1979 issue of The Workers' Advocate under the title "Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) Declares Support for the Founding of the Marxist-Leninist Party, USA." We did not claim that you supported the "Call of the NC" or the campaign itself, because the article did not. We simply stated that "This article gives the views and position of the CPC(M-L) on the Marxist-Leninist movement in the U.S.," tried to find anything positive in the article and promote it, and expressed our support for the CPC(M-L).
However, time has proved that the article was completely hypocritical. In the article you said that the founding of the MLP,USA would be "a great step forward for the proletarian movement for emancipation in the U.S." and called it a "brother" party, while the letter of the NEC of the CPC(M-L) of early February ("January 19") states that you won't "have anything whatsoever to do with a 'Marxist-Leninist Party, USA' until such time as it is clarified what this organization is, what are its relations to COUSML and whether this 'Marxist-Leninist Party, USA' is interested in establishing relations with us, or merely in receiving literature." This proves that your article of August 1, 1979 was completely hypocritical in its alleged "support" for the MLP,USA and was only being honest in its attacks on the Party.
After your article in the August 1, 1979 PCDN, to date nothing else appeared in PCDN concerning the founding of the MLP,USA.
However, you continued to take further steps down the road of public polemics. The January 3, 1980 issue of PCDN carried a speech of major importance delivered on December 30, 1979. This speech gave CPC(M-L)'s assessment of the decade of the 1970's. In this speech you accused both our Party and the glorious Party of Labor of Albania of putting pressure on your Party, pressure that you compare to the pressure put on your Party earlier by the Chinese revisionists. You wrote:
"...because during the 1974-77 period, big pressure was exerted from within the Party as well as from outside, that whatever CPC(M-L) says should be consistent with what the Chinese say.
"Since the Seventh Congress of the PLA, another trend is developing: Is our line consistent with the line of the PLA?...
"It is very important that our Party -- our Canadian Party, not American Party or Albanian Party or anyone else's Party -- must stand on its own two feet and that it have its own organs and its own leadership, in the sense that any Marxist-Leninist Party has its own central committee as the supreme organ when the Congress is not in session. Any Marxist-Leninist Party has its leaders and they should naturally come from its ranks." (PCDN, January 3, 1980, p. 2, col. 4)
In this passage, the reference to the "American Party" is clearly to the genuine Marxist-Leninists in the U.S., i.e. to us, in the same way as the "Albanian Party" is a reference to the PLA. We are astonished to see you attack the PLA, which has given you such firm political support. The PLA has always rigorously adhered to the norms set by Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism in its relations with other Marxist-Leninist parties. It has given direct, open and vigorous fraternal support to the CPC (M-L). Yet here you equate the vigorous ideological work of the PLA, done in the open and without putting pressure upon anyone, with the treacherous, double-dealing and big power chauvinist methods of the Chinese revisionists. For shame! We also protest against your slanderous attack against us. Since you have raised this accusation, we also demand that you tell us the following: where, when and how have we ever put pressure on and interfered with the integrity of the CPC(M-L)? Where, when and how have we interfered with your central committee or your leadership? No, comrades, it is you who have put tremendous pressure on us and have also tried to dictate who could or could not be in our leading bodies, as with your vicious attack on Comrade Joseph Green and other comrades.
Furthermore, you also take certain steps in that article to begin a public polemic on the question of the "enigma of China." You write:
"When we say it was a mistake, it is not for the reason that some people are now suggesting, that Mao Zedong and China were an enigma, that Mao Zedong and China were not very well known to us. When Comrade Enver Hoxha talks about this he is saying something entirely different to what these people are suggesting." (PCDN, January 3, 1980, p. 2, col. 3-4)
Instead of giving your views on the question of enigma, you begin a polemic against "some people." That is, you are taking steps to start a polemic against us on this issue. It is notable that you do not develop your views on this question of enigma at all. To give your views would be within the norms, but you refrain from that. Instead, you are taking steps to launch an attack on us. In actual fact, you are also against the analysis of Comrade Enver Hoxha and the PLA on the question of the enigma of China. You are also polemicizing against the PLA, as well as against us.
You stepped up your attacks on our Party at the Internationalist Rally in Montreal on March 30, 1980 on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the founding of the CPC(M-L). We sent a delegation from our Central Committee to this rally bearing our greetings to the CPC(M-L) on its 10th anniversary. You boycotted this delegation and did not let our delegation speak. This was a great provocation against our Party, a vile act of treachery against the fraternal relations between our two Parties and a mean, contemptible deed. But as well it was a public announcement of a split. With this act you brought the fact that differences exist completely into the open, publicly announced your boycott of the MLP,USA and attacked our Party. With this act you also hoped to incite discontent inside our Party. In this direction, your intentions have been frustrated by the iron unity in our Party, a principled unity based on Marxism-Leninism. Indeed, in our Party there is not just unity but enthusiastic zeal to carry forward our sound positions which have been proven to be solidly based on Marxism-Leninism and on a correct analysis of the concrete conditions.
As well, at this rally you sought to make things difficult for our delegation to talk to the other delegations of Marxist-Leninist parties, including both those parties with whom we have longstanding fraternal relations and who have hailed the founding of the MLP,USA, and those with whom we do not yet have such relations and also including the Party of Labor of Albania. Indeed you used the occasion to step up your activities to make your boycott of our Party an international boycott and to spread evil sayings against our Party in the darkness of secrecy. You applied great pressure to those parties that you consider to be part of your "trend" to withdraw their support of our Party without even having discussions with us. And you have sought to have these parties or their representatives compromised by having them take part in or acquiesce in hostile work against our Party. This is a towering crime not just against our Party, but against these other Parties as well.
Furthermore you have gone to the extent of seeking to organize an anti-Party network in the U.S. as the rudiments of a second or parallel party. This shows to what depths of vile treachery you have sunk. But you have been unable to find even a single crack in our ranks, so you have resorted to slinking around the edges. You have frantically called this or that element up to Canada for protracted discussions in which you attack our Party. You have especially concentrated on wrecking and disrupting the work among the East Indian nationality in the U.S. For years, starting at least as early as 1976, you have been spreading poison against our Party in these circles. You had sought to enforce anti-Marxist-Leninist theories on these circles to weaken the connection between the work in the East Indian nationality and our Party and to deny the party principle in the U.S. Thus you have advocated the anti-communist theory that it is impossible to work both in the East Indian circles and be an active supporter of our Party, a theory taken from the arsenal of the anti-communist red-baiting trade union bureaucrats. Nevertheless the vast majority of members of the East Indian circles have been friendly to our Party. This year, as part of your hostile work against our Party, you stepped up your wrecking activities and ordered these circles to have nothing to do with our Party and to serve as anti-Party groupings.
We are opposed to the path of public split, public polemic and the organization of anti-Party networks that you have embarked upon. These stands severely damage the fraternal relations between our two Parties. You should be directing your fire at the enemy, not at us.
SECTION IV: With your filthy, vile and slanderous abuse against our Party you have descended to sewer politics
Your letters are full of filthy, vile characterizations of our Party, its activities and its leading members. Here we are not talking about a word accidentally dropped in anger. On the contrary, you spread the maximum number of slanderous remarks and call our comrades the maximum number of vicious, vile names as a definite, planned, conscious method. With this method, you exert savage pressure to split our leadership and break the confidence of our organization. But with this method, you are rolling about in sewer politics.
This method of yours is part of the double standard which you are trying to impose on us under the pretext of a "special relationship." You call us the worst names, but when it comes to remarks about yourself, you suddenly have a most thin skin. You will even walk out of meetings if you are not talked about in the most exalted terms. In March 1978, you used the pretext that we called your letter of September 9, 1977 a shameful letter in order to walk out of a meeting almost before it had begun. Now indeed this letter was in fact a shameful letter that defended you calling us people who "act like a bunch of imperialist gangsters" and that taunted us to break relations with you. "Shameful" is a serious charge, but we were and are prepared to defend our charge. And we never attacked your Party, your leadership, nor any individual comrades. Nevertheless, you called the mere use of a word like "shameful" a premeditated provocation against your Party and outside the norms. Well, your letter of December 5 (as well as that of September 9, 1977 for that matter) shows the complete hypocrisy of your stand. You use the most violent, slanderous terms against us while you regard the most comradely, well-intentioned criticism of CPC(M-L) as an attempt to "NAIL CPC(M-L)" (capitals in the original).
It is hard to give an adequate idea in a few words of how your letter of December 5 reads. Each page, each paragraph competes with the next in finding new, "clever" ways to insult us and to spread thick the maximum number of vile slanders. There is no substitute for a careful reading of your letter. But for the sake of reference, we will record here some of your characterizations of us. We will give some page references, but these references are not an exhaustive listing of each use of the particular slander. As well, the slander is often made more than once on each page.
To begin with, you repeatedly reiterate that we are allegedly "agent-provocateurs" and so forth. You write that:
"To our estimation, this Joseph Green is an agent-provocateur." (p. 12)
You reiterate the charge that we are agents provocateurs on pages 12, 21, 24, 25, 26, etc. You repeat a slight variant of this charge, that we have allegedly "degenerated to the level of agent-provocateur," on pages 1, 4, 6, etc. As well, you talk of "You provocateur" (p. 5), of the "sinister style of a provocateur" (p. 5), and of "imperialist gangster and agent-provocateur activities" (letter of December 5 to the NC.)
Besides calling us agents provocateurs, you reiterate the charge that we are in fact the class enemy in a number of other ways. You claim that we are on the side of the imperialists and revisionists. "...you are kow-towing and capitulating under the imperialist-revisionist pressure, and have gone over to their side." (p. 3)
Continuing with these fantastic fairy tales, you accuse us of being the "agents of the blackest reaction." (pp. 5, 15, etc.) You say that we "have taken up the sinister mission of imperialism and social- imperialism to wreck, split and disrupt these ties between our two Parties and peoples." (pp. 10, 25, etc.) You accuse us of being a "sworn enemy of our Party [CPC(M-L) -- ed.] and the International Marxist-Leninist Communist Movement" (p. 1) and say that our "real motive is to attack the International Marxist-Leninist Communist Movement" (p. 2) and that we are guilty of "disparaging" and "foul condemnation of" and "a vile, trotskyite attack on the Party of Labor of Albania and Comrade Enver Hoxha" (pp. 2, 25, etc.).
You further confuse us with the U.S. imperialists. This is a well-known way of making liberals feel guilty. Thus you accuse us of "an archetypical lie in the imperialist and Nixonian style" (p. 8) and of concocting "a real panoramic American treat of lies and slanders. America is so famous for it." (p. 4) Our tactics are denounced as "a refurbished version of American pragmatism, the philosophy of U.S. imperialism, and other imperialists and social-imperialists." (p. 12) We are accused of an "America the beautiful phrase" and of "reactionary chauvinist lecturing." (p. 3) We are said to be "American chauvinists" who "imply that North Americans are more revolutionary than anyone else" (p. 3) and so on and so forth.
In case the political charges don't fit, we are also alleged to be various species of animals. The most popular one is "worm" or "slimy worm." (pp. 8, 12, 23, 25, etc.) As well, we are called a "seasoned lizard" (p. 8) and "like a mad dog beyond rescue" (p. 15).
Our delegates are mocked at because they adhere to the integrity of our Party and to the well-known Marxist-Leninist norms. They are called "Charlie's angels" (pp. 13, 17, 18, 19, etc.), "dummies" (p. 15 and elsewhere), and "voice-box Charlie(s)" (p. 15).
You accuse us not only of being imperialists but also revisionists and opportunists of all hues. You say we are "dyed-in-the-wool trotskyite(s)" (pp. 11, 15, 25, etc.), that we are a "brilliant offshoot of the Hua-Teng ruling clique" (p. 25) and that we have "been adhering to the norms of the Khruschovite and Chinese revisionists" (p. 15). You accuse us of being guilty of "the Second Coming of the well-known and notorious theory of the American revisionist and anti-Marxist Browder." (p. 3) You say that we have "the reactionary style and gangster logic of the Chinese revisionists." (pp. 6, 8, etc.) In your eyes, we "are neither Marxist-Leninist nor proletarian internationalist" (p. 6) but "anti-Marxist, deviationist and opportunist" (p. 6).
You curse our open-hearted proletarian internationalist sentiment for the CPC(M-L). We have walked through fire with you, but you claim that we have "one main and abiding aim: NAIL CPCM(-L)!" (p. 16) and that "you are not 'true friends' but false friends, provocateurs, and that you have as much 'deep love' for our Party [CPC(M-L) -- W.A.] as the hangman for his victim" (p. 7). You say that we have "no intention of assisting" CPC(M-L) and so on and so forth.
As well, there is an assortment of other phrases. Going back to the Bible, you accuse Comrade Joseph Green of being a "little Messiah" and a "little Moses [who] has finally found his burning bush." (p. 3) You attack us as "smart-assed, two faced character(s)" (p. 9); you say that we are "two-bit" (p. 15), have "take(n) your [COUSML's -- W.A.] pants down" (p. 4), have a "forked tongue" (pp. 4, 12, etc.), are "cowards" (p. 7) and "dithering idiot(s)" (p. 12), and so on. You accuse us of having a "criminal mentality," "criminal nature," and "criminal activities." (pp. 15, 16, 22, etc.) You throw in everything but the kitchen sink, as the saying goes.
All these charges are part of a conscious plan and method. This method is a gross violation of the Marxist-Leninist norms and of the most elementary revolutionary morality. You are taking advantage of the sincere proletarian internationalist sentiments of our comrades for you and are trying to turn our respect for you into a way of putting pressure on us.
Let us take up one of these charges and look more deeply into it. What does it mean to charge someone with being an agent provocateur? It is charging him with being a policeman.
An agent provocateur has several characteristics,
i) He is an agent of reaction. Strictly speaking, according to the dictionary definition, he could be an agent of a fascist or reactionary group and not necessarily directly an agent of the police, but the general principle is the same. He is a paid infiltrator, saboteur and spy, a plainclothes man under cover.
ii) He has no revolutionary sentiment, but feigns respect for the revolution solely in order to gain the trust of the revolutionaries, infiltrate them, and betray them to the police and the reaction.
iii) He engages in inciting the revolutionaries to provocative activities so that the police can apprehend them or so that the revolutionary forces suffer some other type of fiasco.
Therefore the charge of being an agent provocateur is a most serious charge. A revolutionary organization must maintain the tightest vigilance, without the slightest slackening or liberalness, against agents provocateurs. But just for this reason, loose groundless charges are most harmful. The frivolous smearing of innocent comrades is itself regarded everywhere as one of the most contemptible crimes against the revolution. And it is not solely that innocent comrades must not be dragged through the mud and the revolutionary forces dismembered in this way. As serious as such a thing is, there is also the further fact that frivolous charges dull the sense of the serious nature of struggle against agents provocateurs and wipe out revolutionary vigilance. The cynicism and loose attitude bred by loose charges are the mortal enemy of revolutionary vigilance and morality. And when it becomes the practice to make loose charges and then to take no action or to leave the so- called "agent-provocateurs" in the revolutionary ranks, then the harm done to vigilance is immense. Such things make things easier for the real agents provocateurs. And there is yet a further side to the struggle against agents provocateurs. The fact is that one of the methods of destroying a revolutionary organization is to create an agent scare in its ranks. For a revolutionary organization to allow loose charges of an agent to be made is to create or to prepare the conditions for an agent scare as well as for the loss of vigilance and thus to help wipe out the organization. For all these reasons, it is the revolutionary norm to regard bearing false witness against revolutionary comrades or making groundless charges as a serious crime against the revolution. In the revolutionary insurrection, agents provocateurs may be shot. False charges cost comrades their lives. And under these circumstances, the revolutionary organization of the revolutionary masses may also execute those guilty of making groundless, false charges. Panic-mongering is the death of the revolutionary organization of the masses and the revolution suppresses it.
It is in the light of the serious nature of the charge of being an "agent-provocateur" that we must examine the charges of CPC(M-L) against Comrade Joseph Green and the other comrades. What evidence do they give? Here are the arguments of the leadership of CPC(M-L) to show that the leadership of the MLP,USA are agents provocateurs.
Here is one of your major arguments showing that Comrade Joseph Green is allegedly an agent provocateur:
"...you have degenerated to agent-provocateur activity as was shown late this summer when one of your representatives in a discussion with the representatives of our Party could only whimper in response that 'we do not let him speak.' This feeble wimpering was his maneuver to create a calculated diversion away from the argument of our Party on the question." (p. 6)
Now in fact it is a vile lie that our representative whimpered or created any diversion. Our representative gave our views in a straightforward and open fashion. This, according to your letters, is a "diversion" and you boast of your impoliteness to invited fraternal visitors. Nevertheless, the main point is that here we see the utterly frivolous and slanderous nature of your accusations of "agent-provocateur." "Feeble whimpering" -- that is your alleged evidence of police activity!
You also give another alleged proof that Comrade Joseph Green is an agent provocateur. You write: "This letter of December 1 [the letter of the NEC of COUSML to the NEC of CPC(M-L) -- ed.] itself speaks volumes and totally exposes Joseph Green as an agent-provocateur." (p. 21)
In short, any comradely criticism of CPC(M-L) means, according to the leadership of CPC(M-L), that one is an agent provocateur. This also makes crystal clear that your charge of agent provocateur is not just against Comrade Joseph Green, but is against the entire National Committee of the COUSML which directed the writing of and approved the letter of December 1.
Finally, you reduce everything to total absurdity by saying that it doesn't matter who Comrade Joseph Green is anyway. You write:
"This drool [another charming reference to one of our delegates -- ed.] could only insinuate and cast asper(s)ions and now you are doing the dirty work for him -- or are we to believe that Joseph Green and this individual delegate are one and the same? It is of no consequence, because the truth will soon come out." (p. 10, emphasis added)
This passage is the complete bankruptcy of your charges. It shows the complete frivolity with which you make the most serious accusations and condemnations. Not only do you equate being an "agent-provocateur" and "agent of the blackest reaction" to alleged "feeble whimpering" and writing a letter of fraternal criticism, but also it doesn't matter in the slightest who you are accusing of being an agent provocateur. According to you "It is of no consequence." Indeed, it is much better to dangle the sword of Damocles over everybody's head and darkly remark "the truth will soon come out." After that, just let anyone dare disagree with the leadership of CPC(M-L) on anything!
Any organization that accepts that its members are dragged through the mud as "agent-provocateurs" on the basis of such accusations will not last long. In our view, such groundless, slanderous and lying charges should be taken most seriously and we in fact take them most seriously -- only we believe that they reflect back on those who make such charges. Such charges are not friendly criticism, they do not help in detecting agents, and they can not even be dignified as "hostile polemics." They are filth. They are sewer politics, gutter politics. We are grieved and pained to see that you, our long-time fraternal comrades, have taken to the use of such slime. But we tell you frankly that when you make such accusations and speak in such a vile tone against us, you are speaking in the language of anticommunism. You must be very conscious indeed of the weakness of your position and most determined to avoid the questions of principle, if you feel compelled to roll about in the filth of these slanderous charges. With these charges, you are showing what the nature is of the "special relationship" with us that you insist on.
You have taken to cursing us and calling us "false friends," those with the same love for you as "the hangman for his victim." But only a true friend would suffer through all this abuse you are showering on us and still fight for the strengthening of relations with you. You are abusing our respect for you. But we persist in the belief that you will sooner or later find the Marxist-Leninist determination and strength to repudiate this method of vile abuse and to instead adhere to the norms of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism with us.
SECTION V: Proposal of the Central Committee of the MLP,US A concerning meetings between our two fraternal Parties
In your letters of December 5 you make a mock proposal for a meeting between our two Parties. You write:
"At the same time, we propose that a meeting of the delegation of the National Committee of the Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninists and the delegation of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist- Leninist) should take place at the soonest possible time. Until such a meeting can be convened, the CC of CPC(M-L) Cannot accept your invitation to send a delegation to your Preparatory Conference for the Founding of the Marxist-Leninist Party, USA, or to the Founding Congress of the MLP,USA. Furthermore, we will not participate in any meeting which will include Joseph Green or in any meeting where any provocations are organized against our Party." (Letter of December 5 to the NC, emphasis added)
"Now, it is the duty and communist responsibility of the National Committee of the COUSML to thoroughly and severely deal with those responsible for this provocation [our letter of comradely criticism of December 1 -- ed.] against our Party and the fraternal relations between our two Parties. For this reason, we are also proposing an urgent meeting between the delegations of the CC of CPC(M-L) and the NC of COUSML at the earliest possible time. Because of the extremely serious and grave nature of these charges, this provocation must be ended before the Marxist-Leninist Party, USA is founded." (p. 7, emphasis added)
"We call upon the National Committee of the Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninists to take resolute action against this agent-provocateur. As well, we propose that a meeting of the delegations of the National Committee of COUSML and the Central Committee of CPC (M-L) meet at once to resolve this issue -- the elimination of this vile provocation against our Party by Joseph Green." (p. 26, emphasis added)
Our Party has always been for meetings as a method of dealing with and solving the problems in the fraternal relations between our two fraternal Parties. We have fought for such meetings for years. It is our opposition to frivolous and "middlemen" methods in the fraternal relations that was the reason that from the evening of March 13, 1976 and thereafter you labeled us as allegedly guilty of "formalism." You have fought against such meetings. After you agreed in the later half of 1977 to hold a formal meeting on the question of the problems in the fraternal relations between our two Parties, you then refused to hold it, sought to create a diversion by accusing us of "acting like a bunch of U.S. imperialist gangsters" because we continued to insist on the implementation of the decision on holding the formal meeting, and finally you openly and unilaterally canceled the planned formal meeting in your letter of September 9, 1977. You stated that:
"It is our view that considering the state of relations between us, a meeting of the delegations of the fraternal Parties will be of no use whatsoever." (Letter of the NEC of CPC(M-L) to the NEC of COUSML of September 9, 1977)
Since we continued to insist on holding the formal meeting, and since such a meeting is in fact a norm of proper relations, after a number of months you again agreed to a meeting. But you turned your "agreement" into a meaningless formality by not being prepared for the meeting by your own admission, and then by walking out at the very start of the meeting of March 4, 1978 on the flimsiest of pretexts. You then used your own walkout as further proof of your views denying the need for a meeting of the delegations of the two Parties and you advocated various diversionary suggestions. Now you alleged yourself to be for a meeting but this is a sheer mockery. You put the following preconditions on this meeting:
1. You insist that our leadership split prior to the meeting, and that you have the right to dictate the composition of our delegation.
2. You insist that we agree beforehand to accept any view of the CPC(M-L) on the pretext of avoiding "provocations," with comradely criticism such as the letter of December 1 being defined as a "provocation," and with our stand in defense of the integrity of our organization such as at the March 4, 1978 meeting also being defined as a "provocation."
3. You insist that this meeting take place before the Preparatory Conference for the Founding of the MLP,USA. And later on, in your letter of early February 1980 ("January 19") you altered this so that you will not recognize the MLP,USA and hence you address your letter to the now nonexistent COUSML.
4. You give no definition of the subject of the "urgent meeting" except for insistence that the meeting is for ending the so-called "provocation" against CPC(M-L) -- that is, it is for the purpose of discussing how to split our Party and to eliminate the insistence of our Party on its organizational integrity.
Clearly, you have spared no effort in putting as many unacceptable and brutal preconditions on this meeting as possible.
Nevertheless, our Party is still in favor of a meeting of the delegations of the two leaderships to deal with the problems of fraternal relations. We believe that this is a proper method provided for in the Marxist-Leninist norms. We believe that such meetings are of great importance and should be approached in a serious manner. In the meeting of March 4, 1978 between the delegations of the two Parties, in the short time before you walked out we did manage to point out:
"This meeting is an important meeting. It deals with matters of great significance. When problems arise in the fraternal relations between Marxist-Leninist parties, they must be handled correctly or else it will impair the fighting unity and maybe even degenerate into something portending great dangers. A meeting of this type, to be successful, must be undertaken with great seriousness from both sides, with both sides determined to make the meeting a success, to delve into and solve the problems at stake. Any halfhearted approach to such a meeting will mean the failure of such a meeting." (from the speech of our delegation to the March 4, 1978 meeting)
We further emphasized this point in our letter of April 19, 1978. We wrote:
"We are opposed to the unilateral violation of joint decisions of our two Parties. We seriously protest your violation of the mutual decision to hold a meeting of the delegations of the leaderships. We prepared very seriously for the March 4 meeting and set aside other work that was pressing urgently. Yet on March 4, you stated that you were not prepared and you also right at the outset stated your skepticism concerning this important meeting. With that spirit anything will be a flop. That is not carrying out the joint decision. A meeting is not an empty form, just two delegations sitting at the same table and nothing else." (Letter of April 19, 1978 of the NEC of the COUSML to the NEC of the CPC(M-L))
(In the letter of April 19, we also made further proposals on how to deal with the problems between the two Parties, including that "you send us a written statement of your views on the fraternal relations between our two Parties." To this day, you have not replied to our letter beyond acknowledging receipt of it.) Thus we have consistently held to the necessity of a proper serious attitude to meetings.
Thus meetings should be taken seriously and properly prepared for. Therefore at this time, because of your letters of December 5, we agree with you that there are certain conditions that need to be fulfilled in preparation for such a meeting. We differ however on what those conditions are. Previously we posed no conditions. But with your letters of December 5 the situation has changed.
What would be the nature of the conditions needed to have a serious, fruitful meeting? Comrade Enver Hoxha points out that:
"...and second, any discussion or meeting between two parties, whichever they may be, should be held on an equal footing, on the basis of consultations and mutual respect, avoiding any manifestation of imposing the will of one side upon the other side, or of any privileged position of one side over the other side, etc. Our Party has respected and will respect these principles. This is the principled position of our Party concerning the question of meetings, talks and consultations, we have maintained such a position in the past, and we shall maintain it in the future too." ("Report Delivered by Comrade Enver Hoxha at the 21st Plenum of the CC of the PLA on the Meeting of the Representatives of the Communist and Workers' Parties, Held in Moscow in November 1960." Through the Pages of Volume XIX of the Works Comrade Enver Hoxha, NBI edition, pp. 269- 70) Therefore conditions should be created so that the above type of meeting can be held.
The following conditions are necessary for a proper comradely meeting held on an equal footing, with mutual respect, and without imposing the will of one side on the other and without any privileged position of one side over the other.
A. You must repudiate your letters of December 5 and your attempts to split the leadership of the MLP, USA and your hostile stand against our Party. You must also repudiate all past provocations to the effect "you are acting" or "some of you are behaving" like a bunch of "U.S. imperialist gangsters." Since you have explicitly endorsed these earlier attacks on us in your letter of December 5, therefore they must now be explicitly repudiated. Without the repudiation of these hostile stands, it is impossible for the meetings to be held on truly equal conditions. Without such repudiation, you remain in the declared stand of hostility against our Party and with the declared aim of splitting our leadership. As the Central Committee of the CPC(M-L) signed the letters of December 5, it is the CC that must present its written repudiation with the necessary thoroughness of the letters of December 5 and other hostile stands.
B. You must specifically retract and repudiate the declaration of the CC of the CPC(M-L) that you give yourself the right to act in the U.S. independent of the Marxist-Leninist Party in the U.S. You have stated, in reference to acts inside the U.S., that:
"Our Party will never seek 'approval' from any fraternal Party for any of our actions, either before taking actions or after taking actions." (p. 12)
This declaration is equivalent to not recognizing the necessity for the party principle in the U.S. and to not recognizing our Party and regarding it simply as a mere group of chance individuals. Therefore such a stand is a stand of brutal pressure and a most hostile stand, a stand that you feel free to violate our integrity, to interfere in our affairs and to act in opposition to the principle of the necessity in the U.S. for a Marxist-Leninist party as the single general staff of the revolution.
C. Our two Parties must maintain public solidarity in the press and at public functions. We have maintained support for you, but you are presently organizing an international boycott of the MLP,USA. You are not withholding political support because our two Parties are unknown to each other. On the contrary, you are using the withdrawal of political support as a method of putting savage pressure against us. As well, you have gone to the extent of starting down the road of public attacks against us. And furthermore you have been seeking to organize your own anti-party network in the U.S., and this too must cease as a prerequisite for a meeting. To meet without the removal of this political pressure is to meet on blatant conditions of inequality.
Without these conditions, any meeting would be a meeting where you have a gun pointed to our head. These conditions however would help prepare for a fruitful meeting. At the same time, these conditions do not require as a precondition for meetings that either Party make the slightest concessions or budge the slightest on their principles on the ideological differences under discussion between the two Parties. These conditions require only that you abstain or refrain from hostile acts against us and from putting brutal pressure upon us. Our Party has never engaged in hostile acts against you, has continued to give you firm and vigorous support right in the public resolutions from the Founding Congress that you have worked so hard against, and has never put pressure upon you. It is a proper condition that both Parties, and not just one, refrain from and abstain from hostile acts against each other and from putting savage pressure on each other. These conditions are appropriate for Parties with such a long history of common struggle and extremely close fraternal relations as our two Marxist-Leninist Parties.
SECTION VI: Your letters are full of lies and distortions of fact
Your letters are full of lies and inaccuracies. It would take dozens upon dozens of pages to go through all of them. Below we shall go through a sample of some of them.
VI-A: Your accusations that our comrades are agents provocateurs are contemptible and vile lies
You accuse Comrade Joseph Green and other comrades of being agents provocateurs, agents of the blackest reaction, sworn enemies of communism and so forth. We have already dealt with these contemptible vile lies earlier in this letter.
VI-B: You know very well that our Party has never accused CPC(M-L) of being in a united front with the "three worlders"
You repeat over and over again that we have allegedly accused the CPC(M-L) of being in or advocating a united front with the "three worlders." (pp. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 12, 13, 20, etc.) This is a lie. You know perfectly well who we are accusing of being in a united front with the "three worlders." But you find this lie useful in order to inflame passions and to prevent consideration of the actual issues that we have raised in our letter of December 1, 1979. We demand of you to indicate precisely where in the letter of December 1 or elsewhere we are supposed to have made such a charge. Since you have accused us, and with such vehemence and fury, it is your duty to back up your accusations with facts. But you will not be able to do so, because the accusation is a false one. In your letters of December 5, you are absolutely unable to quote any instance of our charging CPC(M-L) with being in or advocating a united front with the "three worlders." To cover this up, you put the phrase of "united front with the 'three worlders'" in quotation marks. And you repeat this quotation from us over and over again, as if it were a truly damaging phrase. But on the contrary, we readily admit that one can quote from us our opposition to such a united front. We think that it is to our honor that we fight against the theory and practice of a "united front with the 'three worlders'" and we shall continue to do so with enthusiasm and vigor in the future. But as to this being an attack on CPC(M-L) or a reference to CPC(M-L), that is a totally different matter. And you know it very well.
VI-C: Your accusation that we had a "kid-glove, soft and lovable attitude" towards the Palacios tour of the U.S. is a vicious lie
You accuse us of a "kid-glove, soft and lovable attitude towards Jorge Palacios and...refusal to take an open and direct stand against the criminal and counter-revolutionary activities of Palacios and his host." (p. 5) In short, you claim that we were "sitting mum with [our] arms folded while they carry out their vicious activities unopposed...." (p. 9) This is a most vicious lie, because it is you who failed to support our struggle against the tour of Palacios on the platform of "RCP,USA." We waged a protracted, consistent struggle on many fronts against "centrism" and as part of this fought this tour. We carried out the following in relation to this tour and the politics that preceded it and paved the way for it:
a) We did vigorous "open and direct" work to propagate and elaborate the condemnation of Mao Zedong Thought and to push forward and deepen the open, direct struggle against Chinese revisionism;
b) We did detailed work with the People's Front (Chicago) for months and months against the "RCP,USA" and indeed were doing this for a long time before the question of the tour was even broached;
c) We fought against the tour of Palacios on the "RCP,USA" platform by upsetting the plans of the People's Front (Chicago) with respect to this tour, and by polemics in the press, and also by detailed work across the country in various circles; and
d) We withdrew support from that "solidarity work" that had been converted into being simply a platform for Mao Zedong Thought and for united front with the "RCP,USA."
Our work against the tour was quite effective and contributed to this tour being a flop as far as gaining any wide interest. Our stand terrified the People's Front (Chicago). Meanwhile you did not support our work against the tour and even maintained silence in your press on our polemic against the ideological basis of the tour just as you continued to withhold support from all our polemics against "RCP,USA." Your selling of the rights to the English translation of the Palacios book was a blunder that helped pave the way for this tour. But you reduce everything to the question of whether or not the RCP of Chile was denounced by name in the press, and on this pretext both condemn us and explain away your own passivity and complacency. (And you were wise enough to refrain, at least until March 1980, from the step you were urging on us.) Your charge that we are "kid- glove, soft and lovable" towards "centrism" turns out simply to be a lie for the sake of pressuring us to attack the RCP of Chile by name in the press and to divert attention from your own lack of support for or interest in the actual struggle against Palacios' tour on the "RCP,USA" platform and the struggle in the U.S. against opportunism.
VI-D-F: Lies where you accuse us of things because it is in fact you who are moving in this direction
There are a series of lies where you accuse us of things because it is in fact you who are moving in that direction.
VI-D: You are the ones moving towards public attacks on our Party in the press
You claim that The Workers' Advocate of October 15. 1979 contained an attack on the CPC(M-L) (pp. 4, 9, etc.). This is a lie.. It is you who have withdrawn political support from us and begun to move down the road of open attacks against us in the press, as we have shown earlier in this letter. We demand that you show us precisely where the issue of The Workers' Advocate of October 15. 1979 attacked CPC(M-L) and what that attack was.
VI-E: You accuse us of a "180-degree turn" while it is your Party which has taken a hostile stand and has unilaterally severed relations
You talk of our "180-degree turn against our Party [CPC(M-L) -- ed.]." (pp. 5, 22, etc.) This too is a lie. We have stood and do stand for the further strengthening of the fraternal relations between our two Parties. While you are accusing us of making a "180- degree turn" at precisely the moment when you have chosen to take a hostile stand against our Party, to withdraw political support from it, to denounce its leadership and to claim that in your letter of early February ("January 19") you have neither knowledge of it nor relations with it.
VI-F: Not us, but you are the ones who "deliberately suspected our sincerity and integrity at that time" (August 1977)
You claim that we "deliberately suspected our (CPC(M-L)'s -- ed.] sincerity and integrity at that time (August 1977 -- ed.( and you have deliberately spread suspicion [about -- ed.) our sincerity and integrity at this time." The truth is that you have harbored morbid suspicions about us. This is quite clear from the accusations in your letters of December 5. As to August 1977, it is truly amazing that you can tell us by telephone that "You [the NEC of COUSML -- ed.] are acting like a bunch of U.S. imperialist gangsters" and then convert this into our allegedly having suspicions about you and not you harboring morbid suspicions about us.
VI-G-H: Lies where you automatically accuse us of whatever we have criticized you for
In your letters of December 5, you also have a series of lies of the following nature: When we have raised some comradely criticism or have objected to certain theses of yours, you simply turn around and automatically accuse us of it. However, you do not fail to paint everything in the most lurid, extreme colors. You seem to be following the theory that the best "defense" is a good "offense."
VI-G: Your charge that we "do not even recognize 'American opportunism''' is a blatant lie
You charge that we "do not even recognize 'American opportunism'." (pp. 6-7, 11, 17, 18, etc.) The truth is that we have been waging a most vigorous polemic against "our own" domestic opportunists. Meanwhile over the last period you have opposed this polemic and counterposed the struggle against the domestic opportunists and revisionists to the struggle against the international trends of revisionism. In your letters of December 5 you even go to the extent of calling our struggle against the domestic opportunists "American exceptionalism." (pp. 3, 25, etc.) And then, instead of either defending and elaborating your theses in a principled way or giving up these theses, you put forward the blatant lie that our Party does "not even recognize 'American opportunism'."
VI-H: Your accusation of "wild defence of centrism" is shameless hypocrisy
You accuse us of a "wild defence of centrism" (p. 25), that we are "shamelessly, openly and brazenly pleading that the centrists must not be attacked" (p. 24), and that our Party "zealously defends the entire centrist trend and give it time to prepare and organize its forces..." (p. 25 and elsewhere) and that our aim is to "RESCUE THE CENTRIST TREND" (p. 24, capitals in the original). The truth is that we have been waging since 1978 an open, vigorous polemic against the various forces in the U.S. that could be called "centrist" as part of the struggle against social-chauvinism, while you have especially objected to precisely this part of the movement against social-chauvinism. You withdrew political support from our polemics precisely when they took up the question of struggle against centrism. You accuse our Party of "giv(ing) it [centrism -- ed.] time to prepare and organize its forces" while you have opposed our struggle against centrism since 1978 and while you write about "...this entire centrist trend which unfolded right under his nose across the USA this fall [fall 1979!!! -- ed.]." (p. 8) You denigrate our ideological struggle on the questions concerning Mao Zedong Thought and political line; you have consistently opposed our polemical struggle against the "RCP,USA" and against the social-democratic Weisberg MLOC/"CPUSA(M-L)" sect; you reduce the international struggle against centrism and the struggle against the marriage of Palacios and the "RCP,USA" to the question of whether or not the RCP of Chile is attacked by name in the press in the U.S.; you blunder into selling the rights to the English-language translation of Palacios' book to the "RCP,USA"; and then you accuse us of striving to "RESCUE THE CENTRIST TREND." You insistently oppose and negate our ongoing struggle against the ideological positions and the political forces that could be called "centrist," and then you explain away your own passivity and complacency by saying "Our representative.... further pointed out and proposed that, 'It is within the United States of America that the front should be developed against centrism.'" (p. 21) What utter, shameful hypocrisy!
VI-I-N: You resort to the method of "deny everything, even the most glaring facts, in order to avoid the issues at stake
You also use a method that can be described as: "deny everything!" If we say "yes," you must say "no," and if we say "no," you must say "yes." Thus on page one of your letter of December 5 to the NC of COUSML, you set forward the program of negating each and every sentence of our letter, "sentence-by-sentence," at least for the first part of our letter. Thus points number 1 through 23 of your letter are sentence-by-sentence commentaries on the first 23 sentences of our letter, point number being the comment on the x-th sentence. You yourself say that there is only one sentence which is "the sole sentence in your entire letter with which we cannot really quibble, as far as the sentence itself is concerned." (p. 1) Quite clearly, your interest in this letter is not in elaborating your theses and ideas or in seriously examining ours or to further develop or expound some analysis or to look into the problems in our fraternal relations, but to annihilate us, to "nail" us, to use your own expression. You are trying to show your supremacy by wiping out every word we say. Why, if we were to say "the sun rises in the east and sets in the west," we would be accused of being shameless liars and two-faced characters, tricksters of the highest order, slanderers of the scientific theory of Copernicus that the earth orbits the sun and not vice versa, and hence clerical obscurantists, earthly chauvinists and sworn enemies of all adherents of science, such as CPC(M-L).
VI-I: By your own admission you are lying when you deny that you sold the rights to your English translation of the Palacios book to the "RCP,USA"
You deny that you sold the rights to the Palacios book published by you to the "RCP,USA." You write:
"It does not matter how many times you repeat this slanderous mumbo-jumbo over and over and over, we will oppose it and absolutely repudiate it the same number of times and many more again, if necessary. There was no 'selling of the rights' by the Party...." (p. 7)
You go on to say that "Only an idiot could think of such a thing." On page 8you denounce the assertion that "...the rights to the Palacios book were in the hands of CPC(M-L)..." as "an archetypical lie in the imperialist and Nixonian style" and you say that, "But facts are facts and the fact of the matter remains the same that the author of this book, Jorge Palacios, never gave up these 'rights' to CPC (M-L)." So why did the "RCP,USA," through Banner Press, pay $1,000 to an institution of CPC(M-L)? For love of Marxism-Leninism? You are lying when you deny the sale of the "rights" and when you compare this transaction to simply "order(ing) books and periodicals from NPC [National Publications Centre -- ed.]." (p. 9) You yourselves admit "the transaction of selling the English-language translation, and that and that alone, [that, and that alone, was sufficient to be a blunder -- ed.]" (p. 14) We used the expression of the selling of the "rights" because that is how you yourselves described it in response to the direct question of our representative during his visit of October 28 to November 6, 1979, and because it is not a matter of Banner Press buying books from NPC but of buying the right to publish the book. We are quite willing to use the somewhat more precise phrase of the selling of "the English-language translation" or "the rights to the English-language translation" (perhaps we should hire a lawyer versed in the book trade before writing to you) now that you have informed us. But this changes nothing about your transaction. Your quibble does not in the least justify your lie, and it shows your utter refusal to deal with the issues seriously, your replacement of analysis with word-chopping. How far you will go in denying everything is shown by your letter, where you even denounce your new formula of "selling the English-language translation" and ridicule it by talking of "the so-called 'selling' of the translation of Palacios' book." (p. 6)
VI-J: Your denials that the leadership of CPC(M-L) has any responsibility for the wrong acts of PCPH are lies and evasions
You deny that the leadership of CPC(M-L) has any responsibility concerning the acts of the People's Canada Publishing House (PCPH). You actually attack us for writing to the NEC of CPC(M-L) concerning an act carried out at PCPH. And you evade the issue of the knowledge of the leadership of CPC (M-L) that Banner Press was associated with "RCP, USA" by insisting the PCPH didn't know such a thing, (pp. 4, 14) All this is lies and evasions. The request of Banner Press to buy the English-language translation of Palacios' book was seen first by the leadership of CPC(M-L). At the very beginning of the period "between August 4th and before September 15th" (p. 4) that you identify as the period of negotiations with Banner Press, the request of Banner Press was discussed by you with our two representatives during the discussions of August 1-2. At that time, you clearly indicated your firm belief that Banner Press was "RCP,USA"; we all had a good laugh at "RCP,USA," and we assumed that therefore you would not act on this request. Thus, irrespective of whether some individuals in CPC(M-L)'s leadership or in the PCPH knew or didn't know if Banner Press was "RCP,USA," it was known to your leadership. You also claim that "when the NEC of CPC(M-L) came to know about this particular transaction, it condemned it," but you carefully evade saying on what grounds. But in fact you informed us at the time of the visit of our delegate of October 28 to November 6 that when the "day-to-day committee" first heard of the sale, it only condemned the low price and not the fact that the English-language translation had been sold to "RCP,USA." Indeed, in your letters of December 5, you still display irritation about the price, talking of the sale of the translation "for a song" (p. 9),' while you evade or lie about the political issues involved.
VI-K: You are lying when you deny the fact that you have opposed our polemical struggle against the domestic opportunists
You deny that you have opposed our polemical struggle against the domestic opportunists. You write:
"You have laid the outlandish charge that, 'Indeed, over the last period you have floated informally to us and urged upon us insistently, if in an off-hand manner, a number of theses directed against the polemical struggle against the opportunists.' " (p. 18)
And elsewhere, for example on pages 15-17, this is reiterated in different ways. But it is a lie. Not only have you many times urged such theses on us, but in your very letters of December 5 you reiterate some of these theses and bring forward some new ones. You attack our polemical struggle against the domestic opportunists as "the anti-Marxist-Leninist thesis of 'two-line struggle'" (pp. 10, 12, 18, etc.) and you denounce the struggle against "RCP,USA" as "American exceptionalism" (p. 3) and as "not beat(ing) the beast but only its shadow!" (p. 24). We shall go into your opposition to the polemical struggle against opportunism more later on in the letter.
VI-L: You are lying when you deny that you strongly opposed the slogan "Build the Marxist-Leninist Party Without the Social- Chauvinists and Against the Social-Chauvinists"
You deny that you opposed the slogan "Build the Marxist-Leninist Party Without the Social-Chauvinists and Against the Social-Chauvinists." You write: "The utter shamelessness and criminal nature of this Joseph Green takes on further proportions when he accuses the Party of opposing 'the slogan "Build the Marxist-Leninist Party without the Social-Chauvinists and Against the Social-Chauvinists!' " (p. 16,1, etc.)
Indeed, you not only opposed this slogan, but in the meeting of early August you used your opposition to this slogan to explain away your lack of support for the campaign to found the Marxist-Leninist Party. At this meeting, in talking about the Call of the NC of the COUSML entitled "Build the Marxist-Leninist Party Without the Social-Chauvinists and Against the Social-Chauvinists," you stated:
"Our first main question, our objection is to the title. What does it mean? It is our view that the Party's main characteristic is that it is a Leninist party based on Leninist norms. But this concept is of two-line struggle in the U.S. Marxist-Leninist movement -- the idea that the neo-revisionist trend is in the Marxist-Leninist movement and the Party is based on struggle against this neo-revisionist trend. This is the main question on which we object."
And you stated:
"You advance that there is a movement against social-chauvinism. We do not understand this movement....
"We agree with a lot that is in your document. But if we disagree with this main slogan, it means that we disagree with the whole pamphlet. The mistakes from the past should be corrected." (minutes of the early August discussions)
Thus you not only opposed the "without and against" slogan, but you called it "the main question." You slandered the struggle against opportunism and revisionism as a manifestation of Chinese revisionism and so forth. We will deal with the particular theses you put forward against the struggle against opportunism in detail later on in this letter. For now, we note that you stressed that "if we disagree with this main slogan, it means that we disagree with the whole pamphlet." In fact, you used your opposition to the "without and against" slogan to justify your opposition to the campaign to found the MLP,USA.
Your opposition to our campaign is fully documented not just by the minutes of our discussions with you, but by the silence of PCDN as well as by your letters of December 5 and early February ("January 19"). Your opposition to the slogan is fully proved by your hypocritical article "Brother Marxist-Leninist Party to be Founded in the U.S. in the Near Future" in the August 1, 1979 issue of PCDN. This article avoids mentioning "The Call of the NC of the COUSML" and the slogan "Build the Marxist- Leninist Party Without the Social-Chauvinists and Against the Social-Chauvinists," something that is incomprehensible unless you opposed this slogan.
That you deny opposing this slogan only makes it more significant that you have refused to work out seriously or to put in writing various theses that you have insistently urged upon us. Indeed you have sometimes asked our representatives not to take notes. Your opposition to this slogan was insistently urged upon us in a number of discussions. But, for that matter, it also can be seen in the letters exchanged between our two Parties. You write in your letters of December 5:
"There are also occasions when we have invited COUSML to send a formal delegation to have definite discussions on particular questions. One such example is on the question of building the Marxist-Leninist Party, USA, which you have reduced in this letter [December 1 -- ed.] to a mere question of liking or disliking that slogan ["without and against" -- ed.]. And during this encounter on the question of building the new Marxist-Leninist party and on the question of your support for the Leninist thesis of 'two-line struggle'.... [this is reference to discussions of early August 1979 -- ed.]" (p. 10, emphasis added)
This statement is a further verification that you are lying in denying your opposition to "that slogan." It indicates: (a) you are opposed to that slogan, or else the question of "liking or disliking that slogan" would not come up; (b) you are accusing us of "reducing) the building of the Marxist-Leninist Party to that slogan, which is one of the accusations you raised in the discussions of August 1-2; (c) you are accusing the slogan of being "the anti-Marxist-Leninist thesis of 'two-line struggle' "; and (d) putting this all together, as you did in the discussions of August 1-2, you are counterposing the struggle against opportunism to the other tasks of party building, and accusing us of "reduc(ing)" everything to "two-line struggle" against the social-chauvinists.
This can be further seen by examining your distortion of the meeting of August 1-2. You neither made a request for us to send a "formal delegation," nor was it on the subject you name. The history of this meeting goes as follows. On July 17, 1979 the NEC, on the instructions of the NC, wrote you a letter which stated in part:
"We request that CPC(M-L) express support in People's Canada Daily News for the campaign of COUSML to found the Marxist-Leninist Party of the USA. We would warmly welcome this proletarian internationalist assistance."
There was no mention in the letter of "that slogan" or even of the "Call of the NC." The letter explicitly talked of the "campaign of COUSML to found" the MLP,USA.
Some time later, on July 23, you made a telephone call to us to come up immediately for discussion, without saying why. Thus, far from being a request for a formal delegation," there was nothing formal about this request, it was not for a "formal delegation," and we were not given any idea of what the discussions were for. It is not relevant here to go through the ensuing communications between the two Parties, but as a result you sent us a letter dated July 29, 1979. This letter again requested we come up immediately, but this time added the following about the subject:
"What we want to discuss, and the reason we have asked you to visit us, is your written request that we support the call for the founding of the Party in the U.S. in PCDN. We think these discussions are of utmost importance."
Thus you clearly indicated that the subject which you wanted to discuss was our request to support in PCDN the campaign to found the MLP,USA, which you converted in your letter to a request for you to "support the call for the founding of the Party in the U.S. in PCDN." This shows that: (a) you identified the reason why you couldn't support the party campaign as the Call of the NC, which is entitled "Build the Marxist-Leninist Party Without the Social-Chauvinists and Against the Social-Chauvinists"; and (b) you did not feel that you could honor our request without first requesting immediate discussion "of utmost importance."
Now, in your letters of December 5, you identify the subject of the discussions differently. You describe them as "on the question of building the new Marxist-Leninist Party and on the question of your support for the anti-Marxist-Leninist thesis of 'two-line struggle'." By redefining the subject this way, you have thus verified that: (a) you were denouncing the Call of the NC to "Build the Marxist-Leninist Party Without the Social-Chauvinists and Against the Social-Chauvinists" as "the anti-Marxist-Leninist thesis of 'two-line struggle'"; and (b) you withdrew public support from the campaign to found the MLP,USA as a means of putting pressure on us to agree to your theses on how to build the MLP,USA. And you are exerting savage pressure on us to adopt your offhand, casual theses even though to this day you have not worked out and elaborated them in any serious fashion, let alone presenting them to us in a document.
VI-M: You are lying when you deny your opposition to the polemics against the conciliators of social-chauvinism
You deny your opposition to the polemics against the forces that could be called "centrist" and in particular you deny your opposition to the article "How to Advance the Struggle Against Social-Chauvinism" of February 10, 1978. Thus you write:
"These so-called 'facts' are the lowest and most base yet which only a representative of the blackest reaction could peddle against our Party....Joseph Green dishes out his first base lie: 'First of all, you began by the opposition to the struggle against the forces that might be called "centrist".' This is a complete fabrication and an bald lie and our Party resolutely denounces this lie and fabrication which this two-bit Joseph Green has invented against our Party. Later, Joseph Green attempts to weave some 'detailed facts'. Thus, he blurts out like a mad dog beyond rescue: 'You opposed the article on "idealist anti-revisionism".' Our Party denounces this vile lie and fabrication, as well. Then, this paragraph on page four in Part Three ends with the repetition of the lie that, 'Under one pretext or another you opposed all the attacks on what might be called the "centrist" forces.' " (p. 15)
Having thus colorfully and emphatically denied your opposition to "How to Advance the Struggle Against Social-Chauvinism" (which is the article on idealist anti-revisionism being referred to) and to the other polemics against the "centrist" forces, you immediately proceed to reiterate your opposition to precisely this article and these polemics. Here your method of "deny everything" shows up in full glory. If we say that you opposed the polemics, you say that this is a base lie and utter fabrication, this is a "so-called 'fact' " which "only a representative of the blackest reaction could peddle against our Party." But then you reiterate precisely your opposition to these polemics. You write in the very next sentence:
"What are the facts? Our Party disagreed with the theses emanating from these Joseph Greens [note the use of the plural "Greens" -- ed.] and provided comradely criticism and principled line on the question of the building of the the unity of the genuine Marxist-Leninist forces in the USA. One of the elements of our comradely criticism was our opposition to the use of peculiar jargon which is not only concocted but also characteristic of typical intellectualism; within this context, the use of the phrase 'idealist anti-revisionism' was opposed....propaganda was carried out [by the COUSML -- ed.] on the one hand calling for the unity of the genuine Marxist-Leninist forces in the USA while, on the other hand, without exhausting the full possibilities of this opportunity of building the unity of the genuine Marxist-Leninists, hidden attacks are launched against others " (pp. 15-16, emphasis added)
Thus you denounce the polemics against the "centrists" in strong terms as against the unity of the Marxist-Leninists. You counterpose the question of polemics in general to the question of unity of the Marxist-Leninists, and in particular denounce the polemics against the "centrists" as having destroyed the possibility of fully utilizing the "full possibilities of this opportunity of building the unity of the genuine Marxist-Leninists." And in fact you insistently opposed our polemics against the "centrists," withheld support in PCDN from our polemics against the MLOC/"CPUSA(ML)" and the "RCP,USA," and raised in particular objections under one or another pretext to Why Did the 'RCP, USA' Split? and Reply to the Open Letter of the MLOC and, in your letter of December 5, to "U.S. Neo-Revisionism as the American Expression of the International Opportunist Trend of Chinese Revisionism." You further go on to in particular denounce "How to Advance the Struggle Against Social-Chauvinism," first on the pretext that it is "peculiar jargon" but then on the grounds that it is a "hidden attack," an attack of the type which prevents the utilization of "the full possibilities of this opportunity of building the unity of the genuine Marxist-Leninists." This raises the question of exactly who do you consider to be genuine Marxist-Leninists in the U.S. and why do you believe that attacking the "centrist" ideology and forces is harmful, not helpful, to the unity of those Marxist-Leninists. You go to such an extent in your opposition to polemics against "centrism" that you object even to those that don't name groups but just attack the "centrist" ideology, such as "How to Advance the Struggle Against Social-Chauvinism," which does not name the Barry Weisberg MLOC sect but which you condemn as a "hidden attack" on MLOC. We shall have more to say about your theses on the struggle against "centrism" later.
So here we have a glaring example of your method of "deny everything." First, deny your opposition to the polemics against "centrism." Then denounce these polemics as against the unity of the Marxist- Leninists and shed a few tears over an alleged "hidden attack" on the Barry Weisberg social-democratic MLOC/"CPUSA(ML)" sect.
VI-N: It is utter shameless hypocrisy for you to deny responsibility for your vile and provocative telephone message of Monday, August 8, 1977
You deny your responsibility for your vile and provocative telephone message to us of Monday, August 8, 1977 that "You are acting like a bunch of U.S. imperialist gangsters." You write:
"You cunningly wait for some slip, some opening, a crack, and then slip through to NAIL CPC (M-L) -- your 'dear fraternal comrades' for whom you have the 'deepest communist regards.' You did this in August, 1977, when an obviously and transparently wrong message was communicated to COUSML." (p. 15, italics added but capitals as in the original)
Thus on one hand you denounce this mere "slip," this "obviously and transparently wrong message." On the other hand, both in your letter of September 9, 1977 and in your present letters of December 5, 1979, you explicitly endorse this very same message and say that the correct message is "Some of you are behaving like imperialist gangsters." So this "obviously and transparently wrong message," this mere "slip," is the very message that you adhere to to this very day -- and you give your savage and slanderous condemnation of Comrade Joseph Green as a verification of that message. You write:
"More than two years ago, we communicated to COUSML that, 'Some of you are behaving like imperialist gangsters.' We are firmly convinced that Joseph Green is one such individual." (Letter of December 5 to the NC)
What utter shameless hypocrisy! And the only pretext" for this whole lie is a mere change in wording, from "you are acting like a bunch of" to " you are behaving like...." Both messages are exactly the same. For that matter, from the context we always took it that the first message only referred to "some of" us, namely the NEC. Now it seems to you have widened it somewhat so as to leave the sword of Damocles hanging over our whole leadership.
VI-O-S: Lies concerning our meetings and discussions
Another series of lies in your letters of December 5 concerns your descriptions of the meetings and agreements between our two fraternal Parties. In general, your descriptions are fantastic. They resemble another world besides the usual one which we live in and are familiar with. We have already described some of your methods in the discussions between our two organizations in Section II-C of this letter. Now let us examine a few more of your lies about the meetings and discussions between our two organizations.
VI-O: More out-and-out lies when you denounce us for allegedly not checking the facts on your sale of your English translation of the Palacios book to the "RCP,USA"
You denounce us for allegedly not having checked the facts concerning your sale of the rights to the English-language translation of the Palacios book to the "RCP,USA" before writing our letter of December 1 to you. You write, somewhat incoherently: "Joseph Green who is writing this provocation against our Party is such a shameless liar and a two-faced character that it is you who [does -- ed.] not follow even 'the most elementary norms of fraternal relations between parties,' that, if they had sincerely felt that CPC(M-L) had gone to bed with 'RCP,USA,' you or another representative of COUSML could have come to Canada, which is not too far from the United States of America, and verified the facts before venting your spleen against our Party. But you did not do so. Nor did you inquire verbally at the time of the visit of your last delegation, or by telephone, or through correspondence." (p. 6)
And this is reiterated on page 20:
"He bided his time, simply ignored our request and now has concocted his lie of 'sale of the rights of the book,' and so on and so forth, to launch the most vicious provocation against CPC(M-L) in contemptuous disregard of even 'the most basic and elementary norms' which govern the relations between genuine Marxist- Leninist parties. Did he ask for discussion on the matter? No, he did not. Did he verify the facts? No, he did not. Did he ascertain the policy of our Party? No, he did not."
The truth is that we got our facts concerning the sale of the rights to the English-language translation of the Palacios book from what you told us yourself. We relied on what you told our delegate in early November in response to the direct question of our delegate. And at that time discussion took place on various aspects of the sale of the book. Based on the facts you provided us with and on the policy of your Party as elaborated to us in that discussion, we decided to write the letter of December 1. Far from not checking with you, on the contrary we relied completely on your account. Thus your dramatic assertions quoted above are just out-and-out lies.
Indeed, this lie is another of the lies in which you accuse us of the very thing that you are doing. For it is you who never consulted with or even notified us of the sale of the English translation of the Palacios book until early November, when our delegate asked a direct question as to how the "RCP,USA" got hold of the right to publish the Palacios book.
But in your letter of December 5, you leap and dance over your lie that we allegedly never consulted you. You try to make us out as sinister, and you darkly remark: "In this talk between the representatives of CPC(M-L) and COUSML held on October 9, 1979.... At this time, the representatives of COUS ML did not raise anything with regard to the so- called 'sale of the rights of the book,' and so on and so forth " (p. 21) Of course we said nothing on October 9, 1979. We didn't know about the transaction until early November 1979. You hadn't informed us.
As a matter of fact, on page 9 you gloat over the fact that we didn't know anything until early November. You try to use this to prove that our delegate couldn't have asked a direct question about how the "RCP,USA" ended up with the rights to the English translation of Palacios' book, because he didn't know about the fact that CPC(M-L) sold it to "RCP,USA." This clearly misses the mark. It is quite possible to ask a question without knowing the answer. But in your gloating over this alleged contradiction -- that our delegate asked a question whose answer he didn't know -- you admit that we in fact didn't know about the sale until early November. You write: "Joseph Green is now really catching the colour of his bile by uttering such a big lie. Did you ask 'your delegate' to ask 'a direct question' [in the discussion of early November -- ed.]? No, you did not do such a thing. Your delegate did not know anything about these questions." (p. 9, bottom, emphasis added)
Thus on page 9 of your letter you gloat over the fact that we didn't know how the "RCP,USA" got the rights to the English translation of the Palacios book until early November, while on page 21 you denounce us for not asking you about it in October. Charming, is it not? Any lie will do in denouncing us -- even if the lies contradict each other.
VI-P: You are not telling the truth when you boast that you "offered every political and ideological assistance" to the struggle against "centrism"
You claimed that you offered us tremendous assistance in the struggle against the RCP of Chile. You exhibit this alleged assistance as proof of your dedication to proletarian internationalism and you write:
"We offered every political and ideological assistance to the American Marxist-Leninists to develop this offensive within the USA which we estimated would highly contribute to the defence of the monolithic unity of the International Marxist-Leninist Communist Movement and its common political and ideological line based on Marxist-Leninist principles. We offered to do this with the purest proletarian internationalist sentiment even at the expense of disrupting our existing programmes." (p. 4a)
This is a lie. All you offered to do is give us a document on your views on what fronts to fight the RCP of Chile. And even that assistance would be contingent on our agreeing in advance, prior to seeing the document, on making a public, written denunciation of the RCP of Chile. You regarded it as a waste of time for you to prepare a definite proposal unless we agreed to it in advance. And this Alice in Wonderland-type procedure, in which the proposal comes after the agreement rather than before, is called "aid."
Indeed, you talk of ''every political and ideological assistance." But the fact is, as we have pointed out earlier in this section, that you were and are opposed to our struggle against the "centrists" in the U.S. And you did not offer to retract this opposition. For example, you did not offer to publicize in PCDN our polemics against the "RCP, USA," although you say it is in the same trend as the RCP of Chile on page 18 of your letter, nor our polemics against Mao Zedong Thought, although you say that this trend has "crystalized around the 'defence of "Mao Zedong Thought' and the 'contributions' of Mao Zedong" on page 4a of your letter. And of course you do not offer to reprint the proposed polemics against the RCP of Chile, since that would defeat the whole purpose of our coming out with a public polemic while you remain silent. Nor did you offer any other type of "political and ideological assistance." It goes without saying that you never prepared this document. (Nor did you send us you letter, dated November 18, 1979 to the CC of the RCP of Chile, until February 4, 1980.)
It came with a cover letter addressed to the NC of the COUSML and backdated to December 15, 1979.) And it is most revealing that you regard the struggles against "centrism" and against Mao Zedong Thought as something that "disrupts our existing programmes."
VI-Q: It is not the case that we agreed to make a second trip to Canada in November 1979
You claim that we agreed to make a second trip to Canada in November 1979. You write:
"Finally, [in the discussions at the beginning of November -- ed.] it was mutually agreed with the COUSML representative to make a return trip to Canada before the departure of the delegation of the Central Committee to attend and participate in the jubilee celebrations of the 35th anniversary of the complete liberation of Albania and the triumph of the people's power.
"But CPC(M-L) did not hear anything from COUSML until the receipt of the letter dated November 29th, which was full of innuendoes, and the letter of December 1, which contains the wildest possible lies and slanders against the Party...." (p. 21)
There was no such agreement for an additional trip to Canada. Such a trip would have seriously hurt our preparations for the Preparatory Conference and Founding Congress. Nor, for that matter, was there even a serious proposal on your part. One of our delegates had just spent over a week in Canada in early November (the end of October and the first week in November). We sent him, despite the difficulties this caused our campaign for the 35th anniversary of the liberation of Albania and our preparations for the Preparatory Conference and Founding Congress, in order to take part as previously agreed in a program on Mao Zedong Thought. However it turned out that you had cancelled this program without bothering to notify us. Our delegate stayed anyway for discussion at your request. He rather overdid it, in fact, staying in Canada for nine days, although you did not engage him in any discussions that warranted such a long stay. At the same time, you didn't want him to leave either. In any event, our delegate's long stay showed that he was intent on giving you every opportunity for serious and thorough discussions. What need was there, therefore, for further discussion in another ten days or less, which was what you proposed? You are silent on this, because it shows that your casual proposal for another visit was at best frivolous.
For that matter, you are quite aware that, if you felt that further discussion was needed, and if you were finally prepared for such discussion, then you could either have held discussion with our delegate in early November or you could either have sent us a delegate or delegation of your own or you could have written us a letter elaborating your views. Indeed, if you prepared for further discussion and really wanted such discussion, then this was yet another reason why you should have sent delegations to the Preparatory Conference and Founding Congress. There was no lack of opportunity for you to put forward your views to us.
But it cannot fail to attract attention that while you berate us for not coming to another visit, in fact you still do not elaborate any further analysis, you do not put forward the ideas that presumably were so essential to talk about in mid-November. In fact you go out of your way to avoid discussion and to avoid put ting forward your analysis or listening to ours. You go to such extremes in this that you denounce our letter of November 29, which invited you in a warm, fraternal manner to send a delegation to the Preparatory Conference for the Founding of the MLP, USA, and to the Founding Congress of the MLP,USA. But if you were really interested in discussion, then sending these delegations was an excellent opportunity to have further discussions. And you denounce our letter of December 1. But anyone who reads that letter can see that it is a calm, principled and fraternal letter of criticism and that it develops our views and the Marxist-Leninist analysis on certain burning questions on the struggle against opportunism. It develops our views systematically, while your letters of December 5 shout, leap and dance, go into a frenzy, complain about this meeting and that, and do everything to avoid developing your views on the burning issues. Thus your complaint about our delegate not returning in ten days for another meeting reminds one of the fable of the empty barrel that Lenin refers to in section IA of What Is to Be Done?, the empty barrel that makes such a banging and rattling and deafening noise as it rolls about on the back of the cart precisely because it is an empty barrel, without any content at all.
VI-R: Your claim that we never told you whether or not we agreed to your proposal for us to open a public polemic against the RCP of Chile is a double lie
You claim that we allegedly never told you whether or not we agreed to your proposal that we begin open polemics with the RCP of Chile. You write:
"We proposed that the resolute struggle against the centrist alliance be opened up within the U.S. but, as their usual practice, COUS ML representatives and their Charlie gave no reply." (p. 24, bottom)
This is a double lie. First of all, as we have pointed out earlier in this section of our letter, we were already in struggle against "centrism" within the U.S., and it is you who opposed this struggle. By having a struggle "opened up within the U.S.," you simply mean that you wanted us to attack the RCP of Chile openly by name. And the second part of your lie is you claim that we gave you "no reply." We repeatedly discussed with you the question of whether the RCP of Chile should be attacked by name. Discussions took place in September and October, and it was touched on again in November. And we discussed with you the reasons for our rejection of your particular proposal that we should attack them in print by name.
On page 21 you yourself contradict your lie that we never replied by describing that we talked to you about our tactics with respect to the Palacios tour of the U.S. on the "RCP,USA" platform. However, you say that this discussion took place in November, and that in October "the COUSML representatives did not present any proposals [?] as to what should be done with regard to this tour of Jorge Palacios and the 'RCP,USA'." This is ridiculous. We discussed this with you as early as the meeting of mid-September 1979. The COUSML had been doing work for months on end in the Chilean circles against the "RCP,USA," and it developed its particular tactics on the question of the Palacios tour in September. This can be verified both by the Internal Bulletin issued in September on this question and by the minutes of the NC of the COUSML for September.
The contradiction in your own letter about whether we ever replied to your proposal reveals what is at the heart of your lie that we "gave no reply." You have gotten used to the method of putting pressure on us. And you refuse to seriously consider and study the views we put forward or the work and struggle of our Party. This is true to the extent that if we say "no" to any of your ideas you do not even regard this as a "reply." Only an unqualified "yes" counts.
Thus you write that:
"It was mutually decided that COUSML will subsequently inform our Party as to whether or not they would take up our proposal, or undertake any initiatives on this question, and we subsequently received the answer by telephone -- 'no'. Nothing more was heard by our Party about this matter until the end of October and the beginning of November." (p. 21)
What utter rot! You pretend that all you received from us was the word "no". In fact, we repeatedly described our tactics and stand on the question of the Palacios tour of the U.S. on the platform of the "RCP,USA" and our views on the question of attacking the RCP of Chile by name in the press. We sent delegates up to talk to you in person, despite the heavy pace of our work, in September, early October and the period of late October-early November. While you, despite your alleged concern for consultation, never sent us a delegate nor a document. But you reduce our detailed plans and reasoning to the word "no". You don't even regard our discussions as descriptions of our plans, because you disagreed with these plans. In the discussions of early October, you insisted to our skeptical delegate that when he goes back he should have us phone you and give you the one-word answer "yes" or "no". That is, you refused to accept the stand of our Party communicated through our delegate because it disagreed with your views. Our delegate could see no use whatsoever for this telephone call, but reluctantly agreed to it at your request. So we telephoned you and gave you the answer "no."
VI-S: Your claim that we refused to discuss your conception of the Internationalists as a separate "trend" within the international Marxist-Leninist communist movement is also a double lie
You claim that we have refused to discuss your conception of the Internationalists as a separate "trend" distinct from or within the international Marxist-Leninist communist movement. 1) You write: "Among other things, our representative communicated to them:
'We propose, if you like, and whenever you like, whenever it is convenient, to discuss this concept that we have advanced that the Internationalist Movement came up as one movement and merged with the International Marxist-Leninist Communist Movement, with no exception. This is a very important issue.' (From minutes of the discussion between the representatives of CPC(M-L) and COUSML, October 9,1979)
Further on in this talk, our representative requested: 'You should discuss this question. We have very important views on this matter. At the same time, if I for some reason am not available, then any comrade on the Central Committee can discuss this question with you." (p. 20) Once again, this is a double lie.
First of all, in this you try to hide that you have put forward that there is today "two trends" or many trends within the international Marxist-Leninist communist movement and that you believe that the Internationalist "trend" can and should play a certain role as a separate "trend" in the international movement, allegedly as part of the process of fusing everything together into one trend. However, we do not agree either with the view that the Internationalists came up separate from the international Marxist-Leninist communist movement nor that they form a separate trend within it at the present time. We emerged as part of and remain part of only one trend -- the Marxist-Leninist trend. We regard the merit of the Internationalists as being that they were a contingent of the international Marxist-Leninist communist movement.
Secondly, this concept, as so many others that you have brought forward, you have not thought through and elaborated. At any rate, you have certainly not discussed them with us, but have subjected us to hints, fragments of ideas, half-baked phrases, everything but serious analysis. We have repeatedly asked you to elaborate your idea about the "two trends." You have refused to do so. Finally, we evaluated the idea on our own and rejected it and told you why. Indeed, in reading this passage of your alleged remarks from the meeting of October 9, the question arises: why didn't you simply elaborate your views? To hide the fact that you could neither defend nor elaborate your idea of "two trends," you insisted that you would discuss them "whenever you like, whenever it is convenient," etc. But our visit of early October was itself convenient. Our visit of early November was convenient. Mid-September 1979 had also been a convenient time, as at that time we had tried to explain our views to you on this question, but you had cut us off. Your letters of December 5 also give you another convenient opportunity, but all you can say about this question is a fragment of one sentence. The truth is that you are the ones who have avoided serious discussion on this untenable and dangerous concept of "two (or more) trends" in the international Marxist-Leninist communist movement.
Let us examine some of the history of this idea. It came up in embryonic form as early as mid-1978. You brought this idea up as the justification for a meeting of the four fraternal parties of Canada, XXX, YYY and the U.S. Our minutes of a meeting between the representatives of our two Parties give a summary of your views on this as follows:
"He [the representative of CPC(M-L) -- ed.] would like to use the time over there [in Europe -- ed.] to hold the meeting of the four parties. The purpose of the meeting is to give the summation of the historical significance of the trend [the Internationalist trend -- ed.] and to bring to an end any relations apart from the normal relations of the international movement -- not an end to close relations. He expressed the view that the YYY interpret normalization as an end to close relations."
This four-party meeting did not take place. You informed us later that this was due to problems between you and the YYY leadership. We ourselves had no objection at that time to a meeting to normalize relations. At that time, the meeting was alleged to be for the purpose of putting an end to any special relations between the four parties and for a normalization of relations.
Then in early 1979 you put forward to us a different idea. Now the idea of the joint meeting was not to normalize relations and end any special relationship existing as a historical carry-over, but to further develop the "trend." Our minutes of the meetings between the representatives of our two Parties at the time of the 6th Consultative Conference of the CPC (M-L) contain the following:
"[The views of CPC(M-L)'s representative]:
In practical terms, not political, there are the Marxist-Leninist parties that came out of the struggle against Khrushchovite revisionism led by the PLA and those who come out of the Internationalists. There is a question of merging them as one trend. The historical significance of the Internationalists and the work we have done shouldn't be underestimated: 1) common struggle; 2) relations and unity. Should utilize this as a force to develop strong relations in the international communist movement. In the present situation, the parties coming from the Internationalists can make a big contribution, utilizing the existing strength in the struggle against revisionism and opportunism. While I [CPC(M-L)'s representative -- ed.] was in Albania, I came to the view of the need for a joint statement of the Parties from the Internationalists. I went to the (XXX and YYY) to propose one or two informational meetings to exchange views, particularly regarding the international situation and the international Marxist-Leninist communist movement, and a joint statement of the Parties, sometime in the next six months. I was unable to propose it to the YYY. There was an incident between...[a leader of the YYY] and myself and the meeting did not take place. I did raise it to the XXX, who agreed. The proposal is to go ahead with the informational meeting and prepare for the joint statement. The YYY would be invited to participate in the joint statement."
The minutes also state that:
"CPC(M-L) has views to present. He is not calling for others to give views necessarily at this time."
Thus here there is the idea of two "trends" in the international Marxist-Leninist communist movement, including the bizarre counterposing of the Internationalists to parties that came up in the struggle against Khrushchovite revisionism. This idea was first put forward to our delegate who visited you prior to the 6th Consultative Conference to make arrangements for our participation. He wanted to discuss the issue further, but you cut the discussion off. You said that there was a lot of time for further discussion and you would elaborate the question later.
But then at the discussions at the 6th Consultative Conference you raised the proposal we have quoted above. We were asked to agree immediately to a three-party (Canada, XXX, U.S.) informational meeting. This meeting had to take place immediately so it could occur, because the XXX delegate had to leave Canada. This meeting was based on the idea of "two trends," and also implied taking a certain stand in the controversy between the YYY and the Canadians, but we were not to receive any further elaboration about your ideas on "two trends" until the meeting itself. Thus, prior to the 6th Consultative Conference, discussion was put off on the plea of there being a lot of time to take up the question at leisure. At the 6th Consultative Conference we were asked to take action based on the analysis of the "two trends" immediately, and yet the analysis of the "two trends" would only be elaborated at the three-party meeting itself. We could not agree to this. Our delegation gave you a note which read as follows:
"The comrade from the NEC asked me to convey the following:
1) We are very enthusiastic to receive the Party's views about the various questions concerning the Internationalists and the international situation, as a document or orally in bilateral discussion.
2) We cannot agree to an informational meeting at this time. This is not a simple matter and touches a number of critical issues which we would need to think through."
Thus, we were not against the informational meeting in itself. Nor were we against joint meetings in general. But since this particular meeting was now linked to the idea of "two trends" and to certain other issues, we needed further discussion on these issues before agreeing to this meeting. This note requests that you elaborate your views. But you refused to elaborate your views. All that mattered to you was that we had supposedly "opposed" the informational meeting. You regarded our refusal to proceed without first having discussion of the basis underlying the meeting as opposition to the meeting.
This procedure of yours shows that on this issue, and others, you insisted on unquestioning and immediate agreement to any plan or proposal, no matter how vague or even half-baked the plan was, no matter whether the plan raised important questions of principle that had to be handled seriously and cautiously. You have repeatedly regarded that a request for explanations of the basis and rationale of your proposals -- or the thought that matters must be put forward before the appropriate party committee for discussion and approval and not decided by an offhand, casual cheap agreement between any member or delegate of our organization that happened to be at hand and yourself -- as a refusal. But this means that you give yourself the right both to act on matters of vital interest to both out fraternal Parties on the basis of hasty, unworked out or even half-baked views and also to dictate to our Party.
Finally, therefore, we were forced to discuss the issue of "two trends" in the NC on the basis of just the few fragments of an idea that had been presented to us. The NC meeting of May 1979 decided against this concept and reaffirmed the traditional view of ACWM(M-L) and COUSML that there is only one Marxist-Leninist trend in the international movement, that of Marxism-Leninism itself. We tried to discuss this with you, but you were not particularly interested. For example, in the discussions between the representatives of our Parties of mid- September 1979, our representative opposed the idea of "two trends" in the international Marxist- Leninist communist movement. You cut him off, made a brief remark to the effect of "but there is the history of the Internationalists," and changed the subject. And now we can judge the full hypocrisy of the fragment from the discussions in early October that you quote on page 20 of your letter. You "proposed" to discuss the issue of "two trends" as just another way to cut off having any actual discussion on the question right then and there. The final proof of the bogus nature of your alleged proposal to discuss this issue, was that since then you have always avoided seriously discussing this issue, either at the discussion in early November or in your letters of December 5.
Thus the facts show that you are the one who has been avoiding discussion of the concept of "two trends" in the international Marxist-Leninist communist movement or of the Internationalists as a separate "trend."
VI-T: We propose an exchange of the "full notes and minutes'' on our discussions
In referring to the discussions of early August 1979 between the representatives of the leaderships of our two Parties, you write:
"We have the full notes and minutes of his views. The general understanding reached between the two delegations was to further carry on the discussions and arrive at unanimity of views through discussion." (p. 17)
It is highly doubtful that you have "full notes and minutes" of our views or of that discussion in general. We request that you send us a copy of these "full notes and minutes" of the discussions of early August. In those discussions you had only one comrade present in the room from your Party. This comrade did not take notes nor did he manifest much interest in our views, which he regarded as at best a nuisance. You sum up the entire meeting with an alleged "general understanding" to "further carry on discussions to arrive at unanimity of views through discussion." This is ridiculous. These discussions resulted in definite agreements and disagreements, but you wish to cover everything over and deny your commitments by inventing a concocted "general understanding." If this is the fruit of your "full notes and minutes," then it is proof in full of the dubious and unreliable character of your "full notes and minutes." We have shown earlier in this section that you are lying when you deny your opposition to the slogan "Build the Marxist-Leninist Party Without the Social-Chauvinists and Against the Social-Chauvinists." That lie provides yet another proof, a proof ten times over, of the unreliable and dubious character of your "full notes and minutes" of the discussions.
We could continue on and on with your lies about the discussions and meetings between our two Parties. You say you have "full notes and minutes" of these meetings and discussions. Very well. If you seriously wish to pursue the question of what happened at this or that meeting, we propose that an exchange of minutes would be one method of value. Despite your offhand method of presenting views, and despite your pleas at various times to our delegates to not take notes on the discussions, we have a fairly extensive set of minutes on various of the discussions. We would be quite interested to see the minutes and related documents kept by your Party on the discussions. We in turn would be willing to provide you copies of the minutes and related documents kept by our Party. The comparison of these documents would have a certain value, especially as there is a vast disagreement in our respective accounts of the meetings and discussions. For our part, we have been studying the record of the last few years with great attention and we would give close attention to the study of the minutes from you and to their comparison with our minutes. As well, at this time many or most of the comrades involved in these discussions are still available. This adds further timeliness to an exchange of minutes and to studying and comparing them now. Furthermore, we would imagine that such material should be of the utmost interest to you, as you have been taking decisions having a vast bearing on the future development of our relations. Such an exchange of documents could take place even before the necessary preparations for meetings of the delegations of our two Marxist- Leninist Parties had been fully realized. We therefore propose that such an exchange of minutes and documents be agreed on and carried out without preconditions.
Perhaps in the future methods should be found for either the routine exchange of minutes or for the preparation of minutes agreed to by both sides. We propose that serious consideration be given at future meetings to preserving an objective record of the discussions and agreements or disagreements.
SECTION VII: On your concept of a "special relationship" between our Parties
In this section we take up the issue of your concept of, to use your term, a "special relationship" between our two fraternal Parties. The Second Plenum of the Central Committee of the MLP,USA considered this a very important issue. The Second Plenum came to the following conclusion on this issue:
"The [December 5th letters of the CC of CPC (M-L)] insist on a special relationship between the two fraternal Parties.
"In fact, the ties between the Marxist-Leninist Party and the CPC(M-L) should be close because: a) all relations between the parties in the international Marxist-Leninist communist movement should be strengthened; b) the CPC (M-L) and the Marxist-Leninist Party are on the same continent, there is a large flow of people between the two countries, U.S. imperialism dominates Canada, and the Parties objectively need to work closely; and c) there is historically a close relationship, which is a favorable factor that should be maintained.
"But this is not a 'special relationship/ "Furthermore, with the brutal letters of [the Central Committee of] the CPC(M-L) of December 5, any 'special relationship' that may have existed between the two Parties has come to an end. The future close harmonious relations will not be built on any such 'special relationship.' "And further, the letters of December 5 give an idea of 'special relationship' that is especially shocking. Their idea of 'special relationship' is that of one that gives [the leadership of] the CPC(M-L) the right to split the Marxist-Leninist Party, to do what [the leadership of] the CPC (M-L) likes in the U.S. independent of the Marxist-Leninist Party, and so forth. 'Special relationship' in this sense is a relationship independent of Marxist-Leninist stand. It is a demand that [the leadership of] CPC(M-L) be followed independently of whether its positions are correct or not, Marxist-Leninist or not, but just because they are CPC(M-L)'s positions." (Extract from the minutes of the Second Plenum of the CC of the MLP,USA)
Now we shall go on to examine some of the ways that the "special relationship" worked in practice. In the next section, Section VIII, we shall return to the question of the theories and ideological questions that lie behind these activities.
VII-A: A marked feature of the "special relationship" is your repeated use of brutal pressure against our Party
Your repeated use of political pressure against us is one of the marked features of the "special relationship." You have taken this to such extremes that you have on various occasions even threatened to break or "freeze" relations with us over this or that disagreement. Thus it is with utter amazement that we read the following statement in your letter: "What political and ideological positions COUSML is to adopt on the national and international questions is their business. Our Party has never dictated to them as what they should do or what stands they should adopt." (p. 17) The hypocrisy of this statement exceeds all bounds. Just imagine! It is written precisely in a letter which is a model of brutal dictation and savage pressure. You are simply boycotting the whole MLP,USA on the pretext of our letter of December 1. You are simply insisting that all "the political and ideological views you [the NC of the COUSML -- ed.] are presenting are thoroughly repudiated and denounced" (p. 1), that the Central Committee split, and that this must be done "before the Marxist-Leninist Party, USA is founded." (p. 7) But, oh horrors, you would never think of "dictat(ing) to the (MLP,USA) what they should do or what stands they should adopt." Never!
In fact, you have applied pressure with the aim of dictating a stand to us many times in the past. Your letters of December 5 are but the culmination of these past incidents, their highest and most extreme development, but are not otherwise without precedent. We shall give a partial and incomplete list of some of these incidents. We shall start with an incident from 1974 that predates the present series of problems, that go back to late 1975.
VII-A-1: The expulsion of the COUSML delegation to the Third Consultative Conference of the CPC(M-L)
In 1974, at the invitation of the CPC(M-L), the COUSML did enthusiastic work for and sent a large delegation to the Third Consultative Conference of the CPC(M-L). This delegation, besides participating in all the sessions of the Third Consultative Conference that were open to it, also held its own sessions and took on the character of a conference of the COUSML. An intense struggle broke out in the American delegation. It is described in, among other places, our Internal Bulletin entitled "The Ugly Face of Reformism," which we have sent to you a long time ago. This bulletin refers to a certain comrade as Comrade... [who was the main comrade making anarcho-syndicalist errors in the COUSML -- W.A.]. We shall also refer to him as Comrade... for the purposes of this letter. Comrade ...'s political errors and anarchist practices had been repudiated prior to the Third Consultative Conference by the May 12-14 meeting of the COUSML (Central Body). Comrade... had pretended to agree with the decisions of this meeting, but at the American delegation to the Third Consultative Conference he led a conspiracy to reverse the decisions of the May 12-14 meeting of the Central Body of the COUSML. He resorted to wrecking activities and to inciting the comrades against the leadership.
The leadership of the CPC(M-L) opposed the COUSML's leadership's struggle against the conspiracy and wrecking activity of Comrade.... The representative of the CPC(M-L) expressed his advice very sharply and also claimed that this struggle would tear the COUSML into a thousand pieces. This view of his was totally wrong. Anyone familiar with the state of tension in the COUSML at that time, a tension caused by practices typified by those of and led by Comrade..., knows that failure to have opposed Comrade...'s anarchist activities is what would have blown the COUSML into a thousand pieces. If the COUSML leadership had accepted this advice to not oppose Comrade...'s activities, then the COUSML would have been destroyed and the MLP,USA would not be here today. The COUSML leadership did not accept the mistaken advice from the CPC(M-L) leadership.
But the leadership of the CPC(M-L) after a period of time expelled the American delegation from the conference and called it, in front of the whole conference, such things as Nixonite imperialists and parasites. This was an enormous provocation against the COUSML and a brutal interference into its internal affairs. It is hard to think of any precedents for one party expelling the invited fraternal delegation of another party in this way. With this act, the leadership of the CPC(M-L) passed over from giving fraternal, if mistaken, advice to brutal and savage attempts at dictation. The COUSML delegation, despite the intense struggle within its ranks, had acted with respect, with discipline, and with intense fraternal interest towards the sessions of the Third Consultative Conference that were open to it. The expulsion of the COUSML delegation was nothing but interference into the internal affairs of the COUSML and punishment against its leadership for not following the advice of the leadership of the CPC(M-L).
The pretext for the expulsion was that the delegation of the COUSML had not paid enough attention to the Third Consultative Conference as shown by such facts as that it hadn't asked enough questions at the sessions open to it. It is simply unheard of to expel a fraternal delegation on such a pretext. This is not a reason, but the lack of any reason. Nevertheless, it is significant that even this pretext was false. The COUSML was intensely interested in the question of line on the working class movement, of anarcho-syndicalism and anarchism, of the organization of the working class as a class, of the attitude to the economic struggle and to the trade unions and so forth. What, after all, were the COUSML (Central Body) meeting of May 12-14 and the struggle in the American delegation all about? This shows that the real issue was not that the COUSML had no interest in the questions raised by the Third Consultative Conference, but that the leadership of the CPC(M-L) opposed the struggle against Comrade ...'s conspiracy and wrecking activities and was trying to impose its views on the COUSML.
The COUSML handled itself maturely in the face of this hostile act against it. The delegation continued to support the struggle against Comrade... and did not reverse the assessment of Comrade...'s activities. At the same time, it continued to cherish warm feelings towards the CPC(M-L) and its leadership and it took up the correct parts of certain advice from the leadership of the CPC(M-L). And far be it from us to deny that in the period right after the Third Consultative Conference the leadership of the CPC(M-L) gave us some valuable advice that contributed immensely towards the July 1974 Internal Bulletin. And for that matter the content of the Third Consultative Conference itself, despite our alleged lack of interest in it, was of immense value to us. Indeed the whole work of the CPC(M-L) against anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism was of great value to us in the struggle against the anarcho-syndicalist influence in the COUSML. But this does not justify or explain away the savage expulsion and denunciation of our delegation at the Third Consultative Conference. And it is also significant that to this day you have still not understood your error with regard to the American delegation at the Third Consultative Conference....
[The assessment above of the allegedly great positive role of certain political and theoretical views given by the leadership of CPC(M-L) is not correct. The COUSML was extremely interested in the views put forward by the CPC(M-L), as noted above, but time has proven that the COUSML gave quite a different interpretation to the struggle against anarcho-syndicalism than the leadership of CPC(M-L) did and even quite a different interpretation to the words of the leadership of CPC(M-L) than they did. The assessment above is a typical example of our Party erroneously attributing our own revolutionary Marxist-Leninist stands to the leadership of CPC(M-L). In fact, at the Third Consultative Conference of the CPC(M-L), the leadership of CPC(M-L) not only savagely condemned the COUSML's stern struggle against anarcho-syndicalism, thus showing the limited and sham nature of how the fight against anarcho-syndicalism was conducted inside the CPC(M-L), but simultaneously deviated to the right under the signboard of opposing anarcho-syndicalism. This is an example of that peculiar combination of semi-anarchism and rightism that has continued to characterize the views and practices of the leadership of CPC(M-L) to this day. They combine rightist, economist and outright liquidationist deviations with a penchant for semi-anarchist phrasemongering and organizational practices. The deviation to the right put forward by the leadership of CPC(M-L) at the Third Consultative Conference and afterwards had its influence on certain elements in the COUSML. Although the source and inspiration of this deviation in the influence of the leadership of CPC(M-L) upon COUSML was not recognized, nevertheless the COUSML thoroughly repudiated the reformist and factionalist activity of these elements in 1975, as outlined in the Internal Bulletin of that time entitled "The Ugly Face of Reformism." This is the same document referred to above that also describes the fight against the anarcho-syndicalist conspiracy and factionalist wrecking activities at the American delegation to the Third Consultative Conference. -- W.A.]
VII-A-2: The "freezing of relations" of early 1977
At the end of 1976 and the beginning of 1977 you artificially incited a contradiction over the question of the work among the East Indian nationality in the U.S. and used it as pretext to "freeze" relations with the COUSML.
Previously, from the end of 1975 and throughout 1976, some problems had arisen concerning the work among the East Indian nationality in the U.S. This work was carried out in close coordination with you. Some of the problems were caused by Akhbar, a representative of CPC(M-L) whom you gave great responsibilities and authority towards this work. He turned out to be a bad element and the Third Congress of the CPC(M-L) denounced him publicly, saying:
"The Third Congress of the Party will further purge individuals like A. Ahad who used the Party organization for the purposes of serving the interests of the alien groups and organizations in Canada and the U.S. and who carried out factional and splittist activity for the purposes of advancing interests other than the interests of the proletarian revolution in Canada and elsewhere." (The Political Resolution of the Third Congress of the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist), February 6-March 13, 1977, point 34 (2), p. 67)
However, while the fact that Akhbar proved to be a bad element explains some of the problems, it is not a full explanation in the slightest. Furthermore, even with respect to Akhbar's activities, many questions remain unexplained and unclear, since you have never agreed to go over these questions at all with us, to say nothing of discussing them in the proper detail. To this day, the problems from this period have not been sorted out between our two fraternal Parties.
In this work, the COUSML had consistently supported both the orientation given by the CPC(M-L) and close coordination with the CPC(M-L). Nevertheless, starting in November 1976, you artificially incited a contradiction between the leaderships of our two Parties on the pretext of the problems arising in this work. It is not the point here to go into the methods you used for this purpose, as revealing and despicable as they were. But finally you "froze" relations with us unilaterally without even notifying us, on the pretext of this or that allegation or complaint to you about us, allegations that you never even presented to us. It should be noted that you had invited us to send a big delegation from the COUSML to the Third Congress of the CPC(M-L) (at your later suggestion, this became a delegation from the NC of the COUSML). You had stressed the importance of this, so that the NC of the COUSML had even reversed itself on the advisability of sending such a delegation at that time in order to comply with your assessment of its importance. This naturally involved major changes in our work and required preparations. At a certain point, you stopped the preparations for this delegation, preparations that you had suggested yourself, and refrained from sending us a delegate who was supposed to bring various documents. You didn't notify us that the delegate wouldn't come. We finally realized that something was wrong as we waited and he didn't appear. We contacted you to ask what happened. You then brought up the question of the work among the East Indian nationality in the U.S. and informed us that you had "frozen the relations," these are your words, until this question was resolved. By artificially inciting a contradiction between our two Parties, by "freezing" the relations, and by linking the previously agreed on (at your suggestion) participation of the COUSML in the Third Congress of the CPC (M-L) to the resolution of this artificial contradiction, you brought savage pressure to bear upon the NC of the COUSML. This was a brutal attempt to dictate to our organization.
The leadership of the COUSML protested the "freezing" of relations, and the linking of the question of the participation of the COUSML delegation in the Third Congress of the CPC(M-L) to the question of the problems in the East Indian nationality work in the U.S., and the fact that you had jumped to conclusions and condemned us prior to even talking to us. Our two Parties agreed on almost nothing concerning the "freezing" of relations and the artificial contradiction. At your suggestion, it was agreed that "A problem exists between the two organizations which is recognized by both. The resolution of it is to be postponed until an agreed upon time when both organizations are prepared to deal with it. Either organization can so request." (January 1977) In practice, you backed down on "freezing" relations because our delegation was then again invited to the Third Congress and we never heard this formulation from you again. Both sides agreed to postpone going further into the problems coming up in the East Indian nationality work in the U.S. until after the Third Congress. But it turned out that after the Third Congress you lost any interest in talking about it to us. This further underlines the unprincipled character of your "freezing" of relations with us on the pretext of these problems.
VII-A-3: Your denunciation of us as "imperialist gangsters" for insisting on a meeting between delegations of the two Parties
In 1977 it was agreed at a certain point that certain matters of relations between our two fraternal Parties should be taken up by meetings of delegations. However in practice you never were in favor of this and put up various obstacles. After you had broken certain arrangements for a meeting, and the NEC of the COUSML continued to try to contact you on the question of the meeting, you went to the extreme of even threatening our relations. You gave the following message over the telephone for the NEC on August 8, 1977:
"Our message to you is: you are acting like a bunch of U.S. imperialist gangsters. The kind of relations you have with us in the future is up to you."
Thus you committed a vile provocation against the NEC of the COUSML and explicitly threatened the relations between the two Parties. This message however only caused the NEC to be more convinced that a meeting of the delegations should take place. In the process of opposing such a meeting, you sent us the letter of September 9, 1977, which again threatened the relations between our two fraternal Parties. Among other things, it stated:
"... We say to you: If we consider our fraternal comrades with whom we have shared weal and woe for so many years as 'imperialist gangsters,' and you believe that this is what we do, then for what reason do you want to maintain fraternal relations with us?... It is our view that considering the state of relations between us, a meeting of the delegations of the fraternal Parties will be of no use whatsoever...."
This shameful letter actually taunts the NEC to break relations. It also justifies your refusal to hold a meeting of the delegations on the basis of the allegedly bad state of relations between our two Parties, i.e., it puts the relations between our two Parties into doubt, for relations must be bad indeed for a meeting of the delegations to be of no value. Thus you exerted savage pressure on us even on the issue of simply having a meeting of the delegations of the two leaderships.
VII-A-4: With your letter of November 5, 1977, you declared your opposition to meetings of delegations and even to written exchanges
In November 1977 you resorted to another incredible act of pressure against our Party. You wrote:
"We firmly oppose the series of provocations carried against our Party by Comrade Tim Hall through various notes on your behalf. It is our decision to not receive any such notes the future and return the ones already received. It is our decision not to reply to the provocations against our Party." (Excerpt from the letter of November 5, 1977 from the NEC of the CPC (M-L) to the NEC of the COUSML, emphasis added)
It should be noted that the "notes" that are "by Comrade Tim Hall" are in fact the letters of the NEC of the COUSML, which were read and approved by all the members of the NEC before being sent. With this letter by the NEC of the CPC(M-L), any disagreement with a view of the leadership of the CPC(M-L) is labeled a "provocation." The letter does not even bother to identify any particular "provocation," but just labels every single letter from the NEC of the COUSML as a "provocation." As well, it insists that the NEC of the CPC(M-L) has decided to neither receive our letters not to reply to any of our "provocations," i.e., disagreements. Either accept the views of the leadership of the CPC(M-L) or else. That is the content of this letter of November 1977.
Presumably it was the last letter from the NEC of the COUSML that triggered your letter of Novembers, 1977, although it can not be ruled out that you sent us the letter of November 5, 1977 just on general principles. The last letter sent you prior to November 5, 1977, was the letter of the NEC of the COUSML of October 10, 1977. 2) This letter concerned an incident where a delegate from CPC(M-L), among other things, made unreasonable demands on us, such as that he would only talk to Comrade... and to no one else. Your delegate carried that ultimatum out too. But this was neither right in principle, nor was Comrade... available. In informal, casual discussion, you talked in an evasive and ambiguous way about this incident in order to smooth everything over without solving anything or stating anything definitely. But at the same time you sent us the letter of November 5.
As a result of your letter of November 5, you officially stood in opposition both to meetings of the delegations and to written exchanges. This naturally created difficulties in finding a way to deal with the disagreements and problems between the two Parties.
VII-A-5: Your walkout from the March 4,1978 meeting is further proof of your opposition to a meeting to discuss the disagreements
The NEC and the NC of the COUSML nevertheless persisted on the principled path of seeking a meeting of the delegations of the two Parties to deal with the problems in the relations. As a result, you felt compelled to agree in words to such a meeting. This meeting took place on March 4, 1978. However the course of this meeting proved that you were still opposed to such a meeting despite your purely hypocritical agreement. Thus right at the start you both expressed skepticism about the meeting and also stated that you were unprepared for it. Hence our delegation spoke first. But our delegation had barely started its speech and was still in the opening section where the speech simply listed the issues that it thought should be taken up in the meeting, prior to the body of the speech that was to elaborate on them, when your delegation interrupted and walked out. Your delegation did not even let our delegation finish listing the points that it wished to deal with, but after the second one you interrupted us. According to our minutes of this meeting, the leader of your delegation "said that if this was what [the delegation of the COUSML] wanted to talk about, there was no point in continuing and that he had already told our comrades about this." As soon as this interruption began, another one of your delegates immediately began gathering his things to leave. Then, without waiting for our response, all your delegates walked out. It was clear that this walkout was arranged in advance, and you only waited (and you hardly waited any time at all, the entire meeting took five minutes) until the suitable pretext. Indeed, you yourself stressed this in your brief comments by stating that you had already told our comrades that you would walk out. As well, you showed this by not even waiting to hear all the points that we wished to raise, by not putting forward your own proposed agenda, by not specifying what it was that you disagreed with, and by not waiting for our response. Clearly your agreement to hold this meeting was not sincere, but was simply a trick, a ruse, a more sophisticated way of opposing the meeting. With your walkout you showed that you were not even willing to discuss the disagreements between our two Parties. In your view, the COUSML should simply accept your views, and that was that.
You then proceeded to set up the savage pressure on us. You labeled the mere fact that we disagreed with you and wanted discussion as a "premeditated and unwarranted provocation." You thus unilaterally cancelled certain joint work between our two Parties immediately after your walkout. For example, you had proposed that our two Parties write a Joint Statement. We had agreed. Our delegates were supposed to have held their first meeting on this Joint Statement a few days before the March 4th meeting. But you stated that you were unprepared and hence the first discussions on the Joint Statement were postponed to after the March 4th meeting. But after your walkout you refused to go ahead with the Joint Statement. On the same day, March 4, shortly after the walkout, we received a note signed by the "Comrade-in-Charge of Fraternal Relations with COUSML" that stated in part:
"I have received your note regarding 'First Meeting on the Joint Statement.' I have the following comment to make on the proposal:
"As you are well aware that COUSML comrades organized a premeditated and unwarranted provocation against our Party and our leadership, it is impossible for us to proceed with our work on this front. My Party and its leadership has entrusted me to settle the issue of this hostile activity against our Party and its leadership at the earliest possible time. Until this issue is properly settled in the true proletarian internationalist spirit, it is impossible to proceed to conclude work on any other front...." (emphasis added)
By the way, this was the first time that the comrade who signed this note was identified as "the Comrade-in-Charge of Fraternal Relations with COUSML"; he was not the leader of the delegation that walked out, and neither before nor after this note was he the comrade who handled the overwhelming majority of discussions with us. But that by way of aside. His note also contained a note from the NEC of the CPC(M-L) which read in part:
"Your delegation organized a premeditated and unwarranted provocation against our Party and our leadership.... We take this matter extremely seriously and we request that the leadership of COUSML takes immediate action to deal with this extremely grave situation that has arisen in the fraternal relations between our two organizations....we are extremely saddened by the developments and we will be extremely aggrieved if the fraternal relations suffer further setbacks. We call upon our fraternal comrades to do everything possible to sort out all the outstanding problems so that the joint work on several important fronts begins in the nearest future." (emphasis added)
Thus once again you put the fraternal relations between our two Parties into doubt. In your letter of September 9, 1977, you had said that the state of relations between our organizations was too bad to make a meeting of delegations of any value. While now you stated that the relations were too bad to permit work on a Joint Statement or "on any other front." Once again you showed us the mailed fist.
What unbridled arrogance! First you walk out of a meeting to deal with the problems in the relations and then you say that it is necessary to "settle this issue" and "to sort out all the outstanding problems" or else "it is impossible to proceed to conclude work on any other front." It is absolutely clear that you regard our having any view different from yours as "hostile activity against our (your) Party and its leadership" and to bring such views up in discussion is "a premeditated and unwarranted provocation." And how sinister you paint our organization! We discuss our views and work them out in the appropriate party committees, hence they are "premeditated." With your walkout you resorted to the utmost political pressure in attempting to impose your views upon us. In order to oppose having a meeting of the delegations of two Parties to deal with the problems in the relations and to force us to drop any other disagreement we may have, you insist that "all the outstanding problems" must be settled, that is, that we must agree with you in everything, or else you will threaten the fraternal relations between our two Parties and feel free to unilaterally cancel any previous agreement with, or obligation to, our Party.
VII-A-6: The hostile boycott of the MLP,USA
We could go on and on and give more examples. But we shall end with your withdrawal of support from our Party, which has reached the stage of a hostile boycott of the MLP,USA. Section III of our letter described part of this hostile activity and showed how you have started down the road of public attacks on our Party. With such acts you are not striving to push forward ideological clarification or to advance the analysis of the concrete situations facing our two Parties or to give reasoned criticism of our Party, but simply to exercise brutal dictation. Hence we see the astonishing ideological emptiness of your letters of December 5; hence your failure to send a delegation to either the Preparatory Conference to Found the Marxist-Leninist Party of the USA or to the Founding Congress of the Marxist-Leninist Party of the USA, although it is a standard practice among fraternal Marxist-Leninist parties to use such delegations for further discussion between parties; hence your substitution of struggle against our Party for discussion with it.
Thus in this last period too you have followed the path of brutal dictation. In 1979 you withdrew support from our campaign to found the Marxist-Leninist Party on the pretext of the slogan "Build the Marxist-Leninist Party Without the Social-Chauvinists and Against the Social-Chauvinists" and because we didn't follow your casually expressed, half-baked suggestions about how to found the Marxist- Leninist Party. In December 1979 you refused to attend the Preparatory Conference and the Founding Congress on the pretext of our criticism of your sale of the English translation of Palacios' book to the "RCP,USA" in our letter of December 1. Instead you viciously attacked and tried to split the leadership and issued a hostile ultimatum. In January 1980 you remained silent about the MLP,USA and continued your boycott of our Party. In your letter of February 4 (backdated by you to January 19, 1980), you announced in a smart-aleck way that you have no relations whatsoever with our Party. At the Internationalist Rally at Montreal on March 30, 1980 you boycotted our delegation, refused to allow it to speak and thus publicly announced a split with our Party. And you are striving with all your might to create an anti-Party network in the U.S. as the rudiments of another party. You have gone far down the path of open public attack on our Party.
VII-B: The leadership of CPC(M-L) has consistently failed to elaborate or write down the views which it has insistently urged on us
In Section VI, we exposed a number of your lies about the course of the relations between our two Parties. But you have lied so much, raised so many diversions, and thrown up such a smokescreen of nonsense that it is possible to get bogged down in the details and to miss the overall picture. Therefore it is helpful to find various ways to get an overview of our relations over a period of years. As one method of doing this, in this section we apply a simple scientific standard that will help indicate the character of the discussions between our two Parties. This is the question of what documents and statements have been prepared -- not promised, not dreamed of, but actually written and prepared -- concerning the issues being discussed between our two Parties. We shall see a striking fact emerge consistently from all the various incidents, from underneath all the technicalities, all the special and particular points, and so forth. And this fact is that you have consistently and repeatedly refused to elaborate your views and to record them in writing.
This fact will shed great light on the problems in the methods of relations between our two Parties. Two major causes will then stand out behind the disagreements between our two Parties concerning the methods of relations. These two causes are interrelated.
One cause is what we pointed to earlier in our letter, in Section II-C. You have opposed the organizational integrity of our Party. For example, you have sought to use discussions with this or that delegate or individual as a way to oppose the authority of our party committees. This is part of your attempts to brutally dictate to our Party. This is why you rave against our delegates. Because our delegates have adhered to the party principle and presented the views of and served as the representatives of the respective party committees, you have painted them in an ugly light. Indeed, it is shocking to us that you have even repeated the usual taunts of the bourgeoisie against the monolithic Leninist party and the party principle by cursing our delegates as "dummies" and "Charlie's angels,'' as people doing the bidding of "voice-box Charlie's.''
The other cause is your attempt to lead via casual, off-the-cuff methods, without working out and presenting careful analysis. You want to be influential and to play a big role internationally, but how can any advice be given or opinions expressed except from the positions of Marxism-Leninism, which require one to proceed on the basis of a sound, well- thought out ideological stand and of a penetrating analysis of the concrete circumstances?
Now let us see who has prepared documents and elaborated views and who has avoided this.
** In Section VII-A-2 we deal with the issue of the artificial contradiction you created between the two Parties on the pretext of the work among the East Indian nationality in the U.S. You pressed us very hard on the issue of this work, going to the extent of "freezing relations.'' Actually, you forced us to divert a great deal of attention to this problem at a time that was very inconvenient for us, during December 1976 and January 1977. Nevertheless, we studied the issue you raised. We prepared two documents for our meetings in January. One was a big, detailed document which thoroughly discussed our experience with the bad element Akhbar over a year's time, from late 1975 through 1976. In fact, this document went over and systematized most of the material relating to COUSML's relation to the work in the East Indian nationality in the U.S. As well, we prepared a shorter document on our views on the "freezing of relations."
What was your response? You did your best to avoid even seeing our material. You basically succeeded. We were unable to present any of this material to you except a small part of our views on the "freezing of relations." You had no interest at all in the document on Akhbar despite the fact that this concerned the very problems on the basis of which you were "freezing relations" and despite the fact that the issue of Akhbar was a burning issue at that time, as shown by the fact that he would very soon be denounced publicly by the Third Congress of the CPC(M-L).
At the same time, you presented no analysis to us. You never, either verbally or in writing, went through the issue of Akhbar's activities with us, you never indicated what he had done on behalf of the CPC(M-L) and which were his activities against the policies of CPC(M-L), etc. And you never went through the issue of the problems in the East Indian work either. You simply took action unilaterally on this question. All you ever informed us of was that you decided that there could be no dual memberships in COUSML and the East Indian organizations in the U.S. Period.
** At the end of 1976 you proposed formalizing the relations between our two Parties. According your proposal, this required a meeting and it required both sides to prepare their own documents giving the assessment of the history and development of the relations. We studied the questions and prepared a document.
But what resulted? You never prepared for the meeting. When we arrived for the meeting, you postponed it. It never took place. Nor were you ever interested to see our document. When we put forward that our two Parties should proceed with the mutually agreed-on step of formalizing the relations, you shrugged this off by saying that we had misunderstood what you meant and that it had only been "a tactical question to make a contribution internationally" (from minutes of discussions in November 1977 prior to the 5th Consultative Conference of CPC (M-L)). You never provided any further explanation.
** In Section VII-A-5 we discussed the meeting of March 4, 1978 between the delegations of our two Parties. We had made careful preparations for this meeting. Our delegation was prepared for thorough discussion of the issues. The delegation brought a written-out speech for its first presentation to the meeting.
But you didn't want to hear our views at all. You fought hard against the meeting and walked out. And as for you own views: by your own admission, you were unprepared for the meeting.
** On October 9-10, 1977, you sent a delegate to us who claimed that he could only speak to Comrade... and no one else. We treated this delegate respectfully and warmly, despite his provocation against us. We sent back with him a letter giving our views. (This letter is mentioned in Section VII-A-4.)
You never replied to this letter, unless your letter of November 5, 1977 was your reply. And that letter states that you are returning our letters and will not reply to them.
** You have denounced the very idea of a "movement against social-chauvinism." We have produced an extensive body of literature on the movement against social-chauvinism, extending over years, from September 1, 1976 and especially from March 10, 1977, to the present. This is a powerful body of literature, consistent in principles and basic direction over years, continually broadening and deepening as the struggle against social-chauvinism developed and as the international struggle against Chinese revisionism developed. This literature gives an excellent picture of the development of the struggle against revisionism and opportunism in the U.S. We shall list some of these works later in this letter (see Section IX-B). We also stress that we have given you our Internal Bulletins on the struggle against social-chauvinism as well as our published works.
What is your response to this literature? You have shown indifference to our analysis. When you discuss the movement against social-chauvinism, you don't deal with the analysis developed over years. Instead you resort to linguistic analysis about the word "movement" or to smart-aleck phrases or to anti-Leninist arguments that denounce the whole struggle against opportunism as "two-line struggle." You have put almost nothing in writing. You write a single phrase in early September 1978, a fragment of a sentence, in which you said that you wanted to talk about "certain lines, especially of writing articles on the theme that 'struggle against social-chauvinism' is the end-all and be-all in the U.S." That is the entire fragment. And there are your letters of December 5, 1979, which simply throw some incoherent curses.
** You have opposed the campaign for the founding of the MLP,USA and have used the slogan "Build the Marxist-Leninist Party Without the Social-Chauvinists and Against the Social-Chauvinists" as the pretext for withdrawing support from us. On the plan for founding the MLP, USA and on the "without and against" slogan, we have extensive, scientific literature. In so far as the issue is that you are opposed to the movement against social-chauvinism in general, you have all the literature we have just mentioned above. On the particular plan for the campaign to found the MLP,USA, there is the Internal Bulletin based on the March 1979 Internal Conference entitled "Build the Marxist-Leninist Party Without the Social-Chauvinists and Against the Social-Chauvinists." At our invitation, you sent a delegation to this conference. As well, we gave you a copy of the Internal Bulletin. Furthermore, on the question of party-building and our conception of it, there is also the Internal Conference of 1977 entitled ''Get Organized for the Revolutionary Upsurge! Build the Party in the Working Class!" While you didn't accept our invitation to attend this Internal Conference, on the plea that it conflicted in time with an important meeting being held in Canada, we, however, sent you the Internal Bulletin on this conference. This bulletin reproduced the speeches and formal discussion at the conference. As well, there is other material, both published and internal, which is available to you.
What has been your response? You have never presented your views to us in a document. And in discussing our plan for founding the Marxist-Leninist Party, you never refer to or show any interest in our documents, other than quoting the ''without and against" slogan. As well, while you have opposed the campaign to found the MLP,USA, you have always in all the discussions hypocritically claimed that you supported it. You did not oppose the campaign either when your delegation came at the time of the March 1979 Internal Conference nor during the period of consultations following that conference and prior to the campaign being opened publicly, nor at any time. You supported the campaign for the founding of the MLP,USA at our May Day meeting in Chicago, although you subsequently "lost" or "misplaced" this solidarity message. Afterwards you began opposition to the campaign while hypocritically claiming to support it.
** Another example is the question of your sale of the rights to the English translation of the Palacios book to the "RCP,USA." We wrote to you our views in our letter of December 1, which calmly and methodically develops our analysis. Your reply was to write your letters of December 5, to accuse Joseph Green or Greens of being agents provocateurs, to refuse to send a delegation to our Preparatory Conference and Founding Congress, to take a hostile stand to the MLP,USA, and so forth. And your letters of December 5 do their best to avoid any serious discussions of your views on the issues involved in the sale. Your action was to punish us for dealing with this issue in writing.
Other examples too, could be given. This history shows that we have repeatedly taken the time and effort to develop and elaborate our views on the issues you have raised and to put them into some objective form, such as a written document. And we have done this despite the fact that you have often forced various issues upon us at times that have been extremely inconvenient for us. While you have consistently used one pretext or another to avoid giving your views in written form and to avoid elaborating anything. You have used a tremendous number of technicalities, evasions and quibbles over form to evade the issue that you are not elaborating your views and presenting them in an objective form. And you replace the elaboration of your views with pressure on us to accept your proposals, views and plans instantaneously.
Hence this history shows the extreme hypocrisy of the various charges you make against our delegates and against the NEC. For example, you write:
"As we have already were [been -- ed.] forced to mention before, the sole way to present any views to you on the important questions of the contemporary class struggle over the past two years has been through the 'informal' channels." (p. 14, bottom)
This is a glaring lie. You are the ones who repeatedly denounced us as "formalists" for patiently seeking revolutionary formality in our relations. And it is you who have denounced the elaboration of views in formal channels and the use of written documents as "polemics."
For example, let us take the question of letters. Aren't letters a "formal" channel? If you had actually been ardently seeking to formally present us with worked-out views and if the reality had been that you were constantly frustrated in this by our delegates or by maneuvers on our part, if such things were really true, then wouldn't you have eventually sent us letters or prepared documents giving your views and analysis? We prepared a number of documents and we eventually tried to resort to letters, but you labeled them "provocations" and "polemics" and told us that you wouldn't receive any more of them and you wouldn't reply to them. But who and what has prevented you from preparing documents or writing us letters? Nobody. We have never refused to accept your letters, even when they were provocative in content and form. It is you who have not only not elaborated your views in letters, but actively fought against the use of letters. It is you who have termed letters "polemics," and it is you who wrote the letter of November 5, 1977. In that letter you said that you would "not receive any such notes in the future" from us and that it was your decision "not to reply" to our letters, which you defined as "provocations."
But truth is one thing, and the picture you paint of our meetings and discussions is another. You make the following utterly shameless assertion:
"...to which, of course, your delegate did not reply, because he has to return to Joseph Green or whichever individual or individuals 'authorizes.' There was no discussion on this disagreement on this question of the Palacios tour, even though there was ample opportunity. All along, this has been the case with every divergence we have had with these elements who deal with our Party 'for the' National Executive Committee of the Central Organization of the U.S. Marxist-Leninists. In other words, no 'consultations' in fact, except on some questions of trivia and technique, but only your declarations and that is that. This is the manner and style of social and national chauvinists swollen with arrogance. This letter [the letter of December 1 protesting the sale of the rights of the English translation of the Palacios book to the "RCP,USA -- ed.] full of lies and slanders against our Party is precisely such an example of their 'consultation.' First and foremost, there is no discussion whatsoever concerning the matter at hand or simple verification of the pertinent facts." (p. 11)
What a pack of lies! In Section VI we have already refuted many of these lies concerning the consultation with regards to the Palacios tour of the U.S. on the "RCP,USA" platform and with regards to your sale of the English translation of the Palacios book to the "RCP,USA." But now let us place the emphasis on the general views of consultation that you are expressing in this passage, and their relation to your history of avoiding the elaboration of your views and the preparation of written documents.
In this light, one prominent feature of the above passage is that you are straining your lungs with one curse after another against the very idea of exchanging letters and documents. That is why you are striking so bitterly at our letter of December 1. You say that this letter of ours is ''precisely such an example" of the type of "consultation" that you oppose. This is true. We think that a comparison of our letter of December 1 and your letters of December 5 is very significant and informative. It is perfectly obvious which letter is an example of calm fraternal criticism, serious-minded consultation and exchange of analysis, and which letter is a model of opposing consultation and criticism.
Furthermore, the above passage shows what your conception of genuine consultations is by denouncing the letter of December 1 as having "no discussion whatsoever concerning the matter at hand." This is incredible! This is utterly astonishing! The "matter at hand," in your view, must not be the sale of the English translation of the Palacios book to the "RCP,USA," nor the struggle against Chinese revisionism, nor the evaluation of the struggle against opportunism in the U.S., nor the question of consultation and cooperation between our two Parties, nor any other matter dealt with by our letter. According to you, our letter is "precisely an example" of the type of consultation which is "no 'consultations' in fact, except on some questions of trivia and technique." Imagine that! The struggle against Chinese revisionism -- "trivia"! The problem of the "centrists" and conciliators -- a mere question of "technique"! The struggle against opportunism in the U.S. -- "trivia"! The question of consultation and cooperation between our two fraternal Parties -- mere "technique." This view of yours about the letter of December 1 is completely consistent with your history of avoiding elaboration of your views, for you denounce the ideological and theoretical questions, the analysis of the concrete circumstances, etc., as mere questions of "trivia and technique"! It is another confirmation and verification of the history we have examined in this section of our letter. Only, good grief, what exactly is "the matter at hand" in your view? There is only one thing left. The only "matter at hand" in your view is that we should immediately agree and take immediate steps to prevent the re-occurrence of disagreement -- for example, by establishing the precedent of denouncing as an "agent-provocateur" anyone who dares to disagree with you or to uphold the organizational integrity of our Party and by having ' 'the political and ideological ideas and views" presented in the letter of December 1 "thoroughly repudiated and denounced by the Founding Congress." (p. 1) You have reduced "the matter at hand" to simply the issue of whether we agree or disagree with you, independently of the question of what the agreement or disagreement is about. Such things are in your view mere "trivia and technique," and don't get at the heart of the matter. That is why you sum up the whole discussions of early August 1979 between our two Parties with the concocted "general understanding." You state:
"We have the full notes and minutes of his views. The general understanding reached between the two delegations was to further carry on the discussions and arrive at unanimity of views through discussion." (p. 17)
The only important thing for you is "unanimity of views" independent of the content of the discussion, independent of the mere "trivia" of what the views are. The "matter at hand" is that you are demanding that we follow your positions and views independently of whether they are correct or not, independently of whether they conform to Marxism-Leninism or not, but just because they are your views.
Furthermore, your passage that we have been analyzing also mocks at the organizational integrity of our Party and at the authority of our Party committees. You write in such an ugly way about the party principle. You describe communists who are loyal to the party principle as "dummies" and "Charlie's angels" and mock that they allegedly cannot talk without having "to return to Joseph Green or whichever individual or individuals 'authorizes.'" Such language may be called anarchist, or it may be called bourgeois individualist, or it may be called whatever one likes, but it is not compatible with Marxism-Leninism. It is an appeal to the basest bourgeois demagogy against the party principle. And it is a filthy lie. In our Party, it is not some individual or other but the appropriate party committee that "authorizes." It is the Party and the party principle which are supreme, and the authority of the Party is manifested through the party committees. By cursing us for this you are taking a hostile stand against the organizational integrity of our Party.
Thus the history of our relations shows that you have not elaborated your views or prepared documents on the important issues. This exposes the reality behind your complaints about our delegations. One important feature of your conception of the "special relationship" is that the main "matter at hand" is simply "unanimity of views" independent of what those views are. To be more precise, your conception of "special relationship" is that we should immediately agree with you, while you denounce the elaboration of Marxism-Leninism and the analysis of the concrete circumstances facing us as mere "trivia."
VII-C: The leadership of CPC(M-L) has consistently speculated on individuals in our leadership
Another feature of the "special relationship" is that you repeatedly speculated on this or that individual in our leadership. You have either supported or denounced this or that person, outside of the normal Marxist-Leninist norms for the evaluation of individual comrades. This has been another way in which you have opposed the organizational integrity of our Party and the authority of the party committees. Here we shall provide a partial list of examples.
**
** You also speculated on Comrade....
Below we give a partial list of your activities speculating on Comrade....
For example, you sent us a note dated October 11, 1974, denouncing Comrade.... This note has no signature, being neither from a party committee nor signed by any individual, but simply signed "Your comrades in CPC(M-L)." And it is addressed simply "To the Leading Comrades, COUSML." It has such criticism as "Having agreed to be responsible for some work, Comrade... failed to carry it out." There was no explanation of what work this is or what the facts are.... In complaining to the COUSML about this, you indicate that some disagreement arose with Comrade.... But you don't indicate the nature of it, but simply ask "the Leading Comrades" of COUSML to censure Comrade... on the grounds of this disagreement, independently of its content.
Furthermore the note lightly makes the most serious charges, such as that Comrade ... "promotes national chauvinism" and such as "We question whether a person who is selfish and promotes national chauvinism can make a positive contribution to the revolutionary work...." There is no evidence given for these assertions beyond the unexplained disagreement with Comrade....
This type of denunciation of Comrade... was by no means an isolated case. This type of denunciation was not part of either a principled opposition to Comrade... being a leading comrade or a principled struggle against the errors of Comrade.... The unprincipled nature of such opposition to Comrade... is shown by the fact that when your delegation visited us on October 9-10, 1977, he refused to speak to anyone except Comrade.... We protested this by letter, but you never agreed. Indeed, it was after this that you sent us your letter of November 5, 1977, which says that you will not accept any further letters from us nor will you reply to them.
Furthermore, when Comrade... was removed from the NEC of the COUSML in June 1978, you were unhappy about this. Indeed, you told us a whole story against putting "upstarts" in the NEC and in favor of having it comprised of "long-time leading comrades" in order to support Comrade... being a member of the NEC. Our minutes of the discussion go as follows:
"I informed him of the re-composition [of the NEC -- ed.]. He asked the basis. I explained the decisions of the last National Committee meeting. He noted that it was very good that we were organizing ourselves. He asked then that this was not a disciplinary measure and that the comrade [Comrade... -- ed.] was still on the National Committee. I affirmed this. He noted that this was a good thing, that we should not give up our leading comrades lightly. He then pointed out that he wanted to comment on this [on the re-composition of the NEC--ed.], that it was something for comrades to think about, but this did not mean that we should change everything. He said: I do not understand how you are organizing yourselves. Of course it is necessary to have transitional forms. [What "transitional forms" have to do with the NEC of COUSML is anybody's guess. W.A.] We did this for years, but it was not very good. I will explain to you how we organize. The NEC consists, above all.... [He described the NEC of the CPC(M-L) -- ed.]... For this reason the composition of the NEC is very important. It must be composed of long-time, leading comrades who will always uphold the party and its political line.
"You should be careful of upstarts. Upstarts gain position, get information, and then use it to make trouble. We tried to use upstarts and it did not work out. By now we have lost all our upstarts.... Comrades are now learning that it is a serious matter to give your position over to someone else, because it raises the danger of turning over the political power in the party to the bourgeoisie." (emphasis added)
But in your letter you switch back to denunciation of Comrade.... You write:
"You have been actively creating provocations against us since August of 1977, and you have been harbouring those under your wing who have even confessed outright that they were social and national chauvinists: only when it suited you did you force this individual to leave. You have never looked at the previous provocations which occurred in 1977 seriously and from the point of view of punishing the guilty party." (p.10, emphasis added)
The reference to "those...who have even confessed outright that they were social and national chauvinists" is to the letter of CPC(M-L) of October 11, 1974, which accuses Comrade... of promoting national chauvinism and so forth. This is a slanderous, false charge, both on October 11, 1974 and on December 5, 1979. Whatever Comrade ...'s other weaknesses, he is not a national or social-chauvinist. But even aside from that, your extreme hypocrisy and speculation on individuals is fully evident. In October 1974you denounced Comrade... harshly by letter. In October 1977 you take the opposite position and your delegate insists that he will speak only to Comrade.... In mid-1978 you are worried about Comrade... being removed from the NEC and you gave your opinion in opposition to this. But on December 5, 1979 you accuse us of not removing Comrade... earlier. What an unprincipled zigzag! And to crown everything, you then proceed to [appeal to -- W.A.] Comrade... by claiming that we "force(d) this individual to leave." Thus simultaneously with denouncing us for having had Comrade... on the [NEC -- W.A.] too long, you are also leaving open your option to support him as "a long-time leading comrade" who has been unjustly "forced to leave." There is neither consistency nor principle in all these crying contradictions. What is crystal clear is that you are speculating on this or that individual. You are converting the issues of principle between our two Parties into a matter of this or that individual. You have built up what you consider an invincible "dossier" on Comrade.... And when some disagreement comes up between our two Parties, you believe that it can be solved by shaking this dossier at us.
** You have also speculated on Comrade.......
** Our final example is your wild attacks upon Comrade Joseph Green. In order to split the leadership of our Party and to undermine the authority of our party committees, you present our disagreements with you as simply the result of an alleged plot by an "agent-provocateur," Joseph Green. You are not raising any principled objection to a comrade, but simply using the device of opposing the organizational integrity of our Party by presenting everything as a matter of individuals. In Sections II and IV of this letter, we have discussed the utterly unprincipled nature of your charges against Comrade Joseph Green and what they actually amount to. Your attack on Comrade Joseph Green is full of the same crying contradictions that are typical of your speculation on individuals. For one thing, you can't decide whether Comrade Joseph Green is singular or plural. For example, on page 15 you refer to "these Joseph Greens." In the letter to the NC, you stress that Comrade Joseph "is one such individual" of an unnamed multiplicity that you are denouncing in our leadership. Thus you hold over our head the promise of future speculation on individuals. And on page 10, you state that it doesn't matter who Comrade Joseph Green is anyway. You state: "...or are we to believe that Joseph Green and this individual delegate are one and the same? It is of no consequence...." This shows the utter bankruptcy and vile nature of your charges that this or that comrade is an "agent-provocateur." This proves once again that you are speculating on individuals not out of any serious interest in cadre questions, but as part of a fierce fight against dealing with us on the party basis.
You also address your letters of December 5 to us in such a way as to emphasize your speculation on individuals. Your letter to the National Committee is only one-half page, while you have written over two dozen pages to Comrade Joseph Green. Yet you claim that Comrade Joseph Green is the problem and is an "agent-provocateur." Can anyone make heads or tails of this? You are writing dozens of pages and making proposals for meetings with the COUSML to a man whom you are smearing as an "agent-provocateur." This shows that your charges against individuals are for the sake of building up a "dossier" to use to bludgeon our Party into agreement. This is not to say that you won't carry through with your vile attacks against individuals, but that the basic purpose of them is to negate the party principle and to impose your conception of the "special relationship" on our Party.
Thus it can be seen with what utter hypocrisy you write in your letters of December 5:
"And, soon we will discover overnight that it is not the 'NEC of CPC(M-L)' but an individual who is the culprit. But we will wait for that great occasion." (p. 14)
No, fraternal comrades, that is your preferred method of dealing with the issues in the relations between our two Parties, not ours. We insist on the party principle and the responsibility of the Party and of the appropriate party committees. We hold that principles and not personalities are involved. With your passage above, it can be seen that you are complaining about our principled stand and showing great impatience for the "great occasion" when everything can be reduced to a squabble between individuals.
1) The leadership of CPC(M-L) uses the phrase "Internationalist Movement'' to denote some or all of those that it considers inside the "trend'' grouped around CPC(M-L). Strictly speaking, the name "Internationalists" is a reference to three organizations composed mainly of university students and faculty that existed in the 1960's. The first to appear was the (Canadian) Internationalists, which was originally "a completely student and faculty organisation founded on March 13th, 1963" (Mass Line, Journal of CPC (M-L), March 13, 1971, p. 2, col. 2) at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada. According to a journal founded to implement one of the decisions of the Necessity for Change Conference in London, England of August 1967 organized by the Internationalists, "The Internationalists developed from an 'informal discussion group' in 1963 to a 'centre-left' organisation based on opposition to imperialism in 1966, anti-imperialist youth and student movement in August 1967 and Marxist-Leninist youth and student movement in 1968." (World Revolutionary Youth, Organ of the Preparatory Committee to organize the "First International Congress of Marxist-Leninist Youth," February 1969, p. 6) In two other countries in the 1960's besides Canada, similar organizations were formed. But the (Canadian) Internationalists, on the basis of the activity of its founder in the creation and shaping of the other two organizations, is described in the documents of the Internationalists as the center and inspiration of the entire "Internationalist Movement." By January 1970, all the organizations of the Internationalists had been supplanted by their successors. But the leadership of CPC (M-L) continues to make demagogic use of the phrase "Internationalist Movement" in order to indicate various forces over whom it claims a "special relationship." The fact that this term has more to do with the pretensions of the leadership of CPC(M-L) and their need to find a pleasant-sounding screen for their international factional activities than to any genuine concern for history is shown, among other things, by the fact that the "Internationalist Movement" is supposed to include the Marxist-Leninists in certain countries where the Internationalists never existed. For example, there was never any organization of "Internationalists" in the U.S. Hence 10 years after the demise of the Internationalists, the leadership of CPC (M-L) is still trying to build up a mystique around these organizations of the 1960's as one of its justifications for its attempts to build up its own factional "trend." -- W.A.
2) There is a slight error in the text here. The last letter of the NEC of the COUSML prior to the letter of the NEC of the CPC(M-L) of November 5, 1977 was the letter of November 4, 1977, not the letter of October 10, 1977. By accident, the letter of November 4, 1977 was overlooked in the process of reviewing the huge amount of correspondence and discussions since late 1975. Undoubtedly the letter of the NEC of the CPC(M-L) of November 5, 1977 was a direct response to our letter of November 4. However, this only strengthens the conclusions drawn in the text. The letter of November 4 was a short letter that: 1) reiterated our stand in favor of a meeting of the delegations of the leaderships of CPC(M-L) and COUSML; 2) reiterated the stand of the letter of October 10 and pointed out that the leadership of CPC(M-L) had avoided replying either positively or negatively; and 3) dealt with certain arrangements necessary in order for the COUSML to send a delegation to the Fifth Consultative Conference of the CPC (M-L), as proposed by the CPC(M-L). As well, it should be noted that the letter of October 10 was among those that the CPC(M-L) said that it would return to us. -- W.A.
The above letter is reproduced as in the original. Typographical errors have been corrected, however, and quotations have been verified with the original sources. All parenthetical and bracketed remarks in the text, even those marked " -- ed.," are as in the original, except for those marked "-- W.A."
This issue of The Workers' Advocate reproduces Part I of the letter in its entirety except for the deletion of several passages. These passages all refer to comments made by the leadership of CPC(M-L) on individuals and our criticism of these unprincipled and generally slanderous comments. As well, we have removed the names of certain Marxist-Leninist parties or organizations.
This letter was written and delivered prior to our Party becoming aware that the leadership of CPC(M-L) had savagely attacked our Party in full-scale polemics in People's Canada Daily News (PCDN) in June 1980 and denounced our Party as the class enemy.