Today the “three worlds” theory has become an object of scorn and hatred all around the globe. This so-called “theory” is nothing but the social-chauvinist stand of sellout and betrayal and a mishmash of tired-out revisionist theses. It is despised and condemned by the Marxist-Leninist parties and organizations the world over. Everyone is denouncing the path of the “three worlders,” which is the path of collaboration with U.S. imperialism and world reaction, the path of the instigation of imperialist wars and the cheering on of U.S. imperialism to build more and more weapons of mass destruction, the path of betraying the anti-imperialist struggles and the socialist revolutionary movement under the pretext of “striking the main blow at Soviet social-imperialism.” Life itself is continually providing new proofs of the bankruptcy of this theory. The recent establishment of U.S.-China diplomatic relations and Deng Xiaoping’s tour of the U.S. have provided yet another proof of the utter bankruptcy of the “three worlds” theory. These events were both part of and a new stage in the warmongering U.S.-China alliance. Today those who do not see the revisionist and counter-revolutionary nature of the theory of “three worlds” are blind. And those who profess to see the counterrevolutionary nature of this theory, yet who spend their time throwing unspeakable filth against Comrade Enver Hoxha, the Party of Labor of Albania and all the world’s revolutionary Marxist-Leninists, those who profess to denounce “Deng’s three worlds theory” while upholding “Mao’s three worlds theory” and flaunting all the basic theses of “three worlds-ism” as their banner, these gentlemen are equally with the other “three worlders” nothing but renegades and traitors to the proletariat and the revolution, special agents for the Chinese revisionists, wrecking crews for imperialism and revisionism.[1]
Thus all over the world the Marxist-Leninists have put fighting the “three worlds” theory and Chinese revisionism as one of their crucial tasks. It is an essential part of the fight against modern revisionism and social-imperialism. One of the big questions that has therefore occupied the minds of the American revolutionaries is – how could it come about that the arch-revisionist theory of “three worlds” could be taken up right inside the movement against modern revisionism? How did the theory of “three worlds” manage to infiltrate into the U.S. Marxist-Leninist movement? In the U.S., in the late 60’s and early 70’s the advanced section of the revolutionary activists from the mass movements took up Marxism-Leninism and opposition to modern Khrushchovite revisionism. What does the emergence of the Klonskyite social-chauvinism and Pentagon-socialism of “directing the main blow at Soviet social-imperialism” and the disgusting spectacle of the “RCP,USA’s” anti-communist attacks on Comrade Enver Hoxha and socialism in Albania clarify about the struggle that has been waged in the past decade inside the U.S. Marxist-Leninist movement? This question cannot be avoided. The Marxist-Leninists did not fight Khrushchovite revisionism in order to become the “left” wing of the warmongering U.S.-China alliance. And the answer to this question will provide graphic proof that behind all the fights and conflicts in the U.S. Marxist-Leninist movement, the red thread running through all the sound and fury was the development of the struggle between revolutionary Marxism-Leninism and opportunist neo-revisionism. The red thread was the progressive consolidation of revolutionary Marxism-Leninism, from the founding in 1969 of the single nationwide Marxist-Leninist center, the nucleus of the party, and on towards the reconstitution of the Marxist-Leninist Party, and the continual degeneration of neo-revisionism into open counter-revolutionary “three worlds-ism.” The struggle was between carrying the repudiation of modern revisionism through to the end, versus conciliating revisionism and falling into a cozy accommodation with opportunism and imperialism. It was between building the single, monolithic Marxist-Leninist Party of the proletariat, and factionalizing the movement through first advocating “pre-party collectives” and the existence of the “pre-party situation” and then building “many opportunist parties.” It was between propagating and applying Marxism-Leninism and propagating and applying liberal-labor politics and opportunism on the pretext that the masses are allegedly too “backward” to support the revolution. And history shows that the mainstream within the neo-revisionist trend was encouraged, given ideological direction, financed, and in an all-round way fostered as a special agency of Chinese revisionism. History proves that U.S. neo-revisionism is in the main the American expression of the international opportunist trend of Chinese revisionism. (One major neo-revisionist organization, the “Communist” League which now calls itself the “Communist Labor Party of the United States of North America,” has turned out to be a special “left”-sloganeering agency of Soviet revisionism. This is very significant, as it shows that Russian revisionism and Chinese revisionism are twin brothers, variants of the common trend of modern revisionism. In a note at the end of this article, the role of the “CLP” as neo-revisionism from the “left” is briefly outlined.)
The truth is that Chinese revisionism, which was corroding the Communist Party of China from within, has also long propped up, financed, bribed and danced quadrilles around almost all the opportunist trends in the American “left” movement. It has sought to subvert the powerful movement against modern revisionism, to divert what it could into the path of support for Chinese revisionist ambitions and to smash the rest of the movement. To this end, it has used the mainstream of neo-revisionism as its special agency, in particular, the Klonskyite October League, now calling itself the “Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist)”; the Revolutionary Union, now calling itself the “Revolutionary Communist Party, USA”; and a host of smaller imitators and competitors.
The recent open alliance of Chinese revisionism with U.S.-led Western imperialism and the ravings of Hua Guofeng and Deng Xiaoping, as well as the principled struggle of the Marxist-Leninists against social-chauvinism and the “three worlds” theory, have clarified a number of questions. It has clarified, among other questions, the reason for the Chinese slander campaign against the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists. For years, our friends and sympathizers have asked us, and our enemies have taunted us, with the following type of question: why do the Chinese denounce the COUSML[2] and the American Communist Workers Movement (Marxist-Leninist) (the main predecessors of the MLP.USA)? Why in the 70’s did the Chinese reprint from or report on in their publications the OL (“CPML”), the RU (“RCP.USA”), the Guardian, RCL(M-L-M) (Baraka’s group), the LPR, the Black Panthers, the IWK (“LRS(M-L)”), from Barry Weisberg’s MLOC (“CPUSA/ML”), and from countless others, including fascist bourgeois journals, but never from the ACWM(M-L) or the COUSML? Why from a fairly early period did all the visitors to China come back and say that the Chinese told them that the COUSML was “trotskyite,” “ultra-left,” “dogmatic,” “police,” “Soviet agents,” and other outrageous concoctions worthy only of the imperialist political police? This torrent of abuse from China rained down on our heads. The Chinese circulated it through the dirtiest channels, through rumor and gossip, through opportunists and even out-and-out bourgeois personal ties. As well, the Chinese and their special agencies denounced us at various times as “clones” or “pawns” of our fraternal party in Canada or as “competing to get the Albanian franchise.” The truth is that the only relation the Chinese revisionists can imagine is the one between masters and slaves, between the Chinese revisionist center and its slavish special agencies. They have no idea whatsoever of proletarian internationalism and are opposed to the principled unity of the international Marxist-Leninist movement. So they regarded that anyone who is not their “pawn” must in fact be someone else’s “pawn.” This slander campaign caused confusion. The neo-revisionists played the Chinese revisionist game and took up the slanders from China heart and soul. “China said so” was the watchword of all these worthies. They tried to create the impression that there was something wrong, something out of place, with the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists. It is of course now clear to everyone who wishes to see that there was nothing out of place about ACWM(M-L) and the COUSML. On the contrary, these Chinese revisionist slanders were in fact a mark of honor for the COUSML. They were proof that the Chinese revisionists felt that they could deal with the various opportunist sects in the U.S., but saw their mortal enemy in the camp of the U.S. revolutionary Marxist-Leninists led by ACWM(M-L) and the COUSML.
For a long time we thought the opportunists were slandering China in attributing these wild anti-communist ravings to the Communist Party of China. We held that the Chinese communists would never say such terrible things as they were reported to have said. We thought that these things were perhaps the deeds of a few revisionist bad elements but must be mostly the concoctions of the various opportunist dogs who visited China. And indeed, the Chinese invited a whole string of opportunists. They invited the out-and-out Khrushchovite revisionist journalist Wilfred Burchett, various Eurocommunists, reactionary bourgeois, “concerned Asian scholars,” etc. But now it is crystal clear that the Chinese revisionists were indeed a never-ending source for the opportunists. The Chinese revisionists very quickly found out that the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists would never agree to give up the revolution, to stop the struggle against modern revisionism, to act as a tool of Chinese social-imperialism, or to join with the Nixons and Carters in a warmongering U.S.-China alliance. They realized that whatever formulations the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists might temporarily adopt from the Chinese Communist Party, that nevertheless the Marxist-Leninists held nothing sacred besides the purity of Marxism-Leninism, the interests of the proletariat and oppressed masses, and the cause of the revolution and of socialism. Therefore the Chinese revisionists undertook the struggle against revolutionary Marxism-Leninism and engaged in wrecking activities to split and dismember the U.S. Marxist-Leninist movement.
Thus the history and development of the struggle in the U.S. Marxist-Leninist movement between revolutionary Marxism-Leninism and neo-revisionism is bound up with the development of Chinese revisionism. To rebuild the Marxist-Leninist Party in the U.S., it is therefore crucial to fight Chinese revisionism and “three worlds-ism.” We must place special stress on denouncing “our own” social-chauvinists and “our own” domestic “three worlders” and local agencies of Chinese revisionism. The “three worlds” theory is not just an erroneous “international line,” nor is Chinese revisionism just a question of policies relating to China’s internal degeneration. No, first and foremost, “three worlds-ism” is a whole system of opportunist and revisionist views and practices on every question. It is all-round collaboration with the bourgeoisie on all questions. The open warmongering and Pentagon-socialism of the Klonskyites is a blatant open exposure and further development of the hidden revisionist and class-collaborationist nature that has always been the essence of neo-revisionism. It is this whole arsenal of opportunism that must be fought, or else the Marxist-Leninist movement runs the risk of simply putting a pleasing coat of paint over the rust spots and of allowing the opportunist rust to continue its hidden corrosion under the surface. It is necessary to use the condemnation of “three worlds-ism” in order to assess the history of the struggle against Khrushchovite revisionism in the U.S., to expose the corrosive and reactionary role of neo-revisionism, and to defend the Marxist-Leninist teachings on all questions of the revolution. This is the only path worthy of Marxist-Leninist revolutionaries. Leninism teaches that the social-chauvinism and blatant counter-revolutionary sophistry of the opportunists is no accident. Analyzing the social-chauvinism of the time of World War I, Lenin taught that:
Throughout the existence of the Second International, a struggle was raging within all the Social-Democratic parties, between their revolutionary and the opportunist wings. In a number of countries a split took place along this line (Britain, Italy, Holland, Bulgaria). Not one Marxist has ever doubted that opportunism expresses bourgeois policies within the working-class movement, expresses the interests of the petty-bourgeoisie and the alliance of a tiny section of bourgeoisified workers with their ’own’ bourgeoisie, against the interests of the proletarian mass, the oppressed masses. ...
The war has speeded up this development and transformed opportunism into social-chauvinism, transformed the secret alliance between the opportunists and the bourgeoisie into an open one. ...
Opportunism and social-chauvinism have the same politico-ideological content – class collaboration instead of the class struggle, renunciation of revolutionary methods of struggle, helping one’s ’own’ government in its embarrassed situation, instead of taking advantage of these embarrassments so as to advance the revolution. If we take Europe as a whole and if we pay attention, not to individuals (even the most authoritative), we will find that it is the opportunist trend that has become the bulwark of social-chauvinism, whereas from the camp of the revolutionaries, more or less consistent protests against it are heard from almost all sides.[3]
Thus, as Lenin put it in “The Collapse of the Second International,” “The first and most fundamental demand of scientific research in general and of Marxist dialectic in particular is that a writer should examine the link between the present struggle of trends in the socialist movement.. .and the struggle that preceded it for whole decades. He stressed that,
It is perfectly obvious that social-chauvinism’s basic ideological and political content fully coincides with the foundations of opportunism. It is one and the same tendency. In the conditions of the war of 1914-15, opportunism leads to social-chauvinism.[4]
In this way Lenin showed how to find the roots of the great betrayal of the social-chauvinists in the history of the decades of development of opportunism corroding the Second International from the inside, and how the struggle between the internationalists and the social-chauvinists was a continuation of the struggle between revolutionary Marxists and opportunists of the previous period.
Lenin’s teachings hold true today with regard to the “three world-ers” and social-chauvinists in the U.S. Marxist-Leninist movement. The emergence of the open and undisguised social-chauvinism of “directing the main blow at Soviet social-imperialism” and of the whole jingo “three worlds” arsenal of the Klonskyites and other opportunists came about as a result of the corrosion of neo-revisionism for years inside the U.S. Marxist-Leninist movement. The fairy tale by some that the Klonskyites and “three worlders” were once staunch revolutionaries, the fairy tale that the development of the “three worlds” theory was that “...opportunism has begun to spring up in groups and parties that once opposed revisionism consistently and stood for revolution,” is a mockery of the truth.[5] In theory, it is a denial of the struggle between Marxism-Leninism and revisionism, while in practice it expresses a desire to maintain neo-revisionism, to rescue it from the fiasco of its exposure as social-chauvinism and “three worlds-ism,” to return to the former hypocrisy and continue the struggle against the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists.
The development of neo-revisionism itself should be seen in the light of a struggle between Marxism-Leninism and revisionism that has been going on for decades inside the American Marxist-Leninist movement. The neo-revisionists and Klonskyites are new Browderites. Ever since the mid-30’s the Browderite liberal-labor politics has remained a curse subverting the American working class movement. Browderism fights the revolution and communism by reducing the working class movement to a “left” wing to the “liberals,” a trade union caucus or a “special interest group” inside the big “Rooseveltian” coalition of the Democratic Party. And if no “liberals” are around, the Browderites define one shade or other of the fascist imperialist politicians as “liberals.” The Browderites turn the workers over to the tender mercies of the labor bureaucrats, the lawyers and the “liberals” and make it their job to perfect the government apparatus to suppress the workers’ struggles, to praise the National Labor Relations Board and work for new forms of labor-management-government cooperation. They similarly betray the Afro-American movement. They deprive it of proletarian leadership as Browderism liquidates the party as a revolutionary organization and reduces the workers’ and communist movement to bourgeois trade unionism. They work hand in hand with the government in shackling the Afro-American movement to the civil rights commissions, to the lawyers and courts, to the state-paid strata of poverty pimps and “militant” bureaucrats, to the opportunist theories of “non-violence” and cultural nationalism, and to the allegedly “liberal” bureaucracy of the federal government. Browderism was never thoroughly repudiated in the U.S., and its corrosion left the Communist Party of the USA easy prey to Khrushchovite revisionism. The Progressive Labor Party was set up as a Marxist-Leninist center against revisionism, but it was unable to settle accounts with modern revisionism, Browderism and liberal-labor politics. It eventually stopped fighting revisionism and it degenerated into a trotskyite sect.
Neo-revisionism in essence has proved to be Browderite liberal-labor politics, reformism, and flimsy conciliation to all opportunism and any fashionable deviation, but it also has a rather thin “left” veneer, which is an eclectic broth of special sectarian principles, anarcho-syndicalism and straight-out idealist sophistry. Neo-revisionism finds its typical theoretical elaboration in a series of infamous, anti-Marxist dichotomies, such as: the party is counterposed to the mass movement, or vice versa; the economic struggle is counterposed to the political struggle; the alternatives are given of bourgeois trade unionism or of denouncing the economic struggle as economism; bourgeois intellectualism and idealism are given as the alternatives to pragmatism and utter mindlessness and usually both are combined. Over a period of time, neo-revisionism developed a whole series of anti-Marxist doctrines and spread confusion on every issue. Whenever it develops as a serious trend, though, its essence as liberal-labor politics and Browderism is clearly visible.
Chinese revisionism too went through a process of development before giving rise to open social-imperialism. Since the time of Hua Guofeng’s coup d’etat and of the new elevation of Deng Xiaoping, the bankruptcy of Chinese revisionism is clearly evident, but there are longstanding roots of Chinese revisionism and even the U.S.-China alliance has been in preparation since 1971. Facts prove that Mao Zedong was not a Marxist-Leninist classicist and that the Chinese Communist Party vacillated in the crucial struggle against modern revisionism. Today part of the assessment of the course of the struggle against modern revisionism is the reassessment of the role of the Communist Party of China and the uncovering of the longstanding roots of Chinese revisionism. An important role in this reassessment has been and will be played by the serious study of such important Marxist-Leninist documents as the July 29, 1978, Letter of the PLA and Enver Hoxha’s brilliant new book Imperialism and the Revolution.[6]
This article is the first in a series which will analyze many of the basic opportunist and revisionist theses which are common to both U.S. neo-revisionism and Chinese revisionism. These theses provided the theoretical basis for the emergence of open social-chauvinism. The struggle against these revisionist theses is linked up inseparably with the struggle against Chinese revisionism. Where did the reactionary theses of ”’third world’ peoples are more revolutionary than North Americans and Europeans,” “revolution is not on the agenda for the U.S.,” “’United Front Against Imperialism’ as the strategy of the American revolution,” “hiding the party behind the united front,” “the party emerges spontaneously from the mass movement,” “the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists are dogmatists, trotskyites and imperialist agents,” “the revisionists and opportunists are middle forces that can and should be united with” come from? These theses did not spring up by spontaneous generation, by unfortunate accident, but were imported into the Marxist-Leninist movement from definite sources, from a melange of social-democracy, Khrushchovite revisionism, Browderism, Castroism and even directly from imperialist ideologues. They were saved from death, revived and taken over by Chinese revisionism. The struggle against social-chauvinism and the task of reconstituting and constantly strengthening the Marxist-Leninist Party requires the elimination of the revisionist theses. The proletarian revolution requires the revolutionary theory of Marxism-Leninism.
Among the neo-revisionist fallacies to be discussed in this series “U.S. Neo-Revisionism as the American Expression of the International Opportunist Trend of Chinese Revisionism” are the following:
– the opposition to the struggle against revisionism and opportunism
– the denial of the role of the Marxist-Leninist Party
– the skepticism about the proletarian revolutions in the West
– Castroite and New Left predecessors of the “theory of three worlds”
– the slanders and abuse of the great Marxist-Leninist, Stalin
– the theory of “the united front against imperialism” as the strategy of American revolution
The mainstream of the neo-revisionist trend is nothing but a special agency of Chinese revisionism. But there is one major neo-revisionist organization that is an exception to this general rule, namely the “Communist Labor Party of the United States of North America,” formerly the “Communist League.” This rotten neo-revisionist grouping proved in the long run to be a left-sloganeering front for Soviet revisionism rather than a direct agency of the Chinese revisionists. The existence of a Soviet agency in the neo-revisionist trend is very significant, as it shows the close affinity between Chinese revisionism and Soviet revisionism. Chinese revisionism is not, as it presents itself, the fiercest enemy of modern Khrushchovite revisionism but is simply a competitor of Soviet revisionism inside the camp of world revisionism. No matter what differences of detail exist, differences which are important to take into account tactically and for the better and more complete development of the struggle to annihilate these revisionisms, nevertheless these differences only reflect the interests of the different bourgeoisies that adapt revisionism to their use and do not contradict the fact that in its essence modern revisionism forms an integrated world opportunist trend.
In the early 1970’s, the “CLP.USNA” had its own variant of neo-revisionism. As opposed to the Klonskyites and the RU (“RCP, USA”), it formed “neo-revisionism from the left.” Where the “right” neo-revisionists set the mass movement against the party, the “left” neo-revisionists set the party against the mass movement. The “CLP” then used its stand “for” the party to present itself as the staunchest advocate of Marxism-Leninism and the real opponents of New Leftism. But in fact the basic point was that the “CLP” agreed with the other neo-revisionists in the basic neo-revisionist dichotomy of counterposing the party to the mass movement. In practice therefore, its “party” amounted to the same loose Browderite educational association as that of the Klonskyites. As a matter of fact, the “CLP,” despite its “left” posturing, was in the past and is today deeply mired in the same liberal-labor politics of the neo-revisionists. Indeed, in practice it has always proved itself rightist to the extreme. It justifies this with the typical confusion-mongering of the neo-revisionists, through setting up a typical neo-revisionist dichotomy of counterposing revolution to reform. However, for the sake of even greater confusion-mongering, Nelson Peery expresses this as a counterposition of revolutionary work to insurrection. According to Nelson Peery, “We are now able to set aside the dialectical conception that has shackled our movement, the concept that we are going to build a ’revolutionary’ party. ... No ’revolutionary’ party has ever led a revolution.”[7] Nelson Peery explains that this is because, to him, revolutionary work and “the revolutionary aspect of the Party” means “only...the struggle for reforms,” while he pontificates that an insurrection is necessary for revolution. Thus anything but the struggle for reforms is put off to the day of the insurrection, while day-to-day work is totally reformist, which is indeed the actual practice of the “CLP.” Its social base too is no different from the other neo-revisionists. With reference to its membership and not just its sophistical method of arguing, it can be called the “Communist Lawyers Party.” It completed its own exposure when it took up a pro-Soviet social-imperialist stand. Furthermore, despite the “CLP’s” very “left” criticism that the “CPUSA” was never a Marxist-Leninist party at any time in its history, it turned out that the “CLP” actually is mesmerized by the “socialism” of the “CPUSA” and the Soviet social-imperialists. They say that the “CPUSA” was and is not a Marxist-Leninist party but is an honest fighter for “socialism”! And thus this neo-revisionist sect openly took up the banner of unity with modern Soviet revisionism and with the “CPUSA.”[8]
[1] This is a reference to such groups as the “Revolutionary Communist Party, USA.” In the articles of early 1979 entitled “Does the ’RCP,USA’ Oppose the Theory of ’Three Worlds’?,” The Workers’ Advocate showed that the “RCP,USA” was still a diehard defender of “three worlds-ism” despite its repeated promises to give up this foul counter-revolutionary theory. The “RCP.USA” had squirmed and turned and advocated that there were two different “three world” theories, the bad one of Deng’s and the allegedly good one of Mao’s. And the “RCP.USA” continued to flaunt all the basic theses of “three worlds-ism.” At the same time the “RCP.USA” had put itself forward as the theoreticians of Mao Zedong Thought and wrote one treatise after another elaborating Mao Zedong Thought and treatise after treatise slanderously abusing the Party of Labor of Albania. The inability of the “RCP.USA” to give up the “three worlds” theory was thus yet another proof that the roots of the ”three worlds” theory lie in Mao Zedong Thought and that Mao Zedong himself was a “three worlder.” The Workers’ Advocate tore to shreds the gross opportunism and neo-revisionism of the “RCP.USA” repeatedly in articles throughout 1978 and 1979.
[2] The Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninists (COUSML) was the predecessor of the Marxist-Leninist Party of the USA.
[3] V.I. Lenin, “Socialism and War,” Lenin on War and Peace, pp. 18-19, and in Collected Works, Vol. 21, pp. 309-10.
[4] V.I. Lenin, “The Collapse of the Second International,” Collected Works, Vol. 21, pp. 238, 242.
[5] This fairy tale was actively propagated by, among others, the MLOC/“CPUSA(M-L).” The particular quotations concerning the revolutionary past of the “three worlders” cited in the text are from Revolution Will Surely Triumph, a statement by the Central Committee of the MLOC in Nov. 1977. The role of the MLOC/“CPUSA(M-L)” in the U.S. Marxist-Leninist movement is discussed in our pamphlet Against Social-Democratic Infiltration of the Marxist-Leninist Movement –A Study of the Origin, History and Present Role of the Social-Democrat Barry Weisberg and his MLOC/“CPUSA (M-L),” Chicago, May 1979. Parts II and III of this study and related material have subsequently appeared in The Workers’ Advocate. As well, Chapter 4 of our pamphlet Reply to the Open Letter of the MLOC discussed in detail MLOC’s views concerning the revolutionary past of the “three worlders.”
[6] Since this article was written, the investigation and assessment referred to in the text has led to further valuable conclusions. The article “Mao Tsetung Thought Is Anti-Marxist-Leninist and Revisionist” appeared in the March 1979 issue of The Workers’ Advocate and was followed by other articles elaborating the denunciation of Mao Zedong and Mao Zedong Thought. It was Mao Zedong Thought that was the roots of the “three worlds” theory and of Chinese revisionism generally. The article “Mao, Browder and Social-Democracy – Mao Zedong and the American Ultra-Revisionist Browder Supported Each Other and Shared a Common Platform of Social-Democracy” appeared in the December 5, 1979 issue of The Workers’ Advocate. It showed that Mao’s search for a U.S.-China alliance began much earlier than 1971. As early as World War II, Mao was looking towards U.S. imperialism and dreaming of the post-war development of a bourgeois democratic capitalist China under the wing of U.S. imperialism. But the alliance sought by Mao and the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party did not then materialize. Thus the above text is correct in asserting that the present U.S.-China alliance was in preparation since roughly 1971.
[7] Nelson Peery, “Closing Remarks,” Proletariat, Vol. 4, No. 3, Fall, 1978, p. 38. Note that this issue is mislabelled Vol. 4, No. 2 on the cover.
[8] See pages 37-38 of this pamphlet for more discussion of “CLP’s” variant of neo-revisionism in the article “Neo-Revisionism Denies the Necessity for and the Role of the Marxist-Leninist Party of the Proletariat.”