What is the path forward for the great movement against social-chauvinism? We hold that the struggle against social-chauvinism must be connected with the struggle against all forms of opportunism, that the Party must be built through the repudiation of revisionism and opportunism. The struggle against the theory of “three worlds” must lead to a thorough repudiation of Browderism and all forms of modern revisionism. The open social-chauvinism of the OL Klonskyites in supporting the B-l bomber and the neutron bomb is not an unfortunate “accident”, but the inevitable result of their long history of corroding the Marxist-Leninist movement from within with opportunism and Browderism. A real struggle against social-chauvinism cannot be waged if one retains as one’s standpoint OL’s long-standing opportunism, socialist-segregationism, legalism, bourgeois trade unionism and over-all revisionism. Comrade Lenin, in criticizing during World War I the pamphlet by “Junius” (Rosa Luxemburg) entitled “The Crisis of Social-Democracy”, a pamphlet that over-all struck hard against the social-chauvinism of the leaders of the German Social-Democratic Party, clearly pointed out: “The chief defect in Junius’s pamphlet, and what marks a definite step backward. .. is its silence regarding the connection between social-chauvinism. . . and opportunism. . . . Neither the Junius pamphlet nor the theses say anything about opportunism or about Kautskyism! This is wrong from the standpoint of theory, for it is impossible to account for the ’betrayal’ (the voting for war credits and advocacy of defense of the fatherland in an imperialist war by the leaders of the German Social-Democratic Party in World War I – ed.) without linking it up with opportunism as a trend with a long history behind it, the history of the whole Second International. It is a mistake from the practical political standpoint, for it is impossible either to understand the ’crisis of Social-Democracy’, or overcome it, without clarifying the meaning and the role of two trends – the openly opportunist trend (Legien, David [i.e. the open social-chauvinist Klonskyite militarist-socialists – ed. ]) and the tacitly opportunist trend (Kautsky and Co.).”[40] (The “tacitly opportunist trend” are those who strive to reconcile the revolutionary masses with “the openly opportunist trend” by means of covering over everything with mere words, with empty but high-sounding “left” declarations. The present-day tacitly opportunist trend consists of the conciliators, vacillators and “centrists” of all types. For example, the “RCP, USA” is just such a tacitly opportunist group which claims to oppose the social-chauvinist thesis of “directing the main blow at Soviet social-imperialism” while at the same time it maintains a stubborn support for “its own” type of “three worlds” theory, although the theory of “three worlds” is the theoretical base and rallying point of the openly social-chauvinist trend. Another example of the tacitly opportunist trend is the MLOC, which throughout its entire existence has been mesmerized by the Klonskyites and which has made a career of competing with the openly opportunist trend as to who could find a better, more noble-minded, more resonant-sounding, more “Marxist” defense of flimsy rightist politics.)
The MLOC however seeks to conciliate the social-chauvinists by denying the connection between the open social-chauvinism of “directing the main blow at the Soviet social-imperialists” and the OL’s long history of opportunism. In this way the MLOC puts forward the bankrupt, dead-end path of saving opportunism from the fiasco it has suffered with the exposure of the Pentagon-socialism of the OL Klonskyites. The MLOC Central Committee in Nov. 1977 described the “three world-ers” and the OL as follows: “... opportunism has begun to spring up in groups and parties that once opposed revisionism consistently and stood for revolution”.[41] The MLOC thus holds that the “three worlders” stood for revolution and were “consistent” opponents of revisionism. In a major centerfold article in the October 1977 issue of Unite!, the MLOC got down on its knees to lick the dirt off the shoes of the Klonskyites by saying that OL only became social-chauvinist with the formation of the “CP(M-L)”: “Since forming the CP(ML), they have banded together around the view that the Soviet Union is the main danger and have turned the main task of the U. S. working class into fighting the Soviet Union instead of the U. S. bourgeoisie.” (emphasis added,[42]) As a matter of public record, Klonsky’s interview in which he put forward the theory of directing the “main blow” against Soviet social-imperialism was published in The Call on August 2, 1976. Immediately a great debate broke out. The COUSML gave leadership and orientation to this debate and stressed the significance of the Klonskyite “main blow” thesis as a yellow banner of open social-chauvinism, as a sign that the rotten, revolting but slightly concealed social-chauvinism of the neo-revisionists had grown ripe and come to the surface. The “CP(ML)” wasn’t founded until June 1977, almost a full/year after Klonsky’s interview was reported in The Call. The MLOC is hiding its own opposition to the struggle against social-chauvinism and “three worlds-ism”, its own agreement until recently with the theory of the Soviet Union being the “main danger”, and its own desire to unite with the OL social-chauvinists, by this fairy tale that the OL only became social-chauvinist with the declaration of the “CP(ML)”.
In our article “How To Advance the Struggle Against Social-Chauvinism”[43], we stressed the significance of denying the connection between social-chauvinism and opportunism. We showed how to deny this connection means to conciliate the social-chauvinists and the “three worlders”. We stated:
One form of this conciliation with social-chauvinism is ’Klonskyism without the “three worlds” theory’. This way of thinking drops the ’three worlds’ theory on more or less correct grounds and in a more or less vacillating fashion. (And we shall see in the next section how extremely shallow and vacillating is MLOC’s alleged opposition to the theory of ’three worlds’ – ed.) But it preserves the program and attitude towards proletarian revolution in the U. S. of the social-chauvinists and their entire basis of thinking and style of work. It advocates that the Klonskyites and other diehard social-chauvinists used to, at one time, oppose revisionism consistently and stand for revolution. However, apparently just by unfortunate accident, these ’consistent anti-revisionists’ later took up the theory of ’three worlds’ and were ruined. This fairy-tale is used to deny the connection between opportunism and social-chauvinism and to carry over all the opportunist and class collaborationist garbage of the OL into the ranks of those fighting social-chauvinism.... This fairy-tale is a bankrupt theory that goes against Marxism-Leninism, against summing up experience, and against even simplest logic. It is also ultimately a theory for reconciliation with social-chauvinism, for it regards the social-chauvinists not as class traitors, but as genuine revolutionaries making a few mistakes in formulation, albeit serious ones. In fact, this theory of social-chauvinism’s allegedly revolutionary past is a theory to justify the fight that the neo-revisionists carried on in the past against the Marxist-Leninists and to continue that fight into the present.
Thus it is no wonder that the MLOC openly expresses its desire for reconciliation with the “three worlders” and social-chauvinists and even address its “Open Letter” for unity around the “Draft Party Program” to the OL. Can you imagine the sick mentality of the leaders of the MLOC? First, under pressure from the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists, they write a major editorial calling the “CP(M-L)” a “social prop of the bourgeoisie”, saying that “the CP(ML) is not a party which is capable of, or interested in leading or uniting the proletariat in class struggle”, and that “Its objective mission is to mislead and divide the working class”.[44] Then the MLOC calls for unity with the “social props of the bourgeoisie”, unity with those whose “objective mission” is to smash the working-class movement! For all the MLOC’s rhetoric and demagogy, it is still no further than it was in February 1977 when it called on the OL to create “mutual trust” and to “get down to working out the differences” because, after all, “Changes in line will occur. This is not the point”.[45]
In fact, the MLOC, under cover of some purely verbal concessions to the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists concerning the theory of “three worlds”, actually echoes the entire political line and opportunist standpoint of the neo-revisionists in general and the OL in particular. Consider for example the MLOC’s line on the working class movement. What path does the MLOC point out on this burning question of the revolutionary movement? The MLOC actually boasts that it is leading the opportunist trend on this question! In the Political Report to MLOC’s Congress, it is stressed that “On other questions as well, we pioneered in our views – for instance on the trade union question (MLOC identifies the working class movement with the trade union question – ed.). Today, the CP(M-L)’s line on the trade unions tails directly behind what we have pioneered. Other organizations tail on these questions as well.”[46] Of course it is irrelevant whether the OL or the MLOC first formulated the social-chauvinist line on the working-class movement. Let the would-be leaders of opportunism squabble over this. The point is that OL’s social-chauvinism and revisionism and its work towards the liquidation of the revolutionary movements led the OL to adopt a definite line and definite forms and methods of work. They have codified their anti-Marxist and liquidationist line in such things as their program for bourgeois trade unionism. We have denounced OL’s line elsewhere.[47] Most briefly, OL is fighting for a position in the labor bureaucracy under the cover that in this way the capitalist trade unions “will be transformed into revolutionary class struggle organizations which fight for the complete emancipation of the working class.”[48] It should shock any member of the MLOC who retains an ounce of revolutionary spirit, and not at all make them proud, that the MLOC is running in parallel with the OL on this question. It is proof that the leaders of the MLOC are joining the Klonskyites in fighting for positions in the ultra-chauvinist U.S. labor bureaucracy.
The MLOC not only echoes the line of the OL social-chauvinists and “three worlders” on the working class movement, but the same thing holds true on other questions as well. Thus the MLOC is completely in thrall to the OL’s reactionary socialist-segregationism on the “national question”.[49] Right from the start, the MLOC was a “Knight of the National Question”. At first, the MLOC openly praised the socialist-segregationism of the OL. Thus in a polemic allegedly “against” the OL in early 1976, the MLOC stated: “The OL, to its credit, has historically upheld the right of self-determination for the Black Nation, and full democratic rights for all Blacks, throughout the U.S.”[50] The MLOC “demarcated” itself from the OL on this question only by demanding an even more thorough application of the liquidationist, anti-revolutionary line of the OL, an even more intensified negation of the Marxist-Leninist teachings on the right to self-determination, holding that OL supported this “credit(able)” line by “sentiment” alone, rather than by a thorough “materialist understanding of the objective material basis of the oppression of the Black Nation”. However, for some time, for cosmetic purposes the MLOC has seen fit to hide its agreement with OL’s basic approach by talking of OL’s chauvinism, etc., which it proves by hiding the questions of principle with incessant quibbling and squabbling on all sorts of secondary matters. Of course, the different “Knights of the National Question” have always divided with one another on particular formulations, but they are united in their main aims. First of all, the MLOC follows the social-chauvinist OL in utilizing the “National Question” to factionalize the U. S. Marxist-Leninist movement and disrupt the struggle against revisionism. The MLOC, just like the Provisional Organizing Committee, the “Communist” League (now called the “CLP, USNA”) and the OL before it, blurs the struggle between Marxism-Leninism and revisionism and replaces the struggle against revisionism by its denunciations of the “white chauvinism” of the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists and the revisionists and “three worlders” alike. The MLOC does not judge groups by their stand in the struggle against the theory of “three worlds” and against social-chauvinism and all revisionism, but by such things as their agreement or lack of agreement with the MLOC’s incessant, moralistic crusade around its special sectarian formulations on the “National Question”. While as far as the Afro-American people’s movement is concerned, our knights in shining armor are opposed to it, telling it to stop because it dares to denounce “racial discrimination” rather than only using the term “national oppression”, because it dares to march forward and smash up the “community control” and “Black power” schemes of the Ford Foundation, Kerner Commission, revisionists and U.S. political police, rather than capitulating to these schemes under the guise of dressing them up in pseudo-Marxist phraseology. It is no accident that the MLOC’s “Draft Party Program is silent on the great revolutionary movement of the Afro-American people against racial discrimination and violent repression of the last two decades and on the great rebellions. It is no accident that this “Draft Program” has less spirit than a limp handshake and is too timid to vigorously denounce U. S. monopoly capitalism for racial discrimination, too timid to take part in the world-wide exposure and pillory of U. S. imperialism, and instead hides U.S. imperialism’s shame under bland generalities about “full democratic rights” and “genuine equality.. .without regard to nationality, race, sex, religious beliefs, age or language”.[51] This is not a fight against “three worlds-ism” and social-chauvinism, but the white flag of surrender! The fact is that the OL’s open social-chauvinism and “three worlds-ism” on the international front, its opposition to the national liberation movement and the socialist revolution, cannot be separated from its social-chauvinism and reaction at home, its opposition to the socialist revolution and the powerful liberation movements of the oppressed nationalities at home in the U.S. The OL’s praise of “neo-colonies” abroad under the pretext of “formal political independence” cannot be separated from its social-segregationism in opposition to the Afro-American people’s movement, which it hides under its anti-Leninist distortions of the “right to self-determination” and its demagogy about “political power”. Where all this leads is today strikingly revealed in the OL’s (and the MLOC’s) praise for the pacifist misleader M. L. King, Jr.[52] Truly, the OL’s support of the Mobutus, the Shah of Iran, and Pinochets of Chile cannot be separated from its support of the traitors and misleaders at home, its support for neo-colonies abroad from their socialist-segregationism at home.
On the questions of Party-building too, the MLOC revels in its slavish imitation of the neo-revisionists in general and the OL in particular. We have already pointed out that the main attacks of the idealist anti-revisionists is directed precisely at the Party concept. The MLOC’s main disruptive work is directed at distorting the Marxist-Leninist teachings on the Party and, in practice, factionalizing the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists in order to paralyze their resistance to the social-chauvinism, “three worlds-ism” and revisionism of the Klonskyites. To do this, the MLOC has even followed the same methods as the OL. The OL, like the MLOC, also loudly beats its breast about its devotion to the “Party”, while in practice frenziedly factionalizing the Marxist-Leninist movement, conciliating the struggle against revisionism, and opposing the Party. We shall see that the MLOC’s current hobby-horse of the “Party program”, like the MLOC’s former “pre-party” demagogy, are both borrowed lock, stock and barrel from the OL, and simply rendered more “profound” by the “pioneers” of the MLOC in order to “demarcate” themselves.
First it is necessary to digress a little to explain the history of the OL’s anti-Party work. The OL and the neo-revisionists in general were born and developed in the struggle against the Party concept. The first banners of neo-revisionism were: opposition to the Party and to unity of the Marxist-Leninists under the theory of building “pre-party collectives”, and opposition to the struggle against revisionism under the cover of “the ultra-left being the main immediate danger” and of demagogy on the “national question”. But already in May 1969, the banner of revolutionary Marxism-Leninism was raised with the formation of the American Communist Workers’ Movement (Marxist-Leninist). The ACWM(M-L) consulted and fought to unite with all Marxist-Leninists claiming to oppose revisionism, including the Bay Area Revolutionary Union (now the “RCP, USA”), the California “Communist” League (now “CLP, USNA”) and Mr. Michael Klonsky (now the “CP, Red-White-and-Blue”). Undaunted by the refusal of the neo-revisionists to unite, the ACWM(M-L) united all who could be united into the single nation-wide Marxist-Leninist center, the first center for the wide-scale dissemination of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought in the U.S. The neo-revisionists, however, degenerated from refusal to unite into warfare, now open and now concealed, against the revolutionary Marxist-Leninist center. The OL was founded by Mr. Klonsky and associates as a group of factional splitters of the Marxist-Leninist movement allegedly independent of the struggle between the Marxist-Leninist center, the ACWM(M-L), and the neo-revisionist theorists of the “pre-party collective”. The OL tried through loud shouting and big demagogy to say that it was “for” the Party, while RU was against it, but anyone who studies the history and documents of the OL will see that in fact it stood for the same theory of “pre-party collectives” as the RU. In fact, as late as March-May 1973 the OL published in its paper The Call a major three-part series entitled “Building a New Communist Party in the United States”. This article outlines a theory of “local collectives” that are to take as first principle opposition to Marxist-Leninist unity in a single Party as premature, “dogmatic” and “ultra-left” and then were to “unite” among themselves in a Holy Alliance against the “ultra-left” by cooperation in trade unionist and reformist “practical work”. The factionalized pre-party collectives would of course be weak, both in their theoretical foundations and organizationally, and thus easy prey for Browderite revisionism and for infiltration by dubious elements.
But the neo-revisionists could not stop the great movement against revisionism and for the Party. The revolutionary Marxist-Leninists led by the ACWM(M-L) marched forward and defended the Party concept in the face of the sinister anti-Party work of the neo-revisionists. The campaign around the “Call for a Conference of North American Marxist-Leninists” gave rise to the Central Organization of U. S. Marxist-Leninists in August 1973, and it was this campaign that ideologically defeated the theory of “pre-party collectives” among wide sections of the revolutionary activists and that dominated Marxist-Leninist politics from Nov. 1972 to 1974 or even early 1975. The neo-revisionist groupings did not, however, admit their error, but instead continued their factionalization of the movement but in a more devious and harmful form. They still refused to unite, but now they factionalized the movement through the practice of building ”many Parties”. To justify their “many Parties”, Marxism-Leninism had to be thrown away... and lo and behold, under the theory of the fetish of the Party Program, unity on the basis of Marxism-Leninism was replaced by unity on something else, anything else, dressed up under the name of “Party Program”. The opportunists thus made Marxism into a matter of definition, interpretation and debate. They floated the theory and practice of “many Marxisms” under the cover of “many Programs”. And the OL was right in the forefront of this process. The OL’s ill-famed “Organizing Committee”, which “organized the loose Browderite educational association called the “CP(M-L)”, was built around the “Draft Program”. As OL put it in its “Declaration of the Organizing Committee for a Marxist-Leninist Party” entitled, for purposes of deception, “Marxist-Leninists Unite!”, “... party-building has become a task of immediacy and all Marxist-Leninists must immediately unite in the efforts to draft a communist program with the aim of holding a founding Party Congress in the near future.” (emphasis as in the original) This theory of the central role of the “Party Program” is thus linked, both historically and logically as well as in its common aim of factionalization, with the theory of the “pre-party collectives”. The heroes of the “Party Program” explain their existence for years before having such a program, which is allegedly the main basis of the Party, by saying that previously there was a “pre-party” stage and thus the Marxist-Leninist teachings on the Party didn’t apply. Conversely, the neo-revisionists announce that they know that the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists are right about the Party concept, but that the “pre-party collectives” are going to continue flaunting their negation of the Party concept anyway, through taking up the fetish of the “Party Program”. And whether in “pre-party” stage or “program” stage, the neo-revisionists oppose genuine unity on the basis of Marxism-Leninism, unity forged in the revolutionary struggle against the class enemy and in the struggle to defend the purity of Marxism-Leninism against revisionism, social-chauvinism, “three worlds-ism” and all forms of opportunism. The OL’s degeneration into open social-chauvinism has now clearly revealed the bourgeois political content behind the neo-revisionist war upon the Party concept and at the same time it is a final and utterly conclusive sign that there can no longer be thought of unity with the neo-revisionists, that the task was relentless struggle against social-chauvinism and not a great unity inclusive of the new Browderites.
Having briefly outlined the OL’s program of factionalization of the Marxist-Leninist movement, we can see that the MLOC has copied it to the letter. The MLOC began its open existence in 1975 as the “last of the Mohicans” of the “pre-party collective”. They arrogantly announced that the U.S. was in a “pre-party situation”.[53] On this pretext of the “pre-party situation”, the MLOC declared itself a “pre-party organization”[54] and regarded itself as free from the Marxist-Leninist teachings about the Party concept and the unity of all Marxist-Leninists in a single Party. The MLOC used the Marxist-Leninist teachings on the Party as a club to “discredit” everyone else and as a pretext to close its eyes to the existence of the revolutionary Marxist-Leninist center. Meanwhile, at the same time the MLOC freed itself from any responsibility to explain why it had formed a new, “independent” Marxist-Leninist organization and excused itself from responsibility to be judged from the outset by the same criteria that it applies to others because the MLOC was only an allegedly modest, innocent “pre-Party” formation. In short, just like the OL, the MLOC gave the line that the movement was weak and “pre-party” as a cover for making it weaker and for factionalizing it still further. The MLOC claimed to be independent of the struggle between Marxism-Leninism and neo-revisionism by the simple expedient of officially sticking its head in the sand and claiming that the world didn’t exist prior to 1975 and that no such struggle existed. Of course, no such “independence” from the struggle between Marxism-Leninism and revisionism exists in the real world. The MLOC’s policy of “non-recognition” is just a paper-thin mask behind which it has taken up the entire neo-revisionist arsenal in order to wage war against the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists.
Following further in the footsteps of the OL, at the appropriate moment the MLOC dropped its clamor about the “pre-party situation” and increased its demagogy about the “Party Program” as the key aspect of Party-building. As always, the MLOC takes up a fashionable opportunist phrase, then renders it more profound in order to “demarcate” itself from any responsibility for the trend that has given rise to the particular opportunist formulation. The MLOC hides its use of OL’s factional methods by criticizing OL for... not being more consistent and more thorough in its wrecking work. For example, consider the following passage in which the MLOC, in its usual high-flown language, “demarcates” itself from opportunism by taking up the opportunist theories:
In fact, the entire effort of the CP(ML) to form a communist party is a mirror of revisionism and opportunism. The OL began its campaign for the party by claiming that the party in this country did not require, at its formation, a party program or a party congress. This was revised when it suited these ’misleaders’ as a ’minor modification’. The OL turned out to be all too correct. Even after the call for a program and a party congress, the OL did not essentially modify its motion toward revisionism.
The Organizing Committee formed by the OL had nothing in common with Marxism-Leninism. Rather than placing the Party program as the cornerstone of its work, the program was revealed in the closing months of the organizing committee with limited discussion. There was no nation-wide effort to take the program to the working class for discussion and correction.[55]
Hence the MLOC does not criticize the OL for its attempt to factionalize the Marxist-Leninist movement with “many Marxisms” codified in the “many programs”, but solely for not hitting on the idea earlier. My, my, what a profound criticism of social-chauvinism! The MLOC, in order to gain the confidence of the reader, flays the OL with denunciations as “revisionist and opportunist”, and then immediately diverts the whole issue to trivial nit-picking. The Organizing Committee was indeed “revisionist and opportunist”, but according to the MLOC this is only because it did not place enough importance on the Party Program and the Founding Congress! In order to concoct some trivial difference between the Party-building plans of the OL and the MLOC, the MLOC is forced to resort to the crassest sophistry, quibbling and downright lying. In fact, the OL always had programmatic statements, right from its founding statements. But even if we neglect this, and for the sake of argument grant to the MLOC that the OL didn’t have a program until recently, then look how flimsy the MLOC’s criticisms of “revisionism and opportunism” are. When the MLOC thunderously denounces the Organizing Committee for having “nothing in common with Marxism-Leninism”, all the MLOC is worried about is that the Organizing Committee did not start off by issuing a Party program, but issued it later, as the result of its labors. What a serious indication of “revisionism and opportunism”! Really, dear MLOC conciliators of social-chauvinism, since the “CP(M-L)” has both a “Party Program” and even a “Founding Congress”, and since The Call has had a series of commentaries about different parts of their program, are we to regard the neo-revisionist method of Party-building of the “CP(M-L)” as Marxist-Leninist and revolutionary?
In truth, the MLOC and the OL have the same line on Party-building, but with a difference of shade. The OL Klonskyites, arrogant open chauvinists that they are, are waging an open battle for their social-chauvinist principles and their “three worlds-isms”. True, the OL always resorts to lies, distortions, sophistry, dishonesty, etc.; true, the methods of the OL would turn the stomach of anyone with even an ounce of honesty or principles left in him; .. .but the OL uses all these disgusting methods in articles that openly stand for the Klonskyite Pentagon-socialism, that openly call for “directing the main blow at Soviet social-imperialism”, etc. But this open polemic has resulted in one disaster after another for the social-chauvinists. A wave of indignation against the Klonskyites has swept the U.S. Marxist-Leninist movement. So a bunch of conciliators and dubious elements have decided that it is no good to have polemics on the basis of the main issues. Instead the open, principled polemic of the Marxist-Leninists on fundamental questions must be denounced as of “little value”[56] and the polemic must be turned into quibbles, into fights on all sorts of technical and secondary matters, into a sea of trivialities. Thus the MLOC, whether “fighting” the OL or fighting the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists, submerges the matters of principle in a mass of irrelevancies. In this way it hopes to save the new Browderite heroes of the “three worlds” theory and especially the whole neo-revisionist arsenal from the fiasco that the open debate on principles has been for them.
[40] V.I. Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 22, “The Junius Pamphlet”, pp. 306-7.
[41] Revolution Will Surely Triumph, a statement on the international situation from the Central Committee of the MLOC, November, 1977, reprinted April, 1978, p. 130
[42] Unite!, October 1977, “Genuine Unity Rests on Principle”, p. 10, col. 1-2.
[43] The Workers’ Advocate, February 10, 1978, p. 12 or the pamphlet edition, pp. 29-30.
[44] Unite!, August, 1977, “Communist Party (ML)... A Social Prop of the Bourgeoisie”, p. 2, col. 4.
[45] Unite], February 1977, “An Open Letter to the October League”, p. 11, col. 3-4. The “Open Letter” starts on p. 2.
[46] Weisberg, Political Report, p. 34.
[47] See, for example, “On the Working-Class Movement” in the article “Marxist-Leninists, Unite! Denounce Social-Chauvinism! Build the Party Through the Repudiation of Revisionism and Opportunism” in The Workers’ Advocate of March 10. 1977 or the pamphlet “U.S. Marxist-Leninists, Unite in Struggle Against Social-Chauvinism”.
[48] Documents from the Founding Congress of the CP(M-L), “Program of the CP(M-L)”, p. 118.
[49] For a denunciation of OL’s socialist-segregationism, see the series in The Workers’ Advocate, entitled “In Defense of the Afro-American People’s Movement: The OL Social-Chauvinists Are Out-And-Out Socialist-Segregationists”. Part I appeared in the issue of April 1, 1978. Part II, “How the OL Socialist-Segregationists Falsify History”, appeared in the issue of April 28, 1978. Further parts will appear in later issues.
[50] Unite!, vol. 2, #1, February 15 – April 15, 1976, “The October League (M-L), What Are Our Differences, What Is The Basis of These Differences?”, p. 19, col. 2.
[51] MLOC’s Draft Party Program, pp. 43, 51.
[52] The Call, April 10, 1978, front-page headline in red capitals, “KING WAS PATHBREAKER FOR BLACK LIBERATION”. Unite], March 1, 1978, p. 11, “TV Documentary Denies Role of the Masses, ’King’ Distorts History, Preaches Non-Violence”. The article denounces the TV movie “King” for the greater glory of King himself who is prettified as a leader with a “dual nature”.
[53] Unite!, vol. 2, #2, “The Struggle for Marxist-Leninist Unity”, p. 5, coL 1.
[54] Unite!, vol. 2, #2, “The Struggle for Marxist-Leninist Unity”, p. 4, col. 3.
[55] Unite!, August, 1977, “Communist Party (ML)... A Social Prop of the Bourgeoisie”, p. 2, col. 3.
[56] See (24).