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’s 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.
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 nonparty 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.
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). (EROL Note: The headlines are reproduced in the following endnote [1])
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 case-hardened 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.
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,USA.” 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 long-standing 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 polycentrist 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 multinational cartels.
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 “make 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 early 1980 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.
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 bask 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” a “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 one 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 nauseam].”
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.
[1] Against the opportunist theories of “ideological struggle”, “campaign”, “movement”, “new method”, and “alliances”
The theoreticians of “ideological struggle” and of “movement” are the enemies of the Marxist-Leninist party and its programme, strategy and tactics
The theoreticians of “ideological struggle” and of the “movement” undermine the unity of the Marxist-Leninists in a single party and disrupt the struggle against modern revisionism and opportunism of all hues
The theoreticians of “ideological struggle” and of the “movement” oppose the establishment and strengthening of the Marxist-Leninist party and the preparation for the coming revolutionary storms