The above letter is reproduced exactly as in the original. For reasons of authenticity, as well as because the incoherence of the letter made it difficult to make changes with any confidence, no typographical corrections have been made and the document is reproduced letter-for-letter as in the original.
The letter of the CC of the MLP of June 16, 1980 refers back to this letter and gives a detailed set of page references. Therefore, in order to preserve the original paging of this letter, so that these page references can be used, we have marked each point in the text where a new page began in the original with a blank line and the designation “Page X.” (EROL Note: The page numbers have been removed for better online readability)
To: Joseph Green
“For the” National Executive Committee Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninists
We have received the letter dated December 1, 1979, which you have written “for the” National Executive Committee of the Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninists. This letter was received by us on December 3, 1979.
We have studied the contents of your letter seriously and thoroughly and we differ with you on every point. We will begin making our reply to this letter from the first sentence of the first paragraph and we will carry on sentence-by-sentence to the end of the fourth and final paragraph of page one, as well as deal with the entire letter in the second and third part of our reply. Our detailed reply will conclusively show that we stand on unshakeable Marxist-Leninist positions and that we are firm proletarian internationalists and that our Party stands for the further strengthening of the unity between the CPC(M-L) and the COUSML on the basis of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism. We will also clearly show that your views are not Marxist-Leninist. Nay more, these views are designed to damage the relations between CPC(M-L) and COUSML. We are keeping our comments brief because of the urgency with which we feel is necessary to reply to this letter and because of the lack of time. The COUSML is soon going to found the Marxist-Leninist Party, USA and we firmly believe that the new Marxist-Leninist Party in the USA will be established on a really firm foundation only if the political and ideological ideas and views you are presenting are thoroughly repudiated and denounced by the Founding Congress. As you yourself state: “We hold that true friends are not those who sit still or who even applaud while errors are made, but those who have the deep love required to tell the truth even if it is unpleasant.” Naturally, this is the sole sentence in your entire letter with which we cannot really quibble, as far as the sentence itself is concerned. But let us “tell the truth” to you, “even if it is unpleasant”, which is that you are not our true friend, because you are concocting lies to support your base and outlandish theses against our Party. Because you are lying, you have to be demagogic and use high-falutin phrases, of which this sentence we have quoted is but merely one example.
1. You open your letter with a lot of sinister demagogy: “Our two parties are fighters in the same trench against imperialism, revisionism and all sorts of opportunism.” What does this mean? This is the lowest form of trickery with which your letter is filled and this concretely shows that you are two-faced. On the one hand, “our two parties are fighters in the same trench against imperialism, revisionism and all sorts of opportunism” while, on the other hand, you write that “it (CPC(M-L)) shows an extreme underestimation of the struggle against opportunism in the U.S.” Your treacherous and lying behaviour goes so far as to suggest that CPC(M-L) advocates the “United front with the ’three-worlders’.” You then persist in slandering our Party with the wild accusations that “you began by opposition to the struggle against the forces that might roughly be called ’centrist’ ... From opposition to the struggle against what might be called the ’centrist’ forces, you passed over to reconsidering your stand on our struggle against the open social-chauvinists and ’three-worlders’ ... You have also opposed the slogan ’Build the Marxist-Leninist Party without the Social-Chauvinists and Against the Social-Chauvinists’.” Only a shameless liar can attribute such lines to our Party and, in the same breath, still write the nonsense that, “Our two parties are fighters in the same trench against imperialism, revisionism and all sorts of opportunism.” If you were a true friend of our Party, then you would not have concocted these disgraceful lies, degenerated to the level of agent-provocateur and attempted to involve our Party in the well-known and infamous U.S. imperialist “Have you stopped beating your wife?” technique. Only a sworn enemy of our Party and the International Marxist-Leninist Communist Movement can accuse our Party of such heinous crimes!
2. You then write: “We have gone through thick and thin together.” How does it follow that “we have gone through thick and thin together” when you are accusing our Party of not only advocating “united front with the ’three-worlders’” but also many other such concocted charges besides? It can only be that while you have been waging struggle against “imperialism, revisionism and all sorts of opportunism”, which is “thick”, and while we have been telling you to conciliate with “imperialism, revisionism and all sorts of opportunism”, which is “thin”, and that is an excellent example of going “through thick and thin together.” This is demagogy and treachery and nothing else. It is true that while CPC(M-L) and COUSML are “fighters in the same trench against imperialism, revisionism and all sorts of opportunism” and “have gone through thick and thin together”, and are still doing so today, that this cannot be said about you. You have concocted every sort of slander and lie against our Party and you are using demagogy to hide your sinister aim of poisoning the warm and profound fraternal relationship which exists between the CPC(M-L) and COUSML.
3. Furthermore, you write: “And this is not surprising in the least.” For anyone who merely peruses your letter in a cursory manner it will, indeed, be “surprising” that CPC(M-L) which is being accused of ”united front with the ’three-worlders’” and stopping COUSML from fighting “American opportunism”, and so on and so forth, can at the very same time be in the same “trench” and going “through thick and thin together”. It will be surprising, to say the least.
4. Then follows the explanation as to why “our two parties are fighters in the same trench against imperialism, revisionism and all sorts of opportunism” and “have gone through thick and thin together”, which “is not surprising in the least.” Joseph Green writes: “The proletariat is an international class, and its parties in the individual countries are fighting contingents of the one international party of communism, of the International Marxist-Leninist Communist Movement.” This is an intellectualist balderdash to cover up the entire history of the fraternal relations between COUSML (and before it, the American Communist Workers Movement) and CPC(M-L) (and before it, the Internationalists) which have been based on Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism. These relations began with working closely together in an all-sided manner and sharing weal and woe, and it is during this “past period”that a repeated attempt has been made to disrupt the extremely close and fraternal relations, this poison pen letter by you being the latest example. This intellectualist hyperbole is dished out for the purposes of insinuating that there is nothing whatsoever between the CPC(M-L) and COUSML, no history and no common struggle, all with the ulterior motive of rewriting this history and disrupting the relations between CPC(M-L) and COUSML.
5. You assert: “The norms and relations between these contingents are regulated by the principles of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism.” But what are these “norms and relations” in concrete terms? To concoct lies and spread slanders against a fraternal Marxist-Leninist party as you have done against our Party? Are these the “norms and relations” which you have in mind? You are using these phrases for demagogic purposes to mystify your real objectives of disrupting the relations between CPC(M-L) and COUSML. There can be no other reason for this sophistry.
6. Now, here comes your own peculiar analysis which is diametrically opposite to the analysis of our Party. We tell you “even if it is unpleasant” that we are not in agreement with this analysis, that we are not with you in the same “trench” and that we are not nor will we ever go “through thick and thin together” with you or anyone else on this or any other anti-Leninist and opportunist position. And this should not be “surprising” to you “in the least.” You write: “Today the International Marxist-Leninist Communist Movement is under tremendous attack from imperialism, revisionism and opportunism” and, later on, you become really wild and declare without any sense of shame that it is in “confusion and disarray”. As far as the International Marxist-Leninist Communist Movement being “under tremendous attack from imperialism, revisionism and opportunism”, this is nothing new, because “imperialism, revisionism and opportunism” have always attacked the International Communist Movement right from the period of Lenin to date. But what is sinister about your phrase-mongering is that there is something which you are not telling us, which is that the International Marxist-Leninist Communist Movement has made and is making great and ever-fresh advances in the historic struggle against imperialism, social-imperialism and all reaction and against revisionism and opportunism of all hues. The resolute and implacable stand of the glorious Party of Labour of Albania and the genuine Marxist-Leninist parties and our vigorous opposition to modern revisionism in all its dangerous variants, against Chinese revisionism and “Mao Zedong Thought” and against Khrushchovite, Titoite, “Euro-Communist” and others and in the courageous defence of Marxism-Leninism and the cause of the revolution and socialism is the proof. The revolutionary struggles of the proletariat and people for their genuine social and national liberation are mounting and growing stronger and this is the proof. Our Party correctly analyzes that the genuine Marxist-Leninist parties are growing stronger and steeling themselves in the titanic struggle against imperialism, social-imperialism and all reaction and against revisionism and opportunism of all hues, which is also the case with our Party. The great and historic struggle for the revolution and socialism, despite the set-backs and betrayals of the modern revisionists, the enemy of the proletariat and peoples of the world, are forging ahead and will certainly triumph on a world scale. All these tenacious achievements you are denouncing as “confusion and disarray” and you one-sidedly highlight the set backs to the revolutionary movement at the hands of the revisionists and opportunists of all hues in the most disparaging terms to the genuine Marxist-Leninist parties, especially to the PLA and Comrade Enver Hoxha and to the International Marxist-Leninist Communist Movement on the world scale. We have our analysis and you have your own peculiar analysis that the “International Marxist-Leninist Communist Movement is under tremendous attack from imperialism, revisionism and opportunism” and there is a great and insurmountable gulf in-between. Your peculiar analysis is empty phrase-mongering, while your real motive is to attack the International Marxist-Leninist Communist Movement which you denounce as being in “confusion and disarray”. It is you who are really in “confusion and disarray” and your provocative letter against CPC(M-L) is one of the real examples of your chaotic state. You are spreading pessimism, gloom and a siege mentality because you are kow-towing and capitulating under the imperialist-revisionist pressure, and have gone over to their side.
7. Hard on the heels of this peculiar analysis emerges the Second Coming of the well-known and notorious theory of American exceptionalism of the American revisionist and anti-Marxist Browder, which is being peddled by this little Messiah who is so much against “American opportunism”. Yes, we will tell you this with “the deep love required to tell the truth even if it is unpleasant.” Your gem begins: “Both internationally in general and in North America in particular the imperialists and revisionists are attempting to surround the proletariat and the Marxist-Leninist parties with a ring of fire.” Now, our little Moses has finally found his burning bush and all has been revealed unto him. Just imagine the America-the-beautiful phrase, “both internationally in general and in North America in particular ...” What utter shamelessness! “...the imperialists and revisionists are attempting to surround the proletariat and the Marxist-Leninist parties with a ring of fire” – and, of course, this is only an “attempt” – “internationally in general and in North America in particular” – and, of course, the imperialists and revisionists have simply forgotten about the Party of Labour of Albania with Comrade Enver Hoxha at the head and the People’s Socialist Republic of Albania, the only genuinely socialist country in the world. They are not at all “particular” about crushing Socialist Albania with a savage imperialist-revisionist encirclement, but they are “particular” about surrounding the “proletariat and the Marxist-Leninist parties” “in North America”. These are the chosen targets of the wrath of the imperialists and revisionists. Imperialism and revisionism, of course, are not “particular” about Iran, Spain, Portugal, Nicaragua, Ireland, and so on. They are only “particular” about North America. Is this not the reduplication of the old and discredited Daya Varma theory which is now being pushed by these American chauvinists? Daya Varma asserted that Afro-Asians are more revolutionary than North Americans. Now you imply that North Americans are more revolutionary than anyone else, and the proof of this theory of American exceptionalism is your chauvinist concoction that “both internationally in general and in North America in particular the imperialists and revisionists are attempting to surround the proletariat and the Marxist-Leninist parties with a ring of fire.” Our Party is also a genuine Marxist-Leninist party which exists in North America, along with the genuine Marxist-Leninist forces in the USA and Mexico. Not for a minute does our Party believe that imperialism and revisionism is so “particular” about the “proletariat and the Marxist-Leninist parties” in North America. Genuine Marxist-Leninist parties, the parties of revolution and socialism, which translate their words into deeds, inspire mortal fear and terror in “imperialism and revisionism” wherever they exist. Whether they are militating in Europe North America, Asia, Africa, Latin America or Oceania, it does not matter a whit for the capitalist-revisionist world and they have surrounded “the proletariat and the Marxist-Leninist parties with a ring of fire”, which we correctly call “imperialist and revisionist encirclement” and from which all the genuine Marxist-Leninist parties and Socialist Albania under the leadership of the PLA with Comrade Enver Hoxha at the head are resolutely organizing to break out through revolution and socialism. Joseph Green even goes further, later on, whereby for him the sole struggle against “imperialism and revisionism” is the struggle against the “RCP, USA”, the so-called “weak link” in the centrist trend and to curse and damn our Party for not supporting this “struggle” of his! What a shameless American chauvinist!
8. Here is pontification of the basest kind: “The ’three-worlders’ and the international opportunist trend of Chinese revisionism are occupying one of the advance posts in the ring of fire.” What does this reactionary chauvinist lecturing mean? It means that we should also follow you down your reactionary freeway of American exceptionalism which you have lit up with these concoctions that “Chinese revisionism ... (is) occupying one of the advance posts in this ring of fire.” How profound this sounds, but it is empty and has nothing in it. It is a typical example of an empty vessel making much noise. Chinese revisionism, along with revisionism and opportunism of all hues, is the sworn enemy of the revolution and socialism, Marxism-Leninism, and the freedom and peace of the peoples of the world. But you are using scare-crow tactics to divide the genuine Marxist-Leninist parties from taking up the historic task of proletarian revolution for solution in their own countries and vigorously and resolutely fighting hard against imperialism, social-imperialism and all reaction and against revisionism and opportunism of all hues. Your scare-crow does not scare anyone. It only makes you feel oh so clever that your head, without any respect whatsoever for the International Marxist-Leninist Communist Movement, your so-called “one international party of communism”, is able to conjure up these peculiar theses and float them without any sense of shame, all the while accusing others of “united front with the ’three-worlders’” to cover up your sinister tracks.
9. Here is the crux of the matter: The struggle of the Marxist-Leninists against Chinese revisionism, ’three-worldism’ and so forth requires the closest international cooperation and the most serious and sober estimation.“ This is yet another concoction from your head. It is not just the “struggle of the Marxist-Leninists against Chinese revisionism, ’three-worldism’ and so forth” which “requires the closest international cooperation and the most serious and sober estimation”, but it is first and foremost the unity based on the principles of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism against imperialism, social-imperialism and all reaction and against revisionism and opportunism of all hues and in the defence of the purity of Marxism-Leninism and the principles of proletarian internationalism and for the triumph of the revolution and socialism. Your logic is two-faced.
Thus, if you are denounced by our Party for only highlighting “Chinese revisionism, ’three-worldism’ and so forth”, then, you can, of course, beat your breasts and scream blue murder that all along you really meant the struggle against imperialism, social-imperialism and all reaction and against revisionism and opportunism of all hues. But you do not mean this at all and you will not be able to squirm and wriggle out of the sentence you have written which we have quoted above.
10. Now, after preparing the terrain with the mission of slandering CPC(M-L) for “united front with the ’three-worlders’ ”, you take your pants down and show the most ugly features of an agent-provocateur. No one who has even the most elementary sincerity and honesty would do such a perfidious thing to their “dear fraternal comrades” for whom the “deepest communist regards” are presented. Here is the criminal big lie on which the entire thesis of this Joseph Green is built up against CPC(M-L): “Thus, we were astonished by the recent action of the CPC(M-L) in selling the rights to the book by Jorge Palacios entitled Chile: An Attempt at Historic Compromise to the utterly corrupt and rotten to the core American neo-revisionist and ’three-worlder’ sect known as the so-called ’Revolutionary Communist Party of the U.S.A.’” Here the tricks of the entire lying trade have been used by Joseph Green. This letter is dated December 1, 1979, which we received early on December 3, 1979. But a few days earlier, we received another letter also signed by Joseph Green “for the” National Executive Committee of the Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninists and dated November 29, 1979. In this previous letter, not a word was mentioned with regard to how “we were astonished” and so on and so forth. But Joseph Green has a forked tongue. In this letter, he is “warmly invit(ing) the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) to send a small delegation” of “members of the Central Committee” and “composed of between one and three comrades” to attend the “’Prepatory Conference for the Founding of the Marxist-Leninist Party, USA’” where, as he writes, “it will be possible to get a remarkable picture of the views, activities and tactics of the COUSML”, and this letter also included “a fraternal invitation to attend the founding Congress of the MLP, USA.” And this letter also stresses several times that this “possibility” of “getting a remarkable picture” is uniquely available to CPC(M-L) because “no other organization is being invited” either to this conference or to their congress. The “remarkable view” is remarkable, indeed, that there will be at this Conference the “two parties” which “are fighters in the same trench against imperialism, revisionism and all sorts of opportunism”, which “have gone through thick and thin together” and which “is not surprising in the least”, because now CPC(ML) is “warmly” offered and it will even be made possible for it “to get a remarkable picutre of the views, activities and tactics of the COUSML.” And if this letter of December 1,1979, written by one Joseph Green “for the” National Executive Committee of COUSML is one of the “remarkable pictures of views, activities and tactics of the COUSML”, then, of course, we are being invited to a real panoramic American treat of lies and slanders. America is so famous for it!
When a representtive of COUSML was visiting our Party in Canada at the end of October and the beginning of November, we pointed out to him that the latest edition of the Workers’ Advocate had an oblique attack against CPC(ML). He telephoned back to the USA. The authors were flabergasted, expressed “shock”, and heatedly denied the accusation. We dropped the matter and said nothing more. But now, in less than a month, the attack resurfaces in this letter of December 1, 1979, with all its attendant fire and brimstone. Their “shock” was nothing more than sheer dismay at being caught out so fast. This further shows the two-faced nature and double-dealing method of the author of this vile provocation against our Party. In the same despicable style and manner, you have laid this charge against the Party of the “united front with the ’three worlders’”, and this accusation is here all consciously prepared with every trick of the lying trade in order to confuse the entire matter and camouflage your aim of disrupting the warm and profound relations between CPC(M-L) and COUSML.
Here are the facts of the case. In the early-August – mid-September period, that is, between August 4th and before September 15th, a publishing company in Chicago, named Banner Press, negotiated with People’s Canada Publishing House to purchase the English-language translation of Chile: An attempt at Historic Compromise. These entire negotiations were carried out by the staff of People’s Canada Publishing House and the contract was signed and sealed and the entire transaction was carried out. Just after the contract was signed and the transaction completed, the leadership of the Party found out about it and immediately denounced it. This is a matter of historical record. But the transaction had already been carried through. Furthermore, the Central Committee met on September 15, 1979, and, among other things, decided to stop the publishing of ANCHA or any other materials for the International Commission of the Central Committee of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Chile. This decision of the CC of CPC(M-L) that our Party was unable to provide any further financial or technical assistance at this time was duly communicated to this International Commission. It was not known at that time that the RCP of Chile was in touch with the “RCP, USA”, nor that the tour of Jorge Palacios from the platform of the “RCP, USA” was being organized, nor did the staff at PCPH know that they were dealing with the “RCP, USA” when they were negotiating with this Banner Press of Chicago. Furthermore, our Party proposed in some detail to the representatives of COUSML on October 9 that COUSML should launch an open attack on the RCP of Chile and Jorge Palacios for his hobnobbing in the US with “the utterly corrupt and rotten to the core American neo-revisionist and ’three worlder’ sect known as the so-called ’Revolutionary Communist Party of the USA’”, and develop this attack into a political and ideological offensive against the entire centrist trend which had already crystallized around the “defence of ’Mao Zedong Thought” and the “contributions” of Mao Zedong, under the mask of their so-called “opposition” to Chinese revisionism and the notorious theory of “three worlds”, the offspring of ”Mao Zedong Thought“. We offered every political and ideological assistance to the American Marxist-Leninists to develop this offensive within the USA which we estimated would highly contribute to the defence of the monolithic unity of the International Marxist-Leninist Communist Movement and its common political and ideological line based on Marxist-Leninist principles. We offered to do this with the purest proletarian internationalist sentiment even at the expense of disrupting our existing programmes. But COUSML did not agree with this proposal. While Palacios was stomping around the USA as the fraternal guest of this “utterly corrupt and rotten to the core American neo-revisionist and ’three-worlder’ sect known as the so-called ’Revolutionary Communist Party of the USA’”, you were satisfying yourself with a concealed attack on the RCP of Chile about whom you have “the most serious and sober estimation” because as you yourself write, “we are in no hurry to come to a final conclusion on the RCP of Chile” ad nauseum. Instead of launching a fierce attack on this entire centrist alliance which is the creature of imperialism and social-imperialism, you have launched this dastardly provocation against our Party. The sale of the English-language translation became “selling the rights to the book”, which only Palacios himself can sell, and no-one else, and by the “fact” of this deal negotiated by the individual staff of the PCPH it now becomes the conscious policy of CPC(M-L) which under-estimates the struggle against “American opportunism” and, thus, by the sleight of hand, CPC(M-L) has been put into bed with the “three-worlders”. Your “dear fraternal comrades” for whom you have the “deepest communist regards” are in bed with the opportunists – even though only once! What two-faced and shameless behaviour! Both in theory and practice, our Party has consistently and resolutely fought against the united front with revisionism and opportunism of all hues and firmly upheld the hegemony of the proletariat and its Marxist-Leninist Party in the proletarian revolution and it scarely needs mentioning that CPC(M-L) has never advocated such a line. But you provocateur dish out this straight-forward, unadulterated lie and shamelessly peddle it. We can only reserve our utter contempt for you and tell you so “even when it is unpleasant.”
11. Having presented in your puffed-up manner the first lie, now you begin to weave your web. You write: “This act damaged the struggle against the ’RCP, USA’”. Which act are you talking about? Your criminal act of concocting this white lie against CPC(M-L) is certainly damaging the “struggle against the ’RCP, USA’”. Or, are you talking about your kid-glove, soft and lovable attitude towards Jorge Palacios and your refusal to take an open and direct stand against the criminal and counter-revolutionary activities of Palacios and his host? They did not stop even for a moment to think about totally disregarding you in carrying out this adventure and they did not think twice before creating the provocation at the 3rd International Marxist-Leninist and Revolutionary Youth Festival in El Salar in Spain in mid-August. Nor did they pay any attention to you when they were writing slanderous letters to our Party (which were shown to the representative of COUSML at the beginning of November) and so on and so forth. They are casting mud and heaping every abuse on the genuine Marxist-Leninist and revolutionary forces, but you are so nice to these agent-provocateurs because you yourself have degenerated to the level of creating provocations against your “dear fraternal comrades” for whom you have “deep communist regards”. You knew very well, as we explained to the COUSML representative at some length, that because of our fraternal relations with the RCP of Chile, we could not attack the International Commission including Palacios publicly. Thus, we carried the struggle prudently and worked out a tactic for this, until such time as the RCP of Chile breaks relations with our Party publicly, or we decide to do so. But you were free to act and yet refused to do so. Instead, you created this provocation against our Party which you are claiming is with you “in the same trench”. Which trench is that? We will never agree to be in the same trench with someone who has his guns cocked not at the enemy but against us, just “to tell (you) the truth even (though) it is unpleasant”. We have never for a minute united with our enemies, not even once, and we could never even think of doing such a thing in a million years. You swear you are “astonished”but it is we who are astonished at your 180-degree turn against our Party. From being the Party which is leading in North America, CPC(M-L) now “underestimates the struggle against American opportunism”. What a fraud!
12. Then, you blithely claim that “it helped pave the way to the U.S. tour by Jorge Palacios on the ’RCP, USA’ platform”. First concoct the lie, then keep on repeating it. This is the sinister style of a provocateur. We will repudiate your lie as many times as you repeat it. We neither sold “the rights to the book ... to the utterly corrupt and rotten to the core American neo-revisionist and ’three-worlder’ sect known as the so-called ’Revolutionary Communist Party if the U.S.A.’”, nor did this “act damaged the struggle against the ’RCP, USA’”, and it certainly did not “help(ed) pave the way to the U.S. tour by Jorge Palacios on the ’RCP, USA’ platform.” Only an idiot could think of such a thing. And Joseph Green and whosoever supports him are such idiots.
13. “Furthermore, the selling of the rights to this book was carried out without consultation with us.” It is truly amazing what this book has done! Here you are shameless to the extreme. You very well know as the Party informed the representatives of COUSML that the “selling” of the English-language translation of Palacios’ book “was carried out” even “without consultation” with the leading organs of the Party and as soon as the NEC found it to be the case, this entire transaction was criticized and denounced. Thus, because the Party did not know about it, there was no question whatsoever of our Party having consultation with COUSML. The COUSML full well knows and all sincere and honest Marxist-Leninists who comprise COUSML well know that our Party is always eager to have consultation and mutual support and firmly stands for revolutionary co-operation and that only the agents of the blackest reaction could level such a heinous slander against our Party.
14. Now, the tempo of this lying crusade gains momentum. “Indeed, it was carried out without even notifying us.” You have a great deal of difficulty even remembering what has been told to you because your charges have ulterior motivation and for this reason you are carrying on this provocation against the Party. The question of “notifying” you could only have arisen if any of the central organs of the Party had participated in this transaction with Banner Press. Your raving is based on quick-sand, and not on fact.
15. Thus, you sink lower and lower. “It in fact amounted to a violation of the most elementary norms of fraternal relations between parties.” What unbridled arrogance and utter shamelessness! To concoct lies and keep on repeating them are the norms which you are trying to impose on us. We reject such norms a hundred and a million times and in the future we would reject such norms even more times. Jospeh Green who is writing this provocation against our Party is such a shameless liar and a two-faced character that it is you who not follow even “the most elementary norms of fraternal relations between parties,” that, if they had sincerely felt that CPC(M-L) had gone to bed with “RCP, USA”, you or another representative of COUSML could have come to Canada, which is not too far from the United States of America, and verified the facts before venting your spleen against our Party. But you did not do so. Nor did you inquire verbally at the time of the visit of your last delegation, or by telephone, or through correspondence. And your diatribe written ”for the” National Executive Committee of COUSML which is based on straightforward lies does not mention even once throughout the entire letter as to what should be done about this matter, as to what you practically propose. This is the reactionary style and gangster logic of the Chinese revisionists who sought to peddle various so-called technical reasons as their “excuse” to justify their savage attack on socialist Albania when they tore up the agreements on trade and loans in July, 1978, and you are following in their footsteps by inventing such reasons as the so-called “selling” of the translation of Palacios’ book as the “reason” to prove that CPC(M-L) is in league with “American opportunism ”. So much for your “norms” as well as your demagogic nonsense of “the building and strengthening of our cooperation require that the problems that emerge be dealt with straightforwardly, calmly and openly, they must be looked squarely in the face.” Is this invented slander and the provocation you have created the model example of looking at “the problems that emerge” “squarely in the face”? No, it is not the example because you are neither Marxist-Leninist nor proletarian internationalist and are afraid of mutual consultation on the Marxist-Leninist basis. As we will show later, it is an attempt to provide “facts” for the anti-Leninist posturing of Joseph Green.
16. Finally, the bone you are chewing has been spit out. Because our Party has, in fact, “straightforwardly, calmly and openly” expressed certain opinions conerning the content of the political and ideological line of COUSML and their tactics, this Joseph Green has replied to our criticism with the villainous accusation that our Party “shows an extreme underestimation of the struggle against opportunism in the U.S.” When you could not refute our principled criticisms on the basis of upholding the Marxist-Leninist political and ideological line “straightforwardly, calmly and openly”, you have degenerated to agent-provocateur activity as was shown late this summer when one of your representatives in a discussion with the representatives of our Party could only whimper in response that “we do not let him speak”. This feeble whimpering was his maneouvre to create a calculated diversion away from the argument of our Party on the question. Now, we have received the “reply” for these erroneous views which are being enshrined as the “remarkable picture of the views, activities and tactics of COUSML”.
17. Your two-faced nature and double-dealing method against our Party is further revealed when you next write:“Therefore, in the interests of strengthening the relations between our two Parties and of strengthening the struggle against Chinese revisionism we are writing you this protest against the selling of the rights to the book by Palacios to the ’RCP, USA’ ”. Now, Joseph Green who is writing “for the” National Executive Committee has become “we are writing you...” Which will it be? Thus, their proposal is that our Party should actually “strengthen the relations” with the authors of this provocation by accepting this “When did you last beat your wife?” imperialist technique. Far from submitting to it, we denounce it with passion and without any reservation and we urgently call upon the National Committee of the COUSML to put an end to this provocation against our Party, at once. This individual(s) has reduced the fraternal relations between our two Parties to the “struggle against Chinese revisonism”. Then, this hoax of “selling the rights” is used to brow-beat us and, proceeding from this criminal slander, even more are added in this letter for the purposes of completely falsifying our Marxist-Leninist viewpoints and stands. But this house of cards you are building on the basis of this false and criminal slander only serves to better expose you as anti-Marxist, deviationist and opportunist. Underneath your pomposity about “strengthening relations” you have exposed that you do not even recognize “American opportunism”. You only recognize “neo-revisionism” as the “American expression” of Chinese revisionism in the United States which is distortion of the entire historical revisionist and opportunist trend and the facts on your part. Not only that you do not recognize “American opportunism” but your perfidy is such that you have gone to the extent of accusing CPC(M-L) of “damaging” your “struggle”, and so on and so forth.
18. Having reduced the relations of our two Parties to this level, you carry on with your demagogy. “We stand for strengthening the relations between our two Parties.” Do you really? What does this mean in concrete terms? Is this putrid and foul letter of December 1, 1979, a model example of your windbaggery of your “stand for strengthening the relations between our two Parties”? With such a stand of “strengthening”, you do not need any wreckers, splitters or disrupters at all. These “strengtheners” will amply do the job for you.
19. Then yet another shameless and demagogic example of “American exceptionalism” with which you want to bedazzle us. “We believe that the cooperation of our Parties in the struggle against imperialism and revisionism has great significance for North America”. You can believe whatever you like because you are hell-bent on provocation, but the genuine and revolutionary cooperation between CPC (M-L) and the COUSML has inestimable significance everywhere for the struggle for revolution and socialism because, even according to you, the “proletariat is an international class...” Thus, our genuine and revolutionary cooperation has “great significance” to, just to repeat to you your words, the “one international party of communism, of the International Marxist-Leninist Communist Movement.” But such is your peculiar analysis and exceptionalism that you want to carve out the proletariat of the United States and the proletariat of Canada and the proletariat of Mexico from the international proletariat and isolate and detach it from the struggle of the international proletariat against imperialism, social-imperialism and all reaction and against revisionism and opportunism of all hues. Our Party has always cherished and defended our mutual cooperation because we are fighters in the same struggle against a common enemy and we will do everything possible within our power to further develop this coperation and all those who wish to smash this cooperation under the pretext of creating a private “Marxist-Leninist’movement of North America will come to no good end. We will always be united with all the genuine Marxist-Leninist parties of all lands on the basis of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism, and no other basis.
20. But you just shamelessly carry on and on. “But the building and strengthening of cooperation require that the problems and difficulties that emerge be dealt with straightforwardly, calmly and openly, they must be looked at square in the eye.” We are always straightforward. It is you who are double-faced and shifty-eyed to boot. An opportunist and a coward never looks a Marxist-Leninist Party such as ours “square in the eye”. We would never be calm in the face of a dastardly provocation like yours but we will always be open and resolute in opposing this provocation. We do look at the problems squarely in the eye and what we see clearly is this ugly provocation which the National Committee of COUSML must put an end to at once.
21. But when you look at the provocation you are generating “in the eye”, what do you find? “And the difficulties that have come up in this question of selling of the rights to the Palacios book involve a major tactical blunder as well as a violation of principles.” It does not matter how many times you repeat this slanderous mumbo-jumbo over and over and over, we will oppose it and absolutely repudiate it the same number of times and many more again, if necessary. There was no “selling of the rights” by the Party and, therefore, no “major tactical blunder” nor any “violation of principles”, either. Rather, it is you who have committed the “major tactical blunder” because you have stripped yourself bare so well and you should dip your face in a pan full of water for creating such a dirty and filthy slander against us.
22. Joseph Green throws up some more demagogic refuse as a cover for his provocation.“We hold that true friends are not those who sit still or even applaud while errors are made, but those who have the deep love to tell the truth even when it is unpleasant.” When you have concocted such lies against our Party, then we resolutely hold that you are not “true friends” but false friends, provocateurs, and that you have as much “deep love” for our Party as the hangman for his victim. We tell you not to sing these hosannahs to us because your real deeds and practice as agent-provocateurs have been thoroughly exposed. Now, it is the duty and communist responsibility of the National Committee of the COUSML to thoroughly and severely deal with those responsible for this provocation against our Party and the fraternal relations between our two Parties. For this reason, we are also proposing an urgent meeting between the delegations of the CC of CPC(M-L) and the NC of COUSML at the earliest possible time. Because of the extremely serious and grave nature of these charges, this provocation must be ended before the Marxist-Leninist Party, USA is founded.
23. We will now repudiate some so-called “details” which this Joseph Green is raising. Thus far, we have resolutely repudiated your entire thesis and shown that it is based on straightforward lies and slander. We will further show that not only is the entire theses against CPC(M-L) based on a lie, but that other lies are piled up one on top of the other. The entire flimsy effort of this Joseph Green is to wriggle through an opening like the worm he is for the sole purposes of damning is, his “dear fraternal comrades” for whom he has the “deepest communist regards”. Now, this Jospeh Green, having gotten to the bottom of his first page of the December 1, 1979, letter, is putting on airs in a lofty manner and with his neck puffed up like a seasoned lizard, he asserts, “Now let us go into some details on the questions we are raising”, as if he has “some details” and as if he is“raising” “the questions”. This entire letter is orchestrated in this manner and constitutes a planned and calculated provocation in the nefarious style of the Chinese revisionists who presented themselves as “fraternal comrades” in words and with words of “love” and solidarity on their lips only to carry out the most vile and reactionary activities which cannot even be expected from our worst enemies.
Let us proceed and look at “some details on the questions’ which this Joseph Green has so highhandedly promised to raise ”for the“ National Executive Committee of the Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninists.
24. Joseph Green has divided his December 1st letter into four parts following upon his introductory remarks. These remarks contained 23 sentences and we have repudiated them all, one-by-one. In Part One of his letter, Joseph Green does not, however, provide any further “details” but insistently re-asserts the same gems dashed out in the introduction such as the “selling of the rights to the book by Palacios to the ’RCP, USA’ helped smooth the way to the Palacios tour of the U.S.” Look at the smelly, slithering and slimy language of this charlatan – “helped smooth the way”. This is to say that our Party deliberately decided to “help smooth the way”! This is the vilest slander yet to be dished out by this individual Joseph Green who has taken it upon himself to be the author of these provocations against our Party, as well as writing “for the...” that is, his collaborator or collaborators in this criminal deed against the genuine Marxist-Leninist forces organized in our Party and in COUSML. We ask: Why did it “help(ed) smooth the way”? Because, as he answers, “the fact that the rights to the Palacios book were in the hands of CPC(M-L) was an obstacle to the Palacios tour.” This is an archetypical lie in the imperialist and Nixonian style. In order to prove his criminal thesis that it was the CPC(M-L) which “help(ed) smooth the way” to the colloboration between Palacios and the “RCP, USA” and his tour of the USA, Joseph Green had to concoct“the fact that the rights to the Palacios book were in the hands of CPC(M-L)“. But facts are facts and the fact of the matter remains the same that the author of this book, Jorge Palacios, never gave up these ”rights“ to CPC(M-L). Not only this fact, but there are some more facts. The representative of the of the RCP of Chile who attened the historic Internationalist Rally of Marxist-Leninist Parties held in Montreal on April 30, 1978, at that time also asked COUSML to investigate the possibility of publishing this book in the USA. Furthermore, the representative of the International Commission of the RCP of Chile to the Sixth Consultative Conference of CPC(M-L) held between March 24-30 of this year, Pedro, informed our Party that the Chileans were looking for a publisher in the USA. Thus, CPC(M-L) had neither the “rights to the book by Palacios” nor was this “an obstacle to the Palacios tour”. Both Palacios and Pedro from the International Commission of the CC of the RCP of Chile had fully decided on their perfidious and trecherous path against the International Marxist-Leninist Communist Movement for some time already. Our Party had fully briefed COUSML on these questions, the last briefing of which was given during the first week of November when the COUSML representative was shown the latest and most slanderous letter written to our Party by this same International Commission in response to the decision of our CC of September 15, 1979. But this Joseph Green is not so green a fellow: he is well aware of all the facts but he will not analyse them, because the analysis of these facts will shut him up forever, which he does not want to do. Thus, he created this provocation and has issued these wild and groundless charges against CPC(M-L) in order to cover up his own conciliation with this entire centrist trend which unfolded right under his nose across the USA this fall. His two-faced nature and base and criminal character is still further shown in the final paragraph on his Part One wherein, like the slimy worm he is, he raises this innuendo to slur the integrity of CPC(M-L). “And, furthermore, the CPC(M-L) puts itself in the apparent position of having worked with the ’RCP, USA’, even though only on this transaction, even though for the present apparently neither the ’RCP, USA’ nor you yourself wish to publicize this particular transaction.” Then, we ask: why did you not do it, you smart-assed, two-faced character? You are charging us with all manner of vile things – “By selling the rights, this thorn was removed”, “a thorn in the sides of this alliance” because of “CPC (M-L)’s holding of the rights to the book”, etc? Then, why couldn’t you make it public? You couldn’t make it public because you know quite well that our Party would have given you the fitting and proper reply. The fact that you even raise this innuendo and slur shows that you will go to any lengths to slander our Party and create provocations against it. Marxist-Leninists never make innuendos, only revisionists and opportunists. Our Party has a long-standing and proud history of opposing the revisionists and opportunists to the end and it is well-known that CPC(M-L) would never for a moment cooperate with them, not “even though only on this transaction”. Rest assured that we will never let you forget this, not even for one minute.
Now we ask just who “help(ed) smooth the way” to the Palacios tour of the U.S.? It is you, no one else. It is you who are the guilty party and in order to whitewash your guilt, you are jumping up and down like the thief crying “stop thief!” And let us give you some more facts. After attending the Sixth Consultative Conference, Pedro travelled to the USA. To our surprise, he never contacted COUSML when he was there. We raised this question with you, but you did not take any action. You were extremely understanding about the question. Such magnaminity! Then our Party proposed to you to denounce Palacios while he was on his tour of the USA from the platform of the “RCP, USA” and make life difficult for him and this entire international opportunist alliance of revisionists and opportunists posing as “genuine Marxist-Leninists”. But no, you were satisfied with writing your concealed attack through your press which was more directed against CPC(M-L) than them, as your letter of December 1, 1979, has now fully exposed. Furthermore, you informed our Party that you will also be writing a private letter to the Chileans. It is very convenient for the Chileans and the common enemies of CPC(M-L) and COUSML for you to be sitting mum with your arms folded while they carry out their vicious activities unopposed against the genuine Marxist-Leninist and revolutionary forces, against the revolution and socialism. And now that they have carried out his entire jaunt through the USA, just who is it now that you are venting your spleen against? Against CPC(M-L) and while you and the Chileans think to wriggle away scot-free. But it is not us but you who are nailed with all the lies and slanders you have dished out against CPC (M-L) and you will never wriggle off this hook.
As far as your innuendo – “even though only on this transaction” – which you insinuate as the basis to justify your slur that CPC(M-L) has “worked with the’RCP, USA’”, you have totally exposed yourselves as being utterly devoid of principle and thoroughly treacherous. It has been the long-standing practice of the National Publications Centre that it would sell books, periodicals, etc. to anyone who so desires in the USA, or anywhere else for that matter. This practice is long-standing and well-known to you. Then, how is it that you are tearing your hair off at “this transaction” which was carried out by the staff at the Peoples Canada Publishing House, the transaction of selling the English-language translation of the Palacios book for a song to a publishing firm in Chicago? Many opportunist bookstores, as well as individuals, order books and periodicals from NPC. You have never once objected to this before. Then, why now and in this manner? It is because you are carrying out this dastardly provocation against our Party and are actually shielding Palacios and Pedro and the Chileans, exonerating them of responsibility, transferring the blame onto our shoulders. You are not only actively aiding and abetting them to carry on with their intriguing and conspiring against the International Marxist-Leninist Communist Movement but you have also concocted some pragmatic and opportunist theories to justify your colloborative activity, which we will deal with later on.
Thus, all the airy promise of providing “some details on the questions” has not been fulfilled in Part One except the regurgitation of the same base lie from your introduction, and then drawing your so-called conclusions from that which we totally reject and denounce with the contempt they deserve. Let us now see if “some details on the questions” are given in Part Two.
25. You raise the curtain on Part Two with the repitition of the same lie followed up by the accusation that this “transaction” was “carried out without consultations with us and indeed without even notifying us.” Then, how did you find out about this “transaction”? “Finally, it came up in the discussions in early November between our two Parties because our delegate asked you a direct question about how the ’RCP, USA’ got the rights to the book.” Joseph Green is now really catching the colour of his bile by uttering such a big lie. Did you ask “your delegate” to ask “a direct question”? No, you did not do such a thing. Your delegate did not know anything about these questions.
Let us first elaborate how your delegates behave. They have never been straight with us, because they are not “authorized” to exchange views “informally”. Thus, they arrive here in Canada with a grocery list which usually concerns some matters of detail to shop around with in the Marxist-Leninist store. Then, whatever we take the initiative to raise in terms of general, political and ideological and other questions of mutual concern to the genuine Marxist-Leninist forces, they have their standard refrain: “We will take these ideas back”. There are also occasions when we have invited COUSML to send a formal delegation to have definite discussions on particular questions. One such example is on the question of building the Marxist-Leninist Party, USA, which you have reduced in this letter to a mere question of liking or disliking that slogan. And during this encounter on the question of building the new Marxist-Leninist Party and on the question of your support for the anti-Marxist-Leninist thesis of “two-line struggle”, your delegate either on the one hand whimpered that he was not being permitted to speak or hinted on the other hand in an extremely oblique and obsequious manner that if our Party follows this line, then we may end up conciliating with opportunism. Our delegate encouraged him to pluck up his courage and speak to us in a straight forward manner and say just what was on his mind. Between Marxist-Leninists nothing is reserved, particularly between our two organizations which know each other so well and have such a long-standing history of common struggle against our common enemies, which have fought together and even have shed blood together. Even more so should this be the case when your fraternal comrades, in your considered estimation, are faced with the possibility of deviating from the Marxist-Leninist road and conciliating with opportunism. Then, it is your communist duty and internationalist responsibility to speak out and warn the comrades to be vigilant and avert the rocks ahead. But a two-faced character can never do such a thing because his positions are shaky and he fears exposure from the Marxist-Leninist angle of his true views, which are devoid of any content. Thus, he is neither sincere and straight with our Party, nor does he fire at the enemy. As we will conclusively show later on, this entire account contained in this letter of one-plus-one is equal to ... idealogue, who needed some “proof” to show that CPC(M-L) was conciliating with the opportunists in the USA. He did not have the guts to spout such a slander against our Party to our faces and “look at us square in the eye”, because he had a guilty conscience and knew that there was nothing of principle in this comment he dropped out of the side of his mouth – that if our Party follows this line, then we may end up conciliating with opportunism. This drool could only insinuate and cast asperions and now you are doing the dirty work for him – or are we to believe that Joseph Green and this individual delegate are one and the same? It is of no consequence, because the truth will soon come out.
But, returning to your delegate allegedly asking us “a direct question”, your delegate did not ask “a direct question”. You are lying through your teeth. This shows how base and shameless you are towards those whom you address as your “dear fraternal comrades” and to whom you send “deepest communist regards”. The fact of the matter was that our representative was hopping mad with the PCPH for selling the translation of this book and your delegate was a witness to this. He actually saw with his own eyes our comrade repeatedly raising this question and criticizing those individuals responsible. Thus, your flimsy effort to buttress your criminal slander and your demagogic nonsense about your following the “norms” through this fresh lie of “our delegate asked you a direct question about how the ’RCP, USA’ got the rights to the book” is futile.
Our Party has always carried out its activities with full consultation with COUSML which we have developed on the basis of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism. We have, indeed, extremely warm and deep-going fraternal ties between our two Parties and between the proletariat of Canada and the United States. But you can never appreciate such an unshakeable friendship and comradeship because you have taken up the sinister mission of imperialism and social-imperialism to wreck, split and disrupt these ties between our two Parties and peoples. You have been actively creating provocations against us since August of 1977, and you have been harbouring those under your wing who have even confessed outright that they were social and national chauvinists: only when it suited you did you force this individual to leave. You have never looked at the previous provocations which occurred in 1977 seriously and from the point of view of punishing the guilty party, It is we, our Party, which has dealt with these matters “straightforwardly, calmly and openly” and “looked at (them) square in the eye”, in spite of your calculated and planned provocations and diversions, first, through letters, later through your delegation in 1978, and so on. We have tried to educate you and ensure that your provocations do not damage the extremely warm and prfound relations between CPC(M-L) and COUSML. But your latest letter shows that you have proven yourself to be incorrigible and unrepentent with the sinister aim of once and for all wrecking our fraternal relations. But you will miserably fail in this reactionary endeavour as you failed before, only this time your defeat will be final.
Furthermore, your self-riotous hue and cry with regard to “without consultations with us and indeed without even notifying us” prompts us to make an additional comment on the manner of “consultations” of this Joseph Green. We raised the issue with the COUSML delegates that the Placios tour on the platform of the ’RCP, USA’ should be publicly denounced. We elaborated to the comrades our reasons which we shall dwell on in due course. And what did Joseph Green do “for the” National Executive Committee of the Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninists? He sent us a verbal reply that they would not do such a thing. Some spurious reasons were given and it is interesting, indeed, that these reasons were not the ones which have been included in this letter of December 1, 1979. Still, we repeated that they were making a serious mistake to which, of course, your delegate did not reply, because he has to return to Joseph Green or whichever individual or individuals “authorizes”. There was no discussion on this disagreement on this question of the Palacios tour, even though there was ample opportunity. All along, this has been the case with every divergence we have had with these elements who deal with our Party “for the” National Executive Committee of the Central Organization of the U.S. Marxist-Leninists. In other words, no “consultations” in fact, except on some questions of trivia and technique, but only your declarations and that is that. This is the manner and style of social and national chauvinists swollen with arrogance. This letter full of lies and slanders against our Party is precisely such an example of their “consultation”. First and foremost, there is no discussion whatsoever concerning the matter at hand or simple verification of the pertinent facts. For instance, it is extremely important for any serious fraternal comrade or any sincere and honest Marxist-Leninist for that matter to ascertain for himself the declared and official policy of the Party. What is the declared policy of our Party? No united front with the revisionists and opportunists and resolute opposition to united front with the revisionists and opportunists. Then, they must verify the facts. Is the act of selling the English-language translation of the Palacios book to a publishing house in Chicago a change in policy? No, it is not a change in policy. But this Joseph Green is so deeply interested in “consultations” that he is not at all interested to scientifically verify such facts. Instead, he has already and in a premeditated manner concocted his lies and slanders against the Party which he has dressed up as “some details on the questions”. He has neither verified the objective facts nor carried out any consultation or discussion before arriving at such reactionary conclusions.
What is the ulterior motive behind the provocative actions of Joseph Green? The real motive lurking underneath this perfidious activity is to push his anti-Leninist tactics on the question of building and strengthening the unity amongst the genuine Marxist-Leninist forces in one country and between genuine Marxist-Leninist parties and groups and shield “American opportunism”. Joseph Green only finds the “expression of Chinese revisionism in the U.S.” and considers this is the most important and indispensable struggle while he does not recognize American opportunism. This is his motive. For our part, CPC(M-L) has repeatedly opposed this erroneous and dangerous view, but he considers our opposition to this view as “extreme underestimation of the struggle against opportunism in the U.S.” Our Party has definite Marxist-Leninist tactics to deal with the profound questions relating to unity which we have successfully implemented. But Jospeh Green to-date has not repudiated them, neither verbally nor in writing. We ask: if he is so hot and bothered with regard to the “extreme underestimation of the struggle against opportunism in the U.S.”, then is it not his business and responsibility to carry “consultations” with his “dear fraternal comrades” and try to win them from their “erroneous” positions and “major tactical blunders”? But this Joseph Green cannot accomplish this. Thus, he has resorted to fabrications of lies and slanders against the Party to camouflage the matter. So much for the hue and cry of “without consultations with us and indeed without even notifying us”, and soon and so forth.
Joseph Green further expands his horizon in his Part Two. He goes so far as to claim that the selling of the English-language translation to the publishing firm in the USA “was objectively a political contact, not just a run-of-the-mill business dealing”. Then this individual starts pulling his hair all over again and writes: “We would have firmly beleived that you would not undertake such an act without our approval, since it affected us first and foremost”. Telling lies and issuing vile slanders does not seem to affect Joseph Green, but this imaginary “political contact” and this hocus-pocus that this fantasy of his mind was carried out without “consultation” with his mind is “truly astonishing” to this slithery character. Besides pulling out his hair, Joseph Green goes on lashing his body and flagellating himself in true masochistic fashion: “Our two Parties may not always agree on certain tactical issues, but that does not give you the right to unilaterally undertake actions such as the selling of the rights to the Palacios’ book that affect us first and foremost and undermine our stands and struggle”. This is not a Marxist-Leninist, fraternal comrade seriously and sincerely trying to correct his wayward, fraternal comrades, but a dyed-in-the-wool trotskyite, who is speaking with a forked tongue, and whenever he thinks he has gotten a little opening, he wriggles into it. Our Party will never seek “approval” from any fraternal Party for any of our actions, either before taking actions or after taking actions. Our unity with all the genuine Marxist-Leninist parties, organizations and groups, COUSML included, is based on Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism.
Thus, we will never seek “approval” from His Highness Joseph Green or from anyone else, for that matter. While our Party works out its Marxist-leninist political and ideological positions on the independent basis, we also give ourselves the right to criticize any Marxist-Leninist party, or anyone else for that matter, on the basis of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism and in the interests of the cause of the revolution and socialism. We also give the same rights to all the genuine Marxist-Leninist parties. That is, they not only [“only” was inserted in handwriting – ed.] have the right, but they must work out their line independently on the basis of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism and also carry criticism-self-criticism on this Marxist-Leninist basis. Our Party is always eager to listen to any criticism of its work which is based on Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism. We adhere to this line because it is Marxist-Leninist and proletarian internationalist and serves the interests of the revolution and socialism on the world scale and a great weapon against revisionism and opportunism of all hues which tramples these principles underfoot in the service of their imperialist and social-imperialist masters. But this Joseph Green, having presented his pet peeve based on a straight forward lie, then tries to hide himself under the shade of “elementary norms of fraternal relations”. A worm needs cover and cannot be in the open for too long. This is the case with Joseph Green. Joseph Green, as we have pointed out, is not the slightest at all interested to settle any differences on tactical or any other matters. He is exploiting the imperialist logic of “have you stopped beating your wife”. Thus, his dastardly and perfidious activities deserve resolute and firm condemnation.
Our Party has no political or ideological contacts with any revisionist, opportunist, imperialist or reactionary organization in the USA or anywhere else in the world. What has damaged the interests of COUSML and the proletariat in the United States is the anti-Leninist stand of Joseph Green on the question of building the unity of the Marxist-Leninists and his anti-Leninist analysis of American opportunism, as well as his clinging to the Maoist theory of “two-line struggle”. The stand of Joseph Green on Party-building is also anti-Leninist and will do grave damage to the founding and the building of the Marxist-Leninist Party, USA, if this line is permitted to flourish unopposed. The stand of Joseph Green in terms of “elementary norms of fraternal relations” is anti-Leninist and it will do further damage to the profound and warm relations which exist between CPC(M-L) and COUSML. To our estimation, this Joseph Green is an agent-provocateur, and his recent letter of December 1, 1979, is an excellent self-exposure and example of his real nature, but he has carried out similar provocations in the past, as well. The anti-Leninist theory of the “weakest link” which, according to Jospeh Green, is a devastating example of his own brilliant tactics is nothing more than a refurbished version of American pragmatism, the philosophy of U.S. imperialism, and other imperialists and social-imperialists. For Joseph Green, neither Marxist-Leninist thoery and the principles of proletarian internationalism nor the resolute and implacable struggle of the genuine Marxist-Leninist parties which they are waging in their courageous defence of socialist Albania, the cause of revolution and socialism and against imperialism, social-imperialism and all reaction and against revisionism and opportunism of all hues has any importance whatsoever. What matters to him is American exceptionalism as we have exposed before and he is making use of pragmatism, the putrid and vile philosophy of imperialism and social-imperialism of basing himself on changing circumstances, interests of the moment and passing events. For instance, Joseph Green full well knows, unless he is a dithering idiot which he is, [“which he is,” was inserted in handwriting ” ed.] with extremely fuzzy memory or is consciously trying to forget, that the Communist Party of Canada (marxist-Leninist) does not advocate unity or any kind of cooperation with imperialism, social-imperialism and all reaction and with revisionism and opportunism of any hue. Indeed, it fights these reactionary and obsolescent forces with all its might. For Jospeh Green, this Marxist-Leninist line of our Party is of no consequence whatsoever. Thus, he is extremely gleeful and boisterous when he picks up from his emissary that CPC(M-L) is extremely upset and indignant that the PCPH has sold the translation of a book to a publishing house in the USA. This pragmatic worm wriggles and writhes and raises his spineless body to emit his puny little scream: “NAIL the CPC(M-L)!” “I have got the ’facts’ now in my hot little hands!” “This simply cannot be excused as ’just a run-of-the-mill business dealing!” And so on and so forth! And, viola, he accuses the CPC(M-L) for the “united front with ’three-worlders’”, which has ruined and “undermined our stands and struggle”. Thus, the Marxist-Leninist line of CPC(M-L) does not matter, and an event is used to run the wild accusations against CPC(M-L) is in bed with the opportunists and, actually, and even more deviously, produce a proof-positive for the slander that this individual delegate of COUSML so feebly tried to float during the summer meeting (that if CPC(M-L) follows this line, then it could end up conciliating with opportunism), but who could not screw up his courage to do so openly. Now, Joseph Green has gotten the “facts”. This is American pragmatism in its most ugly, planned and calculated form. It is no wonder then that Joseph Green, who doesn’t hesitate for a moment to use American pragmatism against our Marxist-Leninist principles and norms, is such a wild defender of American opportunism and the opportunist theory of American exceptionalism.
This sliminess and pragmatism of Joseph Green is still further shown when he actually acknowledges openly that “it (i.e., this transaction) concerns a dealing with a group you hate”. All the while, this charlatan has been accusing our Party of having a “united front with the ’three-wordlers’”, that is, “with a group you hate”. Of course, for Joseph Green, love and hate are merely pragmatic and class love and class hatred simply do not exist. Thus, you can hate an opportunist group yet form a united front with it while you can present love for a Marxist-Leninist Party and create lies and slanders against it. According to the pragmatic and gangster logic of Joseph Green, even though we hate this counter-revolutionary group, our Party formed a “united front” with it, “even though only on this transaction” while, on the other hand, his “dear fraternal comrades” for whom he has the “deepest communist regards” and for whom he reads a lecture that true friends are not those who sit still... “but who have the deep love required to tell the truth even if it is unpleasant” and thus can be simply blackened and maligned by him in the basest form. Everything goes for this two-faced and double-dealing element. There are no principles and there are no inviolable rights and the truth is whatever best works to serve his own cold self-interest.
In the final paragraph on page three of his Part Two, Joseph Green again uses demagogy in the most shameless fashion in order to serve his pragmatic ends. He writes: ”This question of consultation and cooperation is, in our view, one of the most important questions of principles involved in the issue of the selling of the rights to Palacios’ book to the RCP, USA’”. Why is this “one of the most important questions of principle”? It is because this worm has found out through this so-called “consultation” a “fact” through which he can wriggle with to nail the CPC(M-L). There is no other reason whatsoever. This worm pays lip-service to the norms and forms in words because for him these bi-lateral discussions are “one of the most important” instruments for his own sinister ends, to pick up information like a garbage collector which he can then hurl back against the genuine Marxist-Leninist and revolutionary forces. The CPC(M-L) has always and consistently fought for “consultation and cooperation” on the Marxist-Leninist basis and in the revolutionary way which this worm thinks to merely reduce to the question of his emissary arriving with his grocery list, sitting mum and then, despite all the efforts by our comrades to involve him in “consultation”, to simply reply time and time again: “We will take these ideas back”. It is reminiscent of Charlie’s Angels who descend on the scene all a flutter with their mission and then go back to report to their voice-box Charlie. This is neither an example of “consultation” nor “cooperation”. The sheer fact that Joseph Green is even raising it in his December 1, 1979, letter of slander as “one of the most important questions of principle” further shows that the man is pragmatic who has the aim of neither “strengthening” the fraternal relations between COUSML and CPC(M-L) nor defending the “elementary norms of fraternal relations” but of wrecking the relations between COUSML and CPC(M-L) and doing serious damage to the genuine Marxist-Leninist and revolutionary forces in the United States, Canada, and elsewhere. Our Party, as we have mentioned to you, has always fought for genuine consultations and rigorously strove to uphold the Leninist norms governing relations between the Marxist-Leninistparties, but when this worm comes to know that he has unearthed some “fact” which he can use to nail CPC (M-L), then he uses these phrases for demagogic reasons. We resolutely oppose and denounce this nefarious activity of Joseph Green and whosoever he is the spokesman of.
The last sentence on page three of Part Two further expresses his use of demagogy is the most shameless and brazen manner, but again he fails miserably. “This cooperation can be of tremendous force on which the opportunists will break their teeth in vain”. Thus, this puny little American worm who writes in the future tense has already forgotten and written off the history of profound friendship and unity between COUSML and CPC(M-L). He is dreaming about the time when this lost paradise will come back to earth and this little worm will enjoy such a wonderful moment of gazing on the opportunists“breaking their teeth in vain”. What charlatanism! It is truly astonishing, isn’t it, and we have to tell you “even when it is unpleasant”. First, this Joseph Green uses his “fact” to villify the Party for allegedly forming a “united front with the ’three-worlders’ ” “even though only on this transaction”. Then, the plot is thickened and the transaction becomes “objectively a political contact”. Now, he conjures up “one of the most important questions of principle” and, voila, there is no “consultation and cooperation” between COUSML and CPC(M-L). It will be so nice if it does exist, mind you, but the “fact” are “facts”. The true fact is that there is deep and profound, all-sided cooperation and consultation which has been built, developed and defended between the COUSML and CPC(M-L) for over a decade which this Joseph Green has been trying to pull down and destroy for over the past two years. The strength of this relationship is such that your over two years of repeated efforts have not yet destroyed these relations because they are built on the granite foundations of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism. Now, today, you have become desperate and are driving your head against granite because the peculiar theses which you have been attempting to float around and about have been proven politically and ideologically bankrupt. To stave off his own political extinction, meeting with failure at every pass, this worm has concocted all these lies and slanders to have his “proof” that the criticism and repudiation by CPC(M-L) of his tactics on the questions of building the unity of the genuine Marxist-Leninist forces in the USA, on the questions relating to the defence of the purity of the principles of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism and on the questions relating to the founding and building of the Marxist-Leninist Party, USA, is tantamount to “extreme underestimation of the struggle against opporturnism” and so on and so forth. This demagogy and maneouvre is to NAIL CPC (M-L)! – your “dear fraternal comrades” for whom you have the “deepest communist regards”. What utter shamelessness! “Truly astonishing”, isn’t it!
26. In his Part Three, Joseph Green is now providing us with “some details” as to just how “the act of selling the rights to the book by Palacios ... shows an extreme underestimation on the part of the NEC of the CPC(M-L) for the struggle that the COUSML is waging against the American opportunists.” Very interesting, indeed! And, soon we will discover overnight that it is not the “NEC of CPC(M-L)” but an individual who is the culprit. But we will wait for that great occasion. Let us just deal with the question of the “NEC of the CPC(M-L)” showing an “extreme underestimation ... for the struggle that the COUSML is waging against the American opportunists.” The National Executive Committee is not the organ of the Party which establishes policy for the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist). This much Joseph Green, who is not so green in these matters, should know. We are a genuine Marxist-Leninist Party. The policy of CPC(M-L) is established by the National Congresses of the Party. We have held three regular and one special congresses during this period of over nine years since the founding of CPC(M-L) in March, 1970. The Congress elects the Central Committee which then leads in executing this policy. When the Congress of the CPC(M-L) is not in session, it is the Central Committee which is the highest organ and which implements the decisions of the Congress. The NEC which is elected from the Central Committee is merely the executive organ which implements the decisions of the Central Committee arising out of the policy established by the Congress. Thus, the peeve of this Joseph Green is not against the NEC of the CPC(M-L), but is actually against the CC of the CPC(M-L) and against the decisions of the plenums of the CC of CPC(M-L) and against the policy established by the national Congresses of CPC(M-L). To date, this Joseph Green has never once shown any disagreement with the decisions of the Congresses or the plenums of the Central Committee. Now, this December 1st letter raises this wild accusation against the “NEC of the CPC(M-L)”. And just what precipitated this hue and cry is “the act of selling the rights to the book by Palacios”, a straightforward lie in its own right, because we repeat to you again that the NEC of the CPC(M-L) never agreed to sell the English-language translation of the book by Palacios to any publishing firm in the USA, nor for that matter were ”the rights to the book“ ever sold by our Party or the PCPH as they were only “the rights” which alone Palacios could sell. The transaction of selling the English-language translation, and that and that alone, was carried out by the staff at the PCPH who had no clue whatsoever about the associations of this publishing house in the USA to which they sold the transaltion. The Marxist-Leninist line of the Party against unity with the revisionists and opportunists of all hues is so solid that if the staff at PCPH had known that this publishing house was in association with the American opportunists, or that the publication of this edition of Palacios book in the USA was in preparation for his tour from the counter-revolutionary platform of the “RCP, USA”, they would not have carried out this business transaction nor even for a moment considered such a thing. Still, when the NEC of CPC (M-L) came to know about this particular transaction, it condemned it. This much has been told to your emissary. Thus, what precipitates your so-called conclusion quoted above is a baseless lie, which also serves to disprove that the “NEC of the CPC (M-L) ... shows an extreme underestimation on the the struggle that the COUSML is waging against the American opportunists”. The views which we have presented to you through the “informal” channels are indeed the views of the Third and the Special Congresses, as well as the views of the successive CCs elected by the respective Congresses. As we have already were forced to mention before, the sole way to present any views to you on the important questions of the contemporary class struggle over the past two years has been through the “informal” channels. We have always disagreed with your arrogance and high-handedness in your repeated efforts to try to dictate to us just what we can and cannot say when the representatives of our two Parties meet. We adhere to the Leninist norms but you have been adhering to the norms of the Khrushchovite and Chinese revisionists and others of their ilk. Our Party is based on democratic centralism, the Leninist organizational principle. Our members and candidate members, as well as the comrades elected to organs of the Party at various levels in order to execute various responsibilities have the right enshrined in our constitution to raise any questions whatsoever in their respective organs, organizations and committees, irrespective of whether or not these questions are on the agenda, or not. This is the same norm our representatives have consistently followed when we hold discussions with our fraternal comrades. We are opposed to the grocery list mentality and we are opposed to the antics of these dummies coming around our Party and communicating some message from this voice-box Charlie and then simply dashing off. We have communicated this to you many, many times. We have always carried this correct Leninist norm in our dealings with COUSML but you on the other hand have exposed yourself as a trickster and a two-faced, double-dealer. You cunningly wait for some slip, some opening, a crack, and then slip through to NAIL CPC(M-L) – your “dear fraternal comrades” for whom you have the “deepest communist regards”. You did this in August, 1977, when an obviously and transparently wrong message was communicated to COUSML. This is pointed out at once to the COUSML emissary who “could not and was not authorized to discuss anything.” Individuals like you, and, most probably it was you who spearheaded the subsequent reactionary campaign to insult our leadership and damage the relations between COUSML and the CPC(M-L), or others of the same criminal mentality, deliberately suspected our sincerity and integrity at that time and you have deliberately spread suspicion our sincerity and integrity at this time. We dealt with this provocation against us then “straightforwardly, calmly and openly” and told you them “square in the eye” that if you have any views you should present them to our Party. But we are opposed to any exchanges of incriminations and insults and we will never degenerate to the level of gutter politics. We are Marxist-Leninists. We returned your despicable letters then, But, this time, the cup is now filled to the brim. We have no more patience with the likes of you two-faced and double-dealing elements. This is the reason why we have organized a meeting of the Central Committee of CPC(M-L) regardless of the effort and expense and this letter has been fully and in detail discussed and deliberated in this session and is formally the letter of the CC of CPC(M-L) in reply to the letter of December 1, 1979, written by Joseph Green “for the” National Executive Committee of the Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninists. Our NEC is the NEC of the CC of our Party and is subordinate to the CC. It is not run by some Charlies but on the basis of very definite ideological, political and organizational positions which are openly disseminated far and wide with the entire Party educated on these positions and defending these positions. Your criminal insinuations and innuendos that it is the “NEC of the CPC(M-L)” is your deliberate attempt to separate the Marxist-Leninist political, ideological and organizational lines of the Party from the Marxist-Leninist line of the NEC of the CC of CPC(M-L). This is a typical splittist, Trotskyite tactic. You will not succeed in this nefarious endeavour either and it is you who will drown in shame for carrying out such dastardly and criminal activities against “dear fraternal comrades” for whom you have “deepest communist regards”.
27. After regurgitating the same lie and his now standard refrain of “the act of selling the rights” as the “reason” for his reactionary attack, Joseph Green then serves up and dishes out a whole parcel of “facts” from the past in order to nail down his “case”. What are these “facts” which Joseph Green has raked up to prove that the “NEC of the CPC(M-L) ... shows extreme underestimation of the struggle that the COUSML is waging against the American opportunists”? These so-called “facts” are the lowest and most base yet which only a representative of the blackest reaction could peddle against our Party. And Joseph Green has has accomplished this despicable task! Joseph Green dishes out his first base lie: “First of all, you began by the opposition to the struggle against the forces that might be called ’centrist’ ”. This is a complete fabrication and an bald lie and our Party resolutely denounces this lie and fabrication which this two-bit Joseph Green has invented against our Party. Later, Joseph Green attempts to weave some “detailed facts”. Thus, he blurts out like a mad dog beyond rescue: “You opposed the article on ’idealist anti-revisionism’ ”. Our Party denounces this vile lie and fabrication, as well. Then, this paragraph on page four in Part Three ends with the repitition of the lie that, “Under one pretext or another you opposed all the attacks on what might be called the ’centrist’ forces.” What are the facts? Our Party disagreed with the theses emanating from these Joseph Greens and provided comradely criticism and principled line on the question of the building of the unity of the genuine Marxist-Leninist forces in the USA. One of the elements of our comradely criticism was our opposition to the use of peculiar jargon which is not only concocted but also characteristic of typical intellectualism; within this context, the use of the phrase “idealist anti-revisionism” was opposed. Historical facts cannot be denied. But Joseph Green is an honest double-dealer. He does not want to raise these issues. Thus, exactly in the same manner that as before propaganda was carried out on the one hand calling for the unity of the genuine Marxist-Leninist forces in the USA while, on the other hand, without exhausting the full possibilities of this opportunity of building the unity of the genuine Marxist-Leninists, hidden attacks are launched against others, today mud is dumped onto our Party from those who are calling themselves our “dear fraternal comrades” for whom they have the “deepest communist regards”. Joseph Green also mentions various other so-called “facts” and then degenerates even further to the slander of our Party that from “opposition to the struggle against what might be called the ’centrist’ forces, you passed over to reconsidering your stand on our struggle against the open social-chauvinists and ’three-worlders’”. Joseph Green slanders CPC(M-L) that we “advocated ... insistently that the issue was that we (COUSML) should not be opposing the local American opportunists in public polemics at all, but dealing with international issues”, then goes on to add and “recall” some things to the extent that “at the end of 1976 our two organizations agreed...” to build up to yet another vile slander that, “Nevertheless, later on you made it into a principle that it is a mistake to deal with the domestic opportunists”. The utter shamelessness and criminal nature of this Joseph Green takes on further proportions when he accuses the Party of opposing “the slogan ’Build the Marxist-Leninist Party without the Social-Chauvinists and Against the Social-Chauvinists!” And, like the worm he is, he sneaks in a parenthetical comment: “(But you waited until we had gone public with this slogan to oppose it, although we had consulted with you ahead of time)”. Now why did Joseph Green not bare himself to his “dear fraternal comrades” and write this comment without parenthesis? Because his entire logic is based on the imperialist “have you stopped beating your wife?” technique. Our Party gave definite views on the question of Party-building, but this charlatan is hell-bent on tearing out his hair from his skull and, thus, he screeches: “(CPC (M-L) have opposed this slogan so vehemently that you let it get in the way of giving public support to our campaign to found the Marxist-Leninist Party of the U.S.A.” In this frantic way, this Part Three of the December 1, 1979, letter is concluded with the most intellectualist hyperbole and another vile accusation against CPC(M-L). This reads as follows:
All these transcenedental principles against the polemical struggle that you have urged us to follow were based on two things:
(a) counterposing one thing to another, the struggle against the domestic opoportunists to the burding international issues, the polemical struggle to the elebaoration of Marxism-Leninism, the struggle against opportunism to the struggle for the building and strengthening of the Party, and so forth; and
(b) an underestimation of the struggle against opportunism in the U.S., and underestaimation based on general, abstract, high-sounding principles and devoid of a serious, detailed consideration of the struggle here, which is brushed off in an off-hand manner.
Now, the world should stand still for a minute, and you will find the pragmatic necessity which Joseph Green felt to concoct the initial lie. And, here it comes: “We believe that your act of selling the rights of the book by Palacios to the ’RCP, USA’ is a verification of the accuracy on our views on the general direction in which you are urging on us can lead, if taken to their logical conclusion, if errors are allowed to grow.”
But dear Joseph Green, our Party never did such a thing! We completely disagree and fiercely condemn the entire chronology of events which you have created from 1976, as well as the wild accusations and slanders you have dished out against us. You have one main and abiding aim: NAIL CPC(M-L)! – your own “dear fraternal comrades” and for whom you have the “deepest communist regards” and nail them regardless, even if lies are to be concocted to “verify” the “accuracy” of the lie. You are desperate, indeed, and thoroughly bankrupt. You were in search for a crack through which you could crawl and you found the crack, even though our Party resolutely condemns you for carrying such vile slanders against us.
In the late summer of 1979, the representatives of COUSML arrived in Canada to deal with questions of a political and ideological nature concerning the building of the Party, as well as the question of “two-line struggle”. Both sides gave views, even though the COUSML representative felt the need for maneouvring and diversion away from the argument and thus whimpered: “You are not letting me speak”. Now, three months later, Jospeh Green has spoken. He had to concoct the sinister lie that the CPC(M-L) is conciliating with the opportunists and “urging” COUSML to do the same. This is the way Joseph Green and his cohorts carry out dsicussion and consultation with their “dear fraternal comrades” for whom they have the “deepest communist regards”.
First, to set the facts of the matter and history itself straight, CPC(M-L) only presents its views and does so in various ways. One of the ways is through the Congresses, the plenums of the CC and their communiques, and through its organs and documents and materials. Nowhere will you find that the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) advocates the policy that the Marxist-Leninist and revolutionary forces should not struggle against “domestic opportunists”. The COUSML delegation attended the Sixth Consultative Conference and its Closing Rally, to give an event from recent memory. The COUSML delegation heard with their own ears the concept of the united front with the revisionists and opportunists of all hues, the revisionist line of “unity of the ’left’-democratic forces”, etc., resolutely and thoroughly denounced as counter-revolutionary. Our Party also carried many editorials on this question through the organ of the Central Committee, People’s Canada Daily News. These views of the Party and its practice are simply thrown over board by this Joseph Green who was forced to concoct a lie to establish the “accuracy: of his slanders which he euphemistically calls ”our views“. Nowhere could this individual find any such position advocated by CPC(M-L) that we should neither oppose “domestic opportunists” or underestimate the struggle against the American opportunists.
Furthermore, this Charlie who sends his Angels to check out their grocery list in Canada never gave their views on any of these fundamental political and ideological questions,except for the one time, during the meeting of the two delegations in the late summer of this year, when the leader of the COUSML delegation started to whimper that we were not letting him speak. We have the full notes and minutes of his views. The general understanding reached between the two delegations was to further carry on the discussions and arrive at unanimity of views through discussion. But, meanwhile, this Joseph Green has leeched upon a “fact” that CPC (M-L) is conciliating with the opportunists and, voila, the entire hyperbole was complete and the vile slander that the CPC(M-L) is “urging” COUSML not to oppose the “domestic opportunists” is substantiated.
What political and ideological positions COUSML is to adopt on the national and international questions is their business. Our Party has never dictated to them as what they should do or what stands they should adopt. But this Joseph Green is a clever fellow. First, he denounces our Party for the fact that we have always and consisently given our viewpoint, then he attributes to our Party views which are so diametrically opposed to anything our Party has ever done in Canada in theory or in practice, and then he denounces these views. This is the activity of a two-faced element. Our Party advocates very definite Marxist-Leninist political and ideological lines on all the fundamental questions of the revolution and socialism. These views are well-known and Joseph Green is deliberately falsifying these views.
For example, at no time did our Party advise the COUSML representatives that their organization should not wage struggle against domestic or international opportunism and revisionism. It is Joseph Green who is making this distinction and he is blaming others for doing so. Let us give but one example, you have concocted the intellectualist hyperbole that “U.S. neo-revisionism is the American expression of the internationalist trend of Chinese revisionism, etc,” and you accuse the “NEC of the CPC(M-L)” of “taking a hostile attitude ... to the polemics showing that U.S. neo-revisonism is the American expression of the international opportunist trend of Chinese revisionism, etc.” What does this intellectualist hyperbole mean? It means that there is no American opportunism whatsoever, and that there is only “the American expression of the international opportunist trend of Chinese revisionism”. Thus, the only necessity for them is to prove that this, indeed, is the case, against which he asserts our “hostile attitude” is directed. You are accusing “NEC of the CPC(M-L)” of “taking a hostile attitude ... to the polemics showing” that “U.S. neo-revisionism is the American expression of the international opportunist trend of Chinese revisionism, etc.” Thus, through this and other such intellectualist hyperboles, you have accomplised three things:
“(a) counterposing one thing to another, the struggle against the domestic opportunists to the burning international issues, the polemical struggle to the elaboration of Marxism-Leninism, the struggle against opportunism to the struggle for the building and strengthening of the Party, and so forth;
“(b) an underestimation of the struggle against opportunism in the U.S., an underestimation based on general, abstract, high-sounding principles and devoid of a serious, detailed consideration of the struggle here, which is brushed off in an off-hand manner”; and (c) accuse the “NEC of the CPC(M-L)” of the very crimes which you are committing and have been doing so for some time. Let us take another example. You write: “Our denunciation of Chinese revisionism and Mao Zedong Thought and its theory of ’two (or many) headquarters in the Party’ is not that it fights revisionism, but that it conciliates with revisionism and is opposed to the principled struggle against revisionism.”
Look at how this worm poses the question: hew the fundamental problem with “Chinese revisionism and Mao Zedong Thought is “not that it fights revisionism, but that it conciliates with revisionism and is opposed to the principle struggle against revisionism”. This is the grossest example of “general, abstract, high-sounding principles and devoid of a serious, detailed consideration” of the matter. This fundamental question “is brushed off in an off-hand manner”, The fact of the matter is that Chinese revisionism and its ideological base, Mao Zedong Thought, and“its theory of two (or many) headquarters in the Party” is an anti-Leninist and revisionist trend itself, while this worm is accusing it of “conciliating with revisionism and is opposed to the principled struggle against revisionism.” Chinese revisionism and Mao Zedong Thought are a departure form Marxism-Leninism and between Chinese revisionism and Mao Zedong Thought and Marxism-Leninism there is an insurmountable gulf. Chinese revisionism and Mao Zedong Thought do fight against Soviet social imperialism and the Khrushchovite revisionists, but they do so on the basis of anti-Leninism and revisionism and to serve their own pragmatic ends. It is to satifsy your pragmatic ends that you are creating this intellectualist hyperbole.
And now let us rewrite this for you: “Our denunciation of Joseph Green and his intellectualist hyperbole including his theory of ’two (or many) headquarters in the Marxist-Leninist Movement in the U.S.’ is not that it fights revisionism too hard, but that it does not even recognize American opportunism and is opposed to the principled struggle against revisionism and opportunism of all hues both nationally and internationally.”
These intellectualist hyperboles which you have dished out, including the wildest and basest form of lies and accusations against our Party “amount to, if taken to their logical conclusion and followed consistently, concliation”. And that “logical conclusion” of Joseph Green’s has already come home to roost in Part Four of his letter of December 1, 1979, with your fantastic intellectualist hyperbole of the “weakest link” in the “centrist trend” which, according to you, has “not crystallized yet” or is having great “difficulty”, etc. You advance this “logical conclusion” with extreme shamelessness. Thus, Joseph Green is going to attack the “weakest link” in the same manner that the Chinese social-imperialists are attacking the “most dangerous enemy” and he will conciliate openly and shamelessly with this centrist trend which has already crystallized around the Revolutionary Communist Party of Chile, Marxist-Leninist Party of Austria, “In Struggle” of Canada, “Revolutionary Communist Party, USA”, Mass Line Group in India, and similar opportunist groups in Turkey, Cyprus, New Zealand and other countries. Thus, in order to cover up his tracks of conciliating with this centrist trend, Joseph Green concocts this intellectualist hyperbole, the one-plus-one mental gymnastic of the “weakest link.” Through this intellectualist hyperbole, he will let the centrist trend go scot-free, but attack its “weakest link”, which is not revisionism and opportunism of all hues both domestically and internationally, but is the “American expression of the international opportunist trend of Chinese revisionism, etc.” But these centrists are also not only “opposed” [the quotation marks were added in handwriting – ed.] to the “international trend of Chinese revisionism” but to its “American” or any other expression, as well. Thus, you are in good company with these centrists. Truly astonishing, isn’t it! In two letters, one written on November 29th and the second on December 1, 1979, the “logical conclusion” of conciliation with revisionism has been totally exposed and it is a “remarkable picture of the views, activities and tactics” of this two-faced worm, Joseph Green. We are really amazed at the speed with which he has exposed himself and revealed just what he truly is.
You had to concoct that lie of “selling the rights” in order to launch this diabolical and perfidious attack on our Party. In order to make it stick, you then had to concoct more lies and intellectualist hyperboles and accuse us of going to bed with the “three-worlders” which, according to you, is the “logical conclusion” of our “urging”. But this has failed miserably. You have committed suicide by jumping in bed with the centrists. Any attempt to emit more foul smell will fail miserably,as well.
You have laid the outlandish charge that, “Indeed, over the last period you have floated informally to us and urged upon us insistently, if in an offhand manner, a number of theses directed against the polemical struggle against the opportunists.“ And just what have you [”you” was added in handwriting – ed.] been “urging” our Party to do during this “over the last period”, when Charlie’s angels have been frequently listening to our “urgings”? Perhaps you will need to do some thinking in order to concoct some more intellectualist hyperboles in order to cover up this “last period” when we “have floated informally to” Charlie’s angels and “urged upon” them “insistently, if in an off-hand manner, a number of theses directed against the polemical struggle against the opportunists.” But let us tell you this much – none of our views or theses were “informal” or given “in an off-hand manner” but are official and formal views of CPC(M-L) duly approved by the Congresses of the Party and the plenums of the Central Committee which we have given to your angels in an extremely serious manner during the “last period”, when you have been concocting one intellectualist hyperbole after another and doing everything possible to stop serious discussion on fundamental questions of mutual interest to CPC(M-L) and COUSML. Thus, we denounce this slander of yours with the same vehemence as we do all of our other lies, slanders and accusations.
28. In our third and final part of our detailed and thorough-going repudiation of the letter of December 1, 1979, we will resolutely expose still further the perfidious and treacherous nature of Joseph Green. This constitutes a solid and unquestionable “verification of the accuracy of our views on the general direction to which the principles you are urging on us can lead, if taken to their logical conclusion, if errors are allowed to grow”, which is to say, the “general direction” of creating provocations against our Party, poisoning the relations between CPC(M-L) and the COUMSL by creating the most vicious lies and slanders against our Party and conciliating with revisionism and opportunism of all hues.
Representatives of the COUSML attended the second All-Canada National Youth Festival held in Toronto on October 5-7, 1979. Our Party requested them to take back some messages from our Party on various questions to COUSML. This meeting between the representatives of CPC(M-L) and COUSML took place on October 9th. Among other things, our representative communicated to them:
“Thirdly, we think that we should be very vigilant on international developments. We would like to have formal discussions on this question. Of course, by this, we don’t mean these discussions are not formal. For us, formal means that with preparation on very definite topics and informal means just the exchange of views on allready known and adopted positions. We propose, if you like, and whenever you like, whenever it is convenient, to discuss this concept that we have advanced that the Internationalist Movement came up as one movement and merged with the International Marxist-Leninist Communist Movement, with no exception. This is a very important issue.” (From minutes of the discussion between the representatives of CPC(M-L) and COUSML, October 9,1979) Further on in this talk, our representative requested: “You should discuss this question. We have very important views on this matter. At the same time, if I for some reason am not available, then any comrade on the Central Committee can discuss this question with you.”
CPC(M-L) has received to-date no [“no” is inserted in handwriting – ed.] answer to our formal request to COUSML, except this wild “off-hand” provocative letter against our Party. This further reveals the hypocrisy and demagogy of this Joseph Green with regard to his preachings on “discussion and consultation” and “notification” and “approval”, etc. Joseph Green claims that he speaks “for the” National Executive Committee of the Central Organization of the U.S. Marxist-Leninists, but how can it be that he does not once mention in his provocative letters the request of CPC(M-L) for “formal discussions”? If Joseph Green had such “deep love required to tell the truth”, which he hypocritically and demagogically claims to have, then how is it that he does not tell the truth concerning our request for “formal discussions”? Furthermore, if Joseph Green had such concern about what he asserts to be the “logical conclusion” of our Party going to bed with the “three-worlders”, then how is that he refused to avail himself of our request for “formal discussions” where he could have presented his views and warned his “dear fraternal comrades” for whom he professes his “deep communist regards” as to the consequences or so-called “logical conclusion” of “the principles you are urging on us” “if errors are allowed to grow”? But Joseph Green did no such thing. He had no intention of presenting his “views” “straightforwardly, calmly and openly”. Joseph Green had no intention of assisting our Party. On the contrary, he was waiting for “verification of the accuracy” of his own lies and slanders and to vindicate his prior provocative activities against our Party. Joseph Green was anxiously waiting for a fresh opportunity to launch this new wild provocation against our Party. He bided his time, simply ignored our request and now has concocted his lie of “sale of the rights of the book”, and so on and so forth, to launch the most vicious provocation against CPC(M-L) in contemptuous disregard of even “the most basic and elementary norms” which govern the relations between genuine Marxist-Leninist parties. Did he ask for discussion on the matter? No, he did not. Did he verify the facts? No, he did not. Did he ascertain the policy of our Party? No, he did not. Did he alert our Party and warn it of the dangers in no uncertain terms of carrying on down the path of ”conciliation” with the “three-worlders”? No, he did not. Did he provide any proposals to deal with this question? No, he did not. Did he propose any means of strengthening the relations between CPC(M-L) and COUSML? No, he did not. The single aim which was possessing his evil mind, blinding him to everything else, was to create a provocation against our Party in order to poison the extremely warm and profound relations which exist between CPC(M-L) and COUSML. To accomplish this nefarious ambition, he was forced to create the basest lies and slanders against our Party which he has dished out in these provocative letters. Yes, he got his “verification of the accuracy of our views on the general direction in which the principles you are urging us can lead”. One lie is created to prove another lie with more lies piled on top of this heap of refuse “ad infinitum” and “ipso facto” – “verification of accuracy”.
In this talk between the representatives of CPC (M-L) and COUSML held on October 9, 1979, CPC (M-L) made a further proposal to COUSML with regard to strengthening our common struggle against modern revisionism and opportunism of all hues and in defence of the monolithic unity of the International Marxist-Leninist Communist Movement and the cause of revolution and socialism. He said, in part: “Fourthly, we think that you should attack the RCP. This is a very serious proposal. They should be violently attacked with the struggle waged with the same calibre as your assault against October League.” Our representative further warned COUSML in no uncertain terms of the danger of the entire centrist trend which is attempting to smuggle revisionist and opportunist ideology into the International Marxist-Leninist Communist Movement and stressed to these representatives that, “We should not underestimate the level of the(ir) perfidy internationally.” He further pointed out and proposed that, “It is within the United States of America that the front should be developed against centrism. This will be of tremendous assistance internationally, and we will provide you with first-rate assistance.” In conclusion, our Party proposed in detail various practical proposals which he recommended be undertaken to denounce the impending visit of Jorge Palacios to the USA and promised our Party’s resolute political and ideological assistance and cooperation to COUSML in this revolutionary work.
At this time, the representatives of COUSML did not raise anything with regard to the so-called “sale of the rights of the book”, and so on and so forth, nor did they give any opinions regarding the proposals of our Party, except to communicate to us that Jorge Palacios is either visiting, or will be imminently visiting the USA at the invitation of the “utterly corrupt and rotten to the core American neo-revisionist and ’three-worlders’ sect known as the so-called ’Revolutionary Communist Party of the U.S.A.’” While our Party presented very definite proposals and called upon COUSML to take resolute action to open this front against centrism, the COUSML representatives did not present any proposals as to what should be done with regard to this tour of Jorge Palacios and the “RCP, USA”. It was mutually decided that COUSML will subsequently inform our Party as to whether or not they would take up our proposal or undertake any initiatives on this question, and we subsequently received the answer by telephone – “no”. Nothing more was heard by our Party about this matter until the end Of October and the beginning of November. At that time, another representative of COUSML arrived in Canada to participate in a programme organized by our Party. He presented, “if in an off-hand manner”, a “remarkable picture of the ... tactics of COUSML” which it was adopting towards the trip of Jorge Palacios. These tactics constituted (1) publishing a concealed attack on the RCP of Chile in the Workers Advocate; and (2) writing the RCP of Chile a private letter. We again expressed our views on this matter, reiterating that we still held to them, expressed our deep anger at the sale of the English-language translation of Palacios’ book and patiently explained that this was not the policy of our Party. Our Party resolutely stands against any kind and form of cooperation with the revisionists and opportunists of all hues. This representative of COUSML said not a word about “the sale of the rights of the book” or making any inquiry as to how the translation was sold. Neither did he express any anger, nor did he present any “protest”, and he simply took the information back to Charley and that was that. Finally, it was mutually agreed with the COUSML representative to make a return trip to Canada before the departure of the delegation of the Central Committee to attend and participate in the jubilee celebrations of the 35th anniversary of the complete liberation of Albania and the triumph of the people’s power.
But CPC(M-L) did not hear anything from COUSML until the receipt of the letter dated November 29th, which was full of innuendoes, and the letter of December 1, which contains the wildest possible lies and slanders against the Party, the two letters which Joseph Green claims he has written ’ ’for the“ National Executive Committee of the Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninists. This letter of December 1st itself speaks volumes and totally exposes Joseph Green as an agent-provocateur. It is a fact that the National Committee nor any authoritative Congress of the COUSML has ever accused our Party of ”underestimating the struggle against American opportunism“, nor has it ever levelled the accusation that the views of CPC(M-L) on the questions of the unity of the Marxist-Leninists, on Party-building and the struggle against revisionism and opportunism of all hues ”can lead, if taken to their logical conclusion“ to conciliation. Joseph Green has already put our Party into bed with the “three-worlders”, but no authoritative body of the COUSML has ever requested our Party to have discussion on these matters, formal or informal, nor have they ever communicated such slanders and lies to us. Only the Congress and the Central Committee, which is the central and leading body when the Congress is not in session, and no other bodies, can take a 180-degree-turn in its relations to a fraternal and genuine Marxist-Leninist party, but this individual Joseph Green has already given his verdict through these vicious lies and slanders.
Why is it that Joseph Green has created such a vile provocation against CPC(M-L)? Why is it that he did not see any necessity for “formal” or “informal” discussions with our Party before arriving at these wild intellectualist hyperboles? The answer is to be found in the fourth part of his December 1, 1979 letter of provocation which we shall also thoroughly repudiate and denounce.
29. Joseph Green repeats his big lie: “The selling of the rights to the Palacios book to the ’RCP, USA’ is also a tactical blunder from the point of view of the international struggle in general and not just in North America.” Listen to the language of this charlatan replete with all the tricks of the lying trade: “First of all, we wish to stress that time has shown that the polemics we launched against the domestic American opportunists were well-chosen and did raise the burning international issues.” However, this worm has simply forgotten in his frantic haste to villify CPC(M-L) with a devastating political-ideological denunciation that he has already written and confessed that it is not these elements who “chose” to “launch” the “polemics”! he has already “recalled” to us earlier, on page four, “that at the end of 1976 our two organizations agreed, on your suggestion, to a certain tactical co-ordination in the struggle against Chinese revisionism”. What he has written here is inaccurate itself, but this is not the central point here. The point is that Joseph Green forgets to mention that it was “on your suggestion”, that is, it was our Party which advanced these proposals. But these proposals advanced by CPC(M-L) were “against the domestic American opportunists” which Joseph Green, with his usual criminal lying and demagogy, reduces to the question of “struggle against Chinese revisionism”. Joseph Green has an ulterior motive in so doing, which we will expose in due course. What was this “agreement”? He himself writes: “You were to openly take on the Chinese revisionists, while we were to refrain from openly attacking them and to instead continue the attack on the domestic social-chauvinists (Klonskyites and co.).” What were the results? He himself writes: “The tactics you suggested were very successful and we have to this day been very satisified with the results of this temporary tactic suggested by you.” What happened then? Now, this worm is squirming: “But naturally, the proposal of such a tactic even temporarily means that it could not be a principle to not attack the domestic opportunists. Today, of course, we continue to attack openly both the domestic opportunists and the Chinese revisionists (and the other international revisionists and opportunist trends)”. Here is a worm in its true slithering form. Joseph Green does not wish to openly express the line of CPC(M-L) nor to analyze the beginning of the emergence of the political and ideological divergences and differences. Thus, he is reduced to lying through his teeth to cover up the views of CPC(M-L) when he dishes out the base slander that our Party has a “principle” of not attacking the “domestic opportunists ”of the USA. There is neither official nor unofficial documents of CPC(M-L) which can “verify” the “accuracy” of his wild slander and intellectualist hyperbole, but his provocative letter tells the entire story.
Following the initial attack on the “domestic opportunists”, the Klonskyites, etc., our Party further proposed to COUSML that this political and ideological offensive should be deepened and broadened through “a serious, detailed consideration of the struggle” both nationally and internationally. Our Party advocated that COUSML adhere to the line of being the militant contingent and defender of the International Marxist-Leninist Communist Movement in the USA and expressed the view and hope that COUSML will strengthen itself ideologically, politically and organizationally on this revolutionary path, instead of concocting its own peculiar theories. What Joseph Green writes today is slander and utter distortion when he baldly states that CPC(M-L) are “counterposing one thing to another, the struggle against the domestic opportunists to the burning international issues, the polemical struggle to the elaboration of Marxism-Leninism, the struggle against opportunism to the struggle for the building and strengthening of the Party, and so forth”. In actual fact, this is precisely what Joseph Green is himself doing by concocting his own peculiar theories in order to cover up, mystify and dampen the struggle against the “domestic opportunists”. What Joseph Green concocts is one thing, but reality is quite different. The true facts are that after the initial attack against the “domestic opportunists”, he has today gone off into a tangent and begun to concoct his peculiar theories “if in an off-hand manner”. His theory of the so-called “weakest link” is precisely the latest example of these peculiar theses. “U.S. neo-revisionism is the American expression of the international opportunist trend of Chinese revisionism” is another peculiar theory, and there are many more. This is why he is so diametrically opposed to founding the Marxist-Leninist Party, USA, on the Leninist basis and why he is raising his puny head wildly in all directions like a little worm terrified of the sun. His claim that they launched polemics against “domestic American opportunists” is half-truth. According to what Joseph Green himself admits, he wants the support of our Party for his opposition to the “American expression of...Chinese revisionism” which means that he is neither resolutely against Chinese revisionism nor is he against “domestic opportunism”, but content to fight the “American expression of Chinese revisionism”. Look at the way he concocts in order to present his intellecutalist hyperboles: “For example, in 1979, it has become crystal clear to everyone that both the ’RCP, USA and the Barry Weisberg MLOC/’CPUSA (ML)’... have their international significance”. What is this intellecutalist hyperbole presented for? It is presented to “prove” that they are “international”, which is, as he so colourfully and so shamelessly admits, that he is not the defender of the International Marxist-Leninist Communist Movement nor its militant contingent, but rather is one who “sounds” the “alarm” against these “domestic opportunists” to the “International Communist Movement”. Thus, apparantly, it is the sounding of these “alarms” and the proving that this “U.S. neo-revisionism is the American expression of the international opportunist trend of Chinese revisionism”, and so on and so forth, which is what the “NEC of the CPC(M-L)” has been and is so “hostile” to. Here is a further self-exposure of Joseph Green’s peculiar concoctions. Joseph Green has previously scribbled that the proletariat is an international class. If this is the case, then all Marxist-Leninist parties, organizations and groups are the political and most advanced representatives and vanguard of this international class. The bourgeoisie also is an international class and thus the revisionist parties, organizations and groups are also the social prop of this bourgeoisie and in the service of its counter-revolutionary aims, and thus has “international significance”. But, according to this green Joe, “...in, 1979, it has become crystal clear to everyone that both the ’RCP, USA’ and the Barry Weisberg MLOC/’CPUSA(M-L)’ ... have their international significance.” Thus, the “international significance” of these opportunist groups became “crystal clear” in 1979. We are the Party of the international proletariat and to us, the “international significance” of these opportunist groups has been known for a long time and we have carried vigorous and firm opposition to them. But with his peculiar theory of “weak link”, Joseph Green is desperately attempting to rescue the centrists and put us in the camp of those who have “gone to bed” with this “weak link” and NAIL CPC(M-L)!
It does not matter how much this Joseph Green tries to cover up and hide the ideo-political/differences and issue lies and slanders against our Party, the fact remains that CPC(M-L) has never under-estimated the struggle against the “domestic opportunists” and has never “urged” anyone to do such a thing. Our Party has boldly presented its views on how to further develop the struggle against imperialism, social-imperialism and all reaction and against revisionism and opportunism of all hues and has resolutely implemented these views in practical terms. It is this strong opposition of our Party to the concoction of various peculiar “theses” and pet “theories” which has put the damper on this worm to the extent that he is wildly swinging his head in all directions.
Consequently, it is this nefarious stand of refusing to oppose the American opportunists, willfully advancing the notorious theory of American exceptionalism and concocting diverse intellecualist hyperboles used to justify the treacherous and counter-revolutionary path which is the real exposure of the true conciliatory and centrist nature of this individual, Joseph Green, who is claiming to speak “for the” National Executive Committee of the COUSML.
Let us examine his latest intellectualist hyperbole which he is using to justify his opposition to attacking the centrist trend. Joseph Green writes: “But more on the ’RCP, USA’. For some time and especially since the open condemnation of Mao Zedong Thought, an international trend has been attempting to form and crystallize itself. This trend or, to be more precise, jumble of forces trying to crystallize itself and align itself into a trend, can roughly be called ’centrism’. For convenience, we shall call these forces the ’centrists’ in the rest of the letter. This trend is not crystallized yet. And it is having great difficulties. Its ideological and theoretical poverty can be seen in that it has had to stoop to pick up the ’RCP, USA’, to begin an open alliance with the ’RCP, USA’, and so forth. On its part, the ’RCP, USA’ has seen its opening and is trying to make contacts in the international movement. The ’RCP, USA’ says that it is translating its ’theoretical’ works on Mao Zedong Thought and sending them internationally and it is quite happy to try to come out as the standard-bearer of this ’trend’.
By picking up the ’RCP, USA’ and rewarding it for its gangster-like anti-commuist attacks on Comrade Enver Hoxha, the Party of Labour of Albania and Marxism-Leninism, the forces trying to form a centrist trend are committing a despicable act. Some of them may hypocritically insist on their loyalty to Albania while standing on the platform next to the anti-Albania gangsters of the ’RCP, USA’. But it is not enough to see that such acts are despicable. There is yet a further point of importance tactically. And that point is that the alliance with the ’RCP, USA’ is also an act of great desparation for the centrists, that it leads them to the brink of a great fiasco and self-exposure, and that the RCP, USA’ is a weak link for this trend trying to crystallize itself.
We hold that the alliance of the centrists with the ’RCP, USA’ should indeed be made into a total fiasco for the centrists, that it should be used to throw this would-be trend into greater disorder.
Following this, Joseph Green becomes even more puffed-up and further develops his intellectualist hyperbole. Seeing himself as a great tactician, he raises the question – “Why is the ’RCP, USA’ a weak link” – and he presents the layers of his concoction. He writes:
– First of all, the ’RCP, USA’ is a ’party’ that has never done anything praiseworthy. – The ’RCP, USA’ still holds to the “three worlds” theory. Furthermore, it admits that Mao Zedong is responsible for what it oh so delicately calls the ’opening to the West’ and for the allegedly good version of the ’three worlds’ theory. It also upholds most of the unofficial writings of Mao (except possibly Mao’s interviews with John Service and similar material – we shall see what stand the ’RCP, USA’ takes on them in the future). – The centrists are using the ’RCP, USA’s attacks on Albania for their own purposes, but the knife can be pointed in the other direction. The ’RCP, USA’s nauseating attacks on Albania can be used to discredit centrism, especially now when many centrists are not yet prepared to come into the open with all-out attacks on Albania.
– The ’RCP, USA’ is opposed in its own country by the dedicated Marxist-Leninists of the COUSML, who know the ’RCP, USA’ at close range and have the enthusiasm and the ability to strike heavy blows at them.
Then Joseph Green concludes with a flourish: “Thus, at the present time, an international condemnation of the ’three’worldism’ and gangster-like attacks on Albania of the ’RCP, USA’ would put certain opportunist forces in disarray.” Note this gem – “certain opportunist forces in disarray” – that is, create maximum political and ideological illusions about these “certain opportunist forces” and give these “certain forces who have set foot on the dangerous inclined slope of centrism the maximum opportunity to reconsider this dangerous anti-Marxist path they have set upon.” Look at this “Have you stopped beating your wife?” imperialist logic. Joseph Green vents his spleen against CPC(M-L) but shamelessly declares that: “But independently of what happens to the centrists or to any forces flirting with centrism, such a condemnation of the ’RCP, USA would give an impetus to the struggle against centrism.” In other words, hands off the centrist trend which organized the provocation against the Internationalist Marxist-Leninist Communist Movement at El Salar, Spain, but condemn the ’RCP, USA’, which is the “American expression of the international opportunist trend of Chinese revisionism.” This charlatan openly advocates that we should not beat the beast but only its shadow! This is precisely what he has been doing for the “past period” and breaking his neck on the slippery slopes of rank opportunism.
This theory of ”weak link” is precisely the “accurate verification of our views” that, for some time now, Joseph Green has been tearing his hair out because our Party has been opposing his anti-Marxist-Leninist road on the fundamental questions of the unity ofthe Marxist-Leninists, Party-building and the struggle against opportunism, as well as other, related questions. Today, he is shamelessly, openly and brazenly pleading that the centrists must not be attacked. Only the “American expression” should be attacked, which, according to his intellectualist hyperbole, is the “weak link”. Thus, he zealously slanders our Party:
“But to sell the rights of the Palacios book to the ’RCP, USA’ and to underestimate the struggle of COUSML against the ’RCP, USA”, instead of recognizing the significance of the fight against the ’RCP, USA’, amounts to: besides other things,
“Possibly to replace the denunciation of the ’RCP, USA’ with a premature precipitation of an open break with certain forces which should be allowed time to come to their senses” and then comes his disgraceful demagogy, that is: “(a) without refusing to fight their errors in the meantime; (b) without excessive expectations of change on their part; and (c) without ceasing the ideological clarification that is so vital at this time of confusion and disarray internationally...” Fantastic intellectualist hyperboles, slanders and accusations, indeed, which Joseph Green has concocted with the main aim of rescuing the centrists. Truly astonishing, isn’t it?! The Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) asked the COUSML to have “formal discussion” with our Party on the important International Marxist-Leninist Communist Movement. No reply was given to it. We proposed that the resolute struggle against the centrist alliance be opened up within the U.S. but, as is their usual practice, COUSML representatives and their Charlie gave no reply. Now a month later, this agent-provocateur has launched this open provocation against our Party for the purpose of disrupting the irreconcilable struggle against imperialism, social-imperialism and all reaction and against revisionism and opportunism of all hues, frustrate the building of the genuine Marxist-Leninist party of the proletariat in the USA, and poison the extremely warm and profound relations between CPC(M-L) and COUSML. All his gilt-edged scenario is artfully painted and stage-managed for the purposes of confusing and falsifying everything. Amazing declarations are tossed out, such as “at this time of confusion and disarray”, right at the time when not only the genuine Marxist-Leninist parties are steeling and strengthening themselves and the unity of the international Marxist-Leninist Communist Movement is irresistably developing, but also when the PLA with Comrade Enver Hoxha at the head has eliminated all attempts by imperialism, social-imperialism and all reaction and revisionism and opportunism of all hues to create “confusion and disarray” in the International Marxist-Leninist Communist Movement. What a vile, Trotskyite attack on the PLA and Comrade Enver Hoxha, the foremost and leading party of the International Marxist-Leninist Communist Movement! He brazenly advocates that there is “confusion and disarray internationally” on the one hand, while there is clarity and solidity in the intellectualist hyperboles of this agent-provocateur, Joseph Green. It is little wonder that our Party’s request for “formal discussion” was not replied to, because this little worm would not have dared to open his mouth which is so full of this wild defence of centrism and the foul damnation of the International Marxist-Leninist Communist Movement, including the PLA with Comrade Enver Hoxha at the head. In our request to the COUSML representatives for “formal discussion”, we mentioned that we would be available “whenever it is convenient for you”. How convenient and nice it is for Joseph Green to throw this dung at our Party from a safe distance down south of the border.
Thus, Joseph Green has conjured up various reasons for the “sale of the rights of the...” and one of which is
(1) “Possibly to replace denunciation of the ’RCP, USA”
(2) “with a premature precipitation of an open break with certain forces which should be allowed to come to their senses.”
In other words, the CPC(M-L) should be nailed for not only going to bed with the “RCP, USA”, but also for possibly “replac(ing) denunciation of the ’RCP, USA’ with a premature precipitation of an open break with certain forces which should be allowed to come to their senses.”
Thus, what is the conclusion? CPC(M-L) MUST BE NAILED! By nailing CPC(M-L), the struggle against the “American expression of the international opportunist trend of Chinese revisionism” will be nailed and it would end the wild schemes of CPC(M-L) of “premature precipitation of an open break...” So Joseph Green conjured up his “facts” and developed his “tactics” for the singular aim of nailing his “dear fraternal comrades” for whom he has the “deepest communist regards” while he zealously defends the entire centrist trend and gives it time to prepare and organize its forces and be good and ready to cause further disruption of the International Marxist-Leninist Communist Movement.
Joseph Green is a brilliant offshoot of the Hua-Teng ruling clique. Teng Hsiao ping and Hua Kuo Feng, as with Mao Zedong and Chou En-lai came forward with the slogan that Soviet social-imperialism was the “most dangerous” superpower and because the Soviet Union presented itself as “socialist”, it became the“main enemy”, while it prettified the U.S. imperialsts as the “declining superpower” which could be united with. This demagogy was a camouflage for their warmongering, great state aims. Because the “RCP, USA” is the “most discredited” “that has never done anything praiseworthy”, for this reason and for others besides, this then is the “weak link” and must be nailed. And along with this, all those who go to bed with it, must be denounced, albeit “tactfully”, by allowing them time to “come to their senses”. And listen to is demagogy: “Here we stress that it is not a matter of benevolence towards certain forces, of softness, but of not artificially inciting the struggle...” This is a direct and wild attack on CPC(ML). When the representative of COUSML in late October and early November was in Canada, he was briefed that CPC (ML) is going to send a fitting and proper reply to the vile attacks of the International Commission of the RCP of Chile against CPC(M-L). Joseph Green is extremely joyful about the attacks of the International Commission of the RCP of Chile and for this reason is defending them and creating every possible illusion about them while accusing CPC(M-L) of “artificially inciting”. Now the curtain has fallen on the entire drama created by Joseph Green. NAIL CPC(M-L)! by concocting every kind of lie and slander and RESCUE THE CENTRIST TREND! Exactly in the criminal manner of the Chinese revisionists and their ilk who denounce all those who consider the two superpowers to be the main enemy as “agents of the KGB”, this Joseph Green is denouncing all those who firmly stand against revisionists and opportunists of all hues, including the centrist trend, as the standpoint of those who are “replac(ing) the denunciation of ”RCP, USA”...” and so on. And all this is conjured up because of the “sale oftthe rights of the book by Palacios...” etc. This completely exposes Joseph Green as the most despicable agent-provocateur whose aim was to create this provocation against CPC(M-L). He shamelessly admits that “this is a matter of tactics” and confesses that “this tactic may also be interwoven with matters of principle”. This means that Joseph Green has advanced these nefarious tactics of creating this provocation against CPC(M-L) in order to serve imperialism, social-imperialism and all reaction and revisionism and opportunism of all hues, with his most desperate aim being to disrupt the extremely warm and profound relations between CPC(M-L) and COUSML.
This concludes our resolute and firm denunciation of some of the wild slanders and accusations you have hurled at our Party in order to poison the extremely warm and profound relations which exist between CPC(M-L) and COUSML. These are all based on the one concocted lie with regard to “the sale of the rights of the book” and so on and so forth. The Central Committee is sending this letter to you to thoroughly denounce this vile provocation engineered by you, and to strengthen still further the relations between CPC(M-L) and COUSML on the basis of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism. We call upon the National Committee of the Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninists to take resolute action against this agent-provocateur. As well, we propose that a meeting of the delegations of the National Committee of COUSML and the Central Committee of CPC(ML) meet at once to resolve this issue – the elimination of this vile provocation against our Party by Joseph Green. We are available to have discussion at any time. Fraternal discussions are the only way for dealing with such questions and are a Leninist norm, a norm which Joseph Green hates most of all and opposes with all his demagogy and deceit.
Central Committee
Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) December 5, 1979.