Your letters are full of filthy, vile characterizations of our Party, its activities and its leading members. Here we are not talking about a word accidentally dropped in anger. On the contrary, you spread the maximum number of slanderous remarks and call our comrades the maximum number of vicious, vile names as a definite, planned, conscious method. With this method, you exert savage pressure to split our leadership and break the confidence of our organization. But with this method, you are rolling about in sewer politics.
This method of yours is part of the double standard which you are trying to impose on us under the pretext of a “special relationship.” You call us the worst names, but when it comes to remarks about yourself, you suddenly have a most thin skin. You will even walk out of meetings if you are not talked about in the most exalted terms. In March 1978, you used the pretext that we called your letter of September 9, 1977 a shameful letter in order to walk out of a meeting almost before it had begun. Now indeed this letter was in fact a shameful letter that defended you calling us people who “act like a bunch of imperialist gangsters” and that taunted us to break relations with you. “Shameful” is a serious charge, but we were and are prepared to defend our charge. And we never attacked your Party, your leadership, nor any individual comrades. Nevertheless, you called the mere use of a word like “shameful” a premeditated provocation against your Party and outside the norms. Well, your letter of December 5 (as well as that of September 9, 1977 for that matter) shows the complete hypocrisy of your stand. You use the most violent, slanderous terms against us while you regard the most comradely, well-intentioned criticism of CPC (M-L) as an attempt to “NAIL CPC (M-L)” (capitals in the original).
It is hard to give an adequate idea in a few words of how your letter of December 5 reads. Each page, each paragraph competes with the next in finding new, “clever” ways to insult us and to spread thick the maximum number of vile slanders. There is no substitute for a careful reading of your letter. But for the sake of reference, we will record here some of your characterizations of us. We will give some page references, but these references are not an exhaustive listing of each use of the particular slander. As well, the slander is often made more than once on each page.
To begin with, you repeatedly reiterate that we are allegedly “agent-provocateurs” and so forth. You write that:
“To our estimation, this Joseph Green is an agent-provocateur.” (p. 12)
You reiterate the charge that we are agents provocateurs on pages 12, 21, 24, 25, 26, etc. You repeat a slight variant of this charge, that we have allegedly “degenerated to the level of agent-provocateur,” on pages 1, 4, 6, etc. As well, you talk of “You provocateur” (p. 5), of the “sinister style of a provocateur” (p. 5), and of “imperialist gangster and agent-provocateur activities” (letter of December 5 to the NO).
Besides calling us agents provocateurs, you reiterate the charge that we are in fact the class enemy in a number of other ways. You claim that we are on the side of the imperialists and revisionists.
“...you are kow-towing and capitulating under the imperialist-revisionist pressure, and have gone over to their side.” (p. 3) Continuing with these fantastic fairy tales, you accuse us of being the “agents of the blackest reaction.” (pp. 5, 15, etc.) You say that we “have taken up the sinister mission of imperialism and social-imperialism to wreck, split and disrupt these ties between our two Parties and peoples.” (pp. 10, 25, etc.) You accuse us of being a “sworn enemy of our Party [CPC (M-L) – ed.] and the International Marxist-Leninist Communist Movement” (p. 1) and say that our “real motive is to attack the International Marxist-Leninist Communist Movement” (p. 2) and that we are guilty of “disparaging” and “foul condemnation of” and “a vile, trotskyite attack on the Party of Labor of Albania and Comrade Enver Hoxha” (pp. 2, 25, etc.).
You further confuse us with the U.S. imperialists. This is a well-known way of making liberals feel guilty. Thus you accuse us of “an archetypical lie in the imperialist and Nixonian style” (p. 8) and of concocting “a real panoramic American treat of lies and slanders. America is so famous for it.” (p. 4) Our tactics are denounced as “a refurbished version of American pragmatism, the philosophy of U.S. imperialism, and other imperialists and social-imperialists.” (p. 12) We are accused of an “America the beautiful phrase” and of “reactionary chauvinist lecturing.” (p. 3) We are said to be “American chauvinists” who “imply that North Americans are more revolutionary than anyone else” (p. 3) and so on and so forth.
In case the political charges don’t fit, we are also alleged to be various species of animals. The most popular one is “worm” or “slimy worm.” (pp. 8, 12, 23, 25, etc.) As well, we are called a “seasoned lizard” (p. 8) and “like a mad dog beyond rescue” (p. 15).
Our delegates are mocked at because they adhere to the integrity of our Party and to the well-known Marxist-Leninist norms. They are called “Charlie’s angels” (pp. 13, 17, 18, 19, etc.), “dummies” (p. 15 and elsewhere), and “voice-box Charlie(s)” (p. 15).
You accuse us not only of being imperialists but also revisionists and opportunists of all hues. You say we are “dyed-in-the-wool trotskyite(s)” (pp. 11, 15, 25, etc.), that we are a “brilliant offshoot of the Hua-Teng ruling clique” (p. 25) and that we have “been adhering to the norms of the Khruschovite and Chinese revisionists” (p. 15). You accuse us of. being guilty of “the Second Coming of the well-known and notorious theory of the American revisionist and anti-Marxist Browder.” (p. 3) You say that we have “the reactionary style and gangster logic of the Chinese revisionists.” (pp. 6, 8, etc.) In your eyes, we “are neither Marxist-Leninist nor proletarian internationalist” (p. 6) but “anti-Marxist, deviationist and opportunist” (p. 6).
You curse our openhearted proletarian internationalist sentiment for the CPC (M-L). We have walked through fire with you, but you claim that we have “one main and abiding aim: NAIL CPC (M-L)!” (p. 16) and that “you are not ’true friends’ but false friends, provocateurs, and that you have as much ’deep love’ for our Party [CPC (M-L) - W.A.] as the hangman for his victim” (p. 7). You say that we have “no intention of assisting” CPC (M-L) and so on and so forth.
As well, there is an assortment of other phrases. Going back to the Bible, you accuse Comrade Joseph Green of being a “little Messiah” and a “little Moses [who] has finally found his burning bush.” (p. 3) You attack us as “smart-assed, two faced characters)” (p. 9); you say that we are “two-bit” (p. 15), have “take(n) your [COUSML’s – W.A.] pants down” (p. 4), have a “forked tongue” (pp. 4, 12, etc.), are “cowards” (p. 7) and “dithering idiot(s)” (p. 12), and so on. You accuse us of having a “criminal mentality,” “criminal nature,” and “criminal activities.” (pp. 15, 16, 22, etc.) You throw in everything but the kitchen sink, as the saying goes.
All these charges are part of a conscious plan and method. This method is a gross violation of the Marxist-Leninist norms and of the most elementary revolutionary morality. You are taking advantage of the sincere proletarian internationalist sentiments of our comrades for you and are trying to turn our respect for you into a way of putting pressure on us.
Let us take up one of these charges and look more deeply into it. What does it mean to charge someone with being an agent provocateur? It is charging him with being a policeman.
An agent provocateur has several characteristics, i) He is an agent of reaction. Strictly speaking, according to the dictionary definition, he could be an agent of a fascist or reactionary group and not necessarily directly an agent of the police, but the general principle is the same. He is a paid infiltrator, saboteur and spy, a plainclothes man under cover.
ii) He has no revolutionary sentiment, but feigns respect for the revolution solely in order to gain the trust of the revolutionaries, infiltrate them, and betray them to the police and the reaction.
iii) He engages in inciting the revolutionaries to provocative activities so that the police can apprehend them or so that the revolutionary forces suffer some other type of fiasco.
Therefore the charge of being an agent provocateur is a most serious charge. A revolutionary organization must maintain the tightest vigilance, without the slightest slackening or liberalness, against agents provocateurs. But just for this reason, loose groundless charges are most harmful. The frivolous smearing of innocent comrades is itself regarded everywhere as one of the most contemptible crimes against the revolution. And it is not solely that innocent comrades must not be dragged through the mud and the revolutionary forces dismembered in this way. As serious as such a thing is, there is also the further fact that frivolous charges dull the sense of the serious nature of struggle against agents provocateurs and wipe out revolutionary vigilance. The cynicism and loose attitude bred by loose charges are the mortal enemy of revolutionary vigilance and morality. And when it becomes the practice to make loose charges and then to take no action or to leave the so-called “agent-provocateurs” in the revolutionary ranks, then the harm done to vigilance is immense. Such things make things easier for the real agents provocateurs. And there is yet a further side to the struggle against agents provocateurs. The fact is that one of the methods of destroying a revolutionary organization is to create an agent scare in its ranks. For a revolutionary organization to allow loose charges of an agent to be made is to create or to prepare the conditions for an agent scare as well as for the loss of vigilance and thus to help wipe out the organization. For all these reasons, it is the revolutionary norm to regard bearing false witness against revolutionary comrades or making groundless charges as a serious crime against the revolution. In the revolutionary insurrection, agents provocateurs may be shot. False charges cost comrades their lives. And under these circumstances, the revolutionary organization of the revolutionary masses may also execute those guilty of making groundless, false charges. Panic-mongering is the death of the revolutionary organization of the masses and the revolution suppresses it.
It is in the light of the serious nature of the charge of being an “agent-provocateur” that we must examine the charges of CPC (M-L) against Comrade Joseph Green and the other comrades. What evidence do they give? Here are the arguments of the leadership of CPC (M-L) to show that the leadership of the MLP, USA are agents provocateurs.
Here is one of your major arguments showing that Comrade Joseph Green is allegedly an agent provocateur:
...you have degenerated to agent-provocateur activity as was shown late this summer when one of your representatives in a discussion with the representatives of our Party could only whimper in response that ’we do not let him speak.’ This feeble wimpering was his maneuver to create a calculated diversion away from the argument of our Party on the question. (p. 6)
Now in fact it is a vile lie that our representative whimpered or created any diversion. Our representative gave our views in a straightforward and open fashion. This, according to your letters, is a “diversion” and you boast of your impoliteness to invited fraternal visitors. Nevertheless, the main point is that here we see the utterly frivolous and slanderous nature of your accusations of “agent-provocateur.” “Feeble whimpering” – that is your alleged evidence of police activity!
You also give another alleged proof that Comrade Joseph Green is an agent provocateur. You write: “This letter of December 1 [the letter of the NEC of COUSML to the NEC of CPC (M-L) – ed.] itself speaks volumes and totally exposes Joseph Green as an agent-provocateur.” (p. 21) In short, any comradely criticism of CPC (M-L) means, according to the leadership of CPC (M-L), that one is an agent provocateur. This also makes crystal clear that your charge of agent provocateur is not just against Comrade Joseph Green, but is against the entire National Committee of the COUSML which directed the writing of and approved the letter of December 1.
Finally, you reduce everything to total absurdity by saying that it doesn’t matter who Comrade Joseph Green is anyway. You write:
This drool [another charming reference to one of our delegates – ed.] could only insinuate and cast asper(s)ions and now you are doing the dirty work for him – or are we to believe that Joseph Green and this individual delegate are one and the same? It is of no consequence, because the truth will soon come out. (p. 10, emphasis added)
This passage is the complete bankruptcy of your charges. It shows the complete frivolity with which you make the most serious accusations and condemnations. Not only do you equate being an “agent-provocateur” and “agent of the blackest reaction” to alleged “feeble whimpering” and writing a letter of fraternal criticism, but also it doesn’t matter in the slightest who you are accusing of being an agent provocateur. According to you “It is of no consequence.” Indeed, it is much better to dangle the sword of Damocles over everybody’s head and darkly remark “the truth will soon come out.” After that, just let anyone dare disagree with the leadership of CPC (M-L) on anything!
Any organization that accepts that its members are dragged through the mud as “agent-provocateurs” on the basis of such accusations will not last long. In our view, such groundless, slanderous and lying charges should be taken most seriously and we in fact take them most seriously – only we believe that they reflect back on those who make such charges. Such charges are not friendly criticism, they do not help in detecting agents, and they can not even be dignified as “hostile polemics.” They are filth. They are sewer politics, gutter politics. We are grieved and pained to see that you, our long-time fraternal comrades, have taken to the use of such slime. But we tell you frankly that when you make such accusations and speak in such a vile tone against us, you are speaking in the language of anti-communism. You must be very conscious indeed of the weakness of your position and most determined to avoid the questions of principle, if you feel compelled to roll about in the filth of these slanderous charges. With these charges, you are showing what the nature is of the “special relationship” with us that you insist on.
You have taken to cursing us and calling us “false friends,” those with the same love for you as “the hangman for his victim.” But only a true friend would suffer through all this abuse you are showering on us and still fight for the strengthening of relations with you. You are abusing our respect for you. But we persist in the belief that you will sooner or later find the Marxist-Leninist determination and strength to repudiate this method of vile abuse and to instead adhere to the norms of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism with us.