Your letters are full of lies and inaccuracies. It would take dozens upon dozens of pages to go through all of them. Below we shall go through a sample of some of them.
You accuse Comrade Joseph Green and other comrades of being agents provocateurs, agents of the blackest reaction, sworn enemies of communism and so forth. We have already dealt with these contemptible vile lies earlier in this letter.
You repeat over and over again that we have allegedly accused the CPC (M-L) of being in or advocating a united front with the “three worlders.” (pp. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 12, 13, 20, etc.) This is a lie. You know perfectly well who we are accusing of being in a united front with the “three worlders.” But you find this lie useful in order to inflame passions and to prevent consideration of the actual issues that we have raised in our letter of December 1, 1979. We demand of you to indicate precisely where in the letter of December 1 or elsewhere we are supposed to have made such a charge. Since you have accused us, and with such vehemence and fury, it is your duty to back up your accusations with facts. But you will not be able to do so, because the accusation is a false one. In your letters of December 5, you are absolutely unable to quote any instance of our charging CPC (M-L) with being in or advocating a united front with the “three worlders.” To cover this up, you put the phrase of “united front with the ’three worlders’” in quotation marks. And you repeat this quotation from us over and over again, as if it were a truly damaging phrase. But on the contrary, we readily admit that one can quote from us our opposition to such a united front. We think that it is to our honor that we fight against the theory and practice of a “united front with the ’three worlders’” and we shall continue to do so with enthusiasm and vigor in the future. But as to this being an attack on CPC (M-L) or a reference to CPC (M-L), that is a totally different matter. And you know it very well.
You accuse us of a “kid-glove, soft and lovable attitude towards Jorge Palacios and...refusal to take an open and direct stand against the criminal and counter-revolutionary activities of Palacios and his host.” (p. 5) In short, you claim that we were “sitting mum with (our) arms folded while they carry out their vicious activities unopposed....” (p. 9) This is a most vicious lie, because it is you who failed to support our struggle against the tour of Palacios on the platform of “RCP, USA.” We waged a protracted, consistent struggle on many fronts against “cen-trism” and as part of this fought this tour. We carried out the following in relation to this tour and the politics that preceded it and paved the way for it:
a) We did vigorous “open and direct” work to propagate and elaborate the condemnation of Mao Zedong Thought and to push forward and deepen the open, direct struggle against Chinese revisionism;
b) We did detailed work with the People’s Front (Chicago) for months and months against the “RCP, USA” and indeed were doing this for a long time before the question of the tour was even broached;
c) We fought against the tour of Palacios on the “RCP.USA” platform by upsetting the plans of the People’s Front (Chicago) with respect to this tour, and by polemics in the press, and also by detailed work across the country in various circles; and
d) We withdrew support from that “solidarity work” that had been converted into being simply a platform for Mao Zedong Thought and for united front with the“RCP, USA.”
Our work against the tour was quite effective and contributed to this tour being a flop as far as gaining any wide interest. Our stand terrified the People’s Front (Chicago). Meanwhile you did not support our work against the tour and even maintained silence in your press on our polemic against the ideological basis of the tour just as you continued to withhold support from all our polemics against “RCP, USA.” Your selling of the rights to the English translation of the Palacios book was a blunder that helped pave the way for this tour. But you reduce everything to the question of whether or not the RCP of Chile was denounced by name in the press, and on this pretext both condemn us and explain away your own passivity and complacency. (And you were wise enough to refrain, at least until March 1980, from the step you were urging on us.) Your charge that we are “kid-glove, soft and lovable” towards “centrism” turns out simply to be a lie for the sake of pressuring us to attack the RCP of Chile by name in the press and to divert attention from your own lack of support for or interest in the actual struggle against Palacios’ tour on the “RCP, USA” platform and the struggle in the U.S. against opportunism.
There are a series of lies where you accuse us of things because it is in fact you who are moving in that direction.
VI-D: You are the ones moving towards public attacks on our Party in the press
You claim that The Workers’ Advocate of October 15, 1979 contained an attack on the CPC (M-L) (pp. 4. 9. etc.). This is a lie,. It is you who have withdrawn political support from us and begun to move down the road of open attacks against us in the press, as we have shown earlier in this letter. We demand that you show us precisely where the issue of The Workers Advocate of October 15, 1979 attacked CPC (M-L) and what that attack was.
VI-E: You accuse us of a “180-degree turn” while it is your Party which has taken a hostile stand and has unilaterally severed relations
You talk of our “180-degree turn against our Party [CPC (M-L) – ed.].” (pp. 5, 22, etc.) This too is a lie. We have stood and do stand for the further strengthening of the fraternal relations between our two Parties. While you are accusing us of making a “180-degree turn” at precisely the moment when you have chosen to take a hostile stand against our Party, to withdraw political support from it, to denounce its leadership and to claim that in your letter of early February (“January 19”) you have neither knowledge of it nor relations with it.
VI-F: Not us, but you are the ones who “deliberately suspected our sincerity and integrity at that time” (August 1977)
You claim that we “deliberately suspected our |CPC (M-L)’s – ed.] sincerity and integrity at that time [August 1977 – ed.] and you have deliberately spread suspicion [about – ed.] our sincerity and integrity at this time.” The truth is that you have harbored morbid suspicions about us. This is quite clear from the accusations in your letters of December 5. As to August 1977, it is truly amazing that you can tell us by telephone that “You [the NEC of COUSML – ed.] are acting like a bunch of U.S. imperialist gangsters” and then convert this into our allegedly having suspicions about you and not you harboring morbid suspicions about us.
In your letters of December 5, you also have a series of lies of the following nature: When we have raised some comradely criticism or have objected to certain theses of yours, you simply turn around and automatically accuse us of it. However, you do not fail to paint everything in the most lurid, extreme colors. You seem to be following the theory that the best “defense” is a good “offense.”
VI-G: Your charge that we “do not even recognize ’American opportunism’” is a blatant lie
You charge that we “do not even recognize ’American opportunism’.” (pp. 6-7, 11, 17, 18, etc.) The truth is that we have been waging a most vigorous polemic against “our own” domestic opportunists. Meanwhile over the last period you have opposed this polemic and counterposed the struggle against the domestic opportunists and revisionists to the struggle against the international trends of revisionism. In your letters of December 5 you even go to the extent of calling our struggle against the domestic opportunists “American exceptionalism.” (pp. 3. 25. etc.) And then, instead of either defending and elaborating your theses in a principled way or giving up these theses, you put forward the blatant lie that our Party does “not even recognize ’American opportunism’.”
VI-H: Your accusation of “wild defence of centrism” is shameless hypocrisy
You accuse us of a “wild defence of centrism” (p. 25), that we are “shamelessly, openly and brazenly pleading that the centrists must not be attacked” (p. 24), and that our Party “zealously defends the entire centrist trend and give it time to prepare and organize its forces...” (p. 25 and elsewhere) and that our aim is to “RESCUE THE CENTRIST TREND” (p. 24, capitals in the original). The truth is that we have been waging since 1978 an open, vigorous polemic against the various forces in the U.S. that could be called “centrist” as part of the struggle against social-chauvinism, while you have especially objected to precisely this part of the movement against social-chauvinism. You withdrew political support from our polemics precisely when they took up the question of struggle against centrism. You accuse our Party of “giv(ing) it [centrism – ed.] time to prepare and organize its forces” while you have opposed our struggle against centrism since 1978 and while you write about “...this entire centrist trend which unfolded right under his nose across the USA this fall [fall 1979!!! – ed.].” (p. 8) You denigrate our ideological struggle on the questions concerning Mao Zedong Thought and political line; you have consistently opposed our polemical struggle against the “RCP, USA” and against the social-democratic Weisberg MLOC/“CPUSA(M-L)” sect; you reduce the international struggle against centrism and the struggle against the marriage of Palacios and the “RCP, USA” to the question of whether or not the RCP of Chile is attacked by name in the press in the U.S.; you blunder into selling the rights to the English-language translation of Palacios’ book to the “RCP, USA”; and then you accuse us of striving to “RESCUE THE CENTRIST TREND.” You insistently oppose and negate our ongoing struggle against the ideological positions and the political forces that could be called “centrist,” and then you explain away your own passivity and complacency by saying “Our representative.... further pointed out and proposed that, ’It is within the United States of America that the front should be developed against centrism.’” (p. 21) What utter, shameful hypocrisy!
You also use a method that can be described as: “deny everything!” If we say “yes,” you must say “no,” and if we say “no,” you must say “yes.” Thus on page one of your letter of December 5 to the NC of COUSML, you set forward the program of negating each and every sentence of our letter, “sentence-by-sentence,” at least for the first part of our letter. Thus points number 1 through 23 of your letter are sentence-by-sentence commentaries on the first 23 sentences of our letter, point number x being the comment on the x-th sentence. You yourself say that there is only one sentence which is “the sole sentence in your entire letter with which we cannot really quibble, as far as the sentence itself is concerned.” (p. 1) Quite clearly, your interest in this letter is not in elaborating your theses and ideas or in seriously examining ours or to further develop or expound some analysis or to look into the problems in our fraternal relations, but to annihilate us, to “nail” us, to use your own expression. You are trying to show your supremacy by wiping out every word we say. Why, if we were to say “the sun rises in the east and sets in the west,” we would be accused of being shameless liars and two-faced characters, tricksters of the highest order, slanderers of the scientific theory of Copernicus that the earth orbits the sun and not vice versa, and hence clerical obscurantists, earthly chauvinists and sworn enemies of all adherents of science, such as CPC (M-L).
VI-I: By your own admission you are lying when you deny that you sold the rights to your English translation of the Palacios book to the “RCP, USA”
You deny that you sold the rights to the Palacios book published by you to the “RCP.USA.” You write:
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....” (p. 7)
You go on to say that “Only an idiot could think of such a thing.” On page 8 you denounce the assertion that “...the rights to the Palacios book were in the hands of CPC (M-L)...” as “an archetypical lie in the imperialist and Nixonian style” and you say that, “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).” So why did the “RCP, USA,” through Banner Press, pay $1,000 to an institution of CPC (M-L)? For love of Marxism-Leninism? You are lying when you deny the sale of the “rights” and when you compare this transaction to simply “order(ing) books and periodicals from NPC [National Publications Centre – ed.].” (p. 9) You yourselves admit “the transaction of selling the English-language translation, and that and that alone, [that, and that alone, was sufficient to be a blunder – ed.]” (p. 14) We used the expression of the selling of the “rights” because that is how you yourselves described it in response to the direct question of our representative during his visit of October 28 to November 6, 1979, and because it is not a matter of Banner Press buying books from NPC but of buying the right to publish the book. We are quite willing to use the somewhat more precise phrase of the selling of “the English-language translation” or “the rights to the English-language translation” (perhaps we should hire a lawyer versed in the book trade before writing to you) now that you have informed us. But this changes nothing about your transaction. Your quibble does not in the least justify your lie, and it shows your utter refusal to deal with the issues seriously, your replacement of analysis with word-chopping. How far you will go in denying everything is shown by your letter, where you even denounce your new formula of “selling the English-language translation” and ridicule it by talking of “the so-called ’selling’ of the translation of Palacios’ book.” (p. 6)
VI-J: Your denials that the leadership of CPC (M-L) has any responsibility for the wrong acts of PCPH are lies and evasions
You deny that the leadership of CPC (M-L) has any responsibility concerning the acts of the People’s Canada Publishing House (PCPH). You actually attack us for writing to the NEC of CPC (M-L) concerning an act carried out at PCPH. And you evade the issue of the knowledge of the leadership of CPC (M-L) that Banner Press was associated with “RCP, USA” by insisting the PCPH didn’t know such a thing, (pp. 4, 14) All this is lies and evasions. The request of Banner Press to buy the English-language translation of Palacios’ book was seen first by the leadership of CPC (M-L). At the very beginning of the period “between August 4th and before September 15th” (p. 4) that you identify as the period of negotiations with Banner Press, the request of Banner Press was discussed by you with our two representatives during the discussions of August 1-2. At that time, you clearly indicated your firm belief that Banner Press was “RCP, USA”; we all had a good laugh at “RCP, USA,” and we assumed that therefore you would not act on this request. Thus, irrespective of whether some individuals in CPC (M-L)’s leadership or in the PCPH knew or didn’t know if Banner Press was “RCP, USA,” it was known to your leadership. You also claim that “when the NEC of CPC (M-L) came to know about this particular transaction, it condemned it,” but you carefully evade saying on what grounds. But in fact you informed us at the time of the visit of our delegate of October 28 to November 6 that when the “day-to-day committee” first heard of the sale, it only condemned the low price and not the fact that the English-language translation had been sold to “RCP, USA.” Indeed, in your letters of December 5, you still display irritation about the price, talking of the sale of the translation “for a song” (p. 9)’, while you evade or lie about the political issues involved.
VI-K: You are lying when you deny the fact that you have opposed our polemical struggle against the domestic opportunists
You deny that you have opposed our polemical struggle against the domestic opportunists. You write:
You have laid the outlandish chrage that, ’Indeed, over the last period you have floated informally to us and urged upon us insistently, if in an off-hand manner, a number of theses directed against the polemical struggle against the opportunists.’ (p. 18)
And elsewhere, for example on pages 15-17, this is reiterated in different ways. But it is a lie. Not only have you many times urged such theses on us, but in your very letters of December 5 you reiterate some of these theses and bring forward some new ones. You attack our polemical struggle against the domestic opportunists as “the anti-Marxist-Leninist thesis of ’two-line struggle’” (pp. 10, 12, 18, etc.) and you denounce the struggle against “RCP, USA” as “American exceptionalism” (p. 3) and as “not beat(ing) the beast but only its shadow!” (p. 24). We shall go into your opposition to the polemical struggle against opportunism more later on in the letter.
Vl-L: You are lying when you deny that you strongly opposed the slogan “Build the Marxist-Leninist Party Without the Social-Chauvinists and Against the Social-Chauvinists”
You deny that you opposed the slogan “Build the Marxist-Leninist Party Without the Social-Chauvinists and Against the Social-Chauvinists.” You write: “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!“ ’ ” (p. 16, 1, etc.) Indeed, you not only opposed this slogan, but in the meeting of early August you used your opposition to this slogan to explain away your lack of support for the campaign to found the Marxist-Leninist Party. At this meeting, in talking about the Call of the NC of the COUSML entitled “Build the Marxist-Leninist Party Without the Social-Chauvinists and Against the Social-Chauvinists,” you stated:
Our first main question, our objection is to the title. What does it mean? It is our view that the Party’s main characteristic is that it is a Leninist party based on Leninist norms. But this concept is of two-line struggle in the U.S. Marxist-Leninist movement – the idea that the neo-revisionist trend is in the Marxist-Leninist movement and the Party is based on struggle against this neo-revisionist trend. This is the main question on which we object.
And you stated:
You advance that there is a movement against social-chauvinism. We do not understand this movement....
We agree with a lot that is in your document. But if we disagree with this main slogan, it means that we disagree with the whole pamphlet. The mistakes from the past should be corrected. (minutes of the early August discussions)
Thus you not only opposed the “without and against” slogan, but you called it “the main question.” You slandered the struggle against opportunism and revisionism as a manifestation of Chinese revisionism and so forth. We will deal with the particular theses you put forward against the struggle against opportunism in detail later on in this letter. For now, we note that you stressed that “if we disagree with this main slogan, it means that we disagree with the whole pamphlet.” In fact, you used your opposition to the “without and against” slogan to justify your opposition to the campaign to found the MLP, USA.
Your opposition to our campaign is fully documented not just by the minutes of our discussions with you, but by the silence of PCDN as well as by your letters of December 5 and early February (“January 19”). Your opposition to the slogan is fully proved by your hypocritical article “Brother Marxist-Leninist Party to be Founded in the U.S. in the Near Future” in the August 1, 1979 issue of PCDN. This article avoids mentioning “The Call of the NC of the COUSML” and the slogan “Build the Marxist-Leninist Party Without the Social-Chauvinists and Against the Social-Chauvinists,” something that is incomprehensible unless you opposed this slogan.
That you deny opposing this slogan only makes it more significant that you have refused to work out seriously or to put in writing various theses that you have insistently urged upon us. Indeed you have sometimes asked our representatives not to take notes. Your opposition to this slogan was insistently urged upon us in a number of discussions. But, for that matter, it also can be seen in the letters exchanged between our two Parties. You write in your letters of December 5:
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 [December 1 – ed.] to a mere question of liking or disliking that slogan [“without and against” – ed.]. 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’.... [this is reference to discussions of early August 1979 – ed.] (p. 10, emphasis added)
This statement is a further verification that you are lying in denying your opposition to ”that slogan.” It indicates: (a) you are opposed to that slogan, or else the question of “liking or disliking that slogan” would not come up; (b) you are accusing us of “reducing the building of the Marxist-Leninist Party to that slogan, which is one of the accusations you raised in the discussions of August 1-2; (c) you are accusing the slogan of being “the anti-Marxist-Leninist thesis of ’two-line struggle’ ”; and (d) putting this all together, as you did in the discussions of August 1-2, you are counterposing the struggle gainst opportunism to the other tasks of party building, and accusing us of “reduc(ing)” everything to “two-line struggle” against the social-chauvinists.
This can be further seen by examining your distortion of the meeting of August 1-2. You neither made a request for us to send a “formal delegation,” nor was it on the subject you name. The history of this meeting goes as follows. On July 17, 1979 the NEC, on the instructions of the NC, wrote you a letter which stated in part:
We request that CPC (M-L) express support in People’s Canada Daily News for the campaign of COUSML to found the Marxist-Leninist Party of the USA. We would warmly welcome this proletarian internationalist assistance.
There was no mention in the letter of “that slogan” or even of the “Call of the NC.” The letter explicitly talked of the “campaign of COUSML to found” the MLP, USA.
Some time later, on July 23, you made a telephone call to us to come up immediately for discussion, without saying why. Thus, far from being a request for a formal delegation, there was nothing formal about this request, it was not for a ”formal delegation,” and we were not given any idea of what the discussions were for. It is not relevant here to go through the ensuing communications between the two Parties, but as a result you sent us a letter dated July 29, 1979. This letter again requested we come up immediately, but this time added the following about the subject:
“What we want to discuss, and the reason we have asked you to visit us, is your written request that we support the call for the founding of the Party in the U.S. in PCDN. We think these discussions are of utmost importance.” Thus you clearly indicated that the subject which you wanted to discuss was our request to support in PCDN the campaign to found the MLP, USA, which you converted in your letter to a request for you to “support the call for the founding of the Party in the U.S. in PCDN.” This shows that: (a) you identified the reason why you couldn’t support the party campaign as the Call of the NC, which is entitled “Build the Marxist-Leninist Party Without the Social-Chauvinists and Against the Social-Chauvinists”; and (b) you did not feel that you could honor our request without first requesting immediate discussion “of utmost importance.”
Now, in your letters of December 5, you identify the subject of the discussions differently. You describe them as “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’.” By redefining the subject this way, you have thus verified that: (a) you were denouncing the Call of the NC to “Build the Marxist-Leninist Party Without the Social-Chauvinists and Against the Social-Chauvinists” as “the anti-Marxist-Leninist thesis of ’two-line struggle’”; and (b) you withdrew public support from the campaign to found the MLP, USA as a means of putting pressure on us to agree to your theses on how to build the MLP, USA. And you are exerting savage pressure on us to adopt your offhand, casual theses even though to this day you have not worked out and elaborated them in any serious fashion, let alone presenting them to us in a document.
VI-M: You are lying when you deny your opposition to the polemics against the conciliators of social-chauvinism
You deny your opposition to the polemics against the forces that could be called “centrist” and in particular you deny your opposition to the article “How to Advance the Struggle Against Social-Chauvinism” of February 10,1978. Thus you write:
These so-called ’facts’ are the lowest and most base yet which only a representative of the blackest reaction could peddle against our Party. ...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.’ (p. 15)
Having thus colorfully and emphatically denied your opposition to “How to Advance the Struggle Against Social-Chauvinism” (which is the article on idealist anti-revisionism being referred to) and to the other polemics against the “centrist” forces, you immediately proceed to reiterate your opposition to precisely this article and these polemics. Here your method of “deny everything” shows up in full glory. If we say that you opposed the polemics, you say that this is a base lie and utter fabrication, this is a “so-called ’fact’ ” which “only a representative of the blackest reaction could peddle against our Party.” But then you reiterate precisely your opposition to these polemics. You write in the very next sentence:
What are the facts? Our Party disagreed with the theses emanating from these Joseph Greens [note the use of the plural “Greens” – ed.] and provided comradely criticism and principled line on the question of the building of the 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. ...propaganda was carried out [by the COUSML – ed.] 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.... (pp. 15-16, emphasis added)
Thus you denounce the polemics against the “centrists” in strong terms as against the unity of the Marxist-Leninists. You counterpose the question of polemics in general to the question of unity of the Marxist-Leninists, and in particular denounce the polemics against the “centrists” as having destroyed the possibility of fully utilizing the “full possibilities of this opportunity of building the unity of the genuine Marxist-Leninists.” And in fact you insistently opposed our polemics against the “centrists,” withheld support in PCDN from our polemics against the MLOC/“CPUSA(ML)” and the “RCP, USA,” and raised in particular objections under one or another pretext to Why Did the RCP, USA’ Split? and Reply to the Open Letter of the MLOC and, in your letter of December 5, to “U.S. Neo-Revisionism as the American Expression of the International Opportunist Trend of Chinese Revisionism.” You further go on to in particular denounce “How to Advance the Struggle Against Social-Chauvinism,” first on the pretext that it is “peculiar jargon” but then on the grounds that it is a “hidden attack,” an attack of the type which prevents the utilization of “the full possibilities of this opportunity of building the unity of the genuine Marxist-Leninists.” This raises the question of exactly who do you consider to be genuine Marxists-Leninists in the U.S. and why do you believe that attacking the “centrist” ideology and forces is harmful, not helpful, to the unity of those Marxist-Leninists. You go to such an extent in your opposition to polemics against “centrism” that you object even to those that don’t name groups but just attack the “centrist” ideology, such as “How to Advance the Struggle Against Social-Chauvinism,” which does not name the Barry Weisberg MLOC sect but which you condemn as a “hidden attack” on MLOC. We shall have more to say about your theses on the struggle against “centrism” later.
So here we have a glaring example of your method of “deny everything.” First, deny your opposition to the polemics against “centrism.” Then denounce these polemics as against the unity of the Marxist-Leninists and shed a few tears over an alleged “hidden attack” on the Barry Weisberg social-democratic MLOC/“CPUSA(ML)” sect.
VI-N: It is utter shameless hypocrisy for you to deny responsibility for your vile and provocative telephone message of Monday, August 8, 1977
You deny your responsiblity for your vile and provocative telephone message to us of Monday, August 8, 1977 that “You are acting like a bunch of U.S. imperialist gangsters.” You write:
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. (p. 15, italics added but capitals as in the original)
Thus on one hand you denounce this mere “slip,” this “obviously and transparently wrong message.” On the other hand, both in your letter of September 9, 1977 and in your present letters of December 5, 1979, you explicitly endorse this very same message and say that the correct message is “Some of you are behaving like imperialist gangsters.” So this “obviously and transparently wrong message,” this mere “slip,” is the very message that you adhere to to this very day – and you give your savage and slanderous condemnation of Comrade Joseph Green as a verification of that message. You write:
More than two years ago, we communicated to COUSML that, ’Some of you are behaving like imperialist gangsters.’ We are firmly convinced that Joseph Green is one such individual. (Letter of December 5 to the NC)
What utter shameless hypocrisy! And the only pretext for this whole lie is a mere change in wording, from “you are acting like a bunch of” to “Some of you are behaving like....” Both messages are exactly the same. For that matter, from the context we always took it that the first message only referred to “some of” us, namely the NEC. Now it seems to you have widened it somewhat so as to leave the sword of Damocles hanging over our whole leadership.
Another series of lies in your letters of December 5 concerns your descriptions of the meetings and agreements between our two fraternal Parties. In general, your descriptions are fantastic. They resemble another world besides the usual one which we live in and are familiar with. We have already described some of your methods in the discussions between our two organizations in Section II-C of this letter. Now let us examine a few more of your lies about the meetings and discussions between our two organizations.
VI-O: More out-and-out lies when you denounce us for allegedly not checking the facts on your sale of your English translation of the Palacios book to the “RCP, USA”
You denounce us for allegedly not having checked the facts concerning your sale of the rights to the English-language translation of the Palacios book to the “RCP, USA” before writing our letter of December 1 to you. You write, somewhat incoherently:
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 [does – ed.] 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. (p. 6)
And this is reiterated on page 20:
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.
The truth is that we got our facts concerning the sale of the rights to the English-language translation of the Palacios book from what you told us yourself. We relied on what you told our delegate in early November in response to the direct question of our delegate. And at that time discussion took place on various aspects of the sale of the book. Based on the facts you provided us with and on the policy of your Party as elaborated to us in that discussion, we decided to write the letter of December 1. Far from not checking with you, on the contrary we relied completely on your account. Thus your dramatic assertions quoted above are just out-and-out lies.
Indeed, this lie is another of the lies in which you accuse us of the very thing that you are doing. For it is you who never consulted with or even notified us of the sale of the English translation of the Palacios book until early November, when our delegate asked a direct question as to how the “RCP, USA” got hold of the right to publish the Palacios book.
But in your letter of December 5, you leap and dance over your lie that we allegedly never consulted you. You try to make us out as sinister, and you darkly remark: “In this talk between the representatives of CPC (M-L) and COUSML held on October 9, 1979.... 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....” (p. 21) Of course we said nothing on October 9, 1979. We didn’t know about the transaction until early November 1979. You hadn’t informed us.
As a matter of fact, on page 9 you gloat over the fact that we didn’t know anything until early November. You try to use this to prove that our delegate couldn’t have asked a direct question about how the “RCP, USA” ended up with the rights to the English translation of Palacios’ book, because he didn’t know about the fact that CPC (M-L) sold it to “RCP, USA.” This clearly misses the mark. It is quite possible to ask a question without knowing the answer. But in your gloating over this alleged contradiction – that our delegate asked a question whose answer he didn’t know – you admit that we in fact didn’t know about the sale until early November. You write: “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’ [in the discussion of early November – ed.]? No, you did not do such a thing. Your delegate did not know anything about these questions.” (p. 9, bottom, emphasis added)
Thus on page 9 of your letter you gloat over the fact that we didn’t know how the “RCP, USA” got the rights to the English translation of the Palacios book until early November, while on page 21 you denounce us for not asking you about it in October. Charming, is it not? Any lie will do in denouncing us – even if the lies contradict each other.
VI-P: You are not telling the truth when you boast that you “offered every political and ideological assistance” to the struggle against “centrism”
You claimed that you offered us tremendous assistance in the struggle against the RCP of Chile. You exhibit this alleged assistance as proof of your dedication to proletarian internationalism and you write:
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.” (p. 4a)
This is a lie. All you offered to do is give us a document on your views on what fronts to fight the RCP of Chile. And even that assistance would be contingent on our agreeing in advance, prior to seeing the document, on making a public, written denunciation of the RCP of Chile. You regarded it as a waste of time for you to prepare a definite proposal unless we agreed to it in advance. And this Alice in Wonderland-type procedure, in which the proposal comes after the agreement rather than before, is called “aid.”
Indeed, you talk of “every political and ideological assistance.” But the fact is, as we have pointed out earlier in this section, that you were and are opposed to our struggle against the “centrists” in the U.S. And you did not offer to retract this opposition. For example, you did not offer to publicize in PCDN our polemics against the “RCP, USA,” although you say it is in the same trend as the RCP of Chile on page 18 of your letter, nor our polemics against Mao Zedong Thought, although you say that this trend has “crystalized around the ’defence of ”Mao Zedong Thought’ and the ’contributions’ of Mao Zedong” on page 4a of your letter. And of course you do not offer to reprint the proposed polemics against the RCP of Chile, since that would defeat the whole purpose of our coming out with a public polemic while you remain silent. Nor did you offer any other type of “political and ideological assistance.” It goes without saying that you never prepared this document. (Nor did you send us you letter, dated November 18, 1979, to the CC of the RCP of Chile, until February 4, 1980. It came with a cover letter addressed to the NC of the COUSML and backdated to December 15, 1979.) And it is most revealing that you regard the struggles against “centrism” and against Mao Zedong Thought as something that “disrupts our existing programmes.”
VI-Q: It is not the case that we agreed to make a second trip to Canada in November 1979
You claim that we agreed to make a second trip to Canada in November 1979. You write:
Finally, [in the discussions at the beginning of November – ed.] 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.... (p. 21)
There was no such agreement for an additional trip to Canada. Such a trip would have seriously hurt our preparations for the Preparatory Conference and Founding Congress. Nor, for that matter, was there even a serious proposal on your part. One of our delegates had just spent over a week in Canada in early November (the end of October and the first week in November). We sent him, despite the difficulties this caused our campaign for the 35th anniversary of the liberation of Albania and our preparations for the Preparatory Conference and Founding Congress, in order to take part as previously agreed in a program on Mao Zedong Thought. However it turned out that you had cancelled this program without bothering to notify us. Our delegate stayed anyway for discussion at your request. He rather overdid it, in fact, staying in Canada for nine days, although you did not engage him in any discussions that warranted such a long stay. At the same time, you didn’t want him to leave either. In any event, our delegate’s long stay showed that he was intent on giving you every opportunity for serious and thorough discussions. What need was there, therefore, for further discussion in another ten days or less, which was what you proposed? You are silent on this, because it shows that your casual proposal for another visit was at best frivolous.
For that matter, you are quite aware that, if you felt that further discussion was needed, and if you were finally prepared for such discussion, then you could either have held discussion with our delegate in early November or you could either have sent us a delegate or delegation of your own or you could have written us a letter elaborating your views. Indeed, if you prepared for further discussion and really wanted such discussion, then this was yet another reason why you should have sent delegations to the Preparatory Conference and Founding Congress. There was no lack of opportunity for you to put forward your views to us.
But it cannot fail to attract attention that while you berate us for not coming to another visit, in fact you still do not elaborate any further analysis, you do not put forward the ideas that presumably were so essential to talk about in mid-November. In fact you go out of your way to avoid discussion and to avoid putting forward your analysis or listening to ours. You go to such extremes in this that you denounce our letter of November 29, which invited you in a warm, fraternal manner to send a delegation to the Preparatory Conference for the Founding of the MLP, USA, and to the Founding Congress of the MLP, USA. But if you were really interested in discussion, then sending these delegations was an excellent opportunity to have further discussions. And you denounce our letter of December 1. But anyone who reads that letter can see that it is a calm, principled and fraternal letter of criticism and that it develops our views and the Marxist-Leninist analysis on certain burning questions on the struggle against opportunism. It develops our views systematically, while your letters of December 5 shout, leap and dance, go into a frenzy, complain about this meeting and that, and do everything to avoid developing your views on the burning issues. Thus your complaint about our delegate not returning in ten days for another meeting reminds one of the fable of the empty barrel that Lenin refers to in section IA of What Is to Be Done?, the empty barrel that makes such a banging and rattling and deafening noise as it rolls about on the back of the cart precisely because it is an empty barrel, without any content at all.
VI-R: Your claim that we never told you whether or not we agreed to your proposal for us to open a public polemic against the RCP of Chile is a double lie
You claim that we allegedly never told you whether or not we agreed to your proposal that we begin open polemics with the RCP of Chile. You write: “We proposed that the resolute struggle against the centrist alliance be opened up within the U.S. but, as their usual practice, COUSML representatives and their Charlie gave no reply.” (p. 24, bottom)
This is a double lie. First of all, as we have pointed out earlier in this section of our letter, we were already in struggle against “centrism” within the U.S., and it is “you who opposed this struggle. By having a struggle ”opened up within the U.S.,“ you simply mean that you wanted us to attack the RCP of Chile openly by name. And the second part of your lie is you claim that we gave you “no reply.” We repeatedly discussed with you the question of whether the RCP of Chile should be attacked by name. Discussions took place in September and October, and it was touched on again in November. And we discussed with you the reasons for our rejection of your particular proposal that we should attack them in print by name.
On page 21 you yourself contradict your lie that we never replied by describing that we talked to you about our tactics with respect to the Palacios tour of the U.S. on the “RCP, USA” platform. However, you say that this discussion took place in November, and that in October “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’.” This is ridiculous. We discussed this with you as early as the meeting of mid-September 1979. The COUSML had been doing work for months on end in the Chilean circles against the “RCP, USA,” and it developed its particular tactics on the question of the Palacios tour in September. This can be verified both by the Internal Bulletin issued in September on this question and by the minutes of the NC of the COUSML for September.
The contradiction in your own letter about whether we ever replied to your proposal reveals what is at the heart of your lie that we “gave no reply.” You have gotten used to the method of putting pressure on us. And you refuse to seriously consider and study the views we put forward or the work and struggle of our Party. This is true to the extent that if we say “no” to any of your ideas you do not even regard this as a “reply.” Only an unqualified “yes” counts.
Thus you write that:
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. (p. 21)
What utter rot! You pretend that all you received from us was the word “no”. In fact, we repeatedly described our tactics and stand on the question of the Palacios tour of the U.S. on the platform of the “RCP, USA” and our views on the question of attacking the RCP of Chile by name in the press. We sent delegates up to talk to you in person, despite the heavy pace of our work, in September, early October and the period of late October-early November. While you, despite your alleged concern for consultation, never sent us a delegate nor a document. But you reduce our detailed plans and reasoning to the word “no”. You don’t even regard our discussions as descriptions of our plans, because you disagreed with these plans. In the discussions of early October, you insisted to our skeptical delegate that when he goes back he should have us phone you and give you the one-word answer “yes” or “no”. That is, you refused to accept the stand of our Party communicated through our delegate because it disagreed with your views. Our delegate could see no use whatsoever for this telephone call, but reluctantly agreed to it at your request. So we telephoned you and gave you the answer “no.”
VI-S: Your claim that we refused to discuss your conception of the Internationalists as a separate “trend” within the international Marxist-Leninist communist movement is also a double lie
You claim that we have refused to discuss your conception of the Internationalists as a separate “trend” distinct from or within the international Marxist-Leninist communist movement.[1] You write:
Among other things, our representative communicated to them: ’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. (p. 20)
Once again, this is a double lie. First of all, in this you try to hide that you have put forward that there is today “two trends” or many trends within the international Marxist-Leninist communist movement and that you believe that the Internationalist “trend” can and should play a certain role as a separate “trend” in the international movement, allegedly as part of the process of fusing everything together into one trend. However, we do not agree either with the view that the Internationalists came up separate from the international Marxist-Leninist communist movement nor that they form a separate trend within it at the present time. We emerged as part of and remain part of only one trend – the Marxist-Leninist trend. We regard the merit of the Internationalists as being that they were a contingent of the international Marxist-Leninist communist movement.
Secondly, this concept, as so many others that you have brought forward, you have not thought through and elaborated. At any rate, you have certainly not discussed them with us, but have subjected us to hints, fragments of ideas, half-baked phrases, everything but serious analysis. We have repeatedly asked you to elaborate your idea about the “two trends.” You have refused to do so. Finally, we evaluated the idea on our own and rejected it and told you why. Indeed, in reading this passage of your alleged remarks from the meeting of October 9, the question arises: why didn’t you simply elaborate your views? To hide the fact that you could neither defend nor elaborate your idea of “two trends,” you insisted that you would discuss them “whenever you like, whenever it is convenient,” etc. But our visit of early October was itself convenient. Our visit of early November was convenient. Mid-September 1979 had also been a convenient time, as at that time we had tried to explain our views to you on this question, but you had cut us off. Your letters of December 5 also give you another convenient opportunity, but all you can say about this question is a fragment of one sentence. The truth is that you are the ones who have avoided serious discussion on this untenable and dangerous concept of “two (or more) trends” in the international Marxist-Leninist communist movement.
Let us examine some of the history of this idea. It came up in embryonic form as early as mid-1978. You brought this idea up as the justification for a meeting of the four fraternal parties of Canada, XXX, YYY and the U.S. Our minutes of a meeting between the representatives of our two Parties give a summary of your views on this as follows:
He [the representative of CPC (M-L) – ed.] would like to use the time over there [in Europe – ed.] to hold the meeting of the four parties. The purpose of the meeting is to give the summation of the historical significance of the trend [the Internationalist trend – ed.] and to bring to an end any relations apart from the normal relations of the international movement – not an end to close relations. He expressed the view that the YYY interpret normalization as an end to close relations.
This four-party meeting did not take place. You informed us later that this was due to problems between you and the YYY leadership. We ourselves had no objection at that time to a meeting to normalize relations. At that time, the meeting was alleged to be for the purpose of putting an end to any special relations between the four parties and for a normalization of relations.
Then in early 1979 you put forward to us a different idea. Now the idea of the joint meeting was not to normalize relations and end any special relationship existing as a historical carry-over, but to further develop the “trend.” Our minutes of the meetings between the representatives of our two Parties at the time of the 6th Consultative Conference of the CPC (M-L) contain the following:
[The views of CPC (M-L)’s representative]: In practical terms, not political, there are the Marxist-Leninist parties that came out of the struggle against Khrushchovite revisionism led by the PLA and those who come out of the Internationalists. There is a question of merging them as one trend. The historical significance of the Internationalists and the work we have done shouldn’t be underestimated: 1) common struggle; 2) relations and unity. Should utilize this as a force to develop strong relations in the international communist movement. In the present situation, the parties coming from the Internationalists can make a big contribution, utilizing the existing strength in the struggle against revisionism and opportunism. While I [CPC (M-L)’s representative – ed.] was in Albania, I came to the view of the need for a joint statement of the Parties from the Internationalists. I went to the (XXX and YYY) to propose one or two informational meetings to exchange views, particularly regarding the international situation and the international Marxist-Leninist communist movement, and a joint statement of the Parties, sometime in the next six months. I was unable to propose it to the YYY. There was an incident between...[a leader of the YYY] and myself and the meeting did not take place. I did raise it to the XXX, who agreed. The proposal is to go ahead with the informational meeting and prepare for the joint statement. The YYY would be invited to participate in the joint statement.”
The minutes also state that:
CPC (M-L) has views to present. He is not calling for others to give views necessarily at this time.
Thus here there is the idea of two “trends” in the international Marxist-Leninist communist movement, including the bizarre counterposing of the Internationalists to parties that came up in the struggle against Khrushchovite revisionism. This idea was first put forward to our delegate who visited you prior to the 6th Consultative Conference to make arrangements for our participation. He wanted to discuss the issue further, but you cut the discussion off. You said that there was a lot of time for further discussion and you would elaborate the question later.
But then at the discussions at the 6th Consultative Conference you raised the proposal we have quoted above. We were asked to agree immediately to a three-party (Canada, XXX, U.S.) informational meeting. This meeting had to take place immediately so it could occur, because the XXX delegate had to leave Canada. This meeting was based on the idea of “two trends,” and also implied taking a certain stand in the controversy between the YYY and the Canadians, but we were not to receive any further elaboration about your ideas on “two trends” until the meeting itself. Thus, prior to the 6th Consultative Conference, discussion was put off on the plea of there being a lot of time to take up the question at leisure. At the 6th Consultative Conference we were asked to take action based on the analysis of the “two trends” immediately, and yet the analysis of the “two trends” would only be elaborated at the three-party meeting itself. We could not agree to this. Our delegation gave you a note which read as follows:
The comrade from the NEC asked me to convey the following:
1) We are very enthusiastic to receive the Party’s views about the various questions concerning the Internationalists and the international situation, as a document or orally in bilateral discussion.
2) We cannot agree to an informational meeting at this time. This is not a simple matter and touches a number of critical issues which we would need to think through.
Thus, we were not against the informational meeting in itself. Nor were we against joint meetings in general. But since this particular meeting was now linked to the idea of “two trends” and to certain other issues, we needed further discussion on these issues before agreeing to this meeting. This note requests that you elaborate your views. But you refused to elaborate your views. All that mattered to you was that we had supposedly “opposed” the informational meeting. You regarded our refusal to proceed without first having discussion of the basis underlying the meeting as opposition to the meeting.
This procedure of yours shows that on this issue, and others, you insisted on unquestioning and immediate agreement to any plan or proposal, no matter how vague or even half-baked the plan was, no matter whether the plan raised important questions of principle that had to be handled seriously and cautiously. You have repeatedly regarded that a request for explanations of the basis and rationale of your proposals – or the thought that matters must be put forward before the appropriate party committee for discussion and approval and not decided by an offhand, casual cheap agreement between any member or delegate of our organization that happened to be at hand and yourself – as a refusal. But this means that you give yourself the right both to act on matters of vital interest to both out fraternal Parties on the basis of hasty, unworked out or even half-baked views and also to dictate to our Party.
Finally, therefore, we were forced to discuss the issue of “two trends” in the NC on the basis of just the few fragments of an idea that had been presented to us. The NC meeting of May 1979 decided against this concept and reaffirmed the traditional view of ACWM(M-L) and COUSML that there is only one Marxist-Leninist trend in the international movement, that of Marxism-Leninism itself. We tried to discuss this with you, but you were not particularly interested. For example, in the discussions between the representatives of our Parties of mid-September 1979, our representative opposed the idea of “two trends” in the international Marxist-Leninist communist movement. You cut him off, made a brief remark to the effect of “but there is the history of the Internationalists,” and changed the subject. And now we can judge the full hypocrisy of the fragment from the discussions in early October that you quote on page 20 of your letter. You “proposed” to discuss the issue of “two trends” as just another way to cut off having any actual discussion on the question right then and there. The final proof of the bogus nature of your alleged proposal to discuss this issue, was that since then you have always avoided seriously discussing this issue, either at the discussion in early November or in your letters of December 5.
Thus the facts show that you are the one who has been avoiding discussion of the concept of “two trends” in the international Marxist-Leninist communist movement or of the Internationalists as a separate “trend.”
In referring to the discussions of early August 1979 between the representatives of the leaderships of our two Parties, you write:
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. (p. 17)
It is highly doubtful that you have “full notes and minutes” of our views or of that discussion in general. We request that you send us a copy of these “full notes and minutes” of the discussions of early August. In those discussions you had only one comrade present in the room from your Party. This comrade did not take notes nor did he manifest much interest in our views, which he regarded as at best a nuisance. You sum up the entire meeting with an alleged “general understanding” to “further carry on discussions to arrive at unanimity of views through discussion.” This is ridiculous. These discussions resulted in definite agreements and disagreements, but you wish to cover everything over and deny your commitments by inventing a concocted “general understanding.” If this is the fruit of your “full notes and minutes,” then it is proof in full of the dubious and unreliable character of your “full notes and minutes.” We have shown earlier in this section that you are lying when you deny your opposition to the slogan “Build the Marxist-Leninist Party Without the Social-Chauvinists and Against the Social-Chauvinists.” That lie provides yet another proof, a proof ten times over, of the unreliable and dubious character of your “full notes and minutes” of the discussions.
We could continue on and on with your lies about the discussions and meetings between our two Parties. You say you have “full notes and minutes” of these meetings and discussions. Very well. If you seriously wish to pursue the question of what happened at this or that meeting, we propose that an exchange of minutes would be one method of value. Despite your offhand method of presenting views, and despite your pleas at various times to our delegates to not take notes on the discussions, we have a fairly extensive set of minutes on various of the discussions. We would be quite interested to see the minutes and related documents kept by your Party on the discussions. We in turn would be willing to provide you copies of the minutes and related documents kept by our Party. The comparison of these documents would have a certain value, especially as there is a vast disagreement in our respective accounts of the meetings and discussions. For our part, we have been studying the record of the last few years with great attention and we would give close attention to the study of the minutes from you and to their comparison with our minutes. As well, at this time many or most of the comrades involved in these discussions are still available. This adds further timeliness to an exchange of minutes and to studying and comparing them now. Furthermore, we would imagine that such material should be of the utmost interest to you, as you have been taking decisions having a vast bearing on the future development of our relations. Such an exchange of documents could take place even before the necessary preparations for meetings of the delegations of our two Manrist-Leninist Parties had been fully realized. We therefore propose that such an exchange of minutes and documents be agreed on and carried out without preconditions.
Perhaps in the future methods should be found for either the routine exchange of minutes or for the preparation of minutes agreed to by both sides. We propose that serious consideration be given at future meetings to preserving an objective record of the discussions and agreements or disagreements.
[1] The leadership of CPC(M-L) uses the phrase “Internationalist Movement” to denote some or all of those that it considers inside the “trend” grouped around CPC (M-L). Strictly speaking, the name “Internationalists” is a reference to three organizations composed mainly of university students and faculty that existed in the 1960’s. The first to appear was the (Canadian) Internationalists, which was originally “a completely student and faculty organisation founded on March 13th, 1963” (Mass Line, Journal of CPC (M-L), March 13, 1971, p. 2, col. 2) at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada. According to a journal founded to implement one of the decisions of the Necessity for Change Conference in London, England of August 1967 organized by the Internationalists, “The Internationalists developed from an ’informal discussion group’ in 1963 to a ’centre-left’ organisation based on opposition to imperialism in 1966, anti-imperialist youth and student movement in August 1967 and Marxist-Leninist youth and student movement in 1968.” (World Revolutionary Youth, Organ of the Preparatory Committee to organize the “First International Congress of Marxist-Leninist Youth,” February 1969, p. 6) In two other countries in the 1960’s besides Canada, similar organizations were formed. But the (Canadian) Internationalists, on the basis of the activity of its founder in the creation and shaping of the other two organizations, is described in the documents of the Internationalists as the center and inspiration of the entire “Internationalist Movement.” By January 1970, all the organizations of the Internationalists had been supplanted by their successors. But the leadership of CPC (M-L) continues to make demagogic use of the phrase “Internationalist Movement” in order to indicate various forces over whom it claims a “special relationship.” The fact that this term has more to do with the pretensions of the leadership of CPC (M-L) and their need to find a pleasant-sounding screen for their international factional activities than to any genuine concern for history is shown, among other things, by the fact that the “Internationalist Movement” is supposed to include the Marxist-Leninists in certain countries where the Internationalists never existed. For example, there was never any organization of “Internationalists” in the U.S. Hence 10 years after the demise of the Internationalists, the leadership of CPC (M-L) is still trying to build up a mystique around these organizations of the 1960’s as one of its justifications for its attempts to build up its own factional “trend.” – W.A.