In this section we take up the issue of your concept of, to use your term, a “special relationship” between our two fraternal Parties. The Second Plenum of the Central Committee of the MLP, USA considered this a very important issue. The Second Plenum came to the following conclusion on this issue:
The [December 5th letters of the CC of CPC(M-L)] insist on a special relationship between the two fraternal Parties.
In fact, the ties between the Marxist-Leninist Party and the CPC(M-L) should be close because: a) all relations between the parties in the international Marxist-Leninist communist movement should be strengthened; b) the CPC (M-L) and the Marxist-Leninist Party are on the same continent, there is a large flow of people between the two countries, U.S. imperialism dominates Canada, and the Parties objectively need to work closely; and c) there is historically a close relationship, which is a favorable factor that should be maintained.
But this is not a ’special relationship.’ Furthermore, with the brutal letters of [the Central Committee of] the CPC(M-L) of December 5, any ’special relationship’ that may have existed between the two Parties has come to an end. The future close harmonious relations will not be built on any such ’special relationship.’ And further, the letters of December 5 give an idea of ’special relationship’ that is especially shocking. Their idea of ’special relationship’ is that of one that gives [the leadership of] the CPC(M-L) the right to split the Marxist-Leninist Party, to do what [the leadership of] the CPC (M-L) likes in the U.S. independent of the Marxist-Leninist Party, and so forth. ’Special relationship’ in this sense is a relationship independent of Marxist-Leninist stand. It is a demand that [the leadership of] CPC(M-L) be followed independently of whether its positions are correct or not, Marxist-Leninist or not, but just because they are CPC(M-L)’s positions. (Extract from the minutes of the Second Plenum of the CC ofthe MLP, USA)
Now we shall go on to examine some of the ways that the “special relationship” worked in practice. In the next section, Section VIII, we shall return to the question of the theories and ideological questions that lie behind these activities.
Your repeated use of political pressure against us is one of the marked features of the “special relationship.” You have taken this to such extremes that you have on various occasions even threatened to break or “freeze” relations with us over this or that disagreement. Thus it is with utter amazement that we read the following statement in your letter:
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.” (p. 17)
The hypocrisy of this statement exceeds all bounds. Just imagine! It is written precisely in a letter which is a model of brutal dictation and savage pressure. You are simply boycotting the whole MLP, USA on the pretext of our letter of December 1. You are simply insisting that all “the political and ideological views you [the NC of the COUSML – ed.] are presenting are thoroughly repudiated and denounced” (p. 1), that the Central Committee split, and that this must be done “before the Marxist-Leninist Party, USA is founded.” (p. 7) But, oh horrors, you would never think of “dictat(ing) to the (MLP, USA) what they should do or what stands they should adopt.” Never!
In fact, you have applied pressure with the aim of dictating a stand to us many times in the past. Your letters of December 5 are but the culmination of these past incidents, their highest and most extreme development, but are not otherwise without precedent. We shall give a partial and incomplete list of some of these incidents. We shall start with an incident from 1974 that predates the present series of problems, that go back to late 1975.
VII-A-1: The expulsion of the COUSML delegation to the Third Consultative Conference of the CPC(M-L)
In 1974, at the invitation of the CPC(M-L), the COUSML did enthusiastic work for and sent a large delegation to the Third Consultative Conference of the CPC(M-L). This delegation, besides participating in all the sessions of the Third Consultative Conference that were open to it, also held its own sessions and took on the character of a conference of the COUSML. An intense struggle broke out in the American delegation. It is described in, among other places, our Internal Bulletin entitled “The Ugly Face of Reformism,” which we have sent to you a long time ago. This bulletin refers to a certain comrade as Comrade ... [who was the main comrade making anarcho-syndicalist errors in the COUSML – W.A.]. We shall also refer to him as Comrade ... for the purposes of this letter. Comrade ...’s political errors and anarchist practices had been repudiated prior to the Third Consultative Conference by the May 12-14 meeting of the COUSML (Central Body). Comrade ... had pretended to agree with the decisions of this meeting, but at the American delegation to the Third Consultative Conference he led a conspiracy to reverse the decisions of the May 12-14 meeting of the Central Body of the COUSML. He resorted to wrecking activities and to inciting the comrades against the leadership.
The leadership of the CPC(M-L) opposed the COUSML’s leadership’s struggle against the conspiracy and wrecking activity of Comrade .... The representative of the CPC(M-L) expressed his advice very sharply and also claimed that this struggle would tear the COUSML into a thousand pieces. This view of his was totally wrong. Anyone familiar with the state of tension in the COUSML at that time, a tension caused by practices typified by those of and led by Comrade knows that failure to have opposed Comrade ...’s anarchist activities is what would have blown the COUSML into a thousand pieces. If the COUSML leadership had accepted this advice to not oppose Comrade ...’s activities, then the COUSML would have been destroyed and the MLP, USA would not be here today. The COUSML leadership did not accept the mistaken advice from the CPC(M-L) leadership.
But the leadership of the CPC(M-L) after a period of time expelled the American delegation from the conference and called it, in front of the whole conference, such things as Nixonite imperialists and parasites. This was an enormous provocation against the COUSML and a brutal interference into its internal affairs. It is hard to think of any precedents for one party expelling the invited fraternal delegation of another party in this way. With this act, the leadership of the CPC(M-L) passed over from giving fraternal, if mistaken, advice to brutal and savage attempts at dictation. The COUSML delegation, despite the intense struggle within its ranks, had acted with respect, with discipline, and with intense fraternal interest towards the sessions of the Third Consultative Conference that were open to it. The expulsion of the COUSML delegation was nothing but interference into the internal affairs of the COUSML and punishment against its leadership for not following the advice of the leadership of the CPC(M-L).
The pretext for the expulsion was that the delegation of the COUSML had not paid enough attention to the Third Consultative Conference as shown by such facts as that it hadn’t asked enough questions at the sessions open to it. It is simply unheard of to expel a fraternal delegation on such a pretext. This is not a reason, but the lack of any reason. Nevertheless, it is significant that even this pretext was false. The COUSML was intensely interested in the question of line on the working class movement, of anarcho-syndicalism and anarchism, of the organization of the working class as a class, of the attitude to the economic struggle and to the trade unions and so forth. What, after all, were the COUSML (Central Body) meeting of May 12-14 and the struggle in the American delegation all about? This shows that the real issue was not that the COUSML had no interest in the questions raised by the Third Consultative Conference, but that the leadership of the CPC(M-L) opposed the struggle against Comrade ...’s conspiracy and wrecking activities and was trying to impose its views on the COUSML.
The COUSML handled itself maturely in the face of this hostile act against it. The delegation continued to support the struggle against Comrade ... and did not reverse the assessment of Comrade ...’s activities. At the same time, it continued to cherish warm feelings towards the CPC(M-L) and its leadership and it took up the correct parts of certain advice from the leadership of the CPC(M-L). And far be it from us to deny that in the period right after the Third Consultative Conference the leadership of the CPC(M-L) gave us some valuable advice that contributed immensely towards the July 1974 Internal Bulletin. And for that matter the content of the Third Consultative Conference itself, despite our alleged lack of interest in it, was of immense value to us. Indeed the whole work of the CPC(M-L) against anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism was of great value to us in the struggle against the anarcho-syndicalist influence in the COUSML. But this does not justify or explain away the savage expulsion and denunciation of our delegation at the Third Consultative Conference. And it is also significant that to this day you have still not understood your error with regard to the American delegation at the Third Consultative Conference....
[The assessment above of the allegedly great positive role of certain political and theoretical views given by the leadership of CPC(M-L) is not correct. The COUSML was extremely interested in the views put forward by the CPC(M-L), as noted above, but time has proven that the COUSML gave quite a different interpretation to the struggle against anarcho-syndicalism than the leadership of CPC(M-L) did and even quite a different interpretation to the words of the leadership of CPC(M-L) than they did. The assessment above is a typical example of our Party erroneously attributing our own revolutionary Marxist-Leninist stands to the leadership of CPC(M-L). In fact, at the Third Consultative Conference of the CPC(M-L), the leadership of CPC(M-L) not only savagely condemned the COUSML’s stern struggle against anarcho-syndicalism, thus showing the limited and sham nature of how the fight against anarcho-syndicalism was conducted inside the CPC(M-L), but simultaneously deviated to the right under the signboard of opposing anarcho-syndicalism. This is an example of that peculiar combination of semi-anarchism and rightism that has continued to characterize the views and practices of the leadership of CPC(M-L) to this day. They combine rightist, economist and outright liquidationist deviations with a penchant for semi-anarchist phrasemongering and organizational practices. The deviation to the right put forward by the leadership of CPC(M-L) at the Third Consultative Conference and afterwards had its influence on certain elements in the COUSML. Although the source and inspiration of this deviation in the influence of the leadership of CPC(M-L) upon COUSML was not recognized, nevertheless the COUSML thoroughly repudiated the reformist and factionalist activity of these elements in 1975, as outlined in the Internal Bulletin of that time entitled “The Ugly Face of Reformism.” This is the same document referred to above that also describes the fight against the anarcho-syndicalist conspiracy and factionalist wrecking activities at the American delegation to the Third Consultative Conference. – W.A.]
VII-A-2: The “freezing of relations” of early 1977
At the end of 1976 and the beginning of 1977 you artificially incited a contradiction over the question of the work among the East Indian nationality in the U.S. and used it as pretext to “freeze” relations with the COUSML.
Previously, from the end of 1975 and throughout 1976, some problems had arisen concerning the work among the East Indian nationality in the U.S. This work was carried out in close coordination with you. Some of the problems were caused by Akhbar, a representative of CPC(M-L) whom you gave great responsibilities and authority towards this work. He turned out to be a bad element and the Third Congress of the CPC(M-L) denounced him publicly, saying:
“The Third Congress of the Party will further purge individuals like A. Ahad who used the Party organization for the purposes of serving the interests of the alien groups and organizations in Canada and the U.S. and who carried out factional and splittist activity for the purposes of advancing interests other than the interests of the proletarian revolution in Canada and elsewhere. (The Political Resolution of the Third Congress of the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist), February b-March 13, 1977, point 34 (2), p. 67)
However, while the fact that Akhbar proved to be a bad element explains some of the problems, it is not a full explanation in the slightest. Furthermore, even with respect to Akhbar’s activities, many questions remain unexplained and unclear, since you have never agreed to go over these questions at all with us, to say nothing of discussing them in the proper detail. To this day, the problems from this period have not been sorted out between our two fraternal Parties.
In this work, the COUSML had consistently supported both the orientation given by the CPC(M-L) and close coordination with the CPC(M-L). Nevertheless, starting in November 1976, you artificially incited a contradiction between the leaderships of our two Parties on the pretext of the problems arising in this work. It is not the point here to go into the methods you used for this purpose, as revealing and despicable as they were. But finally you “froze” relations with us unilaterally without even notifying us, on the pretext of this or that allegation or complaint to you about us, allegations that you never even presented to us. It should be noted that you had invited us to send a big delegation from the COUSML to the Third Congress of the CPC(M-L) (at your later suggestion, this became a delegation from the NC of the COUSML). You had stressed the importance of this, so that the NC of the COUSML had even reversed itself on the advisability of sending such a delegation at that time in order to comply with your assessment of its importance. This naturally involved major changes in our work and required preparations. At a certain point, you stopped the preparations for this delegation, preparations that you had suggested yourself, and refrained from sending us a delegate who was supposed to bring various documents. You didn’t notify us that the delegate wouldn’t come. We finally realized that something was wrong as we waited and he didn’t appear. We contacted you to ask what happened. You then brought up the question of the work among the East Indian nationality in the U.S. and informed us that you had “frozen the relations,” these are your words, until this question was resolved. By artificially inciting a contradiction between our two Parties, by “freezing” the relations, and by linking the previously agreed on (at your suggestion) participation of the COUSML in the Third Congress of the CPC (M-L) to the resolution of this artificial contradiction, you brought savage pressure to bear upon the NC of the COUSML. This was a brutal attempt to dictate to our organization.
The leadership of the COUSML protested the “freezing” of relations, and the linking of the question of the participation of the COUSML delegation in the Third Congress of the CPC(M-L) to the question of the problems in the East Indian nationality work in the U.S., and the fact that you had jumped to conclusions and condemned us prior to even talking to us. Our two Parties agreed on almost nothing concerning the “freezing” of relations and the artificial contradiction. At your suggestion, it was agreed that “A problem exists between the two organizations which is recognized by both. The resolution of it is to be postponed until an agreed upon time when both organizations are prepared to deal with it. Either organization can so request.” (January 1977) In practice, you backed down on “freezing” relations because our delegation was then again invited to the Third Congress and we never heard this formulation from you again. Both sides agreed to postpone going further into the problems coming up in the East Indian nationality work in the U.S. until after the Third Congress. But it turned out that after the Third Congress you lost any interest in talking about it to us. This further underlines the unprincipled character of your “freezing” of relations with us on the pretext of these problems.
VII-A-3: Your denunciation of us as “imperialist gangsters” for insisting on a meeting between delegations of the two Parties
In 1977 it was agreed at a certain point that certain matters of relations between our two fraternal Parties should be taken up by meetings of delegations. However in practice you never were in favor of this and put up various obstacles. After you had broken certain arrangements for a meeting, and the NEC of the COUSML continued to try to contact you on the question of the meeting, you went to the extreme of even threatening our relations. You gave the following message over the telephone for the NEC on August 8, 1977:
Our message to you is: you are acting like a bunch of U.S. imperialist gangsters. The kind of relations you have with us in the future is up to you.
Thus you committed a vile provocation against the NEC of the COUSML and explicitly threatened the relations between the two Parties. This message however only caused the NEC to be more convinced that a meeting of the delegations should take place. In the process of opposing such a meeting, you sent us the letter of September 9, 1977, which again threatened the relations between our two fraternal Parties. Among other things, it stated:
... We say to you: If we consider our fraternal comrades with whom we have shared weal and woe for so many years as ’imperialist gangsters,’ and you believe that this is what we do, then for what reason do you want to maintain fraternal relations with us? ... It is our view that considering the state of relations between us, a meeting of the delegations of the fraternal Parties will be of no use whatsoever. ...
This shameful letter actually taunts the NEC to break relations. It also justifies your refusal to hold a meeting of the delegations on the basis of the allegedly bad state of relations between our two Parties, i.e., it puts the relations between our two Parties into doubt, for relations must be bad indeed for a meeting of the delegations to be of no value. Thus you exerted savage pressure on us even on the issue of simply having a meeting of the delegations of the two leaderships.
VII-A-4: With your letter of November 5, 1977, you declared your opposition to meetings of delegations and even to written exchanges
In November 1977 you resorted to another incredible act of pressure against our Party. You wrote:
We firmly oppose the series of provocations carried against our Party by Comrade Tim Hall through various notes on your behalf. It is our decision to not receive any such notes in the future and return the ones already received. It is our decision not to reply to the provocations against our Party. (Excerpt from the letter of November 5. 1977 from the NEC of the CPC (M-L) to the NEC of the COUSML, emphasis added)
It should be noted that the “notes” that are “by Comrade Tim Hall” are in fact the letters of the NEC of the COUSML, which were read and approved by all the members of the NEC before being sent. With this letter by the NEC of the CPC(M-L), any disagreement with a view of the leadership of the CPC(M-L) is labeled a “provocation.” The letter does not even bother to identify any particular “provocation,” but just labels every single letter from the NEC of the COUSML as a “provocation.” As well, it insists that the NEC of the CPC(M-L) has decided to neither receive our letters not to reply to any of our “provocations,” i.e., disagreements. Either accept the views of the leadership of the CPC(M-L) or else. That is the content of this letter of November 1977.
Presumably it was the last letter from the NEC of the COUSML that triggered your letter of November 5, 1977, although it can not be ruled out that you sent us the letter of November 5, 1977 just on general principles. The last letter sent you prior to November 5, 1977, was the letter of the NEC of the COUSML of October 10, 1977.[1] This letter concerned an incident where a delegate from CPC(M-L), among other things, made unreasonable demands on us, such as that he would only talk to Comrade ... and to no one else. Your delegate carried that ultimatum out too. But this was neither right in principle, nor was Comrade ... available. In informal, casual discussion, you talked in an evasive and ambiguous way about this incident in order to smooth everything over without solving anything or stating anything definitely. But at the same time you sent us the letter of November 5.
As a result of your letter of November 5, you officially stood in opposition both to meetings of the delegations and to written exchanges. This naturally created difficulties in finding a way to deal with the disagreements and problems between the two Parties.
VI1-A-5: Your walkout from the March 4, 1978 meeting is further proof of your opposition to a meeting to discuss the disagreements
The NEC and the NC of the COUSML nevertheless persisted on the principled path of seeking a meeting of the delegations of the two Parties to deal with the problems in the relations. As a result, you felt compelled to agree in words to such a meeting. This meeting took place on March 4, 1978. However the course of this meeting proved that you were still opposed to such a meeting despite your purely hypocritical agreement. Thus right at the start you both expressed skepticism about the meeting and also stated that you were unprepared for it. Hence our delegation spoke first. But our delegation had barely started its speech and was still in the opening section where the speech simply listed the issues that it thought should be taken up in the meeting, prior to the body of the speech that was to elaborate on them, when your delegation interrupted and walked out. Your delegation did not even let our delegation finish listing the points that it wished to deal with, but after the second one you interrupted us. According to our minutes of this meeting, the leader of your delegation “said that if this was what [the delegation of the COUSML] wanted to talk about, there was no point in continuing and that he had already told our comrades about this.” As soon as this interruption began, another one of your delegates immediately began gathering his things to leave. Then, without waiting for our response, all your delegates walked out. It was clear that this walkout was arranged in advance, and you only waited (and you hardly waited any time at all, the entire meeting took five minutes) until the suitable pretext. Indeed, you yourself stressed this in your brief comments by stating that you had already told our comrades that you would walk out. As well, you showed this by not even waiting to hear all the points that we wished to raise, by not putting forward your own proposed agenda, by not specifying what it was that you disagreed with, and by not waiting for our response. Clearly your agreement to hold this meeting was not sincere, but was simply a trick, a ruse, a more sophisticated way of opposing the meeting. With your walkout you showed that you were not even willing to discuss the disagreements between our two Parties. In your view, the COUSML should simply accept your views, and that was that.
You then proceeded to set up the savage pressure on us. You labeled the mere fact that we disagreed with you and wanted discussion as a “premeditated and unwarranted provocation.” You thus unilaterally cancelled certain joint work between our two Parties immediately after your walkout. For example, you had proposed that our two Parties write a Joint Statement. We had agreed. Our delegates were supposed to have held their first meeting on this Joint Statement a few days before the March 4th meeting. But you stated that you were unprepared and hence the first discussions on the Joint Statement were postponed to after the March 4th meeting. But after your walkout you refused to go ahead with the Joint Statement. On the same day, March 4, shortly after the walkout, we received a note signed by the “Comrade-in-Charge of Fraternal Relations with COUSML” that stated in part:
I have received your note regarding ’First Meeting on the Joint Statement.’ I have the following comment to make on the proposal:
As you are well aware that COUSML comrades organized a premeditated and unwarranted provocation against our Party and our leadership, it is impossible for us to proceed with our work on this front. My Party and its leadership has entrusted me to settle the issue of this hostile activity against our Party and its leadership at the earliest possible time. Until this issue is properly settled in the true proletarian internationalist spirit, it is impossible to proceed to conclude work on any other front. ... (emphasis added)
By the way, this was the first time that the comrade who signed this note was identified as “the Comrade-in-Charge of Fraternal Relations with COUSML”; he was not the leader of the delegation that walked out, and neither before nor after this note was he the comrade who handled the overwhelming majority of discussions with us. But that by way of aside. His note also contained a note from the NEC of the CPC(M-L) which read in part:
Your delegation organized a premeditated and unwarranted provocation against our Party and our leadership.... We take this matter extremely seriously and we request that the leadership of COUSML takes immediate action to deal with this extremely grave situation that has arisen in the fraternal relations between our two organizations. ...we are extremely saddened by the developments and we will be extremely aggrieved if the fraternal relations suffer further setbacks. We call upon our fraternal comrades to do everything possible to sort out all the outstanding problems so that the joint work on several important fronts begins in the nearest future. (emphasis added)
Thus once again you put the fraternal relations between our two Parties into doubt. In your letter of September 9, 1977, you had said that the state of relations between our organizations was too bad to make a meeting of delegations of any value. While now you stated that the relations were too bad to permit work on a Joint Statement or “on any other front.” Once again you showed us the mailed fist.
What unbridled arrogance! First you walk out of a meeting to deal with the problems in the relations and then you say that it is necessary to “settle this issue” and “to sort out all the outstanding problems” or else “it is impossible to proceed to conclude work on any other front.” It is absolutely clear that you regard our having any view different from yours as “hostile activity against our (your) Party and its leadership” and to bring such views up in discussion is “a premeditated and unwarranted provocation.” And how sinister you paint our organization! We discuss our views and work them out in the appropriate party committees, hence they are “premeditated.” With your walkout you resorted to the utmost political pressure in attempting to impose your views upon us. In order to oppose having a meeting of the delegations of two Parties to deal with the problems in the relations and to force us to drop any other disagreement we may have, you insist that “all the outstanding problems” must be settled, that is, that we must agree with you in everything, or else you will threaten the fraternal relations between our two Parties and feel free to unilaterally cancel any previous agreement with, or obligation to, our Party.
VII-A-6: The hostile boycott of the MLP, USA
We could go on and on and give more examples. But we shall end with your withdrawal of support from our Party, which has reached the stage of a hostile boycott of the MLP, USA. Section III of our letter described part of this hostile activity and showed how you have started down the road of public attacks on our Party. With such acts you are not striving to push forward ideological clarification or to advance the analysis of the concrete situations facing our two Parties or to give reasoned criticism of our Party, but simply to exercise brutal dictation. Hence we see the astonishing ideological emptiness of your letters of December 5; hence your failure to send a delegation to either the Preparatory Conference to Found the Marxist-Leninist Party of the USA or to the Founding Congress of the Marxist-Leninist Party of the USA, although it is a standard practice among fraternal Marxist-Leninist parties to use such delegations for further discussion between parties; hence your substitution of struggle against our Party for discussion with it.
Thus in this last period too you have followed the path of brutal dictation. In 1979 you withdrew support from our campaign to found the Marxist-Leninist Party on the pretext of the slogan “Build the Marxist-Leninist Party Without the Social-Chauvinists and Against the Social-Chauvinists” and because we didn’t follow your casually expressed, half-baked suggestions about how to found the Marxist-Leninist Party. In December 1979 you refused to attend the Preparatory Conference and the Founding Congress on the pretext of our criticism of your sale of the English translation of Palacios’ book to the “RCP, USA” in our letter of December 1. Instead you viciously attacked and tried to split the leadership and issued a hostile ultimatum. In January 1980 you remained silent about the MLP, USA and continued your boycott of our Party. In your letter of February 4 (backdated by you to January 19, 1980), you announced in a smart-aleck way that you have no relations whatsoever with our Party. At the Internationalist Rally at Montreal on March 30, 1980 you boycotted our delegation, refused to allow it to speak and thus publicly announced a split with our Party. And you are striving with all your might to create an anti-Party network in the U.S. as the rudiments of another party. You have gone far down the path of open public attack on our Party.
In Section VI, we exposed a number of your lies about the course of the relations between our two Parties. But you have lied so much, raised so many diversions, and thrown up such a smokescreen of nonsense that it is possible to get bogged down in the details and to miss the overall picture. Therefore it is helpful to find various ways to get an overview of our relations over a period of years. As one method of doing this, in this section we apply a simple scientific standard that will help indicate the character of the discussions between our two Parties. This is the question of what documents and statements have been prepared – not promised, not dreamed of, but actually written and prepared – concerning the issues being discussed between our two Parties. We shall see a striking fact emerge consistently from all the various incidents, from underneath all the technicalities, all the special and particular points, and so forth. And this fact is that you have consistently and repeatedly refused to elaborate your views and to record them in writing.
This fact will shed great light on the problems in the methods of relations between our two Parties. Two major causes will then stand out behind the disagreements between our two Parties concerning the methods of relations. These two causes are interrelated.
One cause is what we pointed to earlier in our letter, in Section II-C. You have opposed the organizational integrity of our Party. For example, you have sought to use discussions with this or that delegate or individual as a way to oppose the authority of our party committees. This is part of your attempts to brutally dictate to our Party. This is why you rave against our delegates. Because our delegates have adhered to the party principle and presented the views of and served as the representatives of the respective party committees, you have painted them in an ugly light. Indeed, it is shocking to us that you have even repeated the usual taunts of the bourgeoisie against the monolithic Leninist party and the party principle by cursing our delegates as “dummies” and “Charlie’s angels,” as people doing the bidding of “voice-box Charlie’s.”
The other cause is your attempt to lead via casual, off-the-cuff methods, without working out and presenting careful analysis. You want to be influential and to play a big role internationally, but how can any advice be given or opinions expressed except from the positions of Marxism-Leninism, which require one to proceed on the basis of a sound, well-thought out ideological stand and of a penetrating analysis of the concrete circumstances?
Now let us see who has prepared documents and elaborated views and who has avoided this. In Section VII-A-2 we deal with the issue of the artificial contradiction you created between the two Parties on the pretext of the work among the East Indian nationality in the U.S. You pressed us very hard on the issue of this work, going to the extent of “freezing relations.” Actually, you forced us to divert a great deal of attention to this problem at a time that was very inconvenient for us, during December 1976 and January 1977. Nevertheless, we studied the issue you raised. We prepared two documents for our meetings in January. One was a big, detailed document which thoroughly discussed our experience with the bad element Akhbar over a year’s time, from late 1975 through 1976. In fact, this document went over and systematized most of the material relating to COUSML’s relation to the work in the East Indian nationality in the U.S. As well, we prepared a shorter document on our views on the “freezing of relations.”
What was your response? You did your best to avoid even seeing our material. You basically succeeded. We were unable to present any of this material to you except a small part of our views on the “freezing of relations.” You had no interest at all in the document on Akhbar despite the fact that this concerned the very problems on the basis of which you were “freezing relations” and despite the fact that the issue of Akhbar was a burning issue at that time, as shown by the fact that he would very soon be denounced publicly by the Third Congress of the CPC(M-L).
At the same time, you presented no analysis to us. You never, either verbally or in writing, went through the issue of Akhbar’s activities with us, you never indicated what he had done on behalf of the CPC(M-L) and which were his activities against the policies of CPC(M-L), etc. And you never went through the issue of the problems in the East Indian work either. You simply took action unilaterally on this question. All you ever informed us of was that you decided that there could be no dual memberships in COUSML and the East Indian organizations in the U.S. Period.
At the end of 1976 you proposed formal relations between our two Parties. According your proposal, this required a meeting and it repaired both sides to prepare their own documents giving the assessment of the history and development of the relations. We studied the questions and prepared a document.
But what resulted? You never prepared for the meeting. When we arrived for the meeting, you postponed it. It never took place. Nor were you ever interested to see our document. When we put forward that our two Parties should proceed with the mutually agreed-on step of formalizing the relations, you shrugged this off by saying that we had misunderstood what you meant and that it had only been “a tactical question to make a contribution internationally” (from minutes of discussions in November 1977 prior to the 5th Consultative Conference of CPC (M-L)). You never provided any further explanation. In Section VII-A-5 we discussed the meeting of March 4, 1978 between the delegations of our two Parties. We had made careful preparations for this meeting. Our delegation was prepared for thorough discussion of the issues. The delegation brought a written-out speech for its first presentation to the meeting.
But you didn’t want to hear our views at all. You fought hard against the meeting and walked out. And as for you own views: by your own admission, you were unprepared for the meeting. On October 9-10, 1977, you sent a delegate to us who claimed that he could only speak to Comrade ... and no one else. We treated this delegate respectfully and warmly, despite his provocation against us. We sent back with him a letter giving our views. (This letter is mentioned in Section VII-A-4.) You never replied to this letter, unless your letter of November 5, 1977 was your reply. And that letter states that you are returning our letters and will not reply to them.
You have denounced the very idea of a “movement against social-chauvinism.” We have produced an extensive body of literature on the movement against social-chauvinism, extending over years, from September 1, 1976 and especially from March 10, 1977, to the present. This is a powerful body of literature, consistent in principles and basic direction over years, continually broadening and deepening as the struggle against social-chauvinism developed and as the international struggle against Chinese revisionism developed. This literature gives an excellent picture of the development of the struggle against revisionism and opportunism in the U.S. We shall list some of these works later in this letter (see Section IX-B). We also stress that we have given you our Internal Bulletins on the struggle against social-chauvinism as well as our published works.
What is your response to this literature? You have shown indifference to our analysis. When you discuss the movement against social-chauvinism, you don’t deal with the analysis developed over years. Instead you resort to linguistic analysis about the word “movement” or to smart-aleck phrases or to anti-Leninist arguments that denounce the whole struggle against opportunism as “two-line struggle.” You have put almost nothing in writing. You write a single phrase in early September 1978, a fragment of a sentence, in which you said that you wanted to talk about “certain lines, especially of writing articles on the theme that ’struggle against social-chauvinism’ is the end-all and be-all in the U.S.” That is the entire fragment. And there are your letters of December 5, 1979, which simply throw some incoherent curses. You have opposed the campaign for the founding of the MLP, USA and have used the slogan “Build the Marxist-Leninist Party Without the Social-Chauvinists and Against the Social-Chauvinists” as the pretext for withdrawing support from us. On the plan for founding the MLP, USA and on the “without and against” slogan, we have extensive, scientific literature. In so far as the issue is that you are opposed to the movement against social-chauvinism in general, you have all the literature we have just mentioned above. On the particular plan for the campaign to found the MLP, USA, there is the Internal Bulletin based on the March 1979 Internal Conference entitled “Build the Marxist-Leninist Party Without the Social-Chauvinists and Against the Social-Chauvinists.” At our invitation, you sent a delegation to this conference. As well, we gave you a copy of the Internal Bulletin. Furthermore, on the question of party-building and our conception of it, there is also the Internal Conference of 1977 entitled “Get Organized for the Revolutionary Upsurge! Build the Party in the Working Class!” While you didn’t accept our invitation to attend this Internal Conference, on the plea that it conflicted in time with an important meeting being held in Canada, we, however, sent you the Internal Bulletin on this conference. This bulletin reproduced the speeches and formal discussion at the conference. As well, there is other material, both published and internal, which is available to you.
What has been your response? You have never presented your views to us in a document. And in discussing our plan for founding the Marxist-Leninist Party, you never refer to or show any interest in our documents, other than quoting the “without and against” slogan. As well, while you have opposed the campaign to found the MLP, USA, you have always in all the discussions hypocritically claimed that you supported it. You did not oppose the campaign either when your delegation came at the time of the March 1979 Internal Conference nor during the period of consultations following that conference and prior to the campaign being opened publicly, nor at any time. You supported the campaign for the founding of the MLP, USA at our May Day meeting in Chicago, although you subsequently “lost” or “misplaced” this solidarity message. Afterwards you began opposition to the campaign while hypocritically claiming to support it. Another example is the question of your sale of the rights to the English translation of the Palacios book to the “RCP, USA.” We wrote to you our views in our letter of December 1, which calmly and methodically develops our analysis. Your reply was to write your letters of December 5, to accuse Joseph Green or Greens of being agents provocateurs, to refuse to send a delegation to our Preparatory Conference and Founding Congress, to take a hostile stand to the MLP, USA, and so forth. And your letters of December 5 do their best to avoid any serious discussions of your views on the issues involved in the sale. Your action was to punish us for dealing with this issue in writing.
Other examples too, could be given. This history shows that we have repeatedly taken the time and effort to develop and elaborate our views on the issues you have raised and to put them into some objective form, such as a written document. And we have done this despite the fact that you have often forced various issues upon us at times that have been extremely inconvenient for us. While you have consistently used one pretext or another to avoid giving your views in written form and to avoid elaborating anything. You have used a tremendous number of technicalities, evasions and quibbles over form to evade the issue that you are not elaborating your views and presenting them in an objective form. And you replace the elaboration of your views with pressure on us to accept your proposals, views and plans instantaneous-ly
Hence this history shows the extreme hypocrisy of the various charges you make against our delegates and against the NEC. For example, you write: “As we have already were [been – ed.] 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.” (p. 14, bottom) This is a glaring lie. You are the ones who repeatedly denounced us as “formalists” for patiently seeking revolutionary formality in our relations. And it is you who have denounced the elaboration of views in formal channels and the use of written documents as “polemics.”
For example, let us take the question of letters. Aren’t letters a “formal” channel? If you had actually been ardently seeking to formally present us with worked-out views and if the reality had been that you were constantly frustrated in this by our delegates or by maneuvers on our part, if such things were really true, then wouldn’t you have eventually sent us letters or prepared documents giving your views and analysis? We prepared a number of documents and we eventually tried to resort to letters, but you labeled them “provocations” and “polemics” and told us that you wouldn’t receive any more of them and you wouldn’t reply to them. But who and what has prevented you from preparing documents or writing us letters? Nobody. We have never refused to accept your letters, even when they were provocative in content and form. It is you who have not only not elaborated your views in letters, but actively fought against the use of letters. It is you who have termed letters “polemics,” and it is you who wrote the letter of November 5, 1977. In that letter you said that you would “not receive any such notes in the future” from us and that it was your decision “not to reply” to our letters, which you defined as “provocations.”
But truth is one thing, and the picture you paint of our meetings and discussions is another. You make the following utterly shameless assertion:
...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 [the letter of December 1 protesting the sale of the rights of the English translation of the Palacios book to the “RCP, USA” – ed.] 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.” (p. 11)
What a pack of lies! In Section VI we have already refuted many of these lies concerning the consultation with regards to the Palacios tour of the U.S. on the “RCP, USA” platform and with regards to your sale of the English translation of the Palacios book to the “RCP, USA.” But now let us place the emphasis on the general views of consultation that you are expressing in this passage, and their relation to your history of avoiding the elaboration of your views and the preparation of written documents.
In this light, one prominent feature of the above passage is that you are straining your lungs with one curse after another against the very idea of exchanging letters and documents. That is why you are striking so bitterly at our letter of December 1. You say that this letter of ours is “precisely such an example” of the type of “consultation” that you oppose. This is true. We think that a comparison of our letter of December 1 and your letters of December 5 is very significant and informative. It is perfectly obvious which letter is an example of calm fraternal criticism, serious-minded consultation and exchange of analysis, and which letter is a model of opposing consultation and criticism.
Furthermore, the above passage shows what your conception of genuine consultations is by denouncing the letter of December 1 as having “no discussion whatsoever concerning the matter at hand.” This is incredible! This is utterly astonishing! The “matter at hand,” in your view, must not be the sale of the English translation of the Palacios book to the “RCP, USA,” nor the struggle against Chinese revisionism, nor the evaluation of the struggle against opportunism in the U.S., nor the question of consultation and cooperation between our two Parties, nor any other matter dealt with by our letter. According to you, our letter is “precisely an example” of the type of consultation which is “no ’consultations’ in fact, except on some questions of trivia and technique.” Imagine that! The struggle against Chinese revisionism – “trivia”! The problem of the “centrists” and conciliators – a mere question of “technique”! The struggle against opportunism in the U.S. – “trivia”! The question of consultation and cooperation between our two fraternal Parties – mere “technique.” This view of yours about the letter of December 1 is completely consistent with your history of avoiding elaboration of your views, for you denounce the ideological and theoretical questions, the analysis of the concrete circumstances, etc., as mere questions of “trivia and technique”! It is another confirmation and verification of the history we have examined in this section of our letter. Only, good grief, what exactly is “the matter at hand” in your view? There is only one thing left. The only “matter at hand” in your view is that we should immediately agree and take immediate steps to prevent the reoccurrence of disagreement – for example, by establishing the precedent of denouncing as an “agent-provocateur” anyone who dares to disagree with you or to uphold the organizational integrity of our Party and by having “the political and ideological ideas and views” presented in the letter of December 1 “thoroughly repudiated and denounced by the Founding Congress.” (p. 1) You have reduced “the matter at hand” to simply the issue of whether we agree or disagree with you, independently of the question of what the agreement or disagreement is about. Such things are in your view mere “trivia and technique,” and don’t get at the heart of the matter. That is why you sum up the whole discussions of early August 1979 between our two Parties with the concocted “general understanding.” You state: “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) The only important thing for you is “unanimity of views” independent of the content of the discussion, independent of the mere “trivia” of what the views are. The “matter at hand” is that you are demanding that we follow your positions and views independently of whether they are correct or not, independently of whether they conform to Marxism-Leninism or not, but just because they are your views.
Furthermore, your passage that we have been analyzing also mocks at the organizational integrity of our Party and at the authority of our Party committees. You write in such an ugly way about the party principle. You describe communists who are loyal to the party principle as “dummies” and “Charlie’s angels” and mock that they allegedly cannot talk without having “to return to Joseph Green or whichever individual or individuals ’authorizes.’” Such language may be called anarchist, or it may be called bourgeois individualist, or it may be called whatever one likes, but it is not compatible with Marxism-Leninism. It is an appeal to the basest bourgeois demagogy against the party principle. And it is a filthy lie. In our Party, it is not some individual or other but the appropriate party committee that “authorizes.” It is the Party and the party principle which are supreme, and the authority of the Party is manifested through the party committees. By cursing us for this you are taking a hostile stand against the organizational integrity of our Party.
Thus the history of our relations shows that you have not elaborated your views or prepared documents on the important issues. This exposes the reality behind your complaints about our delegations. One important feature of your conception of the “special relationship” is that the main “matter at hand” is simply “unanimity of views” independent of what those views are. To be more precise, your conception of “special relationship” is that we should immediately agree with you, while you denounce the elaboration of Marxism-Leninism and the analysis of the concrete circumstances facing us as mere “trivia.”
Another feature of the “special relationship” is that you repeatedly speculated on this or that individual in our leadership. You have either supported or denounced this or that person, outside of the normal Marxist-Leninist norms for the evaluation of individual comrades. This has been another way in which you have opposed the organizational integrity of our Party and the authority of the party committees. Here we shall provide a partial list of examples.
Below we give a partial list of your activities speculating on Comrade ....
For example, you sent us a note dated October 11, 1974, denouncing Comrade .... This note has no signature, being neither from a party committee nor signed by any individual, but simply signed “Your comrades in CPC(M-L).” And it is addressed simply “To the Leading Comrades, COUSML.” It has such criticism as “Having agreed to be responsible for some work, Comrade ... failed to carry it out.” There was no explanation of what work this is or what the facts are. ... In complaining to the COUSML about this, you indicate that some disagreement arose with Comrade .... But you don’t indicate the nature of it, but simply ask “the Leading Comrades” of COUSML to censure Comrade ... on the grounds of this disagreement, independently of its content.
Furthermore the note lightly makes the most serious charges, such as that Comrade ... “promotes national chauvinism” and such as “We question whether a person who is selfish and promotes national chauvinism can make a positive contribution to the revolutionary work....” There is no evidence given for these assertions beyond the unexplained disagreement with Comrade ....
This type of denunciation of Comrade ... was by no means an isolated case. This type of denunciation was not part of either a principled opposition to Comrade ... being a leading comrade or a principled struggle against the errors of Comrade .... The unprincipled nature of such opposition to Comrade ... is shown by the fact that when your delegation visited us on October 9-10, 1977, he refused to speak to anyone except Comrade .... We protested this by letter, but you never agreed. Indeed, it was after this that you sent us your letter of November 5, 1977, which says that you will not accept any further letters from us nor will you reply to them.
Furthermore, when Comrade ... was removed from the NEC of the COUSML in June 1978, you were unhappy about this. Indeed, you told us a whole story against putting “upstarts” in the NEC and in favor of having it comprised of “long-time leading comrades” in order to support Comrade ... being a member of the NEC. Our minutes of the discussion go as follows:
I informed him of the recomposition [of the NEC – ed.]. He asked the basis. I explained the decisions of the last National Committee meeting. He noted that it was very good that we were organizing ourselves. He asked then that this was not a disciplinary measure and that the comrade [Comrade ... – ed.] was still on the National Committee. I affirmed this. He noted that this was a good thing, that we should not give up our leading comrades lightly.... He then pointed out that he wanted to comment on this [on the recomposition of the NEC – ed.], that it was something for comrades to think about, but this did not mean that we should change everything. [He said:] I do not understand how you are organizing yourselves. Of course it is necessary to have transitional forms. [What “transitional forms” have to do with the NEC of COUSML is anybody’s guess – W.A.] We did this for years, but it was not very good. I will explain to you how we organize. The NEC consists, above all.... [He described the NEC of the CPC(M-L) – ed.] ... For this reason the composition of the NEC is very important. It must be composed of long-time, leading comrades who will always uphold the party and its political line. “You should be careful of upstarts. Upstarts gain position, get information, and then use it to make trouble. We tried to use upstarts and it did not work out. By now we have lost all our upstarts. ... Comrades are now learning that it is a serious matter to give your position over to someone else, because it raises the danger of turning over the political power in the party to the bourgeoisie.” (emphasis added)
But in your letter you switch back to denunciation of Comrade .... You write:
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. (p. 10, emphasis added)
The reference to “those...who have even confessed outright that they were social and national chauvinists” is to the letter of CPC(M-L) of October 11, 1974, which accuses Comrade ... of promoting national chauvinism and so forth. This is a slanderous, false charge, both on October 11, 1974 and on December, 1979. Whatever Comrade ...’s other weaknesses, he is not a national or social-chauvinist. But even aside from that, your extreme hypocrisy and speculation on individuals is fully evident. In October 1974 you denounced Comrade ... harshly by letter. In October 1977 you take the opposite position and your delegate insists that he will speak only to Comrade .... In mid-1978 you are worried about Comrade ... being removed from the NEC and you gave your opinion in opposition to this. But on December 5, 1979 you accuse us of not removing Comrade ... earlier. What an unprincipled zigzag! And to crown everything, you then proceed to [appeal to – W.A.] Comrade ... by claiming that we “force(d) this individual to leave.” Thus simultaneously with denouncing us for having had Comrade ... on the [NEC – W.A.] too long, you are also leaving open your option to support him as “a long-time leading comrade” who has been unjustly “forced to leave.” There is neither consistency nor principle in all these crying contradictions. What is crystal clear is that you are speculating on this or that individual. You are converting the issues of principle between our two Parties into a matter of this or that individual. You have built up what you consider an invincible “dossier” on Comrade .... And when some disagreement comes up between our two Parties, you believe that it can be solved by shaking this dossier at us.
Our final example is your wild attacks upon Comrade Joseph Green. In order to split the leadership of our Party and to undermine the authority of our party committees, you present our disagreements with you as simply the result of an alleged plot by an “agent-provocateur,” Joseph Green. You are not raising any principled objection to a comrade, but simply using the device of opposing the organizational integrity of our Party by presenting everything as a matter of individuals. In Sections II and IV of this letter, we have discussed the utterly unprincipled nature of your charges against Comrade Joseph Green and what they actually amount to. Your attack on Comrade Joseph Green is full of the same crying contradictions that are typical of your speculation on individuals. For one thing, you can’t decide whether Comrade Joseph Green is singular or plural. For example, on page 15 you refer to “these Joseph Greens.” In the letter to the NC, you stress that Comrade Joseph “is one such individual” of an unnamed multiplicity that you are denouncing in our leadership. Thus you hold over our head the promise of future speculation on individuals. And on page 10, you state that it doesn’t matter who Comrade Joseph Green is anyway. You state: “...or are we to believe that Joseph Green and this individual delegate are one and the same? It is of no consequence....” This shows the utter bankruptcy and vile nature of your charges that this or that comrade is an “agent-provocateur.” This proves once again that you are speculating on individuals not out of any serious interest in cadre questions, but as part of a fierce fight against dealing with us on the party basis.
You also address your letters of December 5 to us in such a way as to emphasize your speculation on individuals. Your letter to the National Committee is only one-half page, while you have written over two dozen pages to Comrade Joseph Green. Yet you claim that Comrade Joseph Green is the problem and is an “agent-provocateur.” Can anyone make heads or tails of this? You are writing dozens of pages and making proposals for meetings with the COUSML to a man whom you are smearing as an “agent-provocateur.” This shows that your charges against individuals are for the sake of building up a “dossier” to use to bludgeon our Party into agreement. This is not to say that you won’t carry through with your vile attacks against individuals, but that the basic purpose of them is to negate the party principle and to impose your conception of the “special relationship” on our Party.
Thus it can be seen with what utter hypocrisy you write in your letters of December 5:
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.” (p. 14)
No, fraternal comrades, that is your preferred method of dealing with the issues in the relations between our two Parties, not ours. We insist on the party principle and the responsibility of the Party and of the appropriate party committees. We hold that principles and not personalities are involved. With your passage above, it can be seen that you are complaining about our principled stand and showing great impatience for the “great occasion when everything can be reduced to a squabble between individuals.
[1] There is a slight error in the text here. The last letter of the NEC of the COUSML prior to the letter of the NEC of the CPC(M-L) of November 5, 1977 was the letter of November 4, 1977, not the letter of October 10, 1977. By accident, the letter of November 4, 1977 was overlooked in the process of reviewing the huge amount of correspondence and discussions since late 1975. Undoubtedly the letter of the NEC of the CPC(M-L) of November 5, 1977 was a direct response to our letter of November 4. However, this only strengthens the conclusions drawn in the text. The letter of November 4 was a short letter that: 1) reiterated our stand in favor of a meeting of the delegations of the leaderships of CPC(M-L) and COUSML; 2) reiterated the stand of the letter of October 10 and pointed out that the leadership of CPC(M-L) had avoided replying either positively or negatively; and 3) dealt with certain arrangements necessary in order for the COUSML to send a delegation to the Fifth Consultative Conference of the CPC (M-L), as proposed by the CPC(M-L). As well, it should be noted that the letter of October 10 was among those that the CPC(M-L) said that it would return to us. – W.A.