In Part One of this series we condemned the leadership of CPC(M-L)’s savage attempts to strangle our Party and their unprincipled wrecking activity. We outlined the anti-Marxist-Leninist theories and ideological concepts that lay behind their savage war on the MLP,USA and its predecessor, the COUSML. We began publishing the relevant correspondence between the two Parties so that the reader could judge for himself the truth that the leadership of CPC(M-L) has done so much to hide.
In Part Two we are publishing the second part of the letter of the CC of the MLP,USA to the CC of the CPC(M-L) of June 16, 1980. This part of the letter elaborates in detail on those deviationist stands of the leadership of CPC(M-L) that were the immediate issues in their war on our Party. It covers the demand of the leadership of CPC(M-L) for a “special relationship” with our Party and their rejection of the Marxist-Leninist norms. It goes in detail into the opposition of the leadership of CPC(M-L) to the struggle against revisionism and opportunism in general and in particular to carrying the struggle against Chinese revisionism through to the end. As well as these immediate issues, the letter also opposes the related factionalist and polycentrist concept of theirs of the existence of two separate but equally legitimate Marxist-Leninist trends in the international Marxist-Leninist movement, one of which being centered on and led by the leadership of CPC(M-L). It also outlines the rightist errors of the panic-stricken New Year’s speeches of December 1979 – January 1980 of the leadership of CPC(M-L) that gave their summation of the 1970’s and set the orientation for CPC(M-L) for the 1980’s.
Since the letter of June 16, 1980 was written, the CC of the MLP,USA has continued its investigation of the line of the leadership of CPC(M-L), focusing on major questions of the strategy and tactics of the revolution. This study has shown that the characteristic feature of the New Year’s speeches was not just rightism in general but in fact was the flaunting of a liquidationist deviation. As well, this study showed that the leadership of CPC(M-L) has been making persistent Maoist errors thaf they are stubbornly clinging to. Their opposition to the struggle against Chinese revisionism is connected to their defense of their Maoist theses. These questions are outlined in the Introduction to Part One of this series in the June 30, 1981 issue of The Workers’ Advocate and are set forth in some detail, although without mentioning the name of CPC(M-L). in the series “Against Mao Zedong Thought!” in previous issues of The Workers’ Advocate.
As well, since the letter of June 16, 1980 was written, there has been further study of the history of the Internationalists. The Internationalists were organizations of the 1960’s around which the leadership of CPC(M-L) has created an unwarranted mystique. Investigation has shown that the letter of June 16, 1980 is wrong when, in section VIII-B, it expresses an especially “high valuation of the historical role played by the Internationalists” and similar sentiments. However, this correction simply serves to further underline the correctness of the basic point made in that section, which is a refutation of the leadership of CPC(M-L)’s polycentrist theory on the existence of two different but equally legitimate trends within Marxism-Leninism.
There are also some minor corrections to be made to the Introduction to Part One of this series in The Workers’ Advocate of June 30, 1981.
The following sentences should be added to the paragraph ending on page 17, column 2, line 15: “But everyone knows that the national bourgeoisie of an imperialist country like Canada includes the monopoly bourgeoisie and indeed is led by this reactionary big bourgeoisie. The Canadian big bourgeoisie is the strongest and most powerful section of the Canadian national bourgeoisie. Thus, although the theories of the CPC(M-L) leadership about the middle bourgeoisie and the non-monopoly strata of the bourgeoisie are wrong in and of themselves, they have in fact been prettifying the Canadian big bourgeoisie, rabidly imperialist to the core, or major sections of it as ’middle bourgeoisie’ or an anti-colonial sort of ’national bourgeoisie.’ ”
The following sentence should be added to page 16, column 2, the sixth line from the bottom: “For the sake of phrasemongering, they sometimes call the revolution a socialist revolution but at the same time they still insist on painting it in anti-colonial colors.”
Also, near the same place on the bottom of column 2 on page 16, it is stated that the Special Congress of CPC(M-L) of April 29 – May 9. 1978 did not produce any documents. However, according to People’s Canada Daily News, the organ of the CC of the CPC(M-L). the Special Congress did adopt a new constitution for CPC(M-L) and discuss “the basic elements of the Political Programme.” (PCDN, May 15, 1978 and January 22, 1979) The constitution was published in the June 5, 1978 issue of PCDN and then republished as amended by the Fourth Plenum of the CC in the January 22, 1979 issue of PCDN. Also, starting one year after the Special Congress in the PCDN of April 23. 1979, a series of different election programs were published, including the notorious Browderite program of February 15, 1980, but none of them were identified as the official program of CPC(M-L). However all this does not change the conclusion that is drawn in The Workers’ Advocate that the last regular congress of CPC(M-L), the Third Congress of 1977, is still the currently binding congress. The Special Congress is called “special,” and not the “Fourth Congress,” in order to stress that it is simply the conclusion of the Third Congress, something like a second sitting of the Third Congress. According to PCDN. the constitution and the “basic elements of the Political Programme” were both dealt with at the Special Congress “on the basis of the Resolutions of the Third Congress” and the “basic elements of the Political Programme” had been widely discussed “since the time of the Third Congress.” (“Communique of the Fourth Plenum of the CC of CPC(M-L),” PCDN. January 22, 1979) This is also apparent when one examines the constitution itself. For example, it repeats the denunciation of “one-stage revolution” from the Third Congress when, in regard to the relation between anti-imperialist struggle and socialist revolution in Canada, it maintains that it is “ultra-left” to oppose “the step-wise development of the revolution consistent with historical conditions” and condemns “the sophism that the struggle is between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.” In the light of the Maoist blunders of the Third Congress, class struggle is a “sophism,” but for revolutionary Marxist-Leninists, it is the cornerstone of their activity.
Finally, we take this occasion to reiterate the stand of our Party towards the CPC(M-L) from the Introduction to Part One:
For our part, we wish no harm to the CPC(M-L). On the contrary, we sincerely hope that the leadership of CPC(M-L) overcomes the Maoist and liquidationist deviations which are proving to be so detrimental to the CPC(M-L) itself. We American Marxist-Leninists have always and will continue to work for the closest fraternal bonds with the Canadian Marxist-Leninists. The MLP,USA continues to stand for true friendship with the CPC(M-L). We hope therefore that the leadership of CPC(M-L) repudiates their hostile war against the MLP,USA.
In the meantime, no one can deprive our Party of the right to defend its integrity nor should anyone underestimate our determination to do so. As a loyal and militant contingent of the international Marxist-Leninist communist movement, the MLP,USA will continue to exert every effort to strengthen the party of the proletariat in the U.S., to defend the principled unity of the Marxist-Leninist communist parties of the world, and to defend the invincible revolutionary doctrine of Marxism-Leninism.