First Published: In What Went Wrong? Articles and Letters on the U.S. communist Left in the 1970’s, Edited and Introduced by Charles Sarkis, 1982.
Transcription, Editing and Markup: Paul Saba
Copyright: This work is in the Public Domain under the Creative Commons Common Deed. You can freely copy, distribute and display this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit the Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line as your source, include the url to this work, and note any of the transcribers, editors & proofreaders above.
November 2, 1976
To: Proletarian Unity League From: Workers Congress (M-L) Comrades,
We were frankly disappointed with your statement regarding El Comite, etc. In our view you have retreated from what had been previously taken as a point of unity – a clear position on the restoration of capitalism in the USSR and the struggle against modern revisionism. In our discussions with you we put forward a Marxist-Leninist position on these questions as a premise of our discussions, namely, so there is no ambiguity, that revisionism is in power in the USSR and that revisionism in power means the return to power of the bourgeoisie. We understood you to agree with that premise. You did not at that time explain that you had “no analysis” on this question.
First of all since the early 1960s with the publication of A Proposal Concerning the General Line of the International Communist Movement and the call by the Chinese and Albanian parties to break with the revisionist parties and establish new parties where necessary according to the revolutionary style of Marxism-Leninism, there has been a fundamental line of demarcation in the international communist movement and no vacillation on this question is acceptable. A position on modern revisionism and revisionism in power in the USSR is the first premise of the unity of all Marxist Leninist parties and organizations.
Two points on this. First you adopt a temporizing approach to the question of revisionism which mystifies the difficulties involved. More than enough material has been published in Peking Review. You yourselves are capable of studying the 1965 Economic Reforms and other matters such as the state and the party of the whole people, etc. Sufficient events have unfolded. A number of organizations in our movement, including our own, have written effectively on the subject. Your protest at not having an analysis reflects political irresponsibility.
Secondly, to suggest three points as a basis for organizing a conference on party building which consciously fails to mention revisionism, the CPUSA or the struggle against modern revisionism with its center in the social fascist CPSU, has nothing to do with the party building effort we are involved in.
We also feel our differences over the main danger to the Marxist-Leninist movement are fundamental. We have yet to see in your analysis more than moralizing of the sort that complains that no one wants to get along. This is obviously a consequence of your failure to grasp the significance of the struggle against modern revisionism. The main barriers to our actual work in the class are errors of right opportunism and your views cannot serve as a practical guide to our struggle.
We do not support your statement nor is this letter for publication. We regret the character of the differences that have arisen between us.
the Workers Congress (M-L)
 The statement referred to is “Response to the Joint Statement of the Detroit Marxist-Leninist Organization, El Comite/MINP, Philadelphia Workers Organizing Committee and the Socialist Union of Baltimore,” dated September, 1976. This article can be found in Party-Building and the Main Danger, pp. 1-15.