Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line

Marxist-Leninist Party of the USA

Chronology of Events: 1975-1981

Published: The Workers’ Advocate, Vol. 11, No. 8, July 30, 1981.
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.

The series “The Truth About the Relations Between the MLP, USA and the CPC(M-L)” contains important correspondence from the crucial period from November 1979 to June 1980. This correspondence discusses the last several years of relations between our Party (by which we refer not just to the MLP, USA but also to its predecessors, the ACWM(M-L) and the COUSML) and the CPC(M-L). For ease in studying this correspondence, we provide a chronology of some of the events leading up to the public split and the savage war of CPC(M-L) against our Party. This chronology is incomplete and leaves out many letters and discussions referred to in the correspondence. It is not designed to be comprehensive, but instead simply to provide a framework in which the reader can place the various events referred to in the correspondence and thus get a sense of their timing and order.

Latter half of 1975

This period marks the successful conclusion of a period of struggle against factionalist deviators inside the COUSML, first against the anarcho-syndicalist deviation, then against the reformist deviators. As a result, there is a big strengthening of the work of the COUSML on all fronts, political, theoretical and organizational. Among other things, the party concept is strengthened in the COUSML and the work of the Party committees on all levels is enhanced. There is a dramatic improvement in the work of the higher Party committees. They meet more frequently, function more collectively and provide a powerful centralized guidance for all the work. From this time on, the higher Party committees succeed in preventing any violation of the organizational integrity of the COUSML. As well, from this time on all deviationist errors are nipped in the bud before they can crystallize into full-blown factions.

This period also marks the beginning of a new series of problems in the fraternal relations with CPC(M-L) that continue right up to CPC(M-L)’s unilateral breaking off of relations on December 5, 1979. Major problems existed in these relations from the very start in 1969, but a new phase begins in late 1975. The insistence of the National Committee and the National Executive Committee of the COUSML on the organizational integrity of the COUSML comes into conflict with the concepts of the leadership of the CPC(M-L) on their “special relationship” with COUSML. This manifests itself in various problems that arise in the practical relations between the two Parties. The NC and NEC of the COUSML seek to resolve these problems according to the standards of revolutionary professionalism and the norms dictated by Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism. But the leadership of CPC(M-L) constantly works to aggravate and inflame the differences. The problems are never resolved. At a certain stage, ideological differences become intertwined with the problems of practical relations. Finally, on December 5, 1979, the CC of the CPC(M-L) brutally declares that it has “no more patience” and “this time your defeat will be final” and breaks off all relations with the COUSML.

There is a direct connection between the beginning of a new series of problems in the latter part of 1975 in the relations with CPC(M-L) and the victory of the COUSML over the factionalists. All the major factional disruptions in the ACWM(M-L) and COUSML found their external source in the influence of the leadership of CPC(M-L). The clearing out of the factionalists marks the removal of those elements who, wittingly or unwittingly, comprised the agencies on which the leadership of CPC(M-L) placed their hopes in their attempts to impose their dictate on our Party. The repudiation of their deviations is a casting off of errors fostered by the leadership of CPC(M-L). Although this is not realized at this time by the COUSML leadership, it is of course realized by the top leadership of CPC(M-L). As well, the reinforcement of the party concept and of party norms throughout the COUSML is both alien to the conception of the leadership of CPC(M-L) and directly blocks their attempts at violating the organizational integrity of the COUSML. Hence the leadership of CPC(M-L) begins a new series of attempts to shake the solidity of the COUSML leadership, to discredit it in the eyes of the COUSML membership, and to probe for divisions in order to foster new agencies.

March 13,1976

When a representative of the COUSML leadership points out the unnecessary problems caused by the CPC(M-L) leadership’s use of “middleman” methods in contacting the COUSML, a representative of the CPC(M-L) leadership refuses to hear him out and denounces the COUSML leadership for “formalism.” This begins a constant stream of denunciations of the COUSML leadership for “formalism” for the alleged sin of insisting on the proper observance of the Marxist-Leninist norms in relations between parties and in particular for the sin of insisting that the organizational integrity of the COUSML must be respected.

Over a period of years, the leadership of CPC(M-L) continues to develop new pseudo-theories directed against the norms. For example, in January 1978 a representative of CPC(M-L) charges that “...formality is wrong....it is now coming up internationally to use this business of non-interference in other parties to develop national and social chauvinism.” He goes on to charge that elements in the COUSML leadership “were using this formality to promote social chauvinism.” Later on, the leadership of CPC(M-L) calls respect for the norms “centrism.” They pose as big fighters against “centrism,” but they find the “source of centrism” in the defense of the Marxist-Leninist norms governing relations between parties, especially those of equality, independence, non-interference in each other’s internal affairs, etc.

The use of “middlemen” is how the NEC of the COUSML refers in early 1976 to certain methods of the leadership of CPC(M-L) designed to circumvent the authority of the Party committees of the COUSML. Instead of directly contacting the appropriate Party body of the COUSML or authorized contact or delegate of these bodies, the CPC(M-L) leadership instead casually discusses any matter it wishes with any member of the COUSML that it chooses. In early 1976 they particularly concentrate on a comrade who had been expelled from the National Committee of the COUSML. After such discus ions, the leadership of CPC(M-L) then regards the matter as settled and expects the COUSML comrade to convey the instructions of the CPC(M-L) leadership to the COUSML. Similarly, the CPC(M-L) leadership holds that any delegate from the COUSML is automatically authorized to immediately decide on any question, no matter how serious, and that there is no need for the delegate to consult the higher Party committees of the COUSML and submit to their decisions.

In this way, the NEC of the COUSML is repeatedly faced with a series of ultimatums from the leadership of CPC(M-L). The most trivial and routine questions are made complicated and difficult while it is impossible to develop any practical working relations at all on most issues. At the same time, the leadership of CPC(M-L) avoids any obligations at all because they can and do say that the “middlemen” had misunderstood the words of the CPC(M-L) leadership. As well, with these methods the CPC(M-L) leadership puts great pressure on various COUSML comrades, whom they want to work on one by one, in order to compromise them and turn them into agencies of the CPC (M-L) leadership.

The NEC of the COUSML steadfastly refuses to accept these methods and these so-called “agreements.” The NEC steadfastly defends the organizational integrity of the COUSML, submits all major matters to the decision of the NC and prevents any encroachment on the authority of the Party committees by the “middleman” methods. This question is never resolved with the leadership of CPC(M-L). In the discussions of May 1979, the leadership of CPC(M-L) is still lecturing that: “The theory of ’everything through the Central Committee’ is wrong.” In their letter of December 5, 1979 to the NEC of the COUSML, the CC of the CPC (M-L) displays great irritation over the NEC’s refusal to allow casual agreements with delegates to replace the authority of the appropriate Party committees.

Late 1976 to January 1977

The leadership of CPC(M-L) incites an artificial contradiction with the COUSML over work among the East Indian nationality circles in the U.S. To use the expression of the CPC(M-L) leadership itself, they “freeze” relations with the COUSML. This is a savage act of political blackmail against the COUSML. The leadership of CPC(M-L) thus without warning temporarily suspends the fraternal relations with the COUSML, cancels their obligations to the COUSML and tries to use the question of continuing relations as blackmail to make the COUSML leadership bow down to arbitrary dictate from the CPC(M-L) leadership. However, faced with the principled and courageous stand of the COUSML leadership, the CPC(M-L) leadership has to back down on the “freezing” of relations.

The CPC(M-L) leadership continues to make use of this method of brinksmanship repeatedly. Again and again they put the relations with the COUSML in doubt, threaten either openly or by implication the breaking off of all relations, escalate the pressure to the highest degree – and then temporarily back down in the face of the unyielding stand of the NC and NEC of the COUSML.

In the case of the “freezing” of relations, the action of the CPC(M-L) leadership is so arbitrary that the NEC of the COUSML can not at that time even figure out what alleged “differences” are being raised. However, time would provide the answer. The revolutionary work of the COUSML had been gaining respect among various newly formed progressive East Indian circles in the U.S. and relations were beginning to develop. This had worried the leadership of CPC(M-L) who does not want these circles to develop any connection with the COUSML and instead wants to subjugate them to an unprincipled “special relationship” with the top leadership of CPC(M-L). Hence the CPC(M-L) leadership does its best to create unprincipled splits and antagonisms inside the East Indian circles in the U.S. with the purpose of isolating and forcing out those East Indian activists who were closest to the COUSML. Then, in early 1977 at the time of the Third Congress of the CPC(M-L), the leadership of CPC(M-L) poses as the savior who had “solved” the contradictions by laying down the anti-Marxist- Leninist and chauvinist theory, the theory with more in common to the anti-communism of the trade union hacks than to anything else, that activists could work with the East Indian circles or with the COUSML but not with both.

January 1977

At the suggestion of the leadership of CPC(M-L), it is agreed by both sides that: “A problem exists between the two organizations which is recognized by both.”

The leadership of CPC(M-L) continually asserts that there were political differences between the COUSML and the CPC(M-L), without, however, ever explaining what these differences were supposed to consist of. In fact, time has proven that there are indeed major ideological and political differences between CPC(M-L) and our Party. But the leadership of CPC(M-L) talks of differences not in order to study them or attempt to resolve them, but simply as a means of putting pressure on the COUSML. As well, the CPC(M-L) leadership claims that it was wrong to work out the problems in the practical, working relations between the COUSML and CPC(M-L) as just that, problems in the practical relations, because that would allegedly be the practice of capitalist executives meeting in a boardroom while communists should allegedly only deal with the underlying political line. Thus the CPC(M-L) leadership in effect claims that the norms don’t apply when there are “differences” between the Parties – while if there aren’t any differences, the norms are allegedly a harmful formality.

Monday, August 8, 1977

The leadership of CPC(M-L) communicates over the telephone via a messenger to the NEC of COUSML that: “You are acting like a bunch of U.S. imperialist gangsters. The type of relations you have with us in the future is up to you.” This is in response to the NEC of COUSML’s insistence on carrying out a meeting of the delegations of the two Parties to sort out the problems in the fraternal relations, a meeting that had been agreed on by both Parties.

This message is a shocking provocation. The leadership of CPC(M-L) has defended this message to this day, both in numerous discussions and in the letters of September 9, 1977 and December 5, 1979. In fact, in the letter of the CC of the CPC(M-L) to the NC of the COUSML of December 5. 1979, the CC of the CPC(M-L) boasts that this message was an attempt to split the leadership of COUSML. They wrote:

“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. Such individuals have no place in the ranks of the genuine Marxist-Leninists, let alone in any kind of leadership position.”

September 9, 1977

The leadership of CPC(M-L) sends the NEC of the COUSML a shameful letter which defends the telephone message of August 8 and actually taunts the NEC of COUSML to break relations, stating: “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?” As well, the leadership of CPC(M-L) uses the occasion to unilaterally cancel the agreement for a meeting of delegations to sort out the problems in the fraternal relations, stating that: “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–” Thus once again the leadership of CPC(M-L) brings brutal pressure to bear on the COUSML leadership and puts the relations between the two Parties into doubt.

November 5, 1977

The NEC of CPC(M-L) writes a letter in reply to comradely criticism from the NEC of COUSML which says in part: “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.” Thus the leadership of CPC(M-L) stresses that they are opposed to receiving letters from COUSML that disagree with the leadership of the CPC(M-L) and that they will not consider (“reply to”) any views different from theirs.

In fact the leadership of CPC(M-L) flaunted the Maoist theory that any fraternal criticism is a “polemic” or a “provocation.” Naturally such an attitude on their part could not but aggravate the situation. How are relations to be conducted and problems to be resolved when letters and fraternal criticism are denounced as “provocations”?

January 12, 1978

The NEC of CPC(M-L) writes to the NEC of COUSML. This, letter still opposes a meeting of delegations of the two Parties, but it praises the movement against social-chauvinism in strong terms: “We also take this occasion to congratulate the comrades on the good work they are carrying out on the ideological front against ’C’P(M-L). We consider the movement initiated against the rabid U.S. social chauvinism a valuable and necessary contribution to the entire Marxist-Leninist communist movement.”

But by the very next month, the leadership of CPC(M-L) begins to change its mind. Later on they state that they could not understand what the movement against social-chauvinism was. Eventually they publicly denounce our Party as “the theoreticians of the ’movement’ and of ’ideological struggle.’” These zigzags show that the leadership of CPC(M-L) does not have a principled stand in the struggle against revisionism but judges on the basis of the pragmatic interests of the moment. Faced with fierce pressure from the “three worlders” in 1977, they support for a time time COUSML’s struggle against social-chauvinism and “three worlds-ism.” But by 1978 they pass over to trying to force the COUSML to tone down the struggle and engage in “unity” maneuvers with various opportunist forces and particularly certain centrists and professional conciliators of social-chauvinism.

February 10, 1978

The article “How to Advance the Struggle Against Social-Chauvinism” is published in The Workers’ Advocate. This article is the prelude to the open polemical struggle against the conciliators of social-chauvinism. While it does not attack them by name, i.e., it does not mention the MLOC or the “RCP,USA” by name, it sets the orientation and program for the assault on them and identifies conciliation as a major obstacle for the movement against social-chauvinism. Right from the start of the movement against social-chauvinism, the COUSML regarded the struggle against the conciliators as an integral part of the overall struggle. But at first the COUSML waged this struggle through constantly intensifying the struggle against the open social-chauvinists and through exposing the roots of the social-chauvinist betrayal in neo-revisionism, the basic ideology of both the open social-chauvinists and the conciliators. Now the COUSML decides that the time is ripe for the open polemic against the conciliators.

Upon the appearance of this article, the leadership of CPC(M-L) begins to turn against the movement against social-chauvinism. In their letters of December 5, 1979, the CC of CPC(M-L) characterizes this article as follows: “...propaganda was carried out 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 the opportunity of building the unity of the genuine Marxist-Leninists, hidden attacks are launched against others.”

The leadership of CPC(M-L) had been consulted ahead of time prior to the NC meeting that took the decision to openly attack the MLOC and the “RCP,USA,” and they had agreed with this plan. Nevertheless, the leadership of CPC (M-L) now opposes the polemics against the MLOC and the “RCP,USA.” They begin by putting forth a nondescript array of strange, wild objections ostensibly simply to individual points. Thus with regard to the pamphlet Why Did the ’RCP,USA’ Split?, they object to Stalin’s idea that a temporary “anti-fascist coalition” existed between the Soviet Union and the other Allied powers in World War II and they also object to the use of the Leninist concept that “war is the continuation of politics by other, i.e..violent, means.” With regard to the polemic against the MLOC, they object to the term “idealist anti-revisionism.” But step by step they go from opposition to individual points to opposition to any polemic at all against the conciliators of social-chauvinism (centrists) and then to denunciation of the entire movement against social-chauvinism itself.

March 4, 1978

As a result of the steadfast stand of the NC and NEC of the COUSML in favor of a meeting of the delegations of the two Parties to sort out the problems in the fraternal relations, the CPC(M-L) leadership finally agrees once again to hold such a meeting. Once again they renege on this agreement. Their behavior during this meeting, which lasts only a few minutes, proves that their agreement in words to the proposal to hold this meeting was nothing but a cynical maneuver.

The meeting takes place on March 4, 1978. The leadership of the CPC(M-L) walks out. They admit at the beginning of this meeting that they are unprepared for it and then walk out demonstratively a few minutes later. They then announce via a letter to the COUSML delegation at the meeting that an “extremely grave situation...has arisen in the fraternal relations between our two organizations” and that “Until this issue is properly settled in the true proletarian internationalist spirit, it is impossible to proceed to conclude work on any other front.” On this basis, they unilaterally cancel the work to prepare a joint statement of the CPC(M-L) and the COUSML, although such a joint statement had been agreed to by the two sides at the specific request of the leadership of CPC(M-L).

Thus once again the leadership of CPC(M-L) goes to the brink of a split and puts all the relations in doubt. Indeed, how bad must the relations be when it is “impossible to proceed to conclude work on any other front.”

As well, the leadership of CPC(M-L) had now declared itself against both discussions between delegations of the two Parties and against letters as methods of sorting out the problems in the relations. They had demonstrated that they refused to listen to either verbal or written views different from theirs and especially to criticism. This left very few channels of communication open to the NC and NEC of COUSML. Only by combining steadfast adherence to principle with the utmost in flexibility and patience is the COUSML leadership able to maintain any relations at all with the CPC(M-L).


As 1978 continues, the leadership of CPC(M-L) further develops its opposition to the struggle against the conciliators of social-chauvinism. The press of CPC(M-L) gives no public support at all to COUSML’s polemics against the conciliators, such as Why Did the ’RCP, USA’ Split? and Reply to the Open Letter of the MLOC. In general, public support for the COUSML weakens in the press of CPC (M-L).

Early September 1978

In these discussions the leadership of CPC(M-L) refuses to talk to the comrades from the NEC of the COUSML who have traveled to Canada as part of a larger delegation from the leadership of COUSML. This delegation had gone to Canada at the invitation of the leadership of CPC(M-L) which had asked for further discussion on the situation in the international Marxist-Leninist movement and also on tactics against MLOC. The CPC(M-L) leadership however, vilely making use of certain possibilities open to them due to their position as the host for the discussions, succeeds in refusing to talk to certain COUSML comrades. This is another big provocation by the leadership of CPC(M-L) and a mark of utter disrespect for the organizational integrity of the COUSML.

With this provocation, the CPC(M-L) leadership continues its probing here or there looking for the possibilities of a split. These schemes are frustrated by the iron unity of the COUSML delegation and by its insistence on meeting together as a whole to discuss each stage of the short-lived discussions. Faced with this unity, the CPC(M-L) leadership once again puts the fraternal relations into doubt and states: “...it seems relations have sunk to the lowest level. Only the most formal relations can exist.”

March 1979

At the invitation of the NEC of COUSML, the leadership of CPC(M-L) sends a comrade to attend the COUSML internal conference held under the slogan “Build the Marxist-Leninist Party Without the Social-Chauvinists and Against the Social-Chauvinists.” The CPC(M-L) comrade holds discussions with members of the conference committee on the analysis of the conference and expressed enthusiasm with the conference.

May 1979

A representative of CPC(M-L) delivers a solidarity message at a May Day meeting of the COUSML held in Chicago. This message enthusiastically endorses the planned founding of the MLP,USA. However, when asked if this message could be printed in The Workers’ Advocate, the representative of CPC(M-L) at first agrees but then says that he wishes to take the message back to Canada for editing prior to publication. The COUSML never sees this message again. Every time the COUSML leadership inquires, it is told that the message had been “lost” or “misplaced” but would be sent in a few days. In the discussions of August 1-2, 1979, the CPC(M-L) leadership again promises to provide this message and again fails to do so.

Later in 1979

The CPC(M-L) withdraws support from the campaign to found the MLP,USA. As was their custom, the CPC(M-L) leadership does not even notify the COUSML leadership of their change of heart, to say nothing of explaining their reasons. Instead the leadership of CPC(M-L) simply lets its failure to uphold its obligations towards the COUSML become apparent in practice.

It should be noted that mutual support between fraternal Marxist-Leninist parties is not a matter of charity but of proletarian internationalism. It is a question of fighting side by side in the common struggle, a question of the solid class unity of the different national contingents of the one worldwide proletarian army. Indeed the CPC(M-L) and COUSML had a long history of fraternal relations. It was supposed to be the established practice for the two Parties, to give public political support for each other. The COUSML for its part always enthusiastically supported the CPC(M-L) in the most vigorous and openhearted manner. Nevertheless, mutual support and cooperation had not developed to the extent it should have or in a proper fashion due to the erroneous concepts of the leadership of CPC(M-L) who only gave support to the COUSML when they felt it served some pragmatic interest of theirs of the moment and who repeatedly used their “support” as a means of pressure.

The COUSML had every right to expect vigorous support from the fraternal CPC(M-L) for the founding of the MLP, USA. But this support is withdrawn. It is withdrawn because the leadership of CPC(M-L) is once again using the question of support as a means of putting pressure upon the COUSML. This is stressed in the letters of the CC of the CPC(M-L) of December 5, 1979. They state that they will not support the founding of the MLP,USA unless the COUSML leadership agrees to immediately end the so-called “provocation” of its differences with the CC of the CPC(M-L), that is, not until the COUSML leadership agrees to unconditionally submit to the dictate of the leadership of CPC(M-L).

July 17, 1979

Implementing the decision of the NC, the NEC of COUSML writes the NEC of CPC(M-L) a letter requesting support in People ’s Canada Daily News, the organ of the CC of the CPC(M-L), for the campaign to found the MLP, USA.

August 1-2, 1979

After receiving the COUSML’s letter of July 17, the CPC (M-L) leadership insists that the COUSML send a delegation for an urgent meeting to discuss the question. In these discussions, the representative of the CPC(M-L) informs the COUSML for the first time of the objections of the CPC (M-L) leadership to the “without and against” slogan. In fact, he gives this slogan as the reason for CPG(M-L)’s lack of support for the campaign to found the MLP,USA, stating: “We agree with a lot that is in your document [i.e., the Call of the NC of the COUSML entitled “Build the Marxist- Leninist Party Without the Social-Chauvinists and Against the Social-Chauvinists” – ed.]. 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.”

No agreement is reached on the “without and against” slogan. Nevertheless the representative of CPC(M-L), seeing the firm stand of the COUSML delegation, makes yet another zigzag and hypocritically says that the CPC(M-L) will support in the press the campaign to found the MLP, USA. As well, on his own initiative, he states that PCDN will reprint a COUSML article denouncing the MLOC/“CPUSA (ML)” in order to make clear to everyone their attitude to this group. For this purpose, PCDN reprints the article “A Holy Alliance of the ’Three Worldists’ with the Pope” which describes the MLOC/“CPUSA(ML)” in passing as “a sect of professional conciliators of the social-chauvinists” and as “social-democratic scribblers.”

Early August 1979

The PCDN issue dated August 1, 1979, which appears not on August 1 but sometime after the discussions of August 1-2 between the COUSML and CPC(M-L), carries the article: Brother Marxist-Leninist Party to Be Founded in the U.S. in the Near Future. The article states that the coming founding of the MLP,USA will be “a great step forward for the proletarian movement for emancipation in the U.S. and that “the vigorous all-sided work for over 10 years” of the COUSML and the ACWM(M-L) before it had “now created the conditions to found the genuine Marxist-Leninist Party in the U.S.” It also praises the COUSML for having “firmly unmasked the so-called ’Marxist-Leninist’ parties which have been founded since 1973, each one of them aligned to definite opportunist positions in the U.S. and internationally.”

This is the only article in PCDN to name the MLP,USA. Nevertheless this article is sufficient to show the complete hypocrisy of the various innocent-sounding pretexts that the leadership of CPC(M-L) has used to hide its savage war to strangle the MLP,USA, such as that it doesn’t know “what this organization is” (Letter of January 19, 1980), this organization which it has hailed in advance as its “brother Marxist-Leninist party.”

The subsequent wrecking activity of the leadership of CPC(M-L) against the MLP,USA proves the hypocritical nature of the article in the August 1 PCDN. Moreover, the article itself is a cynical maneuver in violation of the agreement from the discussions of August 1-2. The article is in fact a covert polemic against the plan for the founding of the MLP,USA put forth at the March 1979 internal conference and carefully avoided mentioning the campaign to found the MLP,USA.

Late October to early November 1979

In discussions with the leadership of CPC(M-L), the delegate of the COUSML learns that CPC(M-L) had in early September sold the rights to the English translation of Palacios’ book Chile: An Attempt at “Historic Compromise” to the “RCP,USA” (Banner Press) for $1,000. CPC(M-L) also threw in the negatives. The leadership of CPC(M-L) says that this transaction was a mistake, but on very narrow grounds, such as the low price. In the letters of the CC of the CPC(M-L) of December 5, 1979, they are still complaining of the low price, talking of the sale of the rights “for a song.”

November 17-18,1979

The 7th Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPC(M-L) takes place on November 17-18. Its Communique appears in the PCDN of December 3. The 7th Plenum identifies Mao Zedong Thought as essentially petty-bourgeois ultra-leftism and presents rightism as the way of “overcoming the adverse influence of ’Mao Zedong Thought’ on the Party.” For example, it criticizes the parliamentary cretinists of the official Khrushchovite party in Canada, Kashtan’s “Communist Party of Canada,” for not making enough use of parliament.

December 1,1979

The NEC of the COUSML sends the NEC of the CPC(M-L) a letter, whose draft was read and unanimously approved by the NC of the COUSML, protesting the sale of the English translation of Palacios’ book to the “RCP,USA.” This letter contains principled, constructive and fraternal criticism. It goes into the ideological issues involved and explains the COUSML’s tactics on certain issues regarding the struggle against the conciliators or centrists.

December 5,1979

The CC of the CPC(M-L) sends letters to the NC and NEC of the COUSML in reply to the letter of December 1. These letters are brutal, savage letters that attack the leadership of COUSML as “agent-provocateurs.” They demand a split in the leadership of COUSML and the elimination of any disagreement whatsoever with the leadership of CPC(M-L) as a prerequisite for continuing fraternal relations. These letters are wild and incoherent. They do not elaborate on any ideological issue, but instead throw as many insults as possible at the leadership of the COUSML. It is impossible to describe them: they have to be read. One of the main purposes of these letters is to sabotage the Preparatory Conference for the Founding of the MLP,USA and prevent the Founding Congress of the MLP,USA from taking place.

The letters of December 5 are the key documents in which the leadership of CPC(M-L) declares war upon the COUSML and the soon-to-be-founded MLP,USA. They illustrate the ugly meaning of the demand by the leadership of CPC(M-L) for a “special relationship” with our Party. For example, what does it mean to demand the overthrow of the leadership of another party, as these letters do? It will be recalled that the revisionist class traitor Khrushchov broke off relations with the Party of Labor of Albania by calling for the overthrow of the Albanian leadership at the 22nd Congress of the CPSU and by uttering such unspeakable filth as that the Albanians had allegedly sold out to imperialism. The letters of December 5 of the CC of the CPC (M-L) similarly demand the overthrow of the leadership of our Party. Filled with filth, these letters denounce the comrades of our Party as allegedly “agent-provocateurs,” “imperialist gangsters,” “agents of the blackest reaction,” etc. With these letters, by claiming the right to make and break the leadership of another party, by seeking to discredit and ruin anyone who didn’t tamely and unquestioningly submit to one’s baton, by in effect dividing parties into mother and daughter parties, the CC of CPC(M-L) was following the foul example of the Khrushchovite revisionists.

December 1979, immediately after the successful conclusion of the Preparatory Conference

The NC of the COUSML reads the two letters from the CC of the CPC(M-L), gives a just characterization of them, decides that it is the CC of the MLP,USA that should deal with them, and decides to maintain public solidarity with the CPC(M-L).

January 1,1980

The Marxist-Leninist Party of the USA is founded! At the Founding Congress the delegates unanimously adopt an extremely warm and fraternal resolution sending the ardent revolutionary greetings of the MLP,USA to the CPC(M-L).

The first week of January, 1980

PCDN carries the major New Year’s speeches of the CPC(M-L) which sum up the decade of the 70’s and set the orientation for the 80’s. These speeches present blatant liquidationist theses. They ridicule party-building and the upholding of the party norms, vehemently oppose the struggle against opportunism, reduce the criticism of Mao Zedong Thought to meaningless generalities and trivialities and present it essentially as ultra-leftism, and put forward very rightist positions on a series of important political issues. They also blame the errors of the leadership of the CPC (M-L) on allegedly having “had a very large heart for the International Marxist-Leninist Communist Movement” and attack the Party of Labor of Albania and the “American party” for allegedly interfering in CPC(M-L)’s affairs. Together with the 7th Plenum, these speeches mark the open flaunting of the liquidationist deviation by the leadership of CPC(M-L).

January-March 1980

The press of CPC(M-L) is silent about the founding and existence of the MLP,USA. Given the previous close fraternal relations that existed for over a decade, this silence comes very close to a public declaration of a split. It means that the£PC(M-L) has gone far down the road of bringing the rupture into the open before the eyes and ears of the class enemy.

February 4, 1980

The NEC of the MLP,USA receives two letters from the CPC(M-L) via internal channels. Both are addressed to the COUSML and both are backdated. The letter dated January 19, 1980 announces in a smart-aleck way, as a supposed answer to some alleged literature request, that “neither the National Publications Centre, nor any of the Institutions associated with CPC(M-L) will have anything whatsoever to do with any ’Marxist-Leninist Party, USA’ until such a time as it is clarified what this organization is, what are its relations to COUSML and whether this ’Marxist-Leninist Party, USA’ is interested in establishing relations with us, or merely in receiving literature.” This letter also strongly endorses the previous letters of December 5, 1979.

The other letter is dated December 15, 1979. It is a cover letter for the letter of the CC of the CPC(M-L) to the CC of the RCP of Chile, which is also enclosed.

February 1980

The Second Plenum of the CC of the MLP,USA examines the letters of the CC of CPC(M-L) of December 5, 1979 and the relations with CPC(M-L). It decides, among other things, to write the CC of the CPC(M-L) a letter, which ultimately becomes the letter of the CC of the MLP,USA of June 16, 1980.

March 30,1980

The CC of the MLP,USA sends a delegation to the Internationalist Rally held on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the founding of the CPC(M-L). This principled and mature stand of our CC is an obstacle to the path of unprincipled splitting being followed by the leadership of CPC(M- L) and helps show who is for Marxist-Leninist unity and who is deviating from this stand.

The leadership of CPC(M-L) reacts to the MLP,USA delegation in a frenzy. They boycott the delegation and refuse to let it speak at the rally, thus consummating the public split with the MLP,USA. In the months following the Internationalist Rally, the leadership of CPC(M-L) step by step increases its efforts to organize an anti-party network of wreckers in the U.S.

At the Internationalist Rally, the chairman of the CPC(M-L) gives a major speech, entitled “The Road of the Party,” to commemorate the tenth anniversary of the founding of the CPC(M-L). This speech continues the liquidationist orientation from the New Year’s speeches. It is reprinted in pamphlet form as the first issue of CPC(M-L)’s new theoretical journal, which is also called The Road of the Party.

Latter part of April to May 1980

Because the leadership of CPC(M-L) has now made their breaking off of relations with our Party public and has shown that they were persisting in splitting activity, the MLP,USA holds party-wide discussion of the hostile actions and deviationist stands of the leadership of CPC(M-L). All the militants of our Party are fully informed of the situation and shown all relevant correspondence, including the letter of the NEC of COUSML of December 1, 1979, the letters of the CC of CPC(M-L) of December 5, 1979 and the preliminary draft of the letter of the CC of MLP,USA of June 16, 1980. With a single voice, the militants of the MLP,USA condemn the hostile and unprincipled actions of the leadership of CPC(M-L) and approve the preliminary draft letter to the CC of the CPC(M-L).

May-June 1980

The wrecking activity of the leadership of CPC(M-L) in the U.S. is now in full swing. They order those elements who they have contact with to break off with the MLP,USA. Agents of the leadership of CPC(M-L) seek out militants and sympathizers of the MLP,USA to ask them whether they “love CPC(M-L).” Unable to find a single crack in the unity of the MLP,USA, the leadership of CPC(M-L) relies on a handful of non-party elements, most of whom they have cultivated for years, who in effect form a loose anti-party network. This network has no unity, no internal cohesion, and no common views. It exists simply to carry out wrecking activities and circulate slanders on the instructions of the top leadership of CPC(M-L). There is a series of pilgrimages to Canada by these elements.

Although their efforts to build up the rudiments of a second party lead to repeated fiascos for the leadership of CPC (M-L), still these attempts are an extremely serious matter that show how far they have strayed from proletarian internationalism. They are trampling on all the standards of revolutionary morality. Anything goes, no matter what harm is done to the revolution, to the working class movement and to the prestige of communism, just so long as it is directed against the MLP,USA. These activities by the leadership of CPC(M-L) show that they are stubbornly refusing to resolve the contradiction with our Party according to the norms laid down by Marxism-Leninism but instead are seeking to destroy our Party at all costs and to replace it with a subservient organization of yes men.

May 29,1980

The CC of the CPC(M-L) writes a letter to the CC of the MLP,USA that reiterates the foul slanders and brutal ultimatums of the letters of December 5, 1979. Although the letter condemns our Party on the basis of the CC of CPC(M-L)’s alleged analysis of the “Call of the NC of the COUSML” of May 12, 1979 and the Communique of the Founding Congress of the MLP,USA, it gives no analysis of these documents or any other matter but instead just flings as much mud as it can.

This letter insistently demands in the strongest language that the MLP,USA stop displaying public solidarity with the CPC(M-L) and stop referring to CPC(M-L) as a “fraternal party.” Thus it demands that the public split be made even bigger. It stresses that “our Party [CPC(M-L) – ed.] would not establish any fraternal relations of friendship and co-operation with a Party based on this Call [the “Call of the NC of the COUSML” entitled “Build the Marxist-Leninist Party Without the Social Chauvinists and Against the Social-Chauvinists” – ed.]” and that “It is our conviction that a Party whose Founding Congress has issued such a Communique... is not a genuine Marxist-Leninist Party. Hence, there can be no relations established with such a Party on the basis of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism.”

This letter is full of filth and lies, like the letters of December 5,1979. It is another example of the grossest hypocrisy, accusing our Party of all the methods being used against us by the leadership of CPC(M-L) itself, such as “using the method of gossips and rumours, innuendo and insinuation, provocation and incitement and blackmail and pressure and gross and flagrant interference.” It is written at a time when the leadership of CPC(M-L) is in the midst of a new round of frenzied efforts to organize an anti-party network in the U.S. Using the method of brazen hypocrisy, they therefore accuse our Party of “gross interference in their [CPC(M-L)’s – ed.] internal affairs.” Examples of this “interference” are “want(ing) to settle the outstanding matters between CPC(M-L) and COUSML,” maintaining solidarity with CPC(M-L) in the press such as hailing the tenth anniversary of the founding of CPC(M-L), and rebuffing the wrecking activities organized by the leadership of CPC(M-L) inside the U.S. This “interference” in CPC (M-L)’s “internal affairs” is allegedly “carried out by the cadre of the MLP,USA from coast-to-coast in the U.S.A.” In brief, the CC of the CPC(M-L) defines the entire question of the relations between COUSML and CPC(M-L) and the question of the party in the U.S. generally as CPC(M-L)’s “internal affairs.” There can hardly be a more brazen expression of the demand for a “special relationship.”

The honesty and sincerity of this letter can be judged from its smart-aleck claim that “the fact that COUSML saw fit to not reply to the letter of the CC of CPC(M-L) of December 5, 1979 before its dissolution shows that it must have considered our criticism and repudiation...to be correct and just.”

As well, in this letter the CC of the CPC(M-L) tries to hide their wrecking activities in the U.S. behind the claim that they have nothing to do with the U.S. Oh no, they have merely received reports about the U.S. from a Marxist-Leninist organization of a country outside the Americas and from its “supporters in the U.S.” Naturally we have not to this day received a copy of these alleged reports and “documented facts” from either the CC of the CPC(M-L) or the other organization referred to. But the CC of the CPC(M-L) shows in this letter that they claim the right to speak for others and that they were doing their best to provoke contradictions among the Marxist-Leninists of other countries. From the very first sentence, the letter flaunts this international factional activity of the leadership of CPC(M-L).

June 9, 14, 27, and 28, 1980

The organ of the CC of the CPC(M-L), PCDN, begins front page polemics against the MLP,USA. These articles identify our Party as the “theoreticians of the ’movement’ and of ’ideological struggle’” and say that they are talking of a party whose founding was preceded by a movement against social-chauvinism. These polemics are incoherent and devoid of any scientific value. Their main content is denunciation of the struggle against opportunism in particular and of the ideological struggle in general. They call the MLP,USA a new current of revisionism, just discovered, a current characterized by its practice of opposing all the other revisionist currents including the Maoists, Soviet revisionists, etc. They call our Party the class enemy, an enemy of international communism and so forth.

In July the CC of the CPC(M-L) reprints these articles in their theoretical journal, The Road of the Party. Although this issue is labeled “Vol. 1 #5,” it is in fact the only other issue of this journal to appear other than the first issue.

These articles do not however explicitly mention the name of the MLP,USA. This is not from any reasons of moderation, as the leadership of CPC(M-L) is waging an all-out war on our Party. But they can not avow their real motives for their war on our Party in public nor defend their demand for a “special relationship.” They make use of not mentioning our name to avoid raising the questions of principle and instead to substitute as many slanderous innuendoes and diversions as possible. The articles try to incite people against the MLP,USA by making systematic use of the method of attributing to our Party the actions and stands of groups having no connection with the MLP,USA in the slightest.

June 16, 1980

The CC of the MLP,USA sends a letter to the CC of the CPC(M-L) replying to their savage letters of December 5, 1979. This letter was written and sent prior to the MLP,USA receiving the June 1980 polemics in PCDN. This letter refutes the slanderous lies of the leadership of CPC(M-L) and opposes their deviationist stands, but at the same time sets forth a plan for the restoration of relations between the two Parties. The leadership of CPC(M-L) never replies to this letter.

In the process of delivering this letter, the CC of MLP, USA discovers that the CPC(M-L) has unilaterally cut the internal channels of communication between the two Parties.

July 1980

The polemics in PCDN, the public severance of relations with our Party by the leadership of CPC(M-L), their wrecking activities in the U.S. and the promotion of harmful, deviationist ideas in the CPC(M-L)’s press make it necessary for the MLP, USA to clarify its stand in public on the questions of principle. The Workers ’ Advocate begins a series of articles entitled “Against Mao Zedong Thought!” For the time being, the CPC(M-L) isn’t named explicitly in order to give the CC of the CPC(M-L) time to read and study the letter of June 16, 1980 and to reconsider their stand.

May 1981

In the year following their receipt of the letter of June 16, 1980, the leadership of CPC(M-L) continues to escalate their wrecking activities against the MLP,USA and to persist in their liquidationist and Maoist deviations. By May 1981 things have reached the point that several American yes men of CPC(M-L) attend a few anti-imperialist demonstrations, not however for the purpose of denouncing U.S. imperialism, but solely to hand out anti-party literature to the supporters of the MLP,USA. These statements write down the lies and filth which the leadership of CPC(M-L) is circulating verbally through the anti-party network but is too ashamed to sign their own name to.

June 30,1981

The Workers’ Advocate begins publication of the series “The Truth About the Relations Between the MLP,USA and the CPC(M-L).”