The Workers' Advocate



Volume 9, Number 7

August 15, 1979

P.O. BOX 11942 CHICAGO, IL. 60611 Special Supplement


Auto Workers, Prepare for Struggle!................................. S1
Intensify Struggle Against Chrysler.................................. S1
Defy Carter's Wage Controls!........................................... S1
Fraser's Fraud and Swindle.............................................. S2
Chevy Workers Struggle Against Speed-up..................... S2
Did Wage Controls "Self-Destruct"?................................ S3
Internat'l Harvester Workers Wildcat............................... S3

Auto Workers, Prepare for Struggle!

The Issue Is Not to "Save" Chrysler, But to Intensify the Struggle Against It


Fraser's "Fair Share of the Profits" Is a Fraud to Swindle the Workers


There is no common interest between workers and capitalists to increase productivity!

Have Carter's Wage Controls "Self-Destructed"?

Hail the Just Struggle of the International Harvester Workers!


From the Message of Greetings of the Party of Labor of Albania to the Internationalist Rally

"Mao Tsetung Thought"-A Profoundly Anti-Marxist Theory

The Followers of "Mao Tsetung Thought" in Britain Promote Straightforward National and Social Chauvinism

Chinese Revisionism in Decay


Against Social-Democratic Infiltration of the Marxist-Leninist Movement

Glaring Social-Chauvinism of the Social-Democrats

Enver Hoxha's New Work "Reflections on China":


Passages from "Reflections on China" Vol. 1 -1967

Auto Workers, Prepare for Struggle!

The auto workers are preparing for battle against the "Big 3" auto billionaires. On September 14, the contracts covering 750,000 auto workers expire, and the workers are getting ready for a major strike against the starvation wages, the extreme overwork and the massive layoffs that General Motors, Ford and Chrysler are imposing on them. The auto workers are also confronted with the Carter government which is spearheading the offensive of the monopoly capitalist class to force massive wage cuts and a system of extreme overwork on the entire working class. To defend their livelihood the auto workers must wage a determined struggle to defy the wage controls of the Carter government.

When the auto workers fight to defend their livelihood, they are fighting in the interest of the whole working class against this fascist offensive of the rich. The government is trembling at the mere thought that the auto workers will break Carter's wage-cutting guidelines. They are moaning that the struggle of the auto workers will "make their job harder" to impose their wage- cutting schemes on the other workers. Against this eventuality, the government is gearing up to suppress the auto workers' strike. The Carter administration has promised the auto billionaires its full support to hold the workers' pay increases to the wage-cutting 7% limit. And they have singled out the Chrysler workers for an especially vicious attack, demanding that these workers must take a "substantial" 25% cut in their pay.

The UAW big shots have also joined this malicious campaign against the workers. UAW president Douglas Fraser has already promised to stop the workers from striking against Chrysler and he is demanding that these workers "sacrifice" to rescue the monopoly profits of the Chrysler moneybags. Fraser is, in fact, seeking to sabotage the struggle and limit the demands of all the auto workers so that the "Big 3" can "maintain the high level of profits" that they demand. This is the most scandalous betrayal of the workers.

In this life and death struggle, the workers must close their ranks and prepare to wage a determined strike against the auto billionaires and the wage controls of the Carter government. The auto workers are 750,000 workers strong. And today they have the support of all of the workers who are seething with anger against Carter's wage controls.

In this special supplement, The Workers' Advocate carries the article entitled "Defy Carter's Wage Controls!". This article explains the significance of the fight against the barbarous wage- cutting offensive of the Carter government and sets for the working class the fighting task to defy Carter's wage controls. As well, it calls on the workers to split with the politics of the rich and to take up independent political activity based on the interests of the working class and its revolutionary struggle for emancipation.

In the article entitled "Have Carter's Wage Controls 'Self-Destructed'?" The Workers' Advocate exposes the treachery of the UAW big shots and points out the necessity for the auto workers to defy Carter's wage controls in order to defend their livelihood and the interests of the working class.

The article entitled "The Issue Is Not to 'Save' Chrysler, But to Intensify the Struggle Against It" tells the plain truth that the Chrysler workers cannot defend their jobs by "sacrificing" to save the profits of the monopoly capitalist moneybags, but must turn to mass struggle against the rich as the only correct way forward.

As well, this special supplement carries the article entitled "Fraser's 'Fair Share of the Profits' Is a Fraud to Swindle the Workers". This article exposes that the UAW bureaucrats base themselves not on the needs and interests of the workers, but on the needs of the monopoly capitalists to ensure their high profit levels. The article calls on the workers to fight against these class capitulationist politics of the trade union bureaucrats as part of their determined struggle against the auto billionaires and the wage-cutting offensive of the Carter government.

The auto workers are a large and important section of the working class. Since their last contract strike in 1976 these workers have continued to wage one struggle after another against their barbarous exploitation at the hands of the auto billionaires. They have waged innumerable slowdowns and strikes against the vicious speedup and job combinations that the auto moneybags are organizing as part of their massive overhaul of the auto industry. The workers have frequently simply stopped their machines and walked off the job rather than work the inhuman overtime which has been forced on them in the last number of years. They have organized massive wildcats against the extreme heat and overwork in the Detroit factories, and they stood firm against the police terror and jailings which the government has thrown against their just struggles. In the upcoming strike the auto workers are fighting for a substantial wage increase and improved cost-of-living protection against the soaring inflation and wage and benefit cutbacks which the auto billionaires are demanding. They are also fighting to shorten their work time against the extreme labor intensification and overtime drive of the auto moneybags. And they are striving for some minimal protection against vicious plant closings and the layoffs of some 50,000 of their fellow workers. This is a just fight which deserves the support of all the toiling masses.

The strike against the "Big 3" auto kings, does not affect these workers alone. The thousands of other auto workers, the farm implement workers, and the workers at the auto parts firms are all directly connected to the struggle against GM, Ford and Chrysler., But as well, today the broad masses of workers are burning with rage against the wage-cutting offensive of the monopoly capitalists, headed by the Carter government. The working class wants to fight against the monopoly capitalists' fascist offensive, and they support all who stand up to defy Carter's wage controls. The auto workers must fight bravely, not only to defend their own livelihood, but also to carry out proudly their duty to the whole working class.

[Photo: 4,000 Chrysler auto workers march in protest of the job-eliminating plans of the Chrysler billionaires, June 3, 1979.]

[Back to Top]

The Issue Is Not to "Save" Chrysler, But to Intensify the Struggle Against It

The Chrysler billionaires have lost over $460 million in the last eighteen months and are in danger of collapsing. The problems of Chrysler are a manifestation of the deepening crisis of the monopoly capitalist system. Embroiled in hopeless difficulties, the representatives of this crisis- ridden and decaying system are rushing about the country to convince the masses that the prime objective of mankind must be to "SAVE THE RICH". Under this tattered banner the Chrysler billionaires, the monopoly capitalist government and the UAW big shots have turned their united energies to forcing the workers to "sacrifice" in order that Chrysler might be saved. Each of the various "rescue" schemes has this same basic theme -- devastate the workers through enormous layoffs, extreme overwork, and severe wage cuts. And all of this so that Chrysler executives can continue to live like kings, so that Chrysler may recoup its losses of millions of dollars, so that the big banks and other financial godfathers of Chrysler may maintain their enormous interest payments. The workers cannot accept any of these "rescue" schemes of the moneybags and labor traitors. They must organize independently to wage determined mass struggle to defend their jobs. The workers' jobs can't be preserved by sacrificing to save Chrysler, but only by using the company's predicament as a time to step up the fight against Chrysler. Now is the time for the workers to intensify their struggle against the job-eliminating productivity drive of the auto billionaires, against the massive layoffs and the monopoly capitalists' wage-cutting offensive. Now is the time, not to save the rich, but to intensify the struggle against them.


Chrysler, the 10th largest capitalist industry in the U.S. and the 14th largest in the world, is in crisis. In 1978 it lost $204 million. In the first six months of 1979 it has already lost $260 million. And by the end of the year it is expected to lose from $500 to $700 million, the biggest amount ever lost by an industrial firm in a single year. With such unprecedented losses Chrysler is is in danger of totally collapsing. The difficulties of the Chrysler billionaires are the product of the dog-eat-dog laws of the monopoly capitalist system. And the threat that Chrysler will collapse is a manifestation 'of the deepening and all-sided crisis of this man-eating system. Today, not only are the small and medium sized capitalist companies going bankrupt in ever larger numbers. But now Chrysler too, one of the world's mightiest monopoly capitalist corporations, is being bankrupted and driven out of business.

From these facts, however, it should not be concluded that Chrysler has stopped extorting enormous surplus Value from the sweat and blood of the auto workers. Even with losses in the hundreds of millions of dollars, Chrysler continues to pay out huge sums of money to further enrich the monopoly capitalist moneybags. Chrysler's top executives continue to this day to live like kings. The Chrysler president, Lee Iaccoca, is still scheduled to receive a $1.5 million bonus on top of his yearly $360,000 salary. Chrysler is still paying out at least $28 million per year in dividends on its preferred stocks. Furthermore, Chrysler has borrowed some $1.71 billion in loans from many banks and other monopoly capitalist financial institutions. From the surplus value extracted from the labor of its workers Chrysler continues to make enormous interest payments to these financial godfathers. When the question of "sacrificing" to save Chrysler comes up, sacrificing these enormous profits is not even discussed. In fact, the government wants to "guarantee" the loans of the financial magnates. Whether Chrysler survives or not, the Carter government is determined to save the huge profits of the multi-billionaire bankers. This is the significance of all of the schemes to save Chrysler. They are all, in the final analysis, schemes to save the enormous profits of the rich. And to this end the workers are being forced to sacrifice. The monopoly capitalists and their government are striving to put the full burden of their crisis onto the backs of the working class.


Chrysler is trying to save itself from total collapse and recoup its losses by devastating the workers with massive layoffs, extreme overwork and severe wage cuts. By mid-August Chrysler has already thrown nearly 24,000 workers out of their jobs. For many of these workers the paltry and short lived unemployment benefits have already run out. As well Chrysler's SUB fund is at an extremely low level, so that many workers being laid off may not even receive this minimal income. While throwing thousands of workers into the streets with no source of income, Chrysler is at the same time intensifying the labor of the remaining employed workers to the maximum. Through a program of closing down "inefficient" plants, retooling old machinery introducing new equipment, speeding up the lines, combining jobs, etc. Chrysler is imposing extreme overwork on the production workers. For example at the Dodge Main assembly plant in Hamtramck, Michigan, even after Chrysler laid off 5000 workers and had announced its plans to close down the plant entirely, it overworked the remaining workers with constant 9 hour days and 6 to 7 day weeks right up to the model change-over plant shutdown. But even this extreme devastation of the workers is not enough for these auto billionaires. Chrysler is now proposing to starve its employed workforce, as well as those workers it has already thrown out of their jobs. It is calling for a massive wage cut of over 25% of the workers' pay through the combined effects of a two year "wage freeze" and soaring double digit inflation. From this massive destruction of the workers, Chrysler is trying to save itself from destruction. For the sake of its capitalist dividends, the workers are being driven to utter destitution.

And now the government of the rich has rushed in to assist Chrysler in its devastation of the workers. On August 9th, the Carter government announced that it would provide millions of dollars in loan guarantees so that Chrysler may have the necessary capital to retool and more "efficiently" overwork its employed workers while laying off thousands of others. The government has also promised to assist Chrysler in its wage-cutting schemes. In the same announcement in which the Carter government promised loan guarantees, the Secretary of the Treasury, G. William Miller, said that the government would demand ''substantive contributions or concession from... employees" of Chrysler. As well Carter's chief "inflation fighter" Alfred E. Kahn has threatened that the auto companies must keep wage increases down to the government's wage-cutting guideline of 7%. And so to save this major monopoly capitalist corporation, Carter has promised the full backing of the capitalist state to force onto the workers massive layoffs, extreme overwork, and unprecedented wage cuts.


If this offensive of the Chrysler billionaires and the Carter government is not bad enough, the auto workers own union president, Douglas Fraser, has joined the "movement" to ruin the workers in order to save the rich. "We recognize that Chrysler's survival is at stake," says Fraser. And so the workers must accept being thrown out of their jobs and incur severe wage cuts to provide "whatever is needed for the survival of Chrysler. " Fraser is demanding that the workers not fight this capitalist attack, but instead sacrifice to save the monopoly capitalist exploiters. Fraser has already openly admitted that he is going to impose on the workers "a weaker contract" than he has ever before considered. This is an outrageous betrayal of the workers' interests.

Fraser has even advanced his own scheme to assist the Chrysler auto billionaires. He is calling on the government to go even farther in its program to impoverish the workers. Fraser claims that the government loan guarantees are not enough to keep Chrysler afloat. He proposes instead that the government should give Chrysler a billion or more dollars by "investing" the workers' tax money to "buy in" to the giant corporation. Under Fraser's scheme the Chrysler moneybags and the capitalist government would jointly oversee the reorganization of the company so the workers are effectively overworked and thrown out of their jobs. And the workers, for their part, are supposed to peacefully accept their own devastation because now there will be "public representatives" on the Chrysler board of directors. Fraser is proving himself to be a labor traitor supreme. He believes that Chrysler is not good enough at exploiting its workers. So he wants the government, the "public representatives" of the capitalist state, to use the workers' tax money to more efficiently exploit the Chrysler workers. Let us save the rich, Fraser reasons, by more organized layoffs, more scientific overwork, more effective wage cutting.


All of these schemes to "rescue" Chrysler are being advocated under the outrageous fraud that to save Chrysler will save the jobs of the auto workers. This claim has no truth in fact, but is a criminal hoax aimed at fooling the workers into peacefully agreeing to their own devastation.

In the first place a rescue of Chrysler which preserves the productivity drive of the auto billionaires will not save the workers' jobs. In a very real sense, the loss of the workers' jobs is due to the barbarous productivity drive of the monopoly capitalists, and not to the collapse of Chrysler per se. If all things were equal, the fact that Chrysler stops producing cars would only mean that GM or Ford would increase their production to take over Chrysler's share of the market. And in order to increase their production the other auto billionaires would have to hire on as many workers as Chrysler threw out of their jobs. But due to the monopoly capitalists' productivity drive this is not taking place. GM has already taken over a substantial portion of Chrysler's share of the market and it has increased its production accordingly. But GM has not substantially increased its workforce. That is because by intensifying the labor of the workers, by lengthening the working day, and by retooling the industry to more efficiently exploit the workers, the auto capitalists have been able to greatly increase their production and profits while not hiring on additional workers. For example, over the last ten years in the auto industry the output per worker has increased on the average of about 4% per year. If the 13.43 million motor vehicles produced in 1978 had been produced at the same rate per worker as in 1968 (i.e. about 15.76 units per worker) then 130,000 more auto workers would be employed today. That is, as many workers as the total employment at Chrysler. Thus it is the auto billionaires drive to intensify the exploitation of the workers through a system of extreme overwork which is the basic source of the unemployment of the auto workers today.

In the second place, none of the schemes to rescue Chrysler have the aim of eliminating this productivity drive of the auto billionaires, but, in fact, they aim to intensify it. Whether it is the scheme of labor traitor Fraser, or that of the government or Chrysler itself, all of the rescue plans seek to amass a large amount of capital. Chrysler is to invest this capital to overhaul its entire operation (as it has already begun to do), to bring in new machinery, retool older plants, and in general intensify the workers' labor. In fact, neither the government nor Fraser believe that Chrysler will do a good enough job at imposing extreme overwork and layoffs on the workers. So both Fraser and the Carter government are demanding to have some government control over Chrysler to insure that it becomes as "efficient" as possible at exploiting its workforce. It can be seen from this, that the schemes of the rich to "save Chrysler" have nothing to do with saving the jobs of the workers. They are in fact schemes which are directed to the further elimination of jobs and impoverishment of auto workers.

But the workers should not think that even this "sacrifice" of the workers' jobs and livelihood will save Chrysler from collapse. It is a well- known fact that the monopoly capitalists will a business to squeeze every drop of profit from the most exhausting overwork and impoverishment of the workers. And once the workers are ruined, the monopoly capitalists will simply close the business and throw out the workers to starve in the streets. This has happened in numerous bankruptcies and factory closings in the last number of years. The workers must not "sacrifice" for the billionaires, but turn their energies to a fight against them. Only by organizing mass struggle against the rich can the workers have any hope of defending their jobs against the monopoly capitalists' plant closings and layoffs.


The workers have their own independent plans to deal with the Chrysler predicament, and that is to fight against Chrysler to defend the workers' interests. It is true that Chrysler is in danger of collapsing. But it is not in the interests of the workers to sacrifice their jobs and livelihood on this account. The fact that Chrysler has been weakened by its crisis means that the workers should at this time step up their fight against the Chrysler moneybags to defend their jobs and income. The Chrysler billionaires, the Wall Street financiers and gluttonous bankers, the Carter government and the trade union bureaucrats are all crying that Chrysler must be saved. Well, let them sacrifice to save this major monopoly capitalist. The rich must pay the price for the problems of Chrysler.

The current problems of the Chrysler billionaires most strikingly proves that the monopoly capitalists cannot even run their own enterprises. Neither the handful of rich moneybags, nor their government, nor Fraser and the other trade union bureaucrats have any solutions to the crisis of the monopoly capitalist system. They have only programs to further impoverish the workers in order to save the profits of the rich. The monopoly capitalists have proven themselves completely unfit to rule. They cannot even ensure that the workers can continue to eat and live. Only the working class has the solution to these problems. By carrying out the socialist revolution to overthrow the monopoly capitalist government and to expropriate the rich, the working class will organize production so that all are employed and so that all who work share the constantly growing benefits of their social labor.

Today the workers must fight bravely to defend their jobs and livelihood against the onslaught of the monopoly capitalist moneybags. And in this determined struggle the workers should not forget that this is the preparation for an even greater battle in the future, that noble revolution to emancipate mankind from the monstrous oppression of the monopoly capitalists.

[Back to Top]


The monopoly capitalists are carrying out a vicious offensive against the economic livelihood of the workers. They are raising prices sky-high at a 14% annual rate while trying to restrict wage increases to 7% a year through Carter's wage controls. As capitalist profits soar, the workers' purchasing power is falling drastically, declining 3.4% in the first six months of 1979 alone. Particularly hard hit have been the workers in small unions, the unorganized, and the workers in the public sector in general. The wage controls have proven to be an extremely vicious attack on the proletariat.

The workers are seething with anger at this fascist offensive of the bourgeoisie and are launching numerous struggles to resist this wage cutting. They are struggling for higher pay to protect themselves from the rising cost of living and are fighting against the government's wage controls. Despite the repression of the government and the sabotage of the trade union bureaucrats, many fighting contingents of the proletariat have waged vigorous struggles and broken through Carter's 7% guideline. Few sections of the workers have achieved wage settlements equal to the rise in the cost of living, but many sections have been able to win wage increases of about 9-10% a year. Thus a number of sections of the workers have at least defended themselves from the more extreme wage cuts that are suffered when the workers are held to the 7% pay limit. More importantly, these struggles have handed Carter's wage controls a series of defeats and provide encouragement to the other sections of the working class to also wage vigorous mass struggles for higher wages and to fight against the wage controls. They have provided an impetus toward the development of the powerful class-wide struggle of the workers against the savage wage cutting of the bourgeoisie. They have helped to foster a growing spirit of rebellion among the entire proletariat against the wage controls and the monopoly capitalist government behind them. This prospect panics the bourgeoisie and its agents.

In an attempt to prevent the breaking out of a powerful class-wide struggle against the wage controls and to save them from defeat, the government, in close collaboration with the labor traitors, is presenting the illusion that the controls are not really being defied. Toward this end Carter has come up with his "guideline math" by which wage settlements that far surpass the 7% guideline are magically transformed to be in compliance with it. The labor traitors are assisting the government here as well. They present the illusion that the guideline-breaking settlements have only "bent" the controls a little, but are fundamentally in compliance with them. They are trying to discourage the workers and make them give up any thought of waging vigorous mass struggle, and to instead resign themselves to having the 7% guideline jammed down their throats. In this way the monopoly capitalist government and its agents in the trade union bureaucracy are striving with might and main to save the wage controls from the defeats they have suffered. They are striving to negate the significance of the struggles that have broken through the controls and to prevent the other sections of the proletariat from following these examples. They are trying to prevent the development of the powerful struggle of the entire proletariat to defy Carter's wage controls.

Carter's wage controls are an attack of the entire monopoly capitalist class against the entire proletariat. The controls clearly show how the monopoly capitalists, and their tool the government, are engaged in a fierce class struggle against the workers. They show how the rich organize politically against the workers, using both of their political parties, the Republicans and Democrats.

The workers must also be concerned with politics and organize politically against the monopoly capitalists. But the working class needs politics that are independent of the Democratic and Republican Parties, that are separate from the parties of the rich exploiters. The working class needs politics that fight for its own interests. It needs politics that serve the growth and development of the working class movement and orient it based on the experience of the international working class movement. This is not the politics of pacifying the workers and telling them to rely on empty promises for their salvation, but the politics of arousing the masses into independent action. It is the politics which leads the workers to fulfill their historic mission of organizing the revolution to overthrow the capitalist social system.

Without its own politics the workers have no choice but to accept and follow behind the so-called "lesser of two evils", the Nixons and Carters. The workers must have their own politics and independent political activity to wage a powerful fight against the more and more intolerable exploitation and tyranny of the rich. Marxist-Leninist politics are the genuine independent politics of the working class and the Marxist-Leninist Party is the vanguard political organization of the proletariat.

Carter's wage controls are a key tool of the fascist offensive of the monopoly capitalist class to shift the burden of the economic crisis onto the workers through soaring prices combined with wage cuts. Figures released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that the real spendable earnings of the workers plummetted by 2.6% in 1978. (The real spendable earnings index takes into account both rises in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and in federal social security and income taxes to arrive at the purchasing power of all workers, except government and agricultural workers.) Expressed in constant 1967 dollars, this index shows that real income in 1978 declined to below the 1965 level. By the end of 1978, real income had declined 6. 8% from its high in 1972. And these figures underestimate the actual impoverishment of the workers because they are largely based on price increases as measured by the CPI, which does not properly reflect the much higher price rises of basic necessities such as food and fuel which claim a big percentage of the workers' paychecks. This speaks to the economic hardships that ordinary working people are now facing in everyday life.

However, these huge wage cuts do not affect the entire working class equally. The unionized workers in large factories suffered less of a decline than unionized workers in smaller factories and than the unorganized workers. Those in large bargaining units consisting of 1,000 or more workers received average wage increases (including COLA payments) of 8.2% in 1978. In that inflation rose by 9% in 1978, it can be seen that their real wages declined by. 8%. (Their purchasing power declined somewhat more than this if federal tax increases are taken into account.) This means that workers in union bargaining units of less than 1,000, as well as the unorganized workers suffered decreases in their purchasing power of much more than the 2.6% average figure for all workers, as the workers in larger unions suffered much less. Furthermore, most government employees, whose wages aren't included in the real earnings index, received increases of less than 7% according to the U.S. Conference of Mayors. This means that their purchasing power also declined in 1978 by over 2% at least. The federal government employees have suffered really enormous losses because of Carter's dictating of a meager 5.5% "increase" to them last fall.

And this wage-cutting offensive is intensifying in 1979. While real income declined 2. 6% in 1978, it has already declined 3.4% in the first six months of 1979! While some workers, such as the rubber workers, were able to fend off a wage cut through their strike struggles, this has not been true for the majority of workers.

Carter launched his "voluntary" wage controls program in April 1978 and introduced the 7% wage guideline in October of last year. Throughout this entire period to the present, many sections of the American proletariat have gone on strike to vigorously fight against the wage-cutting offensive of the bourgeoisie. This includes the 570,000 postal workers, 27,000 pulp and paper workers, thousands of public school teachers, 300,000 Teamster truck drivers, 18,000 airline mechanics, the rubber workers and recently the Westinghouse electrical workers, not to mention many other sections of the proletariat. In these struggles the workers have time and again come face to face with the repressive measures of the capitalist state, including compulsory arbitration, court injunctions, fines, outright police violence and jailings.

Besides the repression of the state, the workers are also confronting the sabotage of their struggles by the trade union bureaucrats. For example, the upcoming struggle of the auto workers in September is bound to be an important battle against the wage controls, and Doug Fraser of the UAW, errand boy of the auto monopolists, is making determined efforts to impose the controls on the auto workers. He stated in his keynote address to the union's special bargaining convention on April 17 that skyrocketing prices have caused Carter's "anti-inflation program to self-destruct" and that the government "should just stay the hell away from our negotiations". Fraser has maintained this theme to the present. Looking beneath the surface of Fraser's "militant" profanity, we see that his line is in total conformity with the aims of the government to suppress the workers. The wage controls have not "self-destructed" due to rising prices. This is an attempt to deny the significance of the struggles of the postal workers, truck drivers, airline mechanics, rubber workers and others who defied the controls and broke through the guidelines. And while these struggles have not caused the controls to "self-destruct", they have nevertheless badly damaged the ability of the government to impose them on other workers. Fraser is seeking to negate the significance of these struggles of the workers, and the path of mass struggle in general. By erroneously stating that the controls no longer exist, Fraser is announcing that the UAW hacks will not call on the workers to rise in struggle to defy the controls, which very definitely exist and are backed up by all of the repressive laws and restrictions of the capitalist state machine. Instead of calling on the workers to rise in struggle to defy the controls and to break through all of the laws and restrictions of the government and to fight for higher wages, Fraser capitulates to the wage controls and tries to put the workers in the passive position of "boldly" whistling in the dark, pleading with the government to "stay the hell away from our negotiations". But of course the government will do no such thing. In fact, Carter recently threatened the auto companies with government penalties if they should allow wage increases in excess of the guidelines. Obviously, the wage controls have not "self-destructed". Not only must the auto workers actively rise in mass struggle to defy the controls and defend their basic interests, it is their special responsibility to do so. By defying the controls, this powerful contingent of the proletariat fights for the interests of the entire working class and assists the development of the class-wide workers' movement.

Despite the repression of the state and the obstructions of the top union officials, various sections of the workers have achieved wage settlements surpassing the wage guidelines through waging vigorous mass struggles. This was true for the 570,000 postal workers last summer who fought for several months against their employer, the federal government, and its attempt to impose the then 5.1 to 5. 6% wage guideline onto them.

After voting down one tentative agreement and launching several wildcat strikes, the postal workers eventually were forced to settle for a wage increase of 6. 5% a year including COLA payments, computed on the basis of a 6. 5% inflation rate. But as inflation rises to today's 14% rate, the postal workers' wages do not rise as rapidly, due to their skimpy COLA clause, only reaching the level of approximately 10%. Thus while their wage settlement will result in a decline in their real wages, they did succeed in breaking through Carter's guideline and in protecting themselves from an even worse wage cut than the government intended to impose on them. The struggles of the pulp and paper workers, truck drivers, airline mechanics and others over the last year produced similar results.

In addition to these struggles, the rubber workers dealt a serious blow to Carter's wage controls last May by successfully defending themselves from a wage cut. According to the meager facts available on their settlement, their wages will keep up with inflation. The fact that this is now an uncommon occurrence shows the extremely vicious nature of Carter's wage controls.

The struggles listed above have dealt Carter's wage controls a series of defeats and provided encouragement to the other sections of the proletariat to vigorously fight against them. These struggles have damaged the authority of Carter's guidelines and helped the 750,000 auto workers, who have these examples to follow in their struggle for higher wages when their contract expires in September. In general they assist the struggles of the rest of the proletariat and provide impetus toward the development of a class-wide struggle of the workers in open defiance of the wage controls and the monopoly capitalist government behind them.

To deal with the defeats given to the wage guidelines, Carter's gang of "inflation fighters" headed by Alfred E. Kahn of the Council on Wage and Price Stability (COWPS) have invented their notorious "guideline math". "Guideline math" is used by the Carter administration to present the false image that the wage controls are not being defied and broken through by some sections of the proletariat and to discourage the rest of the working class from doing so. Kahn "redefined" the Teamsters' settlement in the following way: "If. it's 30% by whomever figures it and we figure it at 22.5% (the 7% wage limit compounded over three years -- ed.), then it's within the guidelines." Kahn is in cahoots with chief Teamsters hack Fitzsimmons who politely asked the government for "exemptions" to the 7% guideline. Carter's gang recognizes the fact that some sections of the proletariat are capable of breaking through the wage limit, and has invented "guideline math" by which to "grant" them "exemptions". After the contract settlement, Kahn merely omitted the "exemptions", supposedly granted to the truck drivers due to the graciousness of the government, from the total wages achieved and redefined the guideline-breaking agreement to be in compliance with the wage controls. In this way Carter is trying to prevent the wage controls from being totally defeated, in order to continue to impose them on the working class and to keep the fascist offensive intact.

Soon Carter will start a debate among the bourgeois economic experts on how to perfect the "voluntary" controls and on whether or not to make them mandatory. There will be lots of talk and much "concern" expressed over "how to stop inflation", but their only real concern is how to suppress the struggles of the workers. Carter has already floated rumors that a 15% wage limit over two years will be implemented in October. This would open up all sorts of possibilities for figure juggling and "guideline math", and provide the labor traitors with all sorts of avenues to pursue selling out the workers.

The trade union bureaucrats are assisting the government to present the illusion that the controls are not really being defied by different sections of the workers. Just like Carter, they are seeking to throw cold water on the workers and prevent a powerful class-wide struggle against the controls from breaking out. This is what Teamsters chieftain Fitzsimmons did in the truck drivers' struggle last April. Despite all of the obstructions of Fitzsimmons and his crew, the truck drivers waged their longest ever nationwide strike in April and were able to achieve a 9-10% wage increase, far surpassing Carter's guideline. Did the Teamsters bureaucrats hail this achievement and call on the rest of the workers to launch even more powerful struggles against the controls? No, they pretended that the settlement did not actually break through and surpass the guidelines but was still in compliance with them. Rather than telling the truth that Carter's controls had suffered a defeat, they essentially said that the truck drivers were defeated by the government! They said that the settlement was only a slight "bending" of what Carter calls his "flexible" controls. (They are flexible for those workers whose struggles cannot be totally suppressed.) In this way they presented the false image that the truck drivers actually submitted to the controls and did not actually wage a mass struggle to defy them. Their intention is to deny the significance of the truckers' mass struggle, to deny the defeat suffered by the controls, and to keep them alive for use against the rest of the proletariat. The Teamsters officials performed their duties to the letter as agents of the monopoly capitalist class and administrators of Carter's fascist offensive against the workers.

The labor traitors seek to sabotage each and every struggle of the workers for higher wages. But when they are unable to suppress the workers and impose the 7% guideline on them, they seek to prevent these achievements of the workers from becoming a rallying call and impetus to the rest of the proletariat to rise up and defy the controls altogether. The refusal of the union officials of the most powerful sections of the proletariat, such as the postal workers, truck drivers, rubber workers, auto workers, etc., to call on the workers to defy the controls and resist all wage cuts is particularly despicable. It is a refusal to use their relatively stronger position to soften up the monopoly capitalist enemy and set an example for the rest of the proletariat to follow. It is an attempt to sabotage, not simply one economic struggle of the workers, but the efforts of the workers to launch their powerful revolutionary workers' movement, in irreconcilable opposition to the bourgeoisie and in open defiance of the government.

The capitalist employers are always interested in increasing the exploitation of their employees and in reducing wages. Carter's wage controls, however, are a weapon of the government, of the capitalists as a class, to impose severe wage cuts on the entire proletariat at the same time. The wage controls are an example of how the monopoly capitalist class uses all the means at its disposal to wage its struggle against the working class. They use their economic power, the laws and armed apparatus of the state machine, and their newspapers and other mass media to suppress the working class movement. They use their labor lieutenants to undermine the workers' struggles from within to compel the workers to submit to their anti-working class offensive. They have their political voice and utilize their political parties, their government representatives such as Carter, to issue their battle cries against the workers, in this case their call for "Wage Controls!" ("Wage cuts for the workers! Fatter profits for us!")

To rally their own class against the capitalists' wage-cutting offensive the workers need their own battle cry: "Defy Carter's Wage Controls!" Furthermore, the workers need to raise their own political voice against all the attacks of the monopoly capitalists. The working class needs its own politics in order to gather together all its forces against the bourgeoisie. Just as the resistance of individual workers is insufficient against the power of the capitalist class, so too are the separate trade union struggles, the economic struggles of separate trades, factories and industries, insufficient against this power. The working class must go further and organize itself as a class to fight for its own interests. Neither the Republican or Democratic Parties are of any use to the workers because they fight for the interests of the rich. The working class needs its own independent political activity separate from and in opposition to the bourgeois parties. The independent political activity of the workers is quite different from the politics of the rich. It is not running around telling lies and making false promises. It is not selling oneself to the highest bidder, nor is it wheeling and dealing in smoke-filled rooms. The political activity of the workers is for the purpose of organizing the working class movement, for uniting and mobilizing all of the powerful forces of the working class to resist all of the attacks of the monopoly capitalists and to prepare for the revolution.

The tremendous strength of the proletariat lies in its crucial role in society and in its huge numbers once united by organization. To advance the organization of their own class, the workers need to study and distribute revolutionary literature. They must organize discussion of the important political events that are taking place and take part in all aspects of the revolutionary movement against the capitalists and the government. They should build their vanguard political organization, the Marxist-Leninist Party. Marxist-Leninist politics are the politics of the working class. With these politics the workers can unite to wage the revolutionary struggle to emancipate their class.


[Back to Top]

Fraser's "Fair Share of the Profits" Is a Fraud to Swindle the Workers

The auto workers are preparing themselves for a major contract struggle against the "Big 3" auto kings. At stake in this struggle is the very livelihood of the workers who must organize fierce resistance against the auto billionaires and their program of starvation wages, monstrous overwork and large-scale layoffs. These auto kings are among the biggest monopoly capitalists, ranking first, third, and tenth among the biggest U.S. industrial exploiters. And they are using all of their wealth and power to bring the auto workers to their knees. The Carter government too stands against the auto workers. It is threatening the auto workers, demanding that they hold their pay and benefits increases below the 7% wage guideline and submit to "substantial" cuts in their standard of living. Faced with these attacks of the monopoly capitalists and their government, the auto workers must prepare themselves for a most determined and resolute struggle.

But in this difficult situation, the UAW bureaucrats are opposed to the workers waging an all-out struggle against the rich. They suggest, instead, that the workers should work together with the auto billionaires to receive a "fair and equitable share" in the corporate profits. The UAW misleaders want the workers to limit their demands so that the "Big 3" moneybags are ensured to receive their bloated monopoly profits. But for these auto kings to maintain these monopoly profit levels means extreme overwork and layoffs, and starvation wages for the workers. By singing lullabies about a "fair and equitable share" the UAW big shots are trying to lull the workers to sleep and to lead them down the garden path of capitulation and bitter defeat. This orientation led to disastrous results for the workers in the 1976 contract negotiations. And with this orientation in 1979, Fraser has already demanded "sacrifice" from the Chrysler workers to save the profits of this, the tenth largest U.S. industrial exploiter. The call to seek a "fair and equitable share" of the corporate profits turns out to be in fact, outright sabotage of the interests of the workers.

The workers cannot base their struggle on entering into agreements with the monopoly capitalist moneybags in the interest of maintaining their profits. The workers must base themselves on struggle against the rich, to defend the class interests of the workers. The auto workers must rise up and defy Carter's wage controls and the entire monopoly capitalist "anti-inflation" offensive. They must wage an all-out struggle to defend their livelihood against the onslaught of the rich. And as part of this struggle, the class conscious workers must expose the deception and sabotage of the UAW bureaucrats and their slogan of a "fair and equitable share".


In the April special bargaining convention the UAW misleaders set the orientation for the struggle of the auto workers. "It's the union's intention," Fraser says, "to narrow the economic gap so that workers, too, will share in these record corporate profits." This slogan of a "fair and equitable share" in the corporate profits was the proclaimed basis for the contract struggle in 1976 too, and in fact is the traditional slogan by which the UAW misleaders have sabotaged the workers' struggle. At first glance this seems a reasonable demand. Since it is the labor of the "workers which has produced the fabulous wealth of the auto billionaires, then certainly the workers should at least get a share of these riches. But closer examination shows that this demand is reasonable only for the capitalists. It is a slogan which limits the struggle of the workers in such away as to ensure that the auto kings may reproduce and constantly increase their vast wealth.

For example, the UAW misleaders limit the workers' wage demands to an "annual improvement factor" plus "cost-of-living allowance" (AIF-COLA) which will ensure the profits of the rich. The 1976 "UAW: Collective Bargaining Program" states, "As has been previously noted, the profitability of these major corporations is dependent primarily on high volume sales and production. The increases in wage rates resulting from the AIF-COLA formula have not interfered with the ability of these corporations to maintain high profit levels. These profits should be shared equitably, not only by the stockholders, but by the workers and the consumers as well." Thus it can be seen that the UAW misleaders do not base the workers' demands on the needs and interests of the workers, but on what will ensure that the auto billionaires "maintain high profit levels". Under the 1976 agreement the workers' real wages have actually been cut due to inflation, which has certainly helped "to maintain high profit levels" of the capitalist moneybags. Even though the workers are being impoverished by this agreement Fraser opposed any improvement of the 1976 AIF-COLA formulae at the April UAW convention. Why? To "maintain the high profit levels" of the auto billionaires. It was only because the auto workers were outraged at Fraser's kowtowing to Carter's wage guidelines that Fraser reluctantly consented to the demand for a "substantial increase" in wages. But this increase he also intends to limit. Fraser has already demanded that the Chrysler workers limit their demands and give "concessions" to these auto kings. And why is this? To save "the high profit levels" of the monopoly capitalist moneybags. Fraser's logic is that if there is not high profit levels then the workers cannot receive a "fair and equitable share". Therefore the workers should forget about their own needs. They should not concern themselves to defend their livelihood. They should not fight for the interests of the working class. Instead the workers should fight to defend the interests of the monopoly capitalists. They should work together with the auto billionaires to ensure that these capitalist moneybags may "maintain the high profit levels" that they have extorted from the sweat and blood of the workers.

In the final analysis, the demand for a "fair and equitable share" in the monopoly capitalist profits is not a demand against the capitalists at all. It is a demand against the workers; a demand that they curtail and limit their struggle within the framework of enriching the auto billionaires; that the workers should get down on their knees and consent to an even greater exploitation in the interest of the rich.


There can be no common interests between the working class and the monopoly capitalist class. Capitalism is the system where man's labor power becomes a commodity. The wage worker sells his labor power to the capitalists. And the capitalists put this labor power to work so that one part of the working day goes to cover the cost of maintaining the worker through wages and benefits, while the other part of the day the worker labors without any pay, creating surplus value for the capitalist, the source of profit, the source of wealth for the capitalist class. This condition of wage-slavery gives rise to the constant battle between the working class and the capitalist class. The monopoly capitalists, to "maintain the high level of profits" carry out a constant war against the workers, to cut their wages and benefits, to increase their exploitation. The workers for their part must wage a constant struggle against this capitalist onslaught in order to defend their livelihood. For the workers to come out in support of "maintaining the high level of profits" of the rich means that they are sentencing themselves to starvation, overwork and unemployment.

Since the last contract in 1976 the auto billionaires have made all-time high profits. The auto industry as a whole recorded record profits of $5. 099 billion in 1976, $6.133 billion in 1977 and $6.197 billion in 1978. The "Big 3's" portion of these profits, even subtracting the Chrysler losses, was at $4. 896 billion in 1978. And now in the first six months of 1979 the "Big 3" have already amassed $3. 284 billion in earnings.

Despite the UAW misleaders' claims, the auto workers have not "shared" in these enormous profits, but in fact these profits have been made through an even more intensive exploitation of the workers by the capitalist moneybags. For example, due to the soaring rates of inflation, the auto workers' real wages have actually been cut in the last three years. After the contract settlement in 1976 an assembler at Ford Motor Company made $6. 885 per hour. Based on 1967 dollars, this amounted to $3.973 in real wages. After receiving 3% annual wage increases and quarterly cost- of-living increases, as of May 1979 an assembler made $8.425 per hour. But due to the soaring inflation, this amounted to only $3.930 in real wages. That is an actual cut in the real wage of the auto worker. Thus while the auto kings are making all-time high profits, the living standard of the auto workers is being cut.

The auto billionaires have also multiplied their profits through increasing the productivity of the workers. While the workers have received no increase in pay, they have produced more auto vehicles per worker for the auto capitalists. In the period of 1976-78 the workers produced an annual average of 12.5 million motor vehicles in the U.S. with an average workforce of 682,000 workers. This amounts to 18.1 motor vehicles produced for each worker employed. In the last period in which auto production was booming, 1971-73, production was at 11.5 million motor vehicles a year with a work force averaging 687,000 workers. That is, about 16.7 motor vehicles were produced for each production worker employed. Thus, the auto capitalists have increased their output per worker by some 8%, and consequently have further increased their enormous profits. This increased productivity has been achieved through imposing a system of extreme overwork on the auto workers. In the first place the capitalist moneybags have been intensifying the labor of the workers, so that more vehicles are produced by the workers in the same period of time. When ever the capitalists add a new job, retool old machines or introduce new machines, carry out a model changeover, or re-balance the lines, they systematically increase the line speeds and combine jobs so that workers must produce more. Along with this, the auto capitalists are carrying out the building of many new plants and retooling of the old plants, in the first major overhaul of the decaying auto industry since World War II. In this process they are rationalizing the industry and adding many new machines so that, for instance, with the new "robots" two or three workers are replaced on a job per shift. As well, in the last period the auto kings have been extending the working day to maximize the exploitation of the workers. Despite the UAW claims of a "shorter work week" and "voluntary overtime", in 1977 the auto workers were forced to put in an average of 6.2 overtime hours a week, the highest in at least a decade. And these long hours have continued into 1979 with the workers averaging 6.2 overtime hours a week in February and 6.0 extra hours in March. Through this intensification of the workers' labor in a given time, extending the working day and through the rationalization of the factories the auto billionaires are systematically sweating the workers to an early grave in order to enlarge their already overbloated profits.

Even when the amount of production is reduced, as is the case in the last few months, the workers get no respite from their extreme overwork. In these times the auto capitalists lay off huge numbers of workers and combine jobs, imposing an even heavier work load on the remaining workers even though the lines may be running slower. In recent months the auto capitalists have found that they have over-produced, and, as is the norm with this crazy anarchistic capitalist production, the first thing they did was to throw thousands of workers out of their jobs. In August already over 50,000 auto workers have been thrown jobless into the streets, so that the auto capitalists may maintain their profits. As long as there is capitalism this will be the law, that the extreme overwork of one section of the workers goes hand in hand with the unemployment of other workers.

From these facts it is clear that the auto workers have not "shared" in the slightest in the fabulous profits of the auto billionaires. Worse, they have suffered impoverishment, extreme overwork, and layoffs due to the ferocious drive of the auto kings to "maintain their high level of profits". This is the basic law of capitalist accumulation which was explained by Karl Marx over a hundred years ago -- the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. The impoverishment of the working people grows on the one hand, while the profits of the monopoly capitalists increase at an unprecedented rate. Under this system, to be in favor of "maintaining the high level of profits of the rich" as the UAW misleaders do, is to be in favor of the starvation wages, overwork and unemployment of the workers.


The call of the UAW misleaders for a "fair and equitable share" of the monopoly capitalist profits is utter, complete, abject betrayal of the workers! It is not a call to improve the life and conditions of the workers at all, but in fact is a call to the workers to sacrifice their interests so that the auto billionaires may continue to live like kings. The life experience of the auto workers proves this to be true. In 1976 the UAW bureaucrats promised the workers that if auto billionaires increased their profits through a massive productivity drive then the workers would get a "fair and equitable share" in these profits in the form of higher wages and shorter hours. Now, three years later what is the situation? The auto billionaires have made unprecedented profits! While the auto workers have in fact had their wages cut and have been working the longest hours in at least a decade! While, at the same time they are being worked to the very limit of their endurance! This is the result of all the grand promises of the UAW misleaders.

There is no common interests between the workers and the monopoly capitalist exploiters. The workers can not base their struggle on working with the auto billionaires to receive a "fair and equitable share" of their over-bloated profits. They must take up irreconcilable struggle against the monopoly capitalist moneybags. In this year's contract struggle the workers must fight resolutely against the auto kings and the wage-cutting offensive of the Carter government. And as part of this struggle, the workers must fight the deceptive slogans and sabotage of Fraser and the other UAW labor traitors.

[Back to Top]


There is no common interest between workers and capitalists to increase productivity!

(The following leaflet was issued by the Buffalo Workers Revolutionary Committee of the Buffalo Branch of the Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninists on July 19, 1979.)

For several months, the workers at Plant #4 at Chevy-Tonawanda have been fighting against speedup. Since Plant #4 reopened in January, Chevy has greatly increased the speed of the assembly line, and it has announced plans to increase the speedup again by 35% in the near future. Plant #4 is producing engines for the new "hot-selling" Citation -- so Chevy is intent upon getting as much production in as short a period of time as possible. But Chevy has run into a roadblock to increasing productivity at Plant #4 -- the workers' resistance to speedup. This resistance has been fairly strong in the engine-test department in particular, where the workers have stuck to their slowdown even after the company and the union "settled" their grievance by setting a work pace far faster than what the workers demanded. This experience shows that the auto workers must organize mass struggle to oppose speedup, and they cannot rely upon the official union bureaucracy to organize and lead this struggle.

The fact that the engine-test workers have persisted in their slowdown despite the sabotage of the union bureaucracy has caused Chevy a "great deal of concern". To suppress the slowdown in engine-test -- and break the resistance to speedup throughout Plant #4 -- Chevy has taken several "extraordinary" measures. They have attacked several workers -- whom they labeled as "troublemakers" -- with almost daily harassment and trumped-up reprimands. By this harassment, Chevy hoped to scare the workers into submission to the speedup. They also organized a meeting with the workers in engine-test to "convince" them that it was the "common interest" of both the company and the workers to increase productivity. By these means, Chevy tried to split the ranks of the workers: isolate the militants and target them for attack, while using "soft tactics" to convince other workers not to struggle against the speedup and not to support their fellow workers who are under attack for resisting. The workers in engine-test have met this obvious attempt at suppression with the contempt and scorn it deserves. Those attacked and harassed have not bent their knees and promised to be "good slaves" -- they have rather fought back against the harassment. Neither have all the other workers been "won over" by the sweet words of management to submit to the speedup.

The engine-test workers are absolutely correct to persist in their struggle against speedup. They are correct in rejecting Chevy's lying arguments that "increased productivity benefits both the workers and the capitalists." Under capitalism, as Lenin explained, "The wage- laborer sells his labor power to the owner of the land, of factories and instruments of labor. The worker uses one part of the labor day to cover the expenditure for the maintenance of himself and his family (wages), and the other part of the day he toils without remuneration and creates surplus value for the capitalist class, the source of wealth for the capitalist class." All the measures introduced by the capitalists to increase productivity are in reality measures to increase surplus value and profits, to increase the toil and labor for which the worker is not paid. That is the essence of increased productivity under capitalism.

We see the "common interest" of both workers and capitalists in "increasing productivity": the capitalists tremendously raise their profits, while the workers "benefit" through brutal overwork, extremely long hours of overtime, and increased loss of jobs.

In spite of these facts, the top UAW bureaucrats, such as President Fraser, agree with the auto capitalists that "increased productivity benefits both workers and capitalists" and that the auto workers have "common interests" with their exploiters to work harder and faster to produce more cars. Turning truth on its head, the UAW big shots promise that if the auto workers "increase productivity", then the capitalists can and will grant the workers a shorter work week, with increased pay, eliminate overtime and hire more workers! "Justifying" themselves with this outrageous fairytale, the UAW bureaucracy collaborates with the auto capitalists to organize the productivity drive. This explains why the UAW officialdom opposes the struggle against speedup at Chevy-Tonawanda. It explains why the UAW agreed with Chevy to set a line speed in direct opposition to the workers' demands and in direct agreement with the productivity demands of Chevy management.

The struggle of the auto workers at Chevy-Tonawanda against speedup, and the struggles of the auto workers throughout the industry against the auto capitalists' productivity drive -- these struggles are part of the movement of the entire working class against Carter's "anti-inflation program". Carter's program is designed to make the workers pay for the economic crisis by cutting their wages and organizing productivity drives as a means for increasing the profits of the capitalists. The upcoming contract struggle in the auto industry promises to be a major fight in the workers' movement against Carter's "anti-inflation" program. The current struggle against speedup at Plant #4 is excellent preparation for that battle.



[Back to Top]

Have Carter's Wage Controls "Self-Destructed"?

Douglas Fraser, the president and leading labor traitor of the United Auto Workers union, has proclaimed that Carter's wage-cutting "anti-inflation program" has ''self-destructed" and that the ''government should stay the hell out of our negotiations." With these absolutely untrue and absurd declarations, Fraser is trying to convince the auto workers that they should not wage an all out struggle to defy Carter's wage controls. Fraser is trying to hide from the workers the truth that the government of the rich is conducting a massive offensive to cut the wages of the entire working class through Carter's "anti-inflation program". Fraser is trying to lull the workers to sleep, to keep them from embarking on an open and conscious revolt against the government. He is, after all, not opposed to wage controls in the least. But Fraser is opposed to the working class struggle against this capitalist offensive. The auto workers must not fall prey to Fraser's tricks. To defend their livelihood the auto workers must fight bravely against the attacks of the auto billionaires and the government of the rich. To defend the interests of the working class the auto workers must wage a most resolute struggle against the wage-cutting offensive of the monopoly capitalists. Rebellion against the government is the order of the day. To hold up their heads the auto workers must take up their position, and defy Carter's wage controls. This is the way forward for the working class.

There is absolutely no truth in Fraser's claim that Carter's "anti-inflation program" has ''self- destructed". Under Carter's program the government has launched a fascist offensive against the entire working class. By holding wage increases to a 7% level while inflation is soaring at 14%, the government is trying to impose massive wage cuts on the working class as a whole. As well Carter is seeking to impose a barbarous "productivity drive" to overwork the working class to the maximum. Since Carter launched this offensive in April 1978 the government has already forced enormous wage cuts on the workers so that real spendable earnings have decreased by 3.6%. Carter has used the full force of the state to impose these wage cuts and productivity increases. The government has ordered anti-strike injunctions to break the strikes of the workers. They have used police terror and beat and jailed militant strikers. The government's courts have even ruled that Carter has every legal right to force the workers to accept these wage cuts. And today, this capitalist wage-cutting offensive is being directed against the auto workers. Carter's chief "inflation fighter" Alfred Kahn has already warned the auto billionaires that they cannot let the auto workers break the government's 7% wage restriction on wage increases. Further, the Chrysler billionaires are demanding that the workers submit to a "wage freeze" to cut the workers' pay by over 25%. And the government has backed them up. Secretary of the Treasury, G. William Miller announced that the government is demanding "substantive contributions or concessions from... employees" of the Chrysler corporation.

Under this situation it can hardly be said that the "anti-inflation program" has "self-destructed". This capitalist offensive headed by the Carter government is not only alive, but it is being directed against the auto workers. Nor can it be said that the issue is for the "government to stay the hell out", as Fraser claims. The issue is that the workers must get prepared for a fight against the government and its wage-cutting offensive. The issue is that the workers must DEFY CARTER'S WAGE CONTROLS. Fraser with all his demagogic declarations is trying to hide these facts from the workers. He is seeking to slacken their vigilance and sabotage their struggle against the auto billionaires and the government's wage controls.

Fraser is in fact an enthusiastic supporter of Carter's wage controls. Right from the time Carter introduced his wage-cutting "anti-inflation program" Fraser has given it his utmost support. In April 1978 Carter froze the government workers' wage increase to a 5. 5% maximum level and at the same time called on all the workers to "restrain" their wage demands. Fraser immediately promised to reduce the UAW wage demands if the auto companies would freeze prices. When, in October 1978, Carter announced Phase II of his program to hold down all wage increases below the 7% level, Fraser again gave his complete endorsement. Fraser not only praised Carter's approach but he stated that if Phase II failed then the government should order fully mandatory wage controls. Most recently, even after he has claimed that the program has "self-destructed", Fraser again stated his support of Carter's program. Following Carter's energy speech in Detroit on July 16 of this year, Fraser announced "He (Carter) called on the American people to sacrifice. Hell, the American worker has always been ready to sacrifice. What we're concerned about is that there be an equality of sacrifice between the worker and other parts of American society. We're generally supportive of his programs on energy and inflation, but we don't intend to let the workers shoulder the entire burden." So Fraser is ready to "sacrifice" the workers because he is "generally supportive" of Carters wage-cutting "anti-inflation program". Of course Fraser deceptively throws in that he wants an "equality of sacrifice". But "equality of sacrifice" is nothing more than the official government justification for wage controls. Fraser not only supports the government's policy of vicious wage-cutting, but he also supports their fraud of "equality of sacrifice".

It should be pointed out that prior to this July statement, at the April UAW bargaining convention, Fraser was declaring that Carter's "anti-inflation program" had "self-destructed" and the "government should stay the hell out". But only four months later in July he is again praising Carter's wage-cutting offensive. It is clear from Fraser's own statements that he fully supports the Carter wage-controls. But then why all of this rhetoric in April? A UAW staff member let the cat out of the bag in a recent interview with the Detroit News. The staff member admitted that "If our members think we're kowtowing to Carter after all we've said, it might be tough to get them to accept the contract we bring them." Isn't this clear enough? Fraser is kowtowing to the Carter government. Fraser is fully in support of Carter's wage-cutting offensive. But Fraser doesn't want the workers to know. Fraser is using every trick in the book to fool the workers and keep them from getting organized to defy Carter's wage controls. And his declarations that these controls have "self-destructed" is just one of his many tricks.

The auto workers must not get fooled by the tricks of Fraser. They must get organized for an all out struggle to defy Carter's controls. At this time the auto billionaires and the Carter government are trying to impose severe wage cuts and a system of most extreme overwork on the auto workers. At the same time they are throwing thousands of workers jobless into the street. Facts show that only those workers who have fought the rich and their government have been able to even minimally defend their standard of living. To defend their livelihood the auto workers must wage a most resolute strike against the auto billionaires and the Carter wage controls. But not only this. The auto workers are not just fighting for their sectional interests. The attacks being launched against the auto workers are part of the capitalist wage-cutting offensive that the Carter government has launched against the entire working class. When the auto workers fight they fight for the interests of the entire working class. And for this reason they will get the support of the majority of the working people. Just remember that when the coal miners defied Carter's Taft-Hartley strikebreaking injunction, all of the working people came to their assistance. Today the working class is ready to support an all out struggle to defy Carter's wage controls. Auto workers must get prepared. Now is the time to fight. And the correct way to fight is to defy Carter's wage controls.

[Back to Top]

Hail the Just Struggle of the International Harvester Workers!

(The following article is taken from a leaflet issued by the Louisville Branch of the Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninists on August 6, 1979.)

A hearty red salute to the International Harvester workers! Displaying the true courage and selfless spirit of the proletariat, the International Harvester workers battled it out with their capitalist exploiters in a four-day wildcat strike that struck fear into the hearts of the Harvester capitalists. The Harvester workers have learned from past experience the way to deal with capitalist attacks is by waging mass active resistance, and they immediately embarked on this path to protest unjust firings and fascist discipline inside their workplace. Hundreds of workers waged spirited and militant demonstrations at the plant gates, right in the teeth of the repressive police and courts. This strike of the International Harvester workers is part of the growing upsurge in the workers' movement today to resist bearing the burden of the capitalist economic crisis and the accompanying attacks the workers face daily inside the factories. It is absolutely necessary and correct for the workers to develop mass actions against these attacks, and the just struggle of the International Harvester workers has won them the resolute support of all the communists, revolutionary and progressive workers.

The strike began Monday, July 30 when the foundry workers protested the unjust firing of three workers, whom the company accused of "sabotage". These workers were accused and fired on the basis of the circumstance that they happened to be the workers working closest to the area where the "sabotage" occurred. Throughout the day and night, workers in the foundry and adjacent plant joined in the strike and, by the next day, 70% of all the workers were refusing to go to work. In addition to protesting the unjust firings and demanding reinstatement of their fellow workers, the Harvester workers demanded an end to the harassment and severe disciplinary measures which the Harvester capitalists have made their policy in recent months. Furthermore, the workers refused to return to work until they had a guarantee no action would be taken against the striking workers. Through their own efforts and initiative, the workers successfully brought production to a standstill, forcing the Harvester capitalists to use supervisory personnel to get any work done at all.

The militance and determination of the striking workers drove the Harvester moneybags into a frenzy. They tried desperately to break the strike from the moment it began. The standard capitalist method of taking pictures of the workers on their picket line was used to try to intimidate the workers and, especially, to use against the militants. They also tried to bribe the workers into abandoning their just struggle by promising to arrange a meeting to "resolve the difficulty" -- but only if the workers ended their strike. By promising to meet, the Harvester capitalists hoped to pacify the workers and break their strike. Once they got the workers back inside the plant, however, and they were happily back on the road to super-profits, there would be no guarantee when a meeting would be held and, most importantly, what the outcome would be. When the workers refused to be taken in by phoney promises and support for the strike was growing, the Harvester capitalists high-tailed it to their government for support and called into service their fascist courts to attack the workers' strike. Obediently, the courts upheld the Harvester capitalists' interests, declared the workers' strike illegal, and "forbid" the workers "to demonstrate within 500 feet of company property". The court order was backed up and enforced by the police, who maintained constant surveillance over the company's private property and arrested any worker who defied the fascist decree. But the Harvester workers were undaunted by these threats and attacks by the capitalists and their government. Refusing to be bullied, the workers continued to raise their voices and their fists and large numbers of workers continued to protest militantly at the plant gates.

In addition to defying the capitalists and their state machine, the workers resisted the traitorous activity of their top UAW "leaders", who joined hands with the company to chastise the workers, sending word from Detroit attacking the workers' strike because it was "illegal" and "in violation of the contract", and pressured the workers in order to end their strike. In opposition to waging mass active resistance to shut the plant down until the workers' demands were met, the top labor bureaucrats attempted to "persuade" the workers to abandon their strike in favor of the peaceful road, limiting the struggle to the legal channels approved by the company. The UAW chieftains held the law like a club over the workers' heads, threatening "...If the illegal strike continued... the company could take legal action against individual workers."

The workers persisted in their struggle in spite of this betrayal by their top labor officials and waged mass active resistance to overcome the restrictions placed upon them by their labor misleaders. Finally, after four days of fighting at the plant gates, the workers agreed to a truce -- a temporary cessation of the warfare waged outside the factory. This in no way indicates an end to the necessary battles waged on a daily basis within the factory walls.





[Back to Top]


A grand internationalist rally was held in Lisbon, Portugal on July 1 after the successful conclusion of the Third Congress of the Portuguese Communist Party (Reconstructed). Over 10,000 workers, peasants and other progressive and democratic forces militantly participated in the rally. They expressed their wholehearted support for the PCP(R) and the decisions of its Third Congress, and also for the fraternal Marxist-Leninist parties in attendance who are leading the working class and peoples in their countries in the struggle against the common enemies, imperialism, revisionism and all reaction.

Attending the internationalist rally were representatives from the Party of Labor of Albania, Communist Party of Brazil, Communist Party of Spain (Marxist-Leninist), Communist Party of Germany (Marxist-Leninist), Voltaic Revolutionary Communist Party, Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist), Workers' Communist Party of France, Communist Party of Italy (Marxist-Leninist), Revolutionary Communist Party of- Chile, Communist Party of Denmark (Marxist- Leninist), Communist Party of Ireland (Marxist- Leninist) and Communist Organization of Angola. Messages were also received from the Communist Party of Colombia (Marxist-Leninist), the Bandera Roja Party of Venezuela, the Revolutionary Communist Party of Dahomey, the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party of Ecuador, the Communist Party of Ethiopia and from the Communist Youth of Spain (Marxist-Leninist). Messages were also received from the Popular Democratic Unity (UDP) and the Union of Communist and Revolutionary Youth, both of Portugal.

In his speech, Comrade Piro Condi, on behalf of the Central Committee of the Party of Labor of Albania, hailed the Third Congress of the PCP(R), outlined the struggle and advances of the heroic Albanian people and pointed out that their strength lies in their unflinching loyalty to Marxism-Leninism. The PLA, with Comrade Enver Hoxha at the head, is in the forefront of the international Marxist-Leninist movement and is providing tremendous inspiration and concrete assistance to the Marxist-Leninist parties and the revolutionary struggles of the world's people.

The internationalist rally in Portugal is another manifestation of the triumphant march of the international Marxist-Leninist communist movement. It marks an important step in the further development of its monolithic unity in the struggle against revisionism and opportunism of all hues and for the triumph of the revolution.

[Photo: A portion of the 10,000 workers, peasants and other progressive and democratic forces who participated in the militant internationalist rally held on the occasion of the successful conclusion of the Third Congress of the Portuguese Communist Party (Reconstructed) in Lisbon, on July 1, 1979. Some of the banners of the regional committees of the Party can be seen in the center of the arena.]

[Back to Top]

From the Message of Greetings of the Party of Labor of Albania to the Internationalist Rally

Dear comrades,

Honored guests,

It is a great joy for us, who are sent by the Party of Labor of Albania to take part in this fiery manifestation of revolutionary solidarity on the occasion of the successful convention of the Third Congress of the Portuguese Communist Party (Reconstructed). The Central Committee of the Party of Labor of Albania and Comrade Enver Hoxha charged us to convey to you, to all the militants and well-wishers of the PCP(R), as well as to all the genuine revolutionary, anti-fascist, democratic and progressive forces of the friendly Portuguese people, the fraternal greetings and the feelings of profoundly militant friendship and internationalist solidarity of all the Party members and the entire Albanian people.

We also express the most heart-felt revolutionary greetings of the Party of Labor of Albania to the Marxist-Leninist parties and organizations which have sent their representatives to this manifestation.

The Portuguese Communist Party (Reconstructed) was born and is developing as an expression of the revolutionary aspirations and struggle of the working class and working masses of the town and the country for social justice, for freedom, independence and socialism. It has taken in its hand the ever victorious banner of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, which the opportunists and revisionists of all shades tried to sully in order to disarm the working class and the working masses ideologically and politically. The decisions of the Third Congress of your Party which are based on these teachings of our classics, are a source of inspiration and joy for the revolutionary workers and working people. The struggle and efforts for the implementation of the teachings of Marxism-Leninism will further strengthen the Party, will add to its organizational and mobilizing strength, will extend its links with the working class and the masses. The Third Congress will mark, in this way, a new phase in the noble struggle and work for the triumph of socialism.

The PLA, loyal to the principle of proletarian internationalism, gives its all-round support to the struggle of the genuine Marxist-Leninist parties. It openly expresses its militant solidarity with these parties, with which it is linked by the common ideal of communism, the struggle against the common enemy -- imperialism, social-imperialism, modern revisionism and reaction.

The Party of Labor of Albania gives its unsparing support to the efforts and aspirations of the revolutionary peoples of the world who fight for freedom and democracy, for national independence and social progress....

[Back to Top]

"Mao Tsetung Thought"-A Profoundly Anti-Marxist Theory

The Followers of "Mao Tsetung Thought" in Britain Promote Straightforward National and Social Chauvinism

(The following article is reprinted from Workers' Weekly, organ of the Central Committee of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist), July 28, 1979.)

National chauvinism is the reactionary ideology of the British bourgeoisie. It is a reactionary ideology which the British bourgeoisie has used historically and uses today to attempt to justify and further its bloody colonial and neo-colonial robbery and aggression, its racist attacks, its exploitation and oppression of the British working class and people and its growing fascism. National chauvinism is the ideology constantly promoted by the bourgeoisie in the working class movement in its attempts to mobilize the working class around the rich and their aims, in its attempts to mobilize the working class to support the imperialist and aggressive policies of the British ruling class. This national chauvinism of the British bourgeoisie is totally racist, colonialist and anti-working class. It is based on the alleged ''superiority" of the ''British nation", on the alleged ''common" interests, within ''the nation", between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, on the glorification of the bloody colonial robbery, plunder and aggression of the peoples and nations throughout the world.

Hand in hand with the reactionary bourgeoisie's national chauvinism stands social-chauvinism. Social-chauvinism is "socialism" in words and chauvinism in deeds. It is the ideology of the opportunists of all hues, seen in its most blatant and concentrated form in the ideology of social-democracy, in the line and policy of the ''Labor" Party and the trade union aristocrats. Social-chauvinism is an important ideological prop for the bourgeoisie in the working class movement. Using "socialist" words to disorientate the working class and to spread maximum ideological confusion in the working class movement, it attempts to mobilize the working class around the aims of the bourgeoisie, around the national chauvinist policies, program and ideology of the bourgeoisie.

As the all-sided crisis of British monopoly capitalism deepens, this national and social-chauvinism of the British bourgeoisie is becoming even more rabid. It is being used to justify and further the all-sided onslaught on the British and world's people. Under the slogan of ''saving the 'great' British 'nation"', all sections of the bourgeoisie are promoting this rabid chauvinism in their attempts to further foist the crisis onto the backs of the working people, in their attempts to further develop fascism to force the working class into submission, in their attempts to gain the support of the working class for their intensified plunder of other countries, and for their war preparations. It is, for instance, at the heart of the propaganda of the trade union bigwigs who try to force various government policies onto the working class and people under the plea of ''everyone pulling their weight to get the 'nation' out of the crisis. " It is at the heart of the propaganda of all the bourgeois politicians and bourgeois news media in their promotion of racism. National and social-chauvinism are used by the bourgeoisie to incite and organize the nazi movement which merely concentrates this reactionary ideology in its most blatant and rabid form.

It is a crucial question for the proletariat, for all working people, and for the proletarian vanguard, the Marxist-Leninist Party, to firmly oppose this rabid national and social-chauvinism of the British bourgeoisie. The proletariat has no common interests, no unity whatsoever, with the British state, the British ruling class and its system. This ''great" British system is a system of bloody aggression, robbery and violence, murder, plunder and exploitation of the world's people, as well as of the British working class and people. It stands directly and antagonistically against the interests of the world's people. The attempts by the bourgeoisie and opportunists to disorientate the masses of people by promoting the concept of the British ''nation" in such a way as to hide this fact, to hide the oppressor nature of this nation, to hide the antagonistic relationship that exists between the proletariat and bourgeoisie within this nation, must be firmly exposed and opposed. The proletariat must take a firm stand against the attempts of the rich to mobilize the working class and people around themselves and their aims. The proletariat must develop its OWN INDEPENDENT AIMS, GOALS AND PROGRAM, a program standing in total antagonism to that of the rich, a program in active support of and unity with the world's working class and people, a program centering on uniting with its allies to overthrow this bloodstained state and system of the rich and establishing a genuine socialist state and system based upon the principles of Marxism-Leninism and PROLETARIAN INTERNATIONALISM.


The "pre-party" section of the followers of "Mao Zedong Thought" in Britain have adopted a most reactionary social-chauvinist theory, the theory of "three worlds". Under the guidance of this theory they strive to line up the proletariat and working people around the aims of the British bourgeoisie, around its plunder of and aggression against the world's people. They have advanced the theory that the proletariat should unite with the British bourgeoisie for the "defense of national independence" of Britain. They write; "We must... use the contradictions between our enemies in order to effect a temporary alliance with the secondary enemy (i. e. the British bourgeoisie among others -- ed. WW) to defeat the main enemy." Also: "It is quite dogmatic, in the current international situation, to say that a second world imperialist power cannot fight a just war." Further: "The second world countries' dual nature can be made use of in international class struggle. Because these countries are subject to superpower exploitation and oppression they can be won over as temporary allies... in the contemporary international class struggle." Or again: "But we can also unite with them (i. e. the "second" world imperialist powers -- ed. WW) against the superpowers." Finally, they say that the proletariat should support "the British and other European governments' struggle to build up defense forces."

Thus, these followers of the "three worlds" theory are openly calling upon the proletariat to line up behind the bourgeoisie; line up behind and support its reactionary preparations for war; line up behind and support the bourgeoisie's so-called "defense of the fatherland", i. e., inter-imperialist wars and re-divisions of colonial and neo-colonial territories. With their calls for the unity of the "second" world and "third" world, these followers of the "three worlds" theory are openly calling upon the proletariat to line up behind and support the British and European bourgeoisie's vicious plunder, aggression and robbery of the nations and peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America. With their program of "unity of all forces against the main enemy" (the Soviet social- imperialists), these followers of the "three worlds" theory are openly calling upon the working class and people to line up behind and support all the reactionary forces of the western imperialist bloc headed by U.S. imperialism in their aggressive contention with Soviet social-imperial- ism and its allies over colonies and neo-colonies throughout the world. They are calling upon the proletariat to line up behind and support the imperialist policies of U.S. imperialism, the Chinese social-imperialists, the European imperialist powers, all under the guise of "opposing the Soviet threat". This "three worlds" theory, this program of the "pre-party collectives" in Britain, is a reactionary program which is, in all its forms, a repetition of the theory and program of the renegades of the Second International (including the main leaders of the British "Labor" Party and the trade union aristocrats) who, under the justification of "defense of the fatherland", called upon the working class and people to support the 1914-18 inter-imperialist war, to support the British bourgeoisie's efforts to forcibly maintain and extend its colonial territories, to die as cannon fodder for the rich in their bloody imperialist war. The theory and program of this section of the followers of "Mao Zedong Thought" in Britain is straightforward and downright social-chauvinism, using the sacred banner of Marxism-Leninism and socialism to defend the interests of the British bourgeoisie, to perpetuate the bourgeoisie's bloodthirsty aggression against and plunder of the world's people, to oppose the struggles of the peoples and nations that have suffered so much under British colonialism and imperialism.


The "C"PB(M-L), while pretending to "oppose" the "three worlds" theory and its aims, has, in essence, the same reactionary and chauvinist position as the "three worlds" theoreticians. Its theory and program serve and support the open social-chauvinists.

With a garbled and muddled version of the "three worlds" theory, the "C"PB(M-L) has put forward the theory of "saving Britain" and of "stopping the destruction of Britain". It writes, for example, "We press on with our national purpose of saving Britain, the Britain we have made by our skills and energy" ("The Worker", January 4, 1979). What is this "Britain" which the "C"PB(M-L) is so keen on saving? It is a nation which for many centuries has been viciously plundering other nations and peoples throughout the world. It is a nation which today still has a vast neo-colonial empire and is still carrying out armed aggression against nations and peoples, as in Ireland. The BRITISH NATION IS AN OPPRESSOR NATION. To raise, in whatever form or guise, or with whatever justification, the question of "saving Britain", of saving this oppressor nation, objectively serves the open social-chauvinists, objectively serves to create the same reactionary illusions about this "great" British "nation" in the working class movement, objectively serves to divert the working class to supporting the imperialist and exploitative aims of the British bourgeoisie.

At a time when the British bourgeoisie and the opportunists of all hues are rabidly promoting their national and social-chauvinism in the working class movement, to raise, as the "C"PB(M-L) does, the issue of "saving Britain" is, at the least, to conciliate and to compromise with the reactionary chauvinism of the British bourgeoisie. The line of the "C"PB(M-L) is a most dangerous line in the working class movement. With its "Marxist-Leninist" and "anti"-"three worlds" face, it props up and in essence promotes the same chauvinism of the trade union aristocrats, of the open social-chauvinists, which calls upon the working class to fight for its "national" interests, the "national" interests of "saving Britain", in unity with certain sections of the bourgeoisie and at the expense of the interests of the world's people.


The line of the "C"PB(M-L) can only lead -- does lead -- to the promotion of the crudest form of chauvinism in the working class movement. The "C"PB(M-L) promotes, in a most blatant fashion, all the theories of the British bourgeoisie, of the trade union aristocrats, which maintain that Britain is the "center of the world", the "best" at everything and the "savior" of the world's humanity.

Among numerous other examples, the "C"PB (M-L) unashamedly writes: "Trade unions were invented by the British working class"; "It was the British working class organizational development which was the basis of the Communist Manifesto which Marx and Engels wrote in 1848"; "Britain has the only sufficient milk production system in Europe"; "the Congress of the TUC... is the best example in the world of democratic centralism"; "we begin the new year in the company of the oldest and best organized working class in the world"; the British working class "have an unmatched record of persistence in struggle and of maneuver without surrender"; "we were the first modern proletariat, once again we must lead", etc., etc.

This outright "British" chauvinism of the "C"PB (M-L) was further enshrined in its line, program and policy at its recently held Fifth Congress. At this Congress, the "C"PB(M-L) put forward the "theory" that it is the British working class which is going to liberate the world. It writes: "But in the perspective of the firm and lasting establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat it may well prove to be the case that the oldest capitalist country will also be the birthplace of socialism as a permanent alternative to exploitative systems. From a revolutionized Britain, a proletarian way of life, thought and action could spread to the rest of the world." ("The Worker", March 8, 1979, our emphasis). What is this theory that "the oldest capitalist country will also be the birthplace of socialism, " that "from a revolutionized Britain, a proletarian way of life, thought and action could spread to the rest of the world" ? Besides the many other anti-Marxist, anti-Albanian, anti- Bolshevik positions contained in it, the statement reveals that the "C"PB(M-L)'s slogan and program of "saving Britain" is not being misunderstood as a result perhaps of some "clumsy" formulation, but represents precisely the mantle of the British bourgeoisie in the working class, the mantle of national and social-chauvinism. As the class struggle intensifies in Britain and throughout the world, as the struggle in the international communist movement grows ever stronger in defense of the purity of Marxism-Leninism, this social-chauvinism of the "C"PB(M-L) will become, and can only become, even more open, crude and blatant.


The proletariat and its Marxist-Leninist Party must take a most decisive and militant stand against the national and social chauvinism of the British bourgeoisie and against its propagators in the working class movement. National and social chauvinism are the ideology of the bourgeoisie, the ideology of reaction, imperialism, racism and colonialism. It is a crucial question for the proletariat to oppose this ideology, whatever form it should take, and to decisively and actively uphold and strengthen the unity of the British proletariat with the working and oppressed people of the whole world. National and social-chauvinism stand directly against the interests of the British proletariat, the world's proletariat and people and socialism and the revolution. As Comrade Lenin writes: "The social-chauvinists are our class enemies, bourgeois within the working class movement. They represent a stratum, or groups, or sections of the working class which objectively have been bribed by the bourgeoisie (by better wages, positions of honor, etc.), and which help their bourgeoisie to plunder and oppress small and weak peoples and to fight over division of the capitalist spoils." Further, Lenin writes: "Unity with the social-chauvinists is betrayal of the revolution, betrayal of the proletariat, betrayal of socialism, desertion to the bourgeoisie because it is 'unity' with the national bourgeoisie of 'one's own' country against the unity of the international revolutionary proletariat, is unity with the bourgeoisie against the proletariat" (Lenin's emphasis).

[Back to Top]

Chinese Revisionism in Decay

The second session of the 5th National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China came to a close on July 1. This session further revealed for all to see that the revisionist ruling clique in power in Beijing (Peking) is rushing China headlong down the road of capitalism and social- imperialism -- "socialism" in words and savage warmongering imperialism in deeds. The NPC enacted a number of further measures for the complete restoration of the most reactionary capitalist and revisionist elements in China, guaranteeing them all manner of rights to wealth and power. Also an important law on "joint ventures" was adopted, legalizing the unrestrained influx of foreign imperialist capital, guaranteeing by law the U.S., Japanese, European and other imperialist corporations their "due profits" plundered from the sweat and blood of the Chinese working people, just as in the days of the emperors and Chiang Kai-shek. Anything and everything that serves the "four modernizations" -- China's plan to become a powerful, warmongering social-imperialist state -- is being made the law in Beijing.

This session of the NPC also clearly demonstrated that the Hua Guofeng/Deng Xiaoping (Teng Hsiao-ping) clique is going still further in throwing overboard even its "Marxist-Leninist" and "anti-revisionist" pretenses. To reassure the imperialist sharks of the "security" of their investments in China and to facilitate China's all-round alliance with imperialism, the Chinese leaders are pulling off what little is left of their "revolutionary" mask. Chinese revisionism is merging completely with the other main currents of modern revisionism, openly adopting the blatantly revisionist theses of the Khrushchovites, Titoites, "Eurocommunists", etc. Chinese revisionism is on the road of all-round rapid decay.

Among other things, the National People's Congress adopted an openly Khrushchovite thesis denying the fundamental role of the class struggle under the conditions of socialism. Premier Hua Guofeng, in his "Report on the Work of the Government" which was adopted by the session, declared that: "There is no longer any need for large-scale and turbulent class struggle waged by the masses, and therefore we should not try to wage such a struggle in the future," and that at all costs the class struggle should not be "magnified" but should be toned down and mitigated. While for the sake of demagogy he did not deny the existence of class struggle in China altogether, the position of this premier of Chinese revisionism was as clear as crystal. Hua spelled out his line in no uncertain terms: "The realization of the four modernizations by the end of the century" is the "principal contradiction to be resolved, the central task to be performed," and therefore "class struggle is no longer the principal contradiction in our society."

Hua Guofeng and Deng Xiaoping are not the first to repudiate the Marxist-Leninist theory that it is the class struggle which is the principal motive force for the development of class society, not only in capitalist society but also after the overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of socialism. The revisionist renegades from Bukharin to Tito to Khrushchov to Brezhnev have all held that the class struggle dies out and loses its significance with the establishment of socialism.

On this question, modern revisionism clashes sharply with Marxism-Leninism. As Comrade Enver Hoxha reaffirmed at the 7th Congress of the Party of Labor of Albania: "the construction of socialism is a process of stern class struggle between two roads, the socialist road and the capitalist road." This class struggle must be waged relentlessly and in a revolutionary manner on all fronts, in the political, ideological and economic fields. This class struggle is a fierce struggle against both the old and new capitalist and revisionist elements, forces and influences and against the capitalist-imperialist encirclement of the socialist country which is linked with the internal enemies of socialism. Furthermore, this fundamental contradiction between socialism and capitalism remains in force even after the suppression and elimination of the exploiting classes, throughout the entire period of transition to classless, communist society.

The formulations recently adopted by the Chinese National People's Congress on the class struggle are significant in that they mark yet another zigzag in the opportunist line of Chinese revisionism, a turn towards its further degeneration. But this is not to say that the Chinese party hasn't in the past also maintained class collaborationist and opportunist stands on the waging of the class struggle.

In 1956, the Chinese leaders agreed with Khrushchov's attack on Stalin and on Stalin's line of waging a stern class struggle under conditions of socialism. After Stalin's death, at the notorious 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Khrushchov renounced the class struggle and the dictatorship of the proletariat, declaring that these were no longer necessary and were harmful after socialism has been built and the exploiting classes eliminated. It is well known that under this banner the ultra-renegade Khrushchov overthrew the dictatorship of the proletariat and restored capitalism in the Soviet Union and carried out the most criminal treachery against socialism and the revolution.

And in 1956 the Chinese leadership applauded Khrushchov's stand. They wrote into one of their important documents that: "After the elimination of classes the class struggle should not continue to be stressed as though it was being intensified, as was done by Stalin with the result that the healthy development of socialist democracy was hampered. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union is completely right in firmly correcting Stalin's mistakes in this respect." ("More on the Historical Experience of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat", p. 49).

That same year the Chinese Communist Party held the first session of its 8th Congress elaborating the Chinese leaders' own opportunist and class collaborationist position on the class struggle. The 8th Congress of the CPC elaborated at length on the opportunist thesis that the Chinese capitalists of the so-called "national bourgeoisie" were an ally of the working class under socialism and a class which could and should be merged with the socialist system. The Congress polemicized against the "left" position of expropriating and eliminating the capitalists as a class and chastised those who wanted to "squeeze out and bankrupt capitalist industry and commerce." The Congress acclaimed the policy of "taking into account both public (state-owned -- ed.) and private (capitalist -- ed.) interests and benefiting both labor and capital. "The Chinese capitalists' were allotted important positions in the state apparatus and economic enterprises, and the policy was adopted of "long-term co-existence and mutual supervision" between the capitalist parties and the communist party. The 8th Congress also declared that "the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie in our country has basically been resolved" and that "who will win in the struggle between socialism and capitalism... has now been decided."

In short, the extremely erroneous and opportunist line of the 8th Congress of the CPC was that the capitalist exploiting class does not have to be suppressed and expropriated in order to construct socialism, but that these exploiters also "favor socialism" and can "remold themselves into working people". The working class was to build socialism in China harmoniously linked arm-in-arm with the bourgeoisie.

A new demagogical twist was given to this same anti-Marxist-Leninist, class collaborationist line by the second session of the 8th Congress of the CPC which was held in 1958. Paying lip-service to the necessity of the class struggle, the second session concocted the formulation that: "There are two exploiting classes and two laboring classes in China today." The exploiters who "opposed socialism" comprised "one of the exploiting classes" and "the other exploiting class comprises the national bourgeoisie... who are accepting socialist transformation step by step." According to this peculiar "theory", the so-called "national bourgeoisie" has a "dual character in relation to the socialist revolution. " But by "national bourgeoisie" is meant literally every and all exploiters, capitalists, landlords and reactionaries who "see the need" to "remold themselves", "correct their many wrong views" and "'give their hearts to the Communist Party"! Even the big industrialists, bloodsoaked Kuomintang generals and the puppet emperor of Manchuria are declared "patriotic personages", part of the "national bourgeoisie" and hence "comrades" of the working class with a place in the sun in an allegedly socialist China.

This sickening benevolence towards the exploiting classes was the attitude of Mao Zedong (Mao Tsetung) himself. Mao held that the contradiction between the working class and the Chinese capitalists was a "non-antagonistic one" to be resolved by encouraging the capitalists to "study and remold themselves" (see "On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People"). And it was Mao Zedong who advocated there should be "long-term mutual supervision and coexistence" between these two classes -- even under socialism ! Obviously nothing could be further from the revolutionary class line of the proletariat and the Marxist-Leninist doctrine of scientific socialism.

Later on Mao Zedong and the CPC pursued their opportunist approach to the class struggle through the gross distortion and mutilation of the thesis that "classes and class struggle remain throughout the entire period of socialism. " The Chinese leaders demagogically adopted this thesis in the early 1960's under the signboard of a struggle against Khrushchovite modern revisionism, only then to strip this correct thesis of its Marxist- Leninist revolutionary conclusions. When the CPC and Mao Zedong issued this and similar slogans, this did not mean that they had repudiated their previous opportunist position and were now in favor of an irreconcilable and relentless class struggle against the capitalist and revisionist enemies of socialism. No, they had not changed their line in the least but were still in favor of a liberal-bourgeois resolution of this class conflict.

For example, the Chinese leaders clung to the Khrushchovite premise that the existence of class struggle under socialism hinges on the condition of the existence of the exploiting classes. In other words, while declaring that the class struggle remains and cannot be eliminated, the CPC maintained that therefore the exploiting classes also must remain and cannot be eliminated under socialism. And pursuing this idiotic logic, this pseudo-"dialectical approach", the CPC has gone out of its way to preserve much of the property and rights of not only the old capitalist exploiters but also has taken an extremely benevolent and opportunist stand towards the known revisionist renegades in power, leaving them in important positions in the party and state under the hoax of the "inevitability" of the existence of the bourgeois and exploiting classes under socialism. The restoration to power of the self-confessed arch-revisionist Deng Xiaoping, not once but two times, was not an isolated mistake but a general practice in the Chinese party. The existence of one or more "bourgeois headquarters" right inside the communist party itself, from the central committee on down, was not only allowed but even welcomed by the Chinese leadership as a sign of the "maturity" and "fearless materialism" of their party!

With such opportunist distortions of the Marxist-Leninist theory of socialism is it any wonder that another zigzag has taken place, that overnight the exploiting classes and with them the class struggle have evaporated ? Now Hua Guofeng declares that "as classes the landlords and rich peasants have ceased to exist" and that "the capitalists no longer exist as a class" (this despite the fact that Hua repeated in his report the opportunist thesis that "the capitalists of our country constitute a part of the people" after 30 years of supposedly socialist construction!). And voilh, "the class struggle is no longer the principal contradiction in our society. " No, this can come of no surprise at all to anyone who has studied the opportunist, anti-Marxist-Leninist and wavering positions of the Chinese leaders on the waging of the class struggle.

The conciliatory and liberal attitude which Mao Zedong and the other leaders of the CPC always held towards the exploiting classes is among the reasons why genuine socialism was not and could not be established in China. The Chinese people carried out an immense revolution, liberating the Chinese people from the cruel tyranny of foreign imperialism and the big landlords which had brought devastation and misery to China. But the transition from the bourgeois-democratic revolution to the socialist revolution never took place. With the bourgeoisie sharing power with the proletariat, with the bourgeois so-called "democratic" parties to this day maintaining their positions in the Chinese state, how could there be a genuine dictatorship of the proletariat without which there can not be even any serious talk of genuine socialism? Without the resolute expropriation and elimination of the exploiting classes, which to this day maintain much of their wealth and privileges in China, what kind of socialism can there be?

Pursuing the opportunist and eclectic ideological line of "Mao Zedong Thought", the Communist Party of China attempted to steer a middle road between socialism and capitalism. Of course this road proved impossible to traverse. And today China is rushing with lightning speed to become fully integrated into the world imperialist camp as a big social-imperialist state. That the Chinese leaders are more and more discarding their "revolutionary", "Marxist-Leninist" and "anti-revisionist" disguise is not in the least surprising but is a consequence of the inevitable collapse of Mao Zedong's opportunist road of conciliation with imperialism, revisionism and all the class enemies of socialism.

Nevertheless, the latest twist on the Chinese revisionists' trail of betrayal has left their sycophants here in the U.S. a little out of step and with their nose somewhat out of joint. The "CP (M-L)" bootlickers of the Chinese revisionist warlords and the U.S. imperialist bourgeoisie have completely renounced the revolutionary class struggle of the proletariat. Their stock in trade is class collaboration and social-chauvinism, to the extent that they are following the Chinese revisionists in openly calling for the American working class to climb aboard the U.S. imperialist war chariot to "direct the main blow" at Soviet social-imperialism. Nonetheless, these imposters would like to claim that they still have something to do with the class struggle and with socialism and point to China, that "China believes in class struggle under socialism" for this purpose. They even like to huff and puff about their alleged "anti-revisionism" by slinging mud at glorious Stalin, the Party of Labor of Albania and all the genuine Marxist-Leninists for allegedly "denying class struggle under socialism". What a disgusting farce!

But now their "wise leader" has declared from his rostrum in Beijing that the class struggle must be thrown overboard. The master's baton is waved, the disguise is being shed and Chinese revisionism is becoming more naked; and therefore the spineless social-chauvinists of the "CP(M-L)", who are already completely compromised, find themselves in an embarrassing spot. Thus, like a little mouse, the "CP(M-L)" could not help itself but let out a timid squeak: "How can 'large-scale, turbulent class struggle' be ruled out in the future?"; "How can such changes take place except through class struggle?"; "Shouldn't socialist modernization be considered a form of class struggle?"; "It appears that there are still some questions stemming from this important meeting that have not yet fully been resolved, some compromises made for the sake of unity." (see The Call, July 16, 1979). Of course, Hua's report, which spelled out the plans of his counter-revolutionary clique to build capitalism in China in alliance with the U.S. and other imperialists in order to turn China into a warmongering superpower, was also hailed by the "CP(M-L)" as a great triumph of "socialism and the revolution".

Clearly these are hard and difficult times for the entire camp of Chinese revisionism. The U.S. and other imperialists are making China pay dearly for its alliance with themselves. And the proletariat and revolutionary forces the world over are disgusted with and are condemning the Chinese revisionist traitors. In particular, it is the open and relentless struggle of the genuine Marxist-Leninist forces, of the glorious Party of Labor of Albania and the other genuine Marxist-Leninist parties against Chinese revisionism which poses insurmountable obstacles for the new emperors in Beijing and the opportunist sects of their followers in various countries. The ugly features of the Chinese revisionist betrayal, the Chinese leaders' long history of vacillation towards imperialism, capitalism and modern revisionism, a vacillation with its ideological roots in "Mao Zedong Thought", are all being laid bare by the merciless exposure by the genuine Marxist-Leninists. It is this active factor too which is bringing about the rapid decay of this revisionism along with the all-sided capitalist and social-imperialist degeneration of China itself.

[Back to Top]


Against Social-Democratic Infiltration of the Marxist-Leninist Movement

Part 2


In Part One of this article, which has also been published as a pamphlet, we showed how Barry Weisberg's MLOC/"CPUSA(M-L)M represents an agency of social-democracy which is trying to infiltrate into the Marxist-Leninist movement from the outside. We examined the history and political positions of this social-democratic agency.

In this article, while further elaborating on certain questions of the political stands of the "CPUSA(M-L)", we will concentrate more on the question of the methods used by this miserable sect. We shall show how it combines the use of the most high-flown alleged ''Marxist-Leninist" phraseology with the practice of the most underhanded, dirty methods.


Since Part One of this article was published, and as of the August 1 issue of Unite! , there has been no public reply from the ''CPUSA(M-L)". None of our facts have been contested. This is not surprising. Our article was based on painstaking study, including examination of the writing of Mr. Weisberg and the public documents and publications of the MLOC/"CPUSA(M-L)" and the Institute for Policy Studies. Our study has value not only as a polemic against the ''CPUSA(M-L)", but as an open call for struggle against social- democracy and as a reference work for the study of the history of the revolutionary movement in the U.S. We showed with convincing proof that Mr. Weisberg was trained in social-democracy and anti-communism at the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS). The IPS is a social-democratic ''think tank", funded by the big bourgeoisie and staffed by intellectuals who float in and out of appointed posts in the federal government. Weisberg's mentor at IPS was Marcus Raskin, a former member of the National Security Council under President Kennedy. Weisberg himself went on to be a co-founder of a regional offshoot of the IPS, the (San Francisco) Bay Area Institute of Policy Studies. The Bay Area Institute specialized in Asia in general and in China in particular and included early advocates of the U.S.-China alliance. From that time to the present, he has preserved his social-democratic politics while adapting his phraseology to the growing prestige of Marxism-Leninism among the advanced section of the revolutionary activists. Today the politics of the MLOC/"CPUSA(M-L)" are still in essence those of the IPS, but covered over with "Marxist"- sounding phrasemongering.

We were proud to issue our article openly, before the whole world, so that everyone could see and, if they wished, attempt to challenge it. When we published it, with the very first mailing we sent copies to the "CPUSA (M-L)" itself, as we also do with all polemical material directed against them.

On the other hand, the "CPUSA (M-L)" has been reduced to public silence. Silent in the press, it has run into a frenzy, spreading rumors and slanders against the COUSML and against our article. A few days ago, we learned that the Central Committee of the ''CPUSA(M-L)" had apparently issued a private statement on July 1 attacking our article. This statement contained slanderous, contemptible and utterly unsupported allegations. Thus it is quite natural that the ''CPUSA(M-L)'' sees fit to circulate such things only in the dark of night, behind the back of informed public opinion.

We issue an open challenge to the Central Committee of the "CPUSA(M-L)". If you have any reply to our exposure of your social-democratic nature, publish it openly before the whole world. If you don't dare to do so, then this is yet further proof that you are nothing but a bunch of anti-communist social-democrats, slanderers and contemptible adventurers, insects who come out only in the dark and who flee from the light of day.


The underhanded methods of social-democracy lead the "CPUSA (M-L)" straight into the most shameless hypocrisy. The "CPUSA(M-L)" denounces the COUSML as "... up until late last year... the most frenzied, infantile supporter of Mao Tsetung Thought in the U. S'. ", and they say that ''COUSML raised a call to uphold Mao Tsetung Thought as a new and higher stage of Marxism-Leninism and wrote pamphlets such as 'Mao Tsetung Thought Against Opportunism'. " (Unite!, April 1, 1979, p. 10). They scream that COUSML's position on Mao Zedong has shown that "... no one in the U.S. has taken a more anti- Leninist stand, or more infantile left position than COUSML." (Unite!, February 15, 1979, p. 12). But strangely enough it turns out that it is the COUSML which has openly and courageously denounced Mao Zedong and Mao Zedong Thought as anti-Marxist-Leninist and revisionist. /While it is the virtuous ''CPUSA(M-L)" which has not yet written down their current views on Mao Zedong, to say nothing of condemning Mao Zedong. They apparently still regard Mao Zedong as a Marxist- Leninist, although one who made serious deviations from Marxism-Leninism.

Can the depths of such hypocrisy be fathomed? These social-democrats condemn COUSML for Mao Zedong Thought at a time when the COUSML stands openly and staunchly against Mao Zedong Thought, while the MLOC still clings to the myth of the ''Marxist-Leninist Mao Zedong".

This hypocrisy pervades their entire attitude to the international communist movement and to the question of the defense of socialist Albania. The ''CPUSA(M-L)" takes great pains to present themselves as the only genuine supporters of the international polemics against Chinese revisionism and Mao Zedong Thought. But when the issue comes of asking them their stand on the issues raised by these polemics, they twist and turn and evade an answer. Instead of giving their stand, they change the issue and start casting innuendoes at the international communist movement, whimpering about the dangers of "blindly following" and "getting in step". They write: "But the Party (Weisberg's sect -- ed.) emphatically rejects the infantile tendency to place the PSRA (People's Socialist Republic of Albania -- ed.) or any socialist country on a pedestal.... The Party rejects blindly following and mechanically adopting as its own view the views of any other party." (Unite!, March 15, 1979, p. 7). Why are they muttering such unspeakable trash, suitable only for "independent radicals" of the Guardian or In TheseTimes varieties? Because they are afraid to give their views. They want to be known as the great opponents of Mao Tsetung Thought. But ask them what they think, and their only reply in print is that they "reject blindly following and mechanically adopting". What does this mean? That in the opinion of the ''CPUSA(M-L)", to condemn Mao Zedong Thought as anti-Marxist and revisionist is to be guilty of allegedly "blindly following and mechanically adopting"!

We do not denounce serious revolutionary elements in struggle against imperialism and revisionism who need time to come to the correct Marxist-Leninist conclusions about Mao Zedong. On the contrary, our attitude is to help such elements find their way to sound revolutionary positions. But the ''CPUSA(M-L)" is not a revolutionary element. And it is they themselves who have made the issue into which group defends Mao Zedong Thought. Very well. Then they stand condemned as opportunist charlatans and heroes of trickery by the very standard that they themselves have chosen.

The social-democrats, admitting that;COUSML stands firmly against Chinese revisionism, can think of nothing better to say than that "COUSML Gets In Step" (Unite! , February 15, 1979, p. 12). But the truth of the matter is that COUSML has been "in step" for a long time. It is the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists led by COUSML who have been fighting fiercely against social-chauvinism and Chinese revisionism. The COUSML's stand against Mao Zedong and Mao Zedong Thought is taken with the experience of years of struggle against Chinese revisionism: first against neo-revisionism, then against the theory of "directing the main blow against Soviet social-imperialism", then against the "three worlds" theory and now on the issue of Mao Zedong Thought. Is it not clear that the theory of "directing the main blow at Soviet social-imperialism" and of the "three worlds" are fundamental questions of Chinese revisionism?

The COUSML condemned the theory of "directing the main blow at Soviet social-imperialism" in The Workers' Advocate of September 1, 1976 in the article "Mao Tsetung Thought or Social- Chauvinism, A Comment on the October League's Call for 'Unity of Marxist-Leninists'". This article was reprinted in the pamphlet "Mao Tsetung Thought Versus Opportunism", that book that so scandalizes the virtuous ''CPUSA(M-L)". The COUSML called for all-out war against the OL social-chauvinist advocates of the "main blow" theory. But the MLOC, those great heroes of not "blindly following and mechanically copying", those Marxist-Leninists who allegedly always stood aloof from Chinese revisionism, what was their stand? They were supporters of the Soviet Union as the "main danger" theory, blind followers of Chinese revisionism, mechanical copiers of the Klonskyite Pentagon-socialists, and searchers for unity with the OL social-chauvinists. They did not denounce the "main blow" theory until almost one full year later, in August 1977. And they are vacillating to this day about the significance of the "main blow" theory, because in a Unite! editorial on March 1, 1979 they hold that the Klonskyites have still not come out yet "with a direct call to the U.S. working class to set aside its struggle against U.S. imperialism because it would 'weaken the struggle against Soviet social-imperialism'." Indeed, we see that today the "CPUSA(M-L)" goes out of its way to denounce the pamphlet "Mao Tsetung Thought Versus Opportunism", whose historical role was its denunciation of the "main blow" theory and its declaration of war against social-chauvinism.

Well, what about the struggle against the "three worlds" theory. The COUSML enthusiastically hailed Comrade Enver Hoxha's Report to the 7thCongress of the Party of Labor of Albania and immediately pointed out that Enver Hoxha's Report demolished the "three worlds" theory. (The Workers' Advocate, November 20, 1976, Introduction to the Supplement). But the MLOC refused to denounce the "three worlds" theory till September 1977. And even then they continued to vacillate on the basic questions of the "three worlds" theory, writing for example, nonsense about the inadequate arming of the West European imperialists. (See Reply to the Open Letter ofthe MLOC, chapter 5).

It follows that the COUSML has been fighting Chinese revisionism, while the MLOC/"CPUSA (M-L)" has been stubbornly defending Chinese revisionism, giving up one position after another only under intense pressure from the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists. The MLOC would sweep aside all these facts. They claim that the issue is whether one supported Mao Zedong Thought by saying that it was a new and higher stage of Marxism-Leninism, or whether one supported Mao Zedong Thought by saying that "the defense and development of Marxism-Leninism by Mao Tsetung was on a par with that of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin." (Unite! , March 15, 1979, p. 7, characterizing MLOC's former position on Mao Zedong Thought). Clearly this is a ridiculous quibble when the issue is that Mao Zedong Thought is anti-Marxist. The facts are clear: the MLOC opposed the struggle against the "main blow" theory waged by the COUSML; the MLOC opposed the struggle against the "three worlds" theory waged by the COUSML. Today the "CPUSA(M-L)" opposes the COUSML's stand that Mao Zedong is anti-Marxist and revisionist, calling this "getting in step" and "blindly following and mechanically copying". This is fact. All the rest of the mountains of high-flown talk of the "CPUSA(M-L)" on Mao Zedong Thought is a monumental diversion, the fast-talk of the social-democratic hustlers.


Thus the "CPUSA(M-L)" is caught in a web of deception. They attempt to hide their actual views on Mao Zedong Thought when they present their false front in Unite! . They attempt to give the impression that they have condemned Mao Zedong Thought, they publish quotations from Marxist-Leninists denouncing Mao Zedong Thought, but they themselves do not condemn it. Let us examine their recent actual stands chronologically up to the present:

Mid-1978 : According to an article in the March 1979 issue of Unite!: "By mid-year 1978,... a plenum of its (MLOC's -- ed.) Central Committee adopted the position that Mao Tsetung could not be considered a classic teacher of Marxism-Leninism." (p. 7) The MLOC/"CPUSA(M-L)" has not announced a decision by a plenum, a central committee statement or any other official document on Mao Zedong Thought since that time.

December 1978: The Draft Party Program and Constitution adopted in December 1978 are completely silent on the issue of Mao Zedong Thought.

January 15, 1979: Unite!, in its lead article entitled "Party of the Working Class Reborn!", speaks of "the grave deviations from Marxism- Leninism made by Mao Tsetung, particularly in regard to the United States." (p. 2, col. 2). It does not condemn Mao Zedong Thought as anti- Marxist or revisionist. This is consistent with the position that Mao Tsetung is a Marxist-Leninist, but one making serious mistakes.

March 1979: According to the April 1 issue of Unite! , in March the "CPUSA(M-L)" held a "national cadre training school". The article reporting on this training school does not mention Mao Zedong Thought nor is it given as an item on the reported agenda. Thus apparently the "CPUSA (M-L)" did not consider the question of Mao Zedong Thought as an important question to discuss with its membership. Or perhaps the "CPUSA (M-L)" is embarrassed to admit what the stands and positions on Mao Zedong Thought discussed at this training school were.

April 1, 1979: Unite! denies that there is an international opportunist trend fostered by Chinese revisionism. According to Unite! , "there is probably not a single point on which 'all the people' who visited China could agree." Unite! denies that the Chinese revisionists attacked the genuine Marxist-Leninists and developed groups of opportunists. Instead, according to Unite! , the problem was simply "the CPC's failure to distinguish between Marxist-Leninist and revisionist parties".

July 14, 1979: The "Grand Opening" of the Unite! bookstore in Oakland takes place. This store carried very few Marxist-Leninist works, but it did carry one set of the Selected Works ofMao Tsetung. At the store, they said that they still considered Mao Zedong to be a Marxist- Leninist who, however, made serious deviations. Thus the "CPUSA(M-L)" is still disseminating the works of Mao Zedong at the same time that it is trying to give the impression that it has condemned Mao Zedong. Or perhaps this is evidence that the "CPUSA(M-L)" is a loose social-democratic amalgam, a place where "a hundred flowers blossom", where even on the most important issues contradictory lines can exist and be propagated.

August 1, 1979: The latest issue of Unite! carries an article on the "RCP,USA". The article does not condemn Mao Zedong Thought, but only "the banner of defending Mao Tsetung Thought as a new and higher stage of Marxism-Leninism. " (emphasis as in the original). This is "CPUSA (M-L)'s" old, old trick all over again. The "CPUSA(M-L)" has not condemned Mao Zedong Thought. It has only condemned the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists. The "CPUSA(M-L)" weeps and cries and tears its hair about how the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists of the U.S. used to believe that Mao Zedong was a Marxist-Leninist, while to this very day the "CPUSA(M-L)" still holds that Mao Zedong was a Marxist-Leninist, albeit one who made mistakes.

In fact the "CPUSA(M-L)" has gotten no further than condemning what it regards as the line of Lin Biao. As Barry Weisberg himself puts it, "the line of Lin Piao that Mao Tsetung Thought was a 'higher and completely new stage' of Marxism." (Unite! Special Supplement, March 1, 1979, p. 3, col. 2). The MLOC was founded in 1975, well after the downfall and death of Lin Biao. Its whole fuss about the "infantile leftism" of regarding Mao Zedong Thought as a new and higher stage of Marxism-Leninism is just a repetition of the then current line of Chinese revisionism about the "ultra-left Lin Biao". The "CPUSA(M-L)" presents its stand against "the line of Lin Biao" in glorious anti-revisionist colors, stating that "From its birth in 1975, the MLOC consciously rejected the view of the Communist Party of China that Mao Tsetung Thought represents 'a new and completely higher stage of Marxism-Leninism'." (Unite!, March 15, 1979, p. 7). This is absolute nonsense. The MLOC followed formulations on Mao Zedong Thought that were the ones being given by the factions of the Chinese Communist Party that were then triumphant. That was why Hsinhua News Bulletin for November 28, 1976 reprinted as item 112714 excerpts from Unite]'s article "Eternal Glory to Mao Tsetung!" Not only were MLOC's formulations on Mao Zedong Thought acceptable to the Chinese revisionists, but MLOC negated Marxism-Leninism in practice by adhering to the theory of "three worlds" and to the social-chauvinism and Browderite liberal-labor politics of the OL Pentagon-socialists.

Theoretically speaking, the "CPUSA(M-L)'s" assertion that it is "the line of Lin Biao" that negated Marxism-Leninism is a straightforward whitewashing of Chinese revisionism. It is a denial that Chinese revisionism as a whole, including the Zhou Enlai (Chou En-lai), Hua Guofeng (Hua Kuo-feng) and Deng Xiaoping (Teng Hsiao-ing) factions, all negated Marxism-Leninism; it is a denial that Mao Zedong Thought itself negates Marxism-Leninism. It is a denial that the theory of "three worlds" negates Marxism-Leninism. It is one of the most striking proofs of how tied up the MLOC/"CPUSA(M-L)'s" history is with Chinese revisionism that it is unable to defend itself without thereby also whitewashing Chinese revisionism.

[Back to Top]

Glaring Social-Chauvinism of the Social-Democrats

Social-democracy is inherently chauvinist. The social-democrats do not have a revolutionary outlook, but go along with the dominant ideology of the country, that is, with the ideology of the monopoly capitalist ruling class. Thus it should not surprise anyone that the social-democrats of the MLOC/"CPUSA(M-L)" take glaring social-chauvinist stands that display their ultra-nationalistic attitudes.

Consider the July 1 issue of Unite!, organ of the MLOC /''CPUSA(M-L)" social-democrats. On the pretext of commenting on the U.S. imperialist national holiday, the fourth of July, this paper carries, both on its front page and on page 5, graphics of a somewhat abstract arrangement of the stars and stripes. We reproduce this graphic, as otherwise we are afraid that our reader may not believe our description of this graphic. Naturally the reader would think it unbelievable that an allegedly "Marxist-Leninist" paper could carry such jingo rot on its front page. As is well known, on the fourth of July it is considered the patriotic thing to do to fly the American flag, "old glory", the stars and stripes. Naturally, when a "Marxist" paper also carries such an emblem for July 4th, it is showing graphically its social-patriotic nature -- i. e. socialism in words, but superpower patriotism in deeds.

This social-chauvinism of the MLOC/"CPUSA (M-L)" also shows the sham nature of this social-democratic sect's alleged "opposition" to "three worlds-ism". Elsewhere we have documented its history of "three worlds-ism" and its constant opposition to the struggle against the Klonskyite Pentagon-socialists. Why the very thought of pointing a finger at a notorious social-chauvinist class traitor, such as Klonsky, seems uncouth to them. Now with this article we show how the "CPUSA(M-L)" social-democrats take up the graphic symbolism of the Pentagon-socialists. For it was the Klonskyite Pentagon-socialists who tried to reintroduce the red, white and blue into the Marxist-Leninist movement. In 1976 the OL began printing its publications in the American imperialist national colors -- red, white and blue -- in particular the May 1 issue of The Call and the Spring-Summer issue of Class Struggle. This included showing woodcuts of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao in red, white and blue. Thus the OL "three worlders" flew the colors of rabid U.S. imperialism. The revolutionary Marxist-Leninists fiercely denounced OL for this. And even the open "three worlders" of the OL/"CP(M-L)" have had to drop this color combination, for fear of total exposure. Even the woodcuts have noticeably changed their colors -- dropping red (of course) to leave blue and white.

But the social-democrats are picking up the discredited and smelly droppings of the ''three worlders''. Three years later, in 1979, the ''CPUSA(M-L)" picks up the stars and stripes. Of course, the social-democrats may pontificate, "we criticize U.S. imperialism in our July 4th article, at least in the latter half of it. " But, as the old saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words. With this symbol of U.S. imperialism as a graphic, any intelligent capitalist is being told that, beneath all the socialist verbiage, Unite! shares with the bourgeoisie the same basic patriotic feelings. As to the criticisms of U.S. imperialism, the OL ''three worlders" could make a similar excuse for their red, white and blue publications, which also contain some revolutionary phrasemongering. But the excuse didn't hold water for the ''three worlders", and it doesn't for the social-democrats either.

As a matter of fact, the social-democrats do not wait till July 4th to exhibit their patriotism. The masthead symbol of Unite!, which is also reproduced here so that the reader should not feel that we are making things up or that this is simply a satire, also carries a graphic of the outline of the U.S. over the hammer and sickle. It has carried this graphic ever since the MLOC changed into the "CPUSA(M-L)". And the "CPUSA(M-L)'s" Party emblem carries this same outline of the U.S., of course with the words "Workers of all countries, unite!" underneath it. However, Marx and Engels addressed their great slogan to the idea of unity in the great cause of the proletarian revolution, not to unity under the U.S. imperialist world hegemony. The social- democrats distort geography a bit in their outline map, in order to be sure to get Hawaii and Alaska in the graphic. But one must give credit where credit is due: they do leave out Puerto Rico, the Panama Canal Zone, Micronesia and various other U.S. imperialist "possessions".

Among the American masses, it is common to mock at the symbols of U" S. patriotism, to mock at the flag, the 50 states from sea to shining sea, etc. Americans with any revolutionary sentiment are positively revolted by U.S. jingoism. They definitely would not rally behind any party whose emblem was the map of the 50 states. But there are two basic ideologies, two basic attitudes here. The social-democrats cry "ultra-left" and "uncouth" at things like "red salutes", while the map of the U.S. is the most natural thing in the world for them. The revolutionaries and progressive masses believe that the symbols of U.S. patriotism are disgusting and uncouth, while they are quite at home with "red salutes". The Marxist-Leninist revolutionaries don't teach the masses the outline of the 50 states. On the contrary, they teach the masses to have a burning indignation and hatred for U.S. imperialist aggression and for the bloodstained history of genocide, annexation and aggressive war behind the present U.S. boundaries. They teach the masses that it is not in their interests to "defend" the borders of the U.S. for the monopoly capitalist dictators. Rather, the task is to overthrow the monopoly capitalist dictators.

Here again, it turns out that a picture is worth a thousand words. The social-democrats display the U.S. flag because they wish to defend the U.S. capitalist state. They are assuring the capitalists that despite all the "bold" revolutionary phrasemongering, the social-democrats are completely tame and loyal. And please remember, it is not just any state borders that the social-democrats are exhibiting on their masthead. No, it is the borders of the U.S. superpower, which is a bloodstained aggressor striving for world domination.

The glaring social-chauvinism of the social- democrats exposes them as lovers of the "three worlders" and servants of the U.S. big bourgeoisie. Together the "three worlders" and the social-democrats find their greatest enemy in revolutionary Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism. The proletariat will wage its irreconcilable struggle against the bourgeoisie only through building its Marxist-Leninist Party without the social-chauvinists and against the social-chauvinists.


[Photo: Glaring social-chauvinist graphics of the social-democrats of the "CPUSA(M-L)".]

[Back to Top]

Enver Hoxha's New Work "Reflections on China":


The first volume of Reflections on China, the outstanding new work by Comrade Enver Hoxha, the First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Party of Labor of Albania, has now been made available to American readers. This volume, consisting of excerpts from the Political Diary of Comrade Enver Hoxha is a fiery defense of Marxism-Leninism and a brilliant and precise exposure of the evolution of Chinese revisionism.

In this work, Comrade Enver Hoxha from a Marxist-Leninist perspective examines in detail the opportunist and vacillating activities and stands of the Chinese leaders. This first volume covers the period from 1962 when the Communist Party of China was refusing to take an open stand against the Khrushchovite betrayal, to the formation of China's alliance with U.S. imperialism and Nixon's invitation to China in 1972. With the critical eye of a staunch communist revolutionary, Comrade Enver Hoxha reveals the wavering and conciliatory positions and the sharp zigzags in line of the Chinese leaders in their stand towards the Khrushchovite, Titoite, Romanian and other modern revisionists.

In the author's foreword to Reflections on China it is pointed out that: ''Loyal to the principles of proletarian internationalism, the Party of Labor of Albania has defended the Communist Party of China and the People's Republic of China both when the Khrushchovite, Titoite and other modern revisionists attacked them, and during the Cultural Revolution, when the Chinese ultra-revisionists, headed by Liu Shao-chi and Teng Hsiao-ping, posed a serious threat to the CP of China and Mao Tsetung. At the same time, our Party has followed with concern the anti-Marxist stands and actions taken by the Chinese leaders on many occasions, and to the extent that was realistically possible, has expressed critical opinions about what was going on in China. It has also expressed these opinions at the proper time to the Chinese leadership in the hope that it would put itself on the right course."

In this work Comrade Enver Hoxha expresses his views and reservations as the events of the so-called ''Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution" unfolded, and he analyzes the anti-Marxist, liberal and anarchist ideas and practices of this so- called ''revolution" which brought him to the conclusion in his work Imperialism and the Revolution that "the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution was neither a revolution, nor great, nor cultural, and in particular, not in the least proletarian." This work also follows the development of the U.S.-China counter-revolutionary alliance which was in the making for many years and was the inevitable product of the Chinese leaders' anti-Marxist-Leninist and revisionist course.

Reflections on China shows how the doubts and suspicions of the Party of Labor of Albania were aroused as the Chinese revisionists pursued their opportunist road, their hostile activity against the genuine Marxist-Leninists, against the PLA and socialist Albania and the new Marxist- Leninist parties and groups, and their compromising and traitorous stands in regard to imperialism and revisionism. In this way, Comrade Enver Hoxha has laid bare for all to see the basis of the correct conclusions which the PLA has drawn in regard to the evolution of Chinese revisionism.

This work is a most valuable contribution to the Marxist-Leninist and revolutionary forces as it lifts the shroud of mystery which had been intentionally created over the real state of affairs in China and the activities of the Chinese leaders which have done enormous damage to the international Marxist-Leninist communist movement and the cause of socialism and the revolution. It is now clear that the Chinese leaders have carefully kept hidden the real situation within their party and state, not even informing the Marxist-Leninist PLA of the most important problems of the situation in China. For this reason, to the world's Marxist-Leninists China has in many ways remained an enigma. For example, with the theory of allowing two or more headquarters within the leadership of the party, the actual line of the CPC is turned into a matter of speculation as all the mistakes and crimes of the party leaders could be and inevitably were arbitrarily attributed to the "bourgeois headquarters". However, with keen Marxist-Leninist perception, Comrade Enver Hoxha has made an invaluable contribution towards dispersing the veil of mystery about China, the Chinese Party and Mao Zedong.

Analyzing the events of the time, Enver Hoxha tears the mask off the Chinese revisionists. He exposes the reality that Mao Zedong was not at all what the myth created made him out to be; that in fact Mao Zedong held to anti-Marxist-Leninist positions and pursued a bourgeois liberal policy towards the class enemies and a conciliatory policy towards imperialism and modern revisionism. The detailed scientific assessments which Comrade Enver Hoxha makes of this ten year period are of immense significance for the struggle against Chinese revisionism with its roots in "Mao Zedong Thought", a struggle which today is an urgent necessity for all the genuine Marxist-Leninists.

From the work Reflections on China, the solid Marxist-Leninist and principled tactics of the PLA can be seen in its consistent struggle against imperialism and revisionism and for the unity of the Marxist-Leninist movement in the face of the vacillations and zigzags of the Chinese revisionists. The Marxist-Leninist principles which the Party of Labor of Albania has always firmly adhered to in the course of this struggle provide important guidance to all the Marxist-Leninists in the present situation. Along with Comrade Enver Hoxha's Report to the 7th Congress of the PLA and his recent work Imperialism and the Revolution, Reflections on China is a fiery testament to the loyalty of the PLA to Marxism-Leninism and to the cause of the international proletariat and socialism. It is a demonstration of the militant revolutionary vigilance, wisdom and farsightedness and determination of Comrade Enver Hoxha and the PLA. It is a timely and courageous defense of Marxism-Leninism at a time when the revisionist renegades of all hues are trying to bury Marxism-Leninism in the mud. Reflections on China is a powerful weapon in the hands of the Marxist-Leninists the world over in their merciless struggle against Khrushchovite, Titoite and other variants of modern revisionism, especially Chinese revisionism.

The Workers' Advocate calls on all the Marxist-Leninists and revolutionary activists to carefully study this important work and circulate it among the workers and all progressive people.

[Back to Top]

Passages from "Reflections on China" Vol. 1 -1967



On the occasion of the New Year, the newspaper "Renmin Ribao" published a long article on the Chinese Proletarian Cultural Revolution: I read the summary of it Hsinhua gave. This article appears to present the main objectives and orientations of this revolution in a concentrated way, and this it does in a more balanced manner, avoiding exaltations and hyperbole to some extent.

After so many months, it is becoming dear that what has been achieved up till now has not been easy, and as it seems, the final victory is still not easy, although it is certain that the greatest resistance of the revisionists in China has been crushed. However, since the main revisionists have not been purged from the important positions they occupy, notwithstanding the fact that they are isolated or remain in these positions formally, still it is a weakness if Liu Shao-chi and Teng Hsiao-ping remain for a long time in the functions they have. Their being in the positions which they hold encourages the resistance of elements which support them at the base. They must not only be exposed with dazibaos, as at present, but must also be brought down.

Why is this not being done? If the old tactic is going to be continued, then this is a major mistake and things will go badly. If "they are still strong", then what are the Chinese comrades waiting for, why do they not strike them a lightning blow, but allow the affair to drag on endlessly? Even if "they have made self-criticism," still they must be by all means kicked out from the positions which they occupy at present.

However, to remove them, and especially to remove Liu Shao-chi from the post of President, the Central Committee of the Party, the General Assembly, and so on, have to meet. As practice shows, the Chinese comrades are afraid of meetings, although when they hold them they carry them on for a month or more.

However, this time it is necessary to go deeply into matters, to disclose the many real causes in order to gain a thorough knowledge of the mistakes of the Liu Shao-chi group. The party must make these analyses in the first place, that is, those party norms which I have stated in my early notes on this matter, should be implemented. It cannot fail to strike the eye that in their article many matters are now presented differently, and the opinions expressed by us, whether in articles, at the 5th Congress, or in talks, especially with Comrade Kang Sheng, have not fallen on deaf ears.

I have the impression that the Chinese comrades were, or found themselves, unable to act in the way we thought they should, but now that they have recovered themselves to some extent, they have carried out some purges and exposures, have better control of the situation and continue to strengthen their position, thus everything is heading for normalization. As I have said in other notes, they had to use new tactics, and these were not fortuitous and spontaneous but well-considered.

I cannot agree with the Chinese comrades on the question of Stalin, either. They blacken the work of Stalin. On this question of principle they are not objective and are not completely on the Marxist course. The Chinese comrades are still judging Stalin according to their opportunist views.

In this article, too, they neglect and almost totally "overlook" the great principled struggle which Stalin waged against opportunists, rightists, Trotskyites, Bukharinites, etc. He waged this struggle in difficult conditions against internal and external enemies of the Soviet Union, against those who did everything in their power to restore capitalism in the Soviet Union. Was this a minor struggle?! Was this a minor experience?!

Stalin fought resolutely against secret and open enemies until the day he died. And after the war, what was the question of Leningrad? What were the reforms in the Central Committee and the bringing into the leadership of a large number of new people? What was the meaning of the condemnation of Zhukov about whom it came out later what he was? What was the removal of Kosygin, who also showed himself for what he was? What was the significance of Khrushchev's statement that Stalin did not trust them and told them, "You will capitulate to imperialism?" And everything that Stalin said turned out true.

These are a few isolated things which we know, but if we have full knowledge of Stalin's activity after the Second World War then we will see his titanic Marxist- Leninist greatness more clearly.

Our Party benefited from the teachings of Stalin, followed them faithfully, and therefore it did not go wrong. It is for this reason that those things which are occurring in China today do not occur in Albania. What the Communist Party of China is doing today by means of the Cultural Revolution our Party has long been doing, continuously, consistently, step by step, in a revolutionary manner, and with quality.

It is not right at all that, in order to boost oneself, the major role of Stalin, who fought with great consistency, should be blackened; it is not at all Marxist to appropriate to oneself what other Marxist-Leninist parties have done and are doing consistently. But the Chinese comrades might say: "See, the fact is that in the Soviet Union the revisionists seized power." Yes, this is a bitter fact, however, the revisionists seized power there after the death of Stalin. Why did they not take it while he was alive?

Let us suppose that Stalin "had not been vigilant" and "had not taken preventive measures," then why did it take you Chinese comrades, who criticize Stalin, ten to fourteen years on end to see through Khrushchev, eighteen years on end Tito, and at least sixteen years the groups of Liu Shao-chi and Peng Chen? And you had the great revolutionary experience of Lenin and Stalin and the bitter experience of Tito, Khrushchev, Kao Gang, Wang Ming, etc.

No, no! Stalin was a great man, a great revolutionary, a great Marxist-Leninist, and so will he remain through the centuries. The mistakes of Stalin, if they exist, are minor ones. And to list them you must find them, and when you find them you must judge them in the circumstances of the time.

Liu Shao-chi, this revisionist, had delivered a whole report to the comrades of one of our delegations about the alleged rightist mistakes of Stalin, alleging that Stalin had said that the class struggle was over, etc. What irony! And who was saying this? The person who, at the 8th Congress of the Communist Party of China, advocated coexistence with the capitalists! Liu Shao-chi emerged as the Chinese Khrushchev!

Or Chou En-lai comes to us and delivers a whole report in order to convince us that Stalin "made major mistakes" in regard to the Chinese! And when did he deliver this report? Precisely at a time when in China the anti-Stalinists, the Chinese revisionists, were plotting to seize state power!

No, these things do not go down with us. These views of the Chinese comrades are wrong and must be corrected, because they are on major questions of principle. The revolution, whether the "great revolution," or even this "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution," cannot make progress without understanding Stalin correctly, without defending Stalin and his work, without the ideas of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin. Now the Chinese are also adding those of Mao to them.

Well, it is your business: call Mao "great." But he can never be compared with Stalin. Stalin was truly great and Lenin even greater.



I gave instructions on how we must act in connection with the urgent "Proclamation" of 32 revolutionary organizations of Shanghai. As it seems, the Chinese revisionists began the sabotage activity in the economy of the city of Shanghai. They have taken advantage of the wrong line, have had the committee in their hands, have "coexisted well and beautifully with the capitalists," and now, judging the situation desperate, have set themselves in motion. Of course, they have been encouraged also by the fact that the dictatorship of the proletariat is not striking them as it ought to, that their leaders, such as Liu Shao-chi and Teng Hsiao-ping and other disguised ones, are still not being struck the final blow. The reactionary Chinese bourgeoisie which has infiltrated the party and the state is acting vigorously.

The urgent "Proclamation" of 32 revolutionary organizations of Shanghai has great importance at this stage of the Proletarian Cultural Revolution, because now this revolution is going beyond the bounds of dazibaos and the severity of the dictatorship is coming into action. Hence, it has been decided to strike the reactionary elements physically, too, to arrest them, try them and punish them. At last! Perhaps the Chinese comrades arrested reactionary elements before, but in the forms in which they are presenting things now, this is a different kettle of fish. The forms and methods used were such as to give the impression that this revolution would be only "peaceful." You have to be naive to think that the revisionists will fold their arms in the face of this defeat.

Therefore we must publish this urgent "Proclamation" and accompany it with an article in which we defend the correct Marxist-Leninist revolutionary line and, now that we are given the occasion, say openly in the press what we have always thought, namely, that the enemies' heads must be smashed, not just with words, with dazibaos, but even with bullets. The enemy must feel the blow of the dictatorship of the proletariat right to the marrow of its bones.

We must activize our propaganda even more, both at home and abroad, in defence of China, the Communist Party of China, Mao, and the correct objectives of the Proletarian Cultural Revolution. These are decisive moments. Our radio, in its foreign broadcasts, must bring this out loud and clear. Almost every broadcast of our radio in foreign languages must tell the truth about what is occurring in China, in defence of it, and its defence must have the character of an attack from our side against the modern revisionists and the bourgeois propaganda, which are ^creaming against China in order to deceive world opinion. We have an especially great duty at these moments to propagate the fundamental objectives of the Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China in their true light, and to give them as an example of struggle for the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists in Europe and elsewhere to fight and defeat the revisionist cliques in power.



It is difficult to draw an accurate conclusion from the information which the Chinese press and radio are giving. One can say only that now the situation there is better than before the beginning of the Cultural Revolution, because in fact, this revolution was launched to overthrow the bourgeois power of the revisionists, which had been established in China under the disguise of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Hence the revolution was raised to overthrow the counter-revolution established over seventeen years. This is the good aspect. But has the counterrevolution been overthrown completely in China? This is not clear, there must still be places where it has not been overthrown, where it is tolerated, because the revolution is still not able to defeat the counter-revolution everywhere.

It seems that the bourgeois-capitalist line in China has not been a superficial phenomenon but very deep-going. The Chinese revisionists had the party, the state, the economy firmly in their grip. The apparatuses and the people were theirs and it was difficult for anyone to hinder them, indeed those who attempted to do so were eliminated. Faced with the Cultural Revolution, the revisionists employed many manoeuvres, tactics and mass counter-attacks. They continue to use legal and illegal forms to resist the revolution.

As far as we can judge from outside, the Chinese comrades must have considered the danger very slight. They thought that the resistance would be weak, and that the dazibaos would be enough to extinguish it. They were obliged to bring in the army later, when reaction attacked with big forces, because they saw that their cadres were being removed from power.

As it seems, however, for the moment only the political exposure of the revisionists and their leaders like Liu Shao-chi and Teng Hsiao-ping, is continuing, and the "original" and ludicrous thing about it is that the official Chinese press is talking about all those political and ideological crimes of Liu Shao-chi, but never mentions his name. This is truly astonishing! This is reminiscent of those moments when they did not want to mention Khrushchev by name.

But here another question arises: Where was Mao, where were all the other "revolutionary" comrades, when Liu Shao-chi expressed such political and ideological opinions (these are now being printed in the papers), which not one normal capitalist, nor even Hitler and Mussolini in their most ferocious period, expressed, for fear that they would be exposed? Whereas Liu Shao-chi, who has expressed all these ideas, still remains, even if only formally, Vice-Chairman of the Party and President of the Republic.

Another important question, as we understand (or better say, as we do not understand) is that "the party does not exist," but individual communists exist. The Communist Youth does not exist, but many organizations of the "Red Guard" exist; party committees and state organs do not exist, but "revolutionary committees," appointed "by the masses" according to the principle of the "three-in-one combination," exist. This is the "new form" which emerged from the Cultural Revolution.

As we understand it, they are moving towards the "unification of the party with the state"!!?? This is the "experience of the Cultural Revolution." Some say: "This is a trial," some have made it a fait accompli, others are maintaining the structure of the party! The devil alone knows.

I think that this question will take a long time to be cleared up and with half-pie measures, trial and error, while rejecting the Marxist-Leninist experience gained, it will not be cleared up well, because already opportunist symptoms, softening and fear of the revolutionary masses are apparent.

The hostile work of the Chinese revisionists, and the lack of truly radical measures for their definite suppression have brought and are bringing great harm to the international communist movement.



Of course, from lack of facts we may be mistaken, because in this question, which is such a major one and at the same time so complicated, it is characteristic that we do not find a continuity in the reporting of facts by the Communist Party of China.

The official Chinese press and first of all the newspaper "Renmin Ribao," which is the organ of the Central Committee, reflects this uncertainty, it guards against expressing its real opinion and the analysis of events. Therefore, in place of these things, it writes mostly to prove that "Mao's ideas have always been and are correct," that "Mao has understood everything correctly, he foresees everything correctly, and everyone should follow the teachings of Mao," which are given through quotations and have been filling the newspapers and covering the walls, peoples' bodies and things for the last year. It seems that the Chinese comrades explain events as if they are the outcome of the ideas of Mao, and thus every article, every note, is directed to convincing people that Mao is a "genius," instead of explaining concretely what is occurring in reality. This is a serious shortcoming in the presentation of things.

It seems to me, however, that this is not accidental. It represents a chaotic situation and a method of work and struggle unsuitable for putting things in order. I think, and perhaps I am wrong, that the Cultural Revolution was begun without clear perspectives, the course on which it was to proceed was not defined, and neither the expected nor the unexpected things were foreseen. I think that the general staff of the revolution did not exist. They went into the revolution without the party.

What became of the party? Where is the party? Who led the party? According to information, the party was not in the hands of Mao, others were manoeuvring it. Hence, the party, as a Marxist-Leninist party, did not come out in revolution and did not lead the revolution. A few communist cadres, with Mao at the head, led this revolution, but not as a party.

The "Red Guard" rose in revolution, but this was not the party, nor the communist youth organization, nor the trade-union organization, nor the working class. This is a great minus from the angle of principle and organization. The "Red Guard" rose in revolution, but what was it to do, what road was it to follow? I have the impression that this thing was not clear at the start or even later. The "Red Guard" was ordered to demonstrate its strength, its loyalty to the ideas of Mao, to expose the revisionists, and to seize power from them.

Hence, the main question was the question of state power. To struggle to seize power implies that someone is holding this power and is not relinquishing it, therefore you must rise in revolution. Thus, as it turns out, they rose in the revolution to take power without the party at the head, or to put it better, the party had power, but the party was not on the right road.

Was the party on the right road or not? If not, then it should be clearly stated why, what the mistakes consisted of, who had made these mistakes, and how they had to be corrected. If the party was on the right road, why did it not lead the revolution in fact? If the revisionists are the minority, then why does the party not eliminate them immediately, and especially now that the revolution is being carried out?

These things are not dear, are left obscure; perhaps the revolution will resolve them and make them clear.

I think that the revolution is the most serious thing that can be undertaken, and it does not permit spontaneity, lack of iron discipline, vacillations on principles, anarchy, or confusion. All these things, which should not be allowed, we find in the Chinese Cultural Revolution. Not only have these things not come to an end, but, the way they are going, they will continue for a long time to the detriment of the revolution and socialism in China.

If it does not strike down the leaders of the betrayal, or at least mention them by name, the revolution is not revolution. Without cutting off the heads of a few traitors that deserve it, it is not revolution. If you act as the Chinese comrades are acting, then say no more about the dictatorship of the proletariat, don't speak about the class struggle, because in this case these are words and nothing but words. We do not say that heads should be lopped off for nothing, without grave crimes, but since the enemies are accused of the crime of treason, they fully deserve the bullet. Then, what are they waiting for? Even if one proceeds from the principle that "first the enemies must be unmasked," nearly a year has gone by since they were unmasked.

But let us take the question of the unmasking. Is this being done correctly, and who is leading it? It is a fact that the party is not doing this, it is not working as an organized force within certain limits, it is paralysed, if not destroyed. The "Red Guard" is carrying out this exposure through dazibaos. The "Red Guard" and all "those who are making the revolution" say whatever they want, abuse and discredit whoever they want. In a word, it is not the party as a party which is leading all these activities, but Mao is leading them with a series of comrades whom it is difficult to control all over that great China, where, effectively, there is no party, and where the enemy has been working intensively for tens of years. The existing anarchy cannot be combated with anarchy.

I think that the great mistake of Mao and the other comrades lies in the fact that they are not handling the "question of the party," the question of the line and the cadres of the party correctly. In my opinion, the question should be presented in this way: Has the party made mistakes during seventeen years or has it not?

Naturally, the Communist Party of China has made serious mistakes. Somebody led it on to a wrong road, and the party was not able to see where they were leading it. Hence, together with a few individuals, many others have made mistakes, too. It is essential that the party analyse its incorrect line and correct it first of all. If the party does not see its mistake, the mistake cannot be corrected. Questions are not put forward in this way in China, and the party is treated in an off-hand manner.

The problem arises: Who is right and who is wrong? "Have Liu Shao-chi and Teng Hsiao-ping made mistakes," and Mao not? Of course, some people there have been wrong, and these are the gang of Liu Shao-chi. However, together with Liu and Teng Hsiao-ping, the whole party has gone wrong, hence even Mao himself, who has allowed the party to go wrong. In that case, the party has to analyse and assess this whole situation, and take the necessary measures. In fact, the party has been pushed aside, and others -- the youth, the "red guards," have been allowed to criticize the party from outside, not the party directly, but people, everywhere without discrimination. Individuals ought to be criticized, even with dazibaos; but is there, or is there not a party which leads, sanctions, says: "This is good, or this is bad?" Such a thing has not been seen for a whole year.

Who is left in the Communist Party of China who has not made mistakes? Apparently, Mao with two or three others. Then how will this work be done, with all this mass of misled cadres who have made mistakes, perhaps unwittingly, for years on end? Will they rely on these, separate the wheat from the chaff, and build the party to work normally, in a revolutionary way? This is not yet clear, since the final liquidation of the traitor group of Liu and Teng is still not coming to an end.

It seems to me that many cadres have been exposed and rehabilitated in an incorrect way. The party did not meet to make an analysis of the work and judge the cadres one by one, to face them with their responsibility, to mention their names in dazibaos when the occasion warranted. Chen Yi, for example, is subject to grave accusations in dazibaos. But he is defended by Mao and leads the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This is not serious work, nor is it on the organizational road of the party, but there are millions of cadres in this position.

These things can hardly be put in order with an article about "The Treatment of Cadres", or "Down with Anarchy!," because these voices do not catch the ear of the party as a party, as an organized detachment of the class. The party is in confusion, they are keeping it in confusion, and justify this by saying, "the revolution is being carried out." Without the party there is no genuine revolution, without the party the revolution will be lame, will run into serious, unexpected difficulties.

[Back to Top]