Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line

League for Proletarian Revolution (M-L)

Reply to R.C.L.(M.L.M.): Distorting an Opposing Line is not Marxism-Leninism

First Published: Resistencia, Vol. 9, No. 2, February 1978
Transcription, Editing and Markup: Paul Saba
Copyright: This work is in the Public Domain under the Creative Commons Common Deed. You can freely copy, distribute and display this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit the Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line as your source, include the url to this work, and note any of the transcribers, editors & proofreaders above.

Once again the RCL-MLM has launched one of their routine and expected unprincipled attacks against the LPR-ML. In their last edition of UNITY AND STRUGGLE (Vol.7, #l, Jan. 1978) they printed a mixture of distortions, half-truths, quotes out of context, sham self-criticism, etc. which they call ’ideological struggle’ whose sole purpose is to try to score some points against our organisation. Instead of trying to clarify the questions, they muddle things, change the issues, etc., as we will prove here.

These attacks came under the cover of a so-called sum-up of the Conference on the International situation sponsored by the RCL on October 15. The ’sum-up’ is reduced to a very shallow self-criticism–’our speeches were not lively, our speech was twice as long as LPR’s’–and to an unprincipled and sectarian attack on us. It’s relevant that the RCL’s sum-up and decision to sponsor another conference on the same topic came in the absence of a collective sum-up made by the organizations that participated in the conference. The liquidation of that kind of sum-up shows that the RCL’s claims of standing for ’ideological struggle over political line’, of upholding the principle of criticism/self-criticism, are pure rhetoric and phrase mongering.


While proclaiming that they uphold the Three World Theory, LPR uses the fact of the two line struggle to imply that since there are great Marxist-Leninist parties on either side of the struggle, LPR can get away without firmly taking one side or the other. To artificially “reconcilliate” two opposing sides is centralism.. .LPR does not want to characterize one line as wrong because it is held by one leading Marxist-Leninist party, yet it wants to verbalize that they uphold the Three World Theory. Unity & Struggle vol.7 #1, p. 10 (Jan. 1978)


At the Conference on the International Situation (held October 15, 1977) sponsored by the RCL we stated:V

In the same manner, we will oppose all attempts by those who will endeavor to take this opportunity in which a polemic on fundamental questions of principle is unfolding in the midst of the international communist movement to launch slanderous attacks against the Communist Party of China and the Party of Labour of Albania. We consider this polemic to be of great importance to all revolutionaries the world over, and it is our task to study it seriously, to examine the arguments in the light of the universal truths of Marxism-Leninism Mao Tse-tung Thought, and on the basis of this analysis, put forward our position on the existing differences. It is also our task to approach the matter patiently, to look for ways of resolving the contradictions, no matter how serious they are, for it is the sacred duty of all communists to uphold and strengthen the unity of the international communist movement. Resistance vol.8 #10 (Nov. 1977)

It’s clear that what we are in opposition to is those organizations and individuals, like the RCL, that use the contradictions existing in the international communist movement to launch unprincipled attacks on socialist countries, countries which are under the dictatorship of the proletariat – such as China and Albania. Furthermore, in order to put forward a line and to defend it, it is not necessary to call scoundrels (Trotskyites is the term used by RCL to refer to the Albanian comrades) those who uphold the other line. This attitude, as a matter of fact, helps to stagnate the ideological struggle instead of promoting it.

Let’s look, for example, at the great Marxist-Leninist polemic “Chairman Mao’s Theory of the Differentiation of the Three Worlds Is a Major Contribution to Marxism Leninism” (Peking Review). Where is the name-calling and the characterizations of the line of the Party of Labour of Albania there? The Chinese comrades put out their line, show why it’s a correct Marxist-Leninist line and they let the line stand on its own. That’s a correct Marxist-Leninist approach to ideological struggle–coming from unity. Irrespective of what RCL says, the CPC is struggling with the PLA from the standpoint of unity-struggle-unity to safeguard the unity of the international communist movement. But RCL– which wants to be ’more Chinese than the Chinese’–already calls the Albanian comrades Trotskyites and whoever doesn’t follow suit is called a centrist. (See RCL’s pamphlet on the 3 worlds)


LPR opposes the strengthening of NATO in the face of the coming fascist social-imperialist Soviet Union, by saying that NATO is an appendage of the US. This denies the very struggle going on between the Second World and the Superpowers for independence. We support the strengthening of the Western European Second World countries against Fascist Soviet Social imperialism.

LPR slanders us by saying that because we favor the strengthening of Western Europe IN STRUGGLE WITH U.S. HEGEMONISM AND IN DEFENSE AGAINST USSR SOCIAL IMPERIALISM that we support the B-l Bomber and the U.S. war preparations. We support Western Europe’s unity against superpower war–against US hegemonism and USSR attack. (Unity & Struggle, pg. 10)

These two statements contradict each other and are a mere word play designed to avoid the real issue. Does RCL support the arming of NATO by U.S. imperealism, or not? They evade the question and state: “We favor the strengthening of Western Europe in the struggle against U.S. hegemonism and in defense against USSR’s social-imperialism.” But Western Europe and NATO are not one and the same thing, comrades. NATO is a military bloc founded, financed, controlled, and led by U.S. imperialism. Western Europe is a group of second world countries which, although they oppress and exploit the third world countries, also are bullied by the U.S. and the USSR and can therefore be won over to the united front against the two superpowers. We definitely support the struggles of the second world countries against both superpowers. But the principle aspect of NATO is opposition to the USSR under the hegemony of U.S. imperialism; not opposition to both superpowers. This is like the difference between night and day–or more specifically, the difference between Marxism-Leninism and reformism.

RCL goes around in circles trying to escape the stubborn reality that the arming of NATO is a vital part of U.S. imperialism’s war preparations. RCL’s support of this policy demolishes their claims of opposition to the ’two superpowers’ (in plural!) – LPR) war preparations. Answers to the questions we raised–and which were not clearly answered–at the conference are in order:
1. Is U.S. arming of NATO a part of U.S. imperialism’s war preparations or not?
2. Does RCL support President Carter’s ’defense’ budget – specifically parts pertaining to NATO?
3. Does RCL oppose both superpowers’ war preparations or only those of the Soviet social-imperialists?
4. What are RCL’s lines of demarcation with the OL-CP in this respect?

We expect that RCL will respond in print.



LPR does not hold that Soviet Social Imperialism Is the MAIN danger of war,they take up the undlalectlcal line of the anti-Three World Theory forces in saying that the two superpowers are exactly the same. (Unity & Struggle, Vol,7,No. 1, pg.10)


At the conference we said:

The one that fails to realize that although both superpowers are the main enemy of the world’s peoples, there are differences among them that have to be taken into consideration. Specifically the facts that the Soviet Union is a newcomer as an imperialist superpower; that it covers itself under the cloak of socialism and is not as exposed as U.S. imperialism; and that the Soviet Union has not yet suffered any major military defeat like the U.S. in Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Kampuchea,etc. All of this points to the fact that with all probability it is the Soviet Union who will trigger’ the very possible new world war. Resistance, vol.8 #10 (Nov. 1977)

Why is it that knowing these facts the RCL claims that we are saying “that the two superpowers are the same”? RCL should answer this instead of taking more cheap shots at us.



Comrades, you can not have it both ways. Either uphold the profound and correct Three World Theory of Chairman Mao’s or say hello to the swamp! (Unity & Struggle, Vol.7, No.l, pg.lO)

If one reads RCL’s article in its entirety, one finds that “upholding the Three World Thesis” is equivalent–for the RCL–to upholding each and every view not only of the Chinese comrades but also of the RCL’s understanding of what the CPC’s line is. In a nutshell, they see themselves as the official voice of the CPC in the U.S.–whoever disagrees with RCL’s interpretation of the 3 World Thesis disagrees not only with RCL, but with Chairman Mao and are going ’straight to the swamp’. This, comrades, is not Marxism-Leninism Mao Tse-tung thought, but pure and simple political blackmail. This is the kind of ’wolf-ticket’ that RCL criticized the wing for many times. Compare this attitude with the Chinese comrades’ who in Peking Review #3 (January 20, 1976) published excerpts from an article on the Three World Thesis by the Norwegian Workers’ Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist) who, like LPR-ML, oppose the U.S. arming of NATO and call for Norway to quit NATO.


But LPR must show that It has repudiated the “left” phrasemongering of the Wing– who also “supports” the CPC,but pretends the Gang of Four purge has not happened– meanwhile picking up all the anti-Three World, and antl-CPC lines. Perhaps, If the comrades would actually STUDY the lines of the Communist Party of China, Three Worlds Theory and what the Gang of Four actually represented they would be be able to take a firm stance in support’ of the Three Worlds Theory and abandon centrlsm and “left ” errors. (Unity & Struggle, Vol. 7, No. 1, pg. 5)

These last words of RCL remind us of “thief crying thief!” But we’ll let our readers judge for themselves. There are enough issues of Resistance and Unity and Struggle to do so.