Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line

League of Struggle (M-L)

Position on Central Task–Party Building

First Published: Journal, No. 1, mid-February 1977.
Transcription, Editing and Markup: Paul Saba
Copyright: This work is in the Public Domain under the Creative Commons Common Deed. You can freely copy, distribute and display this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit the Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line as your source, include the url to this work, and note any of the transcribers, editors & proofreaders above.

The spontaneous struggle of the proletariat will not become genuine ’class struggle’ until this struggle is led by a strong organization of professional revolutionaries. Lenin

For the proletariat to succeed in its historic mission to establish socialism, the spontaneous workers’ movement and the conscious communist movement must be merged. Only an organized and independent proletarian party, acting in a disciplined way, can take the science of Marxism-Leninism to the masses and provide consistent leadership throughout the struggle.

By the mid-1950’s, the “C”PUSA had become a consolidated revisionist party. Many of the basic concepts of Marxism-Leninism, such as armed struggle and the dictatorship of the proletariat were abandoned. At that time, the central task of Marxist-Leninists in the USA became the building of a new communist party. Until that party is formed, failure to call for and work for its establishment is to belittle the role of the conscious element in making revolution and to abandon the masses to opportunist leadership and bourgeois ideology.

The party which we seek to build must be “a party of a new type ”, a Leninist party. It must be built in conformity with the principles laid out by Stalin in “Foundations of Leninism”. The party:
1. Is the advanced detachment of the working class,
2. Is the organized detachment of the working class,
3. Is the highest form of organization of the proletariat,
4. Is the instrument of the dictatorship of the proletariat,
5. Is the embodiment of unity of will, unity incompatible with the existence of factions,
6. Becomes strong by purging itself of opportunist elements.

We view party building as a process. The task of party building does not end with the founding congress. The party of the proletariat must continue to be built as long as classes continue to exist. Of course, party building does not remain the central task all the way to the end of class society.

Of the three organizational tools available to the people – the party, the united front, and the red army, the party must come first. The party is the highest form, the key, and provides the leadership for the united front and the army. The fact that party building is our central task does not preclude work on our other tasks. For example, we believe it is correct to engage in united front work at this time. However, it is the party which will provide direction for the united front and the red army, not the united front or red army which will direct the party.


The foundation of the current party building movement can be found in the two great spontaneous mass movements of the last decades, and in the struggles against the revisionists of the “C”PUSA.

The struggle for democratic rights and self-determination by oppressed nationalities and the anti-imperialist movement against US aggression in Indochina provided the main basis of the current party building movement. These two movements had far reaching effects. Most importantly, the struggles of the working class were moved forward. On the one hand, advanced workers who developed, particularly in the fight against national oppression, sparked new militancy in the working class struggle. On the other hand, many of the other advanced elements who developed came to recognize the pivotal role of the proletariat in making history and integrated themselves into the working class. In addition, new militancy was kindled in other oppressed groups, such as women, GI’s, prisoners, gay people, the aged, and welfare recipients. Students arose in struggles ranging from student rights to anti-imperialist strikes to addressing the needs of workers. All of these spontaneous movements brought advanced elements to the fore. These advanced elements were dedicated to the struggle against oppression and exploitation. They were honestly seeking to provide leadership to the struggle, but they lacked an understanding of scientific socialism. Even when these forces sought the guidance of Marxism-Leninism, the revisionists like the “C”PUSA served to hinder their ideological and political development.

The struggle by the anti-revisionists against the “C”PUSA, including the formation of the POC and the PLP is significant to the current movement in that it kept Marxist-Leninist ideology alive in this country. Although these attempts to rebuild the party have degenerated into counter-revolutionary sects, they did influence the development of the party building movement. While the anti-revisionist struggle did not provide the main foundation of the current party building movement, to ignore its role would be incorrect. The Cultural Revolution in China also played a big role in the introduction of advanced elements to Marxism-Leninism.[1] (We will return to our views on the development of the anti-revisionist communist movement in the US in a later section.)


The main tasks of the pre-party period are summed up in the two slogans:
Marxist-Leninists Unite!
Win the Advanced to Communism!

These tasks are linked together, and must be carried out simultaneously. That is to say neither one should be carried out to the exclusion or detriment of the other. “Marxist-Leninists Unite” guides our action in the communist movement.

Only a party where all Marxist-Leninists are united under the discipline of one center can hope to lead the masses through the twists and turns of revolutionary struggle. “Win the advanced to communism” guides our action in the workers movement. The party must represent the union of the conscious communist movement and the workers movement. This union can only come about through winning over the advanced workers.

While saying that these tasks must be carried out simultaneously, we also understand, through the application of dialectics, that one of them must be primary, one must play the decisive role in moving the struggle forward at a given time. At this time we see “Marxist-Leninists Unite” as key. Currently, it is not the lack of advanced workers won over to communism that is holding back the unity of Marxist-Leninists, but rather the lack of unity among the Marxist-Leninists that is holding back the winning over of the advanced. The extent that Marxist-Leninists are able to unite ideologically, politically, and organizationally, the work of fusing the workers and communist movements will be moved forward. Furthermore, our task is to build one unified general staff. To fail to stress attempts at reaching unity with other Marxist-Leninists is to lose sight of our central task of building the party and would lead us down the road of sectarianism.

To further clarify our position on these two slogans, we wish to make a few additional points:

First, by Marxist-Leninists we do not mean everyone who reads or even studies Marxism. Nor do we mean anyone who does “practical work”. A Marxist-Leninist is actively engaged in leading the class straggle, using revolutionary theory to guide revolutionary practice, and revolutionary practice to deepen and develop revolutionary theory. They must uphold the fundamental principles of Marxism-Leninism not only in words but in deeds as well.

Second, when we speak of the advanced, we mean those elements about which Lenin wrote in “Retrograde Trend”:

...the advanced workers that every working class movement brings to the fore, those who can win the confidence of the laboring masses, who devote themselves entirely to the education and organization of the proletariat, who accept socialism consciously, and who even elaborate independent socialist theories. Every viable working class movement has brought to the fore such working class leaders ...who...study, study, study and turn themselves into conscious Social-Democrats [communists–ed].

To use any other definition of advanced workers creates confusion and creates the danger of lowering the level of the party. This does not mean that we should work only with the advanced, but we must concentrate on the advanced, and to do this we must be clear and unified on our definition of who they are.

Third, in applying the slogan “Win the Advanced to Communism”, we do not mean that work should only be done with the advanced. Work must be done with other, less developed strata of the proletariat as well. M0st importantly, this work is done to help them develop into advanced elements. It is also done to provide them with guidance in their work, thru good communist leadership. To successfully achieve socialist revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat, many forces besides advanced workers will have to be won over to communist leadership. Our attempts to win the advanced to communism cannot be divorced from the activity of providing a planned conscious character to the class struggle.



The revolutionary struggle can be broken down into 3 general steps that the vanguard has to take: that of mobilizing and organizing itself into the party; then, the step of searching for the forms of transition to mobilizing the great masses under its leadership; and third – the seizing and holding of state power at the appropriate moment. We are clearly in the first step – and so we define our central task as building the proletarian party of a new type. Within this first step, there is a process – that is, in each country the struggle to build the party goes thru phases – we call them periods (as did Lenin). Let’s take a look at the periods the US communist movement has gone thru.

What has been the history of the anti-revisionist communist movement? What is the correct way to interpret the last 8 or 9 years of tortuous struggle, the many twists and turns, the sorting out of genuine and sham communists into definite trends based on ideological, political and organizational lines?

One aspect of strategic thinking of Communists on party building is the question of periods. It allows us to see what we have gone through and what is the next obstacle we must overcome in order to make the qualitative leap necessary to form the party.

Every phase of its development [the communist movement–LS] is characterized by a principal contradiction. Class struggle in society must be reflected in the communist movement, concretely manifested and concentrated in the two line struggle between Marxism-Leninism and different shades and forms of opportunism. Each phase, therefore, is characterized by a line struggle, with a dominant line whether correct or incorrect. Resolution of the principal contradiction that characterizes the movement as a whole, enables the Communist movement to ’liquidate the old period’ and surge forward. (WVO Journal #4, p. 93)

We feel this is the correct Marxist-Leninist stand, method, and viewpoint on the question of periods, which has been reaffirmed by the WVO comrades. In the past, we adhered to this methodology in words but opposed it in deeds and we will put forth a self-criticism of this incorrect line later on in this paper.

We recognize that the correct line can only, and has always, come about in the struggle against the many incorrect lines. The developments of the last 8 or 9 years in the Communist Movement in the US have followed this historical law too. That is why, when we examine the periods we have passed thru and the period we are in now, that we focus on what the struggle was against (generally more than any other aspect)...it indicates what was the character of and struggle in that period.

The FIRST PERIOD: The struggle against and defeat of eclectic theories, lasted from the mid-1960’s to 1972. There had been several unsuccessful attempts to reconstitute the party by splinter groups such as the Progressive Labor Party and the Provisional Organizing Committee, after the total revisionist betrayal of the “C”PUSA in the late 1950’s. This was a period when the spontaneous mass movements (as we said earlier–particularly the national and student movements) were surging forward in the absence of a genuine communist party to meet and lead them to the science of Marxism-Leninism-Mao TseTung Thought and to new offensive positions against the reactionary dual tactics of the bourgeoisie. This period was marked by the re-affirmation of some general standpoints of MLMTTT, the key link in opposition to the growth of many eclectic, petty-bourgeois theories of revolution such as Nkrumahism, Guevarism, Fanonism, “students” and “lumpen” as vanguard, Trotskyism, etc. As the POC and the PLP degenerated into Trotskyite sects, the Revolutionary Union played a leading role, particularly during the late 1960 ’s in introducing and reaffirming certain MLMTTT principles to the advanced workers and elements who were coming forward. (And it was in late 1971 and 1972 that a few of the now-members of LS(M-L) were introduced to Marxism in exactly this way – thru the RU.)

Some examples of these “reaffirmations” are: upholding the vanguard role of the working class; recognizing the leading role, throughout the world, of the Chinese and their Communist Party (the CPC); upholding the need for armed struggle in our revolution; and upholding the fact that socialism IS the dictatorship of the proletariat (and that all other “socialisms” are sham, phoney petty-bourgeois notions.)

THE SECOND PERIOD: The second period was characterized by the struggle against and the defeat of the pragmatist line of belittling the role of Marxist theory and the central task of party building. In this period, 1972-1975, the RU turned from a leading role into its opposite. This period was one in which the mass movement began to ebb and it was necessary to sum up the experience of struggle in the old period using the theory of MLMTTT to develop the theoretical and ideological training of the advanced. However, the RU became the main proponent of the pragmatic, right opportunist “practice-practice-practice” line which downplayed the importance of party building and the role of M-L theory. This incorrect line developed into the dominant leading line in the Communist movement until it was beaten back by a developing revolutionary theory trend which correctly raised party building as central and the leading role of theory. The leading organizations in this trend were the: Black Workers Congress, the PRRWO, the August Twenty-ninth Movement and WVO. And this trend developed, in the main, in 1974 (in fundamental opposition to the RU, as well as the OL, the “C”L, and the Guardian and others. This trend also upheld the importance of Bolshevik criticism/self-criticism and the waging of open polemics.

It was in late 1974 that LS(M-L) formed/ upholding this same things, and again, in opposition to both the RU and the local adherents of the pragmatist line(in the GI movement, and among those forces who were engaging in mass-newspaper work and trade union & factory work – some of the latter of whom went on to form the opportunist SDOC, while others degenerated and disappeared, and still others are still pushing their pragmatism and anti-theory line.)

THE THIRD PERIOD: This period began in 1975 as the mass movements began to swell. Political line became the key link, i.e. those questions most clearly related to the state and the seizure of state power by the U.S. proletariat and its party, the concentrated expression of which would be the party’s political program. In other words, “Political Line is the Key Link” refers only (or mainly) to those questions which will make or break our revolution: questions like – line on Central Task (party building); on the International Situation; on the National Situation (strategy and tactics; direction of main blow, friends and enemies (strengths and weaknesses of the US bourgeoisie...);on the National Question (especially the Black National Question, Puerto Rican National Question and the Chicano National Question); on the Trade Union Question (main blow; tactical alliances with misleaders ...); on the question of the Dual Tactics of the Bourgeoisie OR the question of reforms and revolution (ERA, Boston Busing, danger of fascism and the fascisization process...); on the Woman Question (what is its character, the double yoke...); and possibly on the United Front Against Imperialism question (strategy or tactic?; how it is to be built, who is included within it. ..).

Even as the struggle against RU’s pragmatism continued, differences which had been secondary at the time, developed into sharper and sharper struggles within the revolutionary theory trend...differences over questions of political line. Certainly, an objective look at the anti-revisionist communist movement during the years 1975 and 1976 show that the principle contradiction within or among those forces was struggle around political line questions (for example, the struggle against OL’s line of calling in the national guard to protect the blacks in Boston).

While we see that there has not been, in the main, any full-fledged discussion of some proposed draft party program(s) (because no group has put one forward) we do recognize that the struggles around the burning questions represented struggle around programmatic elements.

We want to address and deepen, here, the question of what road, during the third period, is/was the correct one toward the organizational unity of Marxist-Leninists. We used to hold (as does ATM, to this day) that the key link to organizational unity was “political line unity as tested in practice”. We repudiate this line. This line is wrong for a number of reasons; we will lay out two of the main ones. First, it is not the case that we can “test in practice” to find out “for sure” whether some of our most important lines are correct or not. Take for example – our line that our revolution will be an armed revolution–we won’t know, “for sure”...we won’t be able to “test this in practice” until we are in the days of the seizure of state power...and even then we won’t know “for sure” until we have successfully (or unsuccessfully?) seized state power. To condemn the formation of the party to wait until this or any of the other major burning questions have been “fully tested in practice” is to condemn the formation of the party to AFTER the revolution has happened-there can be no other way of understanding this “tested in practice” line.

Secondly, we don’t have to do joint/common work with some other organization to know whether their line or our line is correct. Opportunists can not write Marxism; it is impossible for they don’t have the stand, method or viewpoint! At best, they can only mimic Marxism or reprint it (as some groups in our movement do).If we really have studied Marxism and have some grasp of it, If we really have studied the concrete situation in the U.S. and the world, and If we really have done some social practice in attempting to lead the class struggle, THEN we can tell whether or not the line of an organization is correct without seeing one iota of their practice! ATM and others got fooled by the lines of the RU, CL, OL, etc. again and again; but not because those opportunist organizations had correct lines. No! But because ATM and others did not have a good enough grasp of Marxism to see those lines for what they were – opportunism! ATM has summed this up by saying that “we don ’t want to get fooled again” so we will check out a groups ’ practice before uniting with them. But this is backward. This is why the ATM can say that the formation of the party is still a protracted period away from now. Using their methodology it would be long away indeed! LS(M-L), while never agreeing fully with the way in which ATM used those formulations and what it meant by them, we too used those formulations - and thus were incorrect. We want to lay out here what we believe to be the correct and only correct way for Marxist-Leninists to proceed from lower levels of political unity to eventual merger (or at least going to the same party congress).

We believe that communists must unite on the basis of unity of political line. That is, the higher the level of political line unity, the closer the groups are to organizational unity (merger or attending same party congress).That the steps that groups and individuals must take to build the party is to check out the lines of the larger communist groupings in the country. To narrow down the list of “good” groups to 3 or less and to focus on the study of the lines of those groups. That struggle should first go on around the lines on the major questions. That once line–unity is reached on the major questions then the focus of discussion shifts toward secondary line questions, and joint summations and discussions of practice. There is no reason to discuss summations of your practice with a group with which you have fundamental dis-unity; thus first line questions must be struggled over and united upon. Then, these unities get deepened thru discussions and struggles over the practice/ implementation of those lines. In other words, once line-unity on the major questions is established you are most of the way “there” most of the way toward organization unity(merger or same party congress).

ATM and others oppose the two ideas: “correctness or incorrectness of the ideological and political line decides everything” and “practice is the sole criterion of truth”. But these aren’t opposed. In the final analysis, or ultimately practice will show whether our lines are correct. True enough; but that doesn’t mean we have to wait until this happens to firmly believe that our lines are correct and to act on them. Chou-en-lai tells us that if our line is correct and we have no troops, we will get troops. ATM’s deviation is of the right opportunist type-holding back unity for who knows how long because, we guess, they want “guaranteed unity” and guarantees that they won’t get fooled again and that no opportunists will get into their party. But we know that opportunists will get into every party (and checking out peoples’ practice won’t prevent It either). The “left” error, which we must also guard against, would be to unite on the basis of superficial line unity (line only in its most general aspects) without paying attention to either tactical line or practice/implementation. That is way we say that line-unity is “most of the way there” and NOT “all the way there”. We are lucky in this country(where bourgeois democracy temporarily allows it) to be able to do pretty extensive checks on the practice of groups and individuals all across the country...and we will certainly make use of this opportunity to weed out more of those who would parrot the correct line so as to try and sneak into our party.

THE FOURTH PERIOD: After the period of “Political Line is Key” is over; when the main programmatic elements have been struggled out and established, and the majority of the genuine Marxist-Leninists have been united around that line; then organization will become key. By this we mean, that the coming together of organizations and individuals into one organization or at least to the same party congress AND the deepening of the struggle for improving the work of the organizational sphere (d-c, unleashing the initiative of the rank-n-file cadre, etc.) will be key. LS(M-L) does not at the time of this writing have a position on whether we have entered this fourth period and if not – when we will enter it. But we are paying much attention to coming up with the answer to this question in the near future.


Our organization’s grasp of this correct stand, method and viewpoint on the question of periods is very important at this time. We must be extremely self-critical for upholding a rigid and dogmatic view, using an idealist methodology on this question. Our former view of periods was that each phase, each two-line struggle proceeded within a very rigid and predetermined framework: “ideological”, “political” and “organizational” periods. Lagging behind the objective conditions, we objectively stated our actions from a priori positions and concepts rather than from the stand, method and viewpoint of MLMTTT, in order to change it. We committed a priorist and rationalist errors as a result. The rigid “3-period” formulation denies the fact that MLMTTT could not and has not been fully retrieved in one all encompassing period in which “ideology is the key link”. In each successive period of the Communist Movement, Marxist-Leninist ideology is reaffirmed in different spheres (i.e., political, organizational military, cultural etc.) as they are won away from the bourgeoisie by the proletariat and its party. Also in our haste to abandon the dialectical materialist method on this question, we negated the entire second period struggle against RU’s pragmatic, right opportunist line, and we missed the essence of the struggle to develop the revolutionary theory trend. We had lumped the first two periods into one period and liquidated the fact that RU played two entirely different roles in those two different sets of years – and that in both it played very-important roles – ones that history will not forget even if we forget them.

Let’s look at “a priorism”. “A priorism is an idealist theory 0f knowledge. The materialist theory of reflection holds that ideas are the reflection of objective reality, that all true knowledge originates from experience. So there is no knowledge prior to experience. Yet a priorism holds that the rational includes some “gifted concept”, “self-understood reason”, “born principles” or logical categories, that it does not arise from experience but is innate in the mind, and that starting from these principles or categories, one can get real knowledge through logical deduction. A priorists do not admit the dependence of conceptual knowledge upon perceptual knowledge, but think that the former is independent; they oppose proceeding from the practical experience, but stand for proceeding from the rational. They do not proceed from facts to concepts but vice versa. ”(“Study Philosophy.” p.3)

LS(M-L) has made this error a number of times. In each case we ended up arguing our positions on the basis that “they sound logical”, rather than “Marxism and our own US history teach us this”. The basis for these errors stems from some petty-bourgeois student social basis in our organization. Why did LS make these errors? What, besides our incorrect way of viewing knowledge, caused us to make these errors? We want to point out that what was key in this error was our own lack of theoretical development. This led to pragmatism – searching out for a quick simple answer. This was provided by ATM; and thus we ended up tailing ATM and its line. In our area, the struggle against the Workers ’ Congress/SDOC line of organization is key, was particularly important and the need to combat and defeat it helped lead to our pragmatism. The recognizing of these errors, also has an external condition#8221; in this case, the comradely criticisms and open polemics of the WVO.


The question of building the Party on the ideological plane is a question of the character of the Party, a question of what kind of Party we are building. As WVO points out, we have to ask the “fundamental question, why has there not been a proletarian revolution in any advanced capitalist country, and the relation of this question to party building.” Workers Viewpoint Journal #4, p.52) Communist Parties throughout advanced capitalist countries have degenerated into consolidated revisionist parties in the last 15 to 50 years... .This degeneration signified a major betrayal and setback for world revolution.. .As the genuine Marxist-Leninists forces moved forward in the U.S., it is imperative that we grapple with this degeneration of communist parties in advanced capitalist countries....Not only has the “Communist” Party USA degenerated into a revisionist Party but the movement to once again establish a revolutionary Communist Party of the U.S. proletariat has seen three attempts that have ended in failure (and is about to see a fourth). Why is this?...Comrade Hill ...writes ’In countries such as Australia, conditions of bourgeois democracy prevail... .to bemuse and deceive people that they have democracy...In such conditions, the problems of building a Marxist-Leninist revolutionary Party have their own peculiarities. It cannot be said that the problems had been adequately solved anywhere. There were no guide posts. Moreover, the main leaders of communist parties, in almost all so-called bourgeois democracies, had succumbed to revisionism. The question of party building has not been put sufficiently on the ideological plane. Therefore, the Marxists in Australia were compelled to face the question in a new way, what sort of Party, how to build the Party, how to put party building on the ideological plane. (Australia’s Revolution, p. 118-119)

These are significant questions for all genuine Marxist-Leninists to pose, and to strive to grasp correctly. In doing so, we must seek out the most advanced thought in the international communist movement on the question of building the Party on the ideological plane. We view this question as one of the lines of demarcation between genuine revolutionaries who are building a revolutionary proletarian Party, from sham Marxist-Leninists who are failing to break with the dominance of bourgeois ideology.”


Through our study of MLMTTT, and particularly our study of the documents from the 10th Party Congress of the Communist Party of China, we have come to understand five aspects of the struggle to build the Party on the ideological plane:
1. ’Study Marxism, criticize revisionism’.
2. Work for the interests of the vast majority of the masses, and of the proletariat of the U.S. and the world.
3. The ’style of integrating theory with practice.’
4. Practicing Bolshevik criticism and self-criticism.
5. ’The Party becomes strong by purging itself of opportunist elements.’ (Stalin)

(This whole section, up til now, is taken from the Pamphlet: RWL: Building the Party on Bourgeois Ideology by the CWC(M-L). We quoted it in such length because we could not have said it better; and because we feel it can not be overstressed. We continue to quote them from section “C”)


... Finally, another point we need to emphasize here, is that the bourgeois ideological superstructure takes on particular forms in particular societies for numerous objective reasons(like the uneven development of capitalism, particular historical differences, and numerous other national particularities)so while bourgeois ideology in its general aspect dominates capitalist societies, we must grasp it in its particular manifestation... .Lenin writes: ... “Investigate, study, seek, divine, grasp that which is peculiarly national, specifically national in the concrete manner in which each country approaches the fulfillment of the single international task, in which it approaches victory over opportunism and ’left’ doctrinairism within the working class movement...’(“Left-Wing Communism”, V., pp. 95-6, FLP)
We have struggled against and summed up five major ideological deviations in the U.S. Communist movement. They are down-grading of theory, pragmatism, bourgeois democratic illusions, centrism, and chauvinism. We think that these deviations in our communist movement reflect some important if not the most important, features of the U.S.’s ideological superstructure. They are the bourgeois trends of thought that run especially deep in the U.S., throwing off course and corrupting both the communist and the mass movements. These dangerous currents are major ideological sources of degeneration on the U.S. (W.V, #4, p.68)

League of Struggle quotes all of this because the problem cannot be over-stressed. Comrade Hill, Comrade Lenin, the Chinese Comrades, the WVO and the CWC are all right. If we don’t actively struggle against these nationally specific ideological pit-falls, then we assuredly succumb to them. For we are no better than the thousands of those who formed or joined the various communist groups before us which ended in failure.

They too were dedicated communists; they too strove to build genuine parties; and we too will end up being revisionists if we don’t learn from their biggest mistake-failing to build their party on the proletarian ideological plane and especially that aspect of it which is “Studying Marxism and Criticizing Revisionism” including identifying and continuously criticizing the nationally specific ideological pitfalls! Let us end this section by emphasizing that because we consider this a fundamental and strategic concept, we must also therefore consider WVO ’s contribution to the U.S. communist movement (on this question) as being a tremendous one! What other organization has grasped this? We know of none within the U.S. And what has become of or is becoming of those organizations that have not dealt with/taken up this stand? They have, one after the other, degenerated. The latest case, the comrades from ATM, we believe are going down exactly this road. (We will lay out more of our views on ATM in a separate polemic).


The struggle to build the party is a struggle between Marxism-Leninism on the one hand and opportunism (both left and right on the other hand).

Right opportunism results from the downplaying of theory, and the belittling of the role of the conscious element in revolutionary struggle. Right opportunists and revisionists keep the masses at a low ideological and political level, which allows them to more easily mislead the masses. By doing this, the right opportunists and revisionists leave them unarmed in the face of imperialism, and thus wide open to attack and defeat. The imperialists are ready and billing to use this to their advantage.

Internationally, right opportunism, in the form of revisionism, is the main danger in the communist movement. The revisionists of the USSR lead the struggle to turn the people away from Marxism-Leninism. The “Communist” Party of the Soviet Union has abandoned Marxism-Leninism. They no longer uphold the dictatorship of the proletariat, armed struggle, or the necessity of a party of the proletariat, and claim that the state is no longer an organ of class rule. They have reinstituted capitalism in the USSR and it has taken its place in the world arena as an aggressive imperialist superpower. The Soviet revisionists have attacked the Party of Labor of Albania and the Communist Party of China, and have intervened in the internal affairs of countries and parties all over the globe. They have done all this while trying to masquerade as a “socialist” government. The influence of this abandonment of Marxism-Leninism fuels right deviationist attempts in Marxist-Leninist parties and movements, and national liberation movements throughout the world.

Within the advanced capitalist countries in general, and in the U.S. in particular, the strength of right opportunism and revisionism is tied to the super-profits of imperialism. These super-profits are used to subvert the struggle by buying off the upper strata of the proletariat and by making possible reforms which blunt the revolutionary struggle. Right opportunism is further strengthened in this country by the long history of right opportunism of the “C”PUSA, even before it became consolidated as a revisionist party. The international influence of revisionism, the super-profits of imperialism, and the influence of the “C”PUSA combine to make right opportunism the main danger in the United States as well.

“Left” opportunism results from the belittling of the objective factor in making revolution. While remembering that right opportunism is the main danger, we must also be vigilant against left errors, especially sectarianism and dogmatism.

The essence of any opportunism and revisionism is the idea of class collaboration, rejection of class struggle. Only a party built in the heat of class struggle, a party strengthened by the defeat of incorrect lines and the purging of dishonest forces from its ranks, can lead the proletariat to victory.


We must move forward with the task of building our party, by putting into action the slogans ”Marxist-Leninists Unite” and “Win the Advanced to communism.” To this end we will strive to:
1. Work to build-unity with honest Marxist-Leninist forces through discussion, line struggle and sum ups of our work; and merge our small circle into the greater whole, the party, which is coming into being.
2. Work to merge the communist and workers movements by taking the science to the class. In this period our main task to this end is finding and winning over the advanced workers. We must also give conscious leadership to the day-to-day struggles, use legal work to serve illegal, and correctly use agitation and propaganda.
3. Continue to develop our own understanding of Marxism-Leninism through study and through summing up the practical work which results from applying our theory. We must study Marxism and criticize Revisionism and build the party on the ideological plane.
4. Continue polemicizing against incorrect and opportunist lines and organizations.



[1] This last point was pointed out to us by Workers’ Viewpoint Organization. We note this, because we feel it is important to “give credit where credit is due” so to speak. Generally, much of our original understandings here came from ATM; much of it has been deepened, or often times completely changed (and noted thusly) thru our discussions and struggle with the WVO (primarily) and LPR(secondarily).

[2] We have deleted this paragraph “Fourth,...” because its formulation was very similar to the line of ”unity of Marxist-Leninists can be achieved only on the basis of line tested in practice”; which we now see as a line that says that before you can unite you must have joint/common practice and which practice must be summed up and agreed upon by both groups; or similar ideas/lines that emphasize checking out the other groups ’ practice over that of struggling for line unity. After discussions with WVO and further study, we have ceased to use these formulations. We will deepen this, putting forth our new understanding in the section on “Political Line”.