First Published: Resistence, Vol. 8, No. 9, October 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.
Some honest forces in the Anti-revisionist Communist Movement (ARCM) have also attacked the line of urging the West to unite against Soviet social imperialism and its fascist upsurge, and in doing this (in their publication) they take the same line about both superpowers being the same. Yet they have given lip service about supporting the CPC and coming out with a line against the “Gang of Four”, when they could not have possibly, so quickly, done any real study on the question. In attacking the CPC’s line on NATO, they also give lip service “loyalty” to the CPC but give less “loyalty” to dialectical materialism which is at the base of any Marxist-Leninist’s actions. THE 3 WORLDS THESIS, by RCL(MLM),P. 8-9
For more than a year we have openly criticized the Revolutionary Communist League (M-L-M) for their petty-bourgeois vacillations in regards to the struggle in the Communist Party of China against the gang of four. In our newspaper (Resistance), in various leaflets, in our reprint of E.F. Hill’s speech on the gang of four, as well as at different forums, we have raised the criticism and taken it to line. RCL’s answer to our criticisms were evasions like “Enver Hoxha did not mention the gang in his telegram to Chairman Hua” or “we are checking out the lines.” We held then, and repeat now, that this is above all a class stand.
A year after the struggle, RCL says now that they support the CPC, and labels everybody as followers of the gang. If they were checking out the lines, why is it that there’s no analysis of their position? How is it that there is no self-criticism and repudiation of their old position? What happened with Enver Hoxha’s telegram? The least we were expecting of the comrades was that they acknowledge their error. But instead they opt for this unprincipled attack.
Worst yet, is the attack around the NATO question. We have polemized and will continue to do so, against forces like the October League-CP and RCL-MLM which are calling for the military strengthening of U.S. imperialism and its NATO allies. This is a social-chauvinist line, a policy of class collaboration and as such we will continue to struggle against it. What RCL must prove is that we are incorrect and that U.S. Marxist-Leninists should go to Washington to lobby for the building of the B-l Bomber and the Neutron Bomb to be sent to the NATO forces (Although only the October League has said this openly, RCL’s line objectively leads to the same conclusion). But instead RCL resorts to covering themselves behind the CPC and claiming that it is with the CPC, and not with OL RCL, that we are polemizing. This won’t do, RCL comrades. Our relations with the CPC and with any other genuine Marxist-Leninist party or organization are based on Marxism-Leninism Mao Tse-tung Thought, on historical and dialectical materialism and on proletarian internationalism. It is not our task, and the Chinese comrades – especially great Chairman Mao and Chairman Hua – understand this clearly, to parrot the Chinese line, or what we believe is that line, in this country. It is our task to point the arrow of Marxism-Leninism to the U.S. proletarian revolution. But RCL is clearly substituting the necessary study of the science and of the concrete conditions, the long and arduous theoretical work, for a collection of quotes which they put together to form their position – and their position in the pamphlet on the international situation shows it.
Neither OL nor RCL are the U.S. representatives of the CPC. The CPC can speak for itself, as we and all other genuine Marxist-Leninists do. That there are differences on some questions is true, and we are the first ones to acknowledge these in a Marxist-Leninist way. That is, by putting our views on the different questions out in the open so that other Marxist-Leninists and advanced forces can judge them. But apparently for RCL it is a crime equivalent to revisionism to have any differences with the CPC, regardless of whether they are strategical or tactical. May we get a clear answer from RCL on just one simple question?
If your view is that the tasks of the U.S. Marxist-Leninists is to repeat everything that the Chinese say, why don’t you join the October League-CP whom the Chinese comrades have recognized as the party of the U.S. proletariat and with whom they have fraternal relations? For us, the road is clear, far from joining the OL-CP, we have continued to struggle against the OL-CP’s social-chauvinism. We know that the U.S. proletarian revolution will be waged by the U.S. proletariat and its allies, led by a genuine communist party which is yet to be built.
For an organization that puts forward that “ideological struggle over political line is they key link to party building”, this is really a very poor show.
Cheap shots, RCL comrades, are not ideological struggle!