Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line

Opportunist press reviewed

RCP’s Paper Reveals Rapid Rightward Drift

First Published: The Call, Vol. 6, No. 13, April 11, 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.

A review of the April issue of Revolution, the newspaper of the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP), reveals their steady drift to the right. The positions of the RCP on the burning questions of the day continue to place them in a position alien to Marxism-Leninism and in contradiction to the growing revolutionary trend in the U.S. and the world.

Perhaps the most conspicuous aspect of the RCP’s press is what is missing. The April Revolution maintains RCP’s silent opposition to the People’s Republic of China and its Communist Party. The newspaper continues its policy of indirect support for the “gang of four” by once again failing to carry any news or statements in support of the Communist Party of China and its leadership.

This cowardly anti-China stand is connected to RCP’s overall view of the international situation, a view which is increasingly leading them into the arms of the revisionists and the Guardian centrists. The April Revolution contains numerous articles on the international situation which reveal their collusion with imperialism and social-imperialism.

One of the most notable is the article on Uganda entitled, “Amin Used to Hit African Liberation.” Echoing the barrage of racist, imperialist propaganda in recent weeks, the RCP portrays Ugandan President Amin as the main force of reaction in Africa. They join in with the U.S. ruling class in claiming that Amin’s actions “make the U.S.-backed racist regimes of Zimbabwe (Rhodesia) and Azania (South Africa) look ’reasonable’ by comparison...”


While pointing out that Jimmy Carter’s attacks on Amin “create public opinion for military action against Uganda,” the RCP’s own attacks on Amin coincide precisely with the stepping up of superpower contention on the African continent. Not one word was said in any issues of Revolution opposing the threatened invasion by the U.S. imperialists.

Revolution plays the Soviet social-imperialists’ game as well. Like the Soviet revisionists, RCP tries to divide the countries and liberation movements of the third world and play them off against each other, citing one as “revolutionary” or “genuine” and another as reactionary.” Says RCP: “Amin has little in common with the genuine nationalist forces and governments in Africa, such as neighboring Tanzania, which has tried to build up its independent, economy. . .”


But despite differences, Tanzania and Uganda are both part of the OAU and both took part in the recent Afro-Arab Summit conference which strengthened the unity of the third world forces against imperialism and hegemonism.

RCP would rather dwell on the differences and internal contradictions within the third world than voice support for third world unity in the common struggle against the two superpowers. As a result, they violate the responsibilities of revolutionaries within one of the superpowers. They resort to demagogic slanders of OL for “class collaboration” because of our consistent opposition to social-imperialism as well as U.S. imperialism. But the stand of RCP on Uganda shows in practice who is supporting imperialist aggression against the third world.

The attacks against third world unity in the April Revolution are closely connected with RCP’s view of the two superpowers. Like the centrist Guardian, the RCP covers up the fact that Soviet social imperialism is the more dangerous of the two superpowers as well as the main source .of a new world war. By ignoring Soviet presence in Angola and expansion into Zaire and other countries, the RCP continues to show its affinity with the Guardian centrists.

Also noticeable in the April Revolution is an apparent flip-flop on the question of busing for school integration. RCP, which for years has stood in the forefront of chauvinist attacks on school integration, now has a new slogan: “Decent, Equal and Integrated Schools.” This change from the ROAR-sounding slogan, “Smash the Boston Busing Plan,” (Revolution, October 1974) has apparently come about because of RCP’s growing isolation from the Black liberation movement and because of sharpening struggle within their ranks.

The April Revolution published a letter criticizing RCP’s white chauvinist anti-busing line. The letter is obviously contrived by the RCP (the writer begins by saying, “I work at a factory,” but signs the letter “A few friends in the East Bay.”)


In reply to the letter, RCP puts forward its new liberal stand on busing. But this stand is fundamentally the same as their old chauvinist one. Instead of blatant racist attacks on school integration, they now call for an “examination” of each plan to see if it is real or not. But while it is important to expose fraudulent busing schemes as The Call has done around “one-way” busing in Milwaukee and rural Alabama, this “examination” is the totality of RCP’s program for integration. The slogan “examine each plan” is hardly a rallying point for the fight against school segregation. Despite some superficial changes, RCP and Revolution remain a bulwark of social-chauvinism.

Another point that stands out in the RCP’s opportunist press is their blackout of any news about International Women’s Day. This year the RCP scheduled an unemployment demonstration on the same day as International Women’s Day. RCP’s liquidation of the woman question is prominent in this issue, which does not include even one article addressing itself to the woman question.


Finally, the RCP tries to take another pot-shot at “OL’s refusal to hold public debates” with them. But despite their infantile use of profanity and provocations, the RCP cannot explain why they censored what they refer to as “the internal situation in China” from the agenda. They are also at a loss to answer the charges of provocative behavior they brought on themselves at their last forum in New York, which they held jointly with Trotskyites and reactionaries of various stripes.

At that meeting and elsewhere, they have demonstrated to all that they are not interested in clarifying the Marxist-Leninist line through debate. Rather they are using the forums to heap abuse on Stalin, Mao Tsetung and the present Chinese leadership (whom they referred to as “chimpanzees”). The OL of course cannot take part in such a program.

In summary, Revolution is an opportunist rag which promotes anti-China slanders, apologies for the two superpowers, propaganda against the third world, white chauvinism and all-round opportunism here at home. The April issue is one more step into the right-opportunist swamp into which RCP has been sinking for many years.