Dear Comrades,
We have been unable to meet your deadline of March 5 due to various problems. You will be receiving in the next several days a counter-proposal for the conference on party-building jointly written by Demarcation and the U.S. Leninist Core. We ask that even if you send out (or have already sent out) the summaries of the responses, you take this into account. You will also receive by the end of next week the first issue of Demarcation, which will also address some of these questions. We apologize for the delay in both the response on the conference and the journal, but difficulties with the capitalist printers we were forced to go to led to the delay.
Comradely,
DEMARCATION
* * *
(The only things omitted from this letter are security matters–Ed.)
Dear Comrades,
We have felt for some time now, beginning with Red Dawn no. 1, and particularly as we have struggled with you in the collective effort to put out the joint statement by some U.S. M-L’s on the international situation, that we have much in common with you, ideologically and politically. In fact, many times when we have been reading your commentary against MLOC or around our joint statement, you express views that we had thought about or discussed internally a few days, weeks, or months earlier. Sometimes you express views that advance our knowledge of a subject and help us move forward. Of course, we do not have unity on everything (or is this ever possible or necessary), with the vast majority of these instances in areas we do not yet have a line on. Still, unity seems to us to be clearly the main aspect and we want to advance this through principled struggle. Comrades, your appearance on the scene in an active way has been truly refreshing and invigorating to us, and in the coming weeks and months ahead we .want to concentrate on further developing principled unity with you. Our view is that we should concentrate on developing relations and unities with M-L’s that we are closer to (ideologically and politically) and in this way further the emergence of a genuine M-L trend, and the development of an M-L center which we believe is the key link at this time. Of course, this does, not mean negating struggle with other comrades who hold divergent views as proven by the struggle with MLC. More on this subject later in this letter. By way of opening this letter, we wanted to express some thing that have been on our mind for some time now.
This letter and the enclosed materials represent the line of the WCC alone. For the last nine months we have worked very closely with the comrades of the KCRWC and tried to operate collectively in terms of producing pamphlets (e.g. “Let’s Move ...”), polemics (e.g. joint response to MLC), and in relations with other comrades. This has been a positive and negative experience which we will be summing up in the future. At present, primarily because the KCRWC has not implemented the general line in “Let’s Move Party Building Forward,” particularly the work necessary to advance building the center, we believe it would be small-circle spirit to remain tied to KCRWC. We will continue to struggle with the comrades of the KCRWC.
We are enclosing WCC’s drafts of responses to MLOC’s joint statement call and your call for a joint statement. Neither of these were sent because unity could not be reached with KCRWC in order to issue collective statements with them. You already have the two statements that were issued collectively. WCC’s MLOC draft has some analysis of MLOC’s opportunism historically and currently, while the draft to you poses some questions and states some views not expressed in the earlier response. Our draft response to your call, while it had a few formulation problems and shortcomings (corrections have been noted in the text), is vastly different than the letter KCRWC sent to you. In fact, most of the criticism we have of our collective (KCRWC-WCC) actions around the joint statement on the international situation rests with KCRWC – i.e. failure to criticize MLOC’s line on the international situation and the negative-abbreviated letter to you. We will go into this more in our sum up of relations with the KCRWC. We also have enclosed copies of two leaflets we did in April-June of 1978. This practical work in the working class movement will be summed up in the future as part of our rectification campaign. These materials should give you a better (but obviously incomplete) idea of our line and work. You should write to KCRWC for leaflets sum ups they’ve done of their practical work in the working class, and other material they may want to send you.
Next, we would like to discuss our general party building line, particularly the principal contradiction in the movement today and the key link to resolve that contradiction, all our other party building tasks, and our secondary task of winning the broad masses to the side of our developing party. Here we are not going to repeat all that was said in “Let’s Move Party Building Forward,” but mainly further develop some of our ideas around the key link building a genuine M-L center. Some of the shortcomings of “Let’s Move” (e.g. the necessity to concretely [historically] understand the split in the U.S. working-class movement as a crucial theoretical and practical question) will be dealt with when we respond to criticisms other comrades have given us.
We hold that the principal contradiction in the movement is the contradiction of M-L centralized leadership, with absence the main aspect. Concerning the CPC’s cut off of aid to Albania, the MLOC was interested in pushing their opportunist “party” and “leadership” and impressing international M-L parties. However, you comrades stepped in and played an excellent M-L leadership role. We can find other instances (particularities) where developing M-L centralized leadership played the decisive role, but in order to move party building forward in a big way we need an M-L center to provide ideological, political, and organizational leadership. In general, this mainly involves developing centralized leadership to resolve the pressing theoretical tasks (directly or through a division of labor), but also includes practical leadership and work as well. We have had this basic line plus some steps to move this forward (i.e. a multi-lateral meeting and national joint theoretical work [NJTW] for over six months. The main reason we have not further developed this line, in theory and in practice, is that the KCRWC resisted (and continues to resist) implementing this line and we have devoted so much time to struggling with them around definite organizational, ideological and political problems. We refuse to separate theory and practice and, of course, negate M-L leadership.
Many comrades, including yourselves, have raised the question about a plan to build the center, a plan to build the party. Obviously, the party can not be built spontaneously (without a conscious plan), but on the other hand, at the current level of development of the subjective factor, we do not think a blueprint type plan can be scientifically constructed to take us to the First Congress. Lenin, in What Is To Be Done? (WITBD?), states: “Our chief sin with regard to organization is that by our amateurishness we have lowered the prestige of revolutionaries in Russia. A person who is flabby and shaky in questions of theory, who has a narrow outlook, who pleads the spontaneity of the masses as an excuse for his own sluggishness, who resembles a trade union secretary more than a people’s tribune, who is unable to conceive of a broad and bold plan that would command the respect even of opponents, and who is inexperienced and clumsy in his own professional art – the art of combating the political police – why, such a man is not a revolutionary but a wretched amateur! Let no active worker take offense at these frank remarks, for as far as insufficient training is concerned, I apply them first and foremost to myself.” (FLP Peking ed., p. 155-156)
Over six years before Lenin talked about a “bold plan” (and WITBD? fought for a bold plan that proved to be correct for the conditions in Russia at that time), in What Are The “Friends of the People”... Lenin developed a general political economy of Russia and class analysis of the peasantry and working class. A comparable work does not exist in our current movement, in particular to answer the question of the split in the U.S. working-class movement and the various stratums and sectors of the petty bourgeoisie. In the conclusion to WITBD?, Lenin lays out the periods their movement went through and its general characteristics. No such scientific analysis of our movement exists, to our knowledge, or if it does, it is a well-kept secret. Obviously, if we do not scientifically understand our past, we do not really understand where we are at today, and can not map out a future course. These deficiencies in understanding the subjective factor also exist for the objective factor, as mentioned above, in “Let’s Move ...” and in Red Dawn no. 1. But while we cannot draw a scientific blueprint or map, we can develop some aspects of a plan to build the center, perhaps even a general outline with some particularities.
In “Let’s Move…” we were cautious in developing some aspects of a plan to build the center, in part because we didn’t want to go beyond our knowledge at the time, in part to combat the pragmatic party building “plans” (schemes is a better word) of MLC, etc. and show the crucial need for revolutionary theory, and in part because we (WCC) wanted to put out a collective party building line and show comrades it is possible for the small collectives to unite on a principled basis. On our own, we would have developed more aspects of a plan to build the center. In fact, in December, 1977, we had advanced to KCRWC many aspects of a plan to build the center. There is no doubt that since “Let’s Move ...” was distributed (the end of July) work should have been done to advance what was put forward; but as we said earlier, the KCRWC resisted efforts to do this, and now they apparently disagree with the necessity of the theoretical work proposed in “Let’s Move . ..” and think the center will be built by leading all the spontaneous struggles. This seems to us to be the old RU song of building the party out of, and by bowing to, the spontaneous movements. We don’t negate practical work in the working class movement (or communist movement), especially to win advanced workers, but the theoretical work confronting us is so extensive we can only echo Lenin’s words: “Without a revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement. This thought cannot be insisted upon too strongly ...” (WITBD?, FLP Peking ed., p. 28) This is particularly true at a time when the U.S. working class movement is awakening from a deep sleep and many comrades who tend towards the Right anyway will be under increasing pressure to prostrate themselves before the spontaneous movements.
At this point, we would like to lay out to you some ideas we have to advance building a genuine M-L center. It is our analysis that no small circle in our party building movement is on the verge of becoming a genuine M-L center by itself. Some circles are crippled mainly by ideological problems, while other circles are handicapped primarily by their small size. But, if some of these circles (who share essentially similar views on the international situation and party building, especially the need to build a genuine M-L center and agree on some of the tasks necessary to carry this out, and TRULY recognize the need for revolutionary theory to build up and guide a revolutionary movement) can unite (physically too), we think it would be possible for these comrades to play a leadership role at this point in the development of our party. They could lead the completion of the theoretical tasks at hand (in “Let’s Move ...” this is called the national joint study or NJTW) by carrying out the investigation and analysis directly (this would probably be the main aspect) and by organizing other comrades to do it (a division of labor among some circles). These comrades could also coordinate the development of a theoretical journal (dealing with theoretical and practical questions) along the lines you suggested in your letter of December 21, 1978. If this is successful, we think it is entirely possible that, as you say, “Out of this process of struggle a leading center and the embryo of a correct line and Leninist trend would emerge.”
If several of the circles who are already close on the international situation and party building (especially building the center) could develop basic principles of unity and could agree to: work together on a journal? take up organizing the completion of the vital theoretical tasks (the NJTW); try to advance our party building movement practically; we do not see what would prevent these circles or members of circles from locating themselves in one city. For some of the very small circles, all members could relocate. For larger ones, some members, could be sent. The main need is for at least (x) comrades to be in one city. Of course, there is ongoing local work, but we think several circles locating themselves in one city would result in consistently better, and even more practical work in the working-class movement. Needless to say, being in the same city would greatly facilitate ideological struggle and the carrying out of the tremendous theoretical tasks confronting us. Speaking about the crucial need for organization, the History of the CPSU(B) states: Contrary to the Mensheviks, Lenin held that the ideological unity of the proletariat alone was not enough for victory; if victory was to be won, ideological unity would have to be consolidated by the ’material unity of organization’ of the proletariat. Only on this condition, Lenin considered, could the proletariat become an invincible force. (Proletarian Pub., p. 50-51) This cannot be accomplished at one stroke, cannot be decreed, but must be worked for and achieved step-by-step. If the level of ideological and political unity is right, has been tested in practice, there is no reason why organizational unity cannot become a reality. We must concentrate correct ideas. And given the dispersed nature of the genuine forces, and the extremely small size of many of these circles, we think it is correct to concentrate several of these circles and members of circles.
For our part we acutely feel our size to be a significant problem (and we certainly have ideological weaknesses too). We think we can successfully do some theoretical work, but with our size (we don’t call ourselves a cell for nothing!–and we imagine we are about the same size as you), we have to devote much time and resources to correspondence and struggle with certain comrades, and we don’t have a sufficient number of comrades to establish a factory cell or do hardly any practical work in the working class movement. On the other hand, if we could unite on a principled basis with other comrades along the lines (specifics needed, of course) suggested above; a proper internal division of labor could be established to have some comrades work mainly on long-term theoretical tasks, some primarily on short-term theoretical tasks and correspondence, others mainly on developing factory cell work, etc.; matters would be much different. Also, the theoretical journal you suggested could become a reality, printing the views of other comrades, and waging struggle to draw the necessary lines of demarcation.
M-L’s should always seek to unite on a principled basis (here we mean the unity of theory and practice). Given this outlook and some of our conditions described above, we tried to merge with the KCRWC. But these comrades want to have a line in “theory” (e.g. theory is principal) and actually carry out another (e.g. dive into the mass movement preventing the accomplishment of vital theoretical tasks). However, we have not lost our bearing because matters didn’t work out at this time with them. We are prepared to unite with other comrades who link theory and practice, and with whom we share essentially the same views on how to move party building forward, particularly how to advance building the center in theory and in practice.
We want to make it clear that if we could unite a few (two or more) of the small circles as talked about above, this would in no way make us the center, A genuine M-L center is not declared (as the bloated toads of the MLOC leadership think). In the “Preface to the Collection Twelve Years,” Lenin discusses in retrospect, who turned out to be the center, and the struggle between the various circles: The question arises, who accomplished, who brought into being this superior unity, solidarity, and stability of our Party? It was accomplished by the organization of professional revolutionaries, to the building of which Iskra made the greatest contribution. Anyone who knows our Party’s history well, anyone who has had a hand in building the Party, has but to glance at the delegate list of any of the groups at, say, the London Congress, in order to be convinced of this and notice at once that it is a list of the old membership, and central core that had worked hardest of all to build up the Party and make it what it is.” (LCW, Vol. 13, p. 103)
Further: “And the circles, i.e. close-knit, exclusive groups uniting a very small number of people and nearly always based on personal friendship, were a necessary stage in the development of socialism and the workers’ movement in Russia. As the movement grew, it was confronted with the task of uniting these circles, forming strong links between them, and establishing continuity. This called for a firm base of operations ’beyond the reach’ of the autocracy-i.e. abroad. The circles abroad, therefore, came into being through necessity. There was no contact between them: they had no authority over them in the shape of the Party, in Russia, and it was inevitable that they should differ in their understanding of the movement’s main tasks at the given stage, that is, an understanding of how exactly to set up a base of operations and in what way they could help to build the Party as a whole. A struggle between the circles was, therefore, inevitable. Today, in retrospect, we can clearly see which of the circles was really in a position to act as a base of operations.” (Ibid, p. 105-106) The “claim to fame” of all the “centers” in the U’S’ Communist Movement (e.g. MLOC COUSML, etc.) clearly reveals that there are many actual centers of revisionism and opportunism, and that these organizations are led by incorrigible careerists. In a large imperialist country such as the U.S.A., with the tremendous superprofits acquired over the decades, this comes as no surprise.
Does all that we have said above and in “Let’s Move Party Building Forward” constitute a plan to build the center? At most it represents a general outline with some particularities. While we want to avoid “tactics-as-a-process”, we also have to avoid creating plans that are not based on a correct understanding of the objective and subjective conditions. For example, we may find, after further investigation and analysis, that the key link is not building a genuine M-L center. Based on our present knowledge, we do not think this will be the case. However, we must quickly add that our present level of knowledge is quite primitive. We can’t even say with relative certainty what periods our movement has gone through. Our movement grew up so to speak on the “theory of the three worlds”.
It must also be admitted that the overwhelming majority of this movement has already (we include MLOC and COUSML here) consolidated around revisionist and opportunist programmes, lines, leadership and practice. We must move ahead. We will move ahead if we organize ourselves properly and if we create and apply revolutionary theory.
Turning to MLOC, as you know from our last letter, we are in agreement that MLOC must be attacked in a comprehensive, and we might add, sustained manner. We are enclosing an outline of a polemic against MLOC and about one-third of it in draft form. This section of the draft deals exclusively with party building. On the one hand, as we said in our last letter, we need to work “as collectively as possible” in exposing MLOC to win comrades away from their line, leadership, and practice, and on the other hand, this needs to be done “in the near future.” The decentralized state of our movement and other subjective conditions, particularly the lack of an M-L center, hampers collective work. But as shown by our joint statement, we are not hopelessly crippled. However we see the kind of detailed, collective polemic against MLOC coming not from the wide array of forces signing our joint statement (although they can and will make contributions). We see collective action on the polemic against MLOC coming from forces who are essentially already united (or who can reach a principled level of unity quickly) on the international situation and the party building question, particularly building the center as the key link with agreement on some of the particularities to advance this process. In August, we agreed to work collectively with KCRWC on such a polemic. We were to develop the party building section and they were to do the international situation section. So far, to our knowledge, nothing has been done on the international situation. In fact, we developed an initial critique of MLOC in this area (see enclosed draft “To the Political Bureau of the CC of MLOC, and Groups Invited to Publish a Joint Statement on the International Situation with MLOC”–weaknesses have been noted).
We have a couple of suggestions on ways in which we (WCC) could work with you in exposing MLOC. First, we could work on a polemic against MLOC collectively: we could continue the party building section; you could take up the international situation section. This is the type of division of labor we need in our movement so that necessary theoretical tasks are not duplicated. In this way, we make the best possible use of our limited number of forces. It would also enable us to struggle together and further the process of uniting M-L’s on a principled basis. In any event, we would appreciate receiving your criticisms of the party building section we have enclosed. Second, you could serialize the polemic against MLOC in your journal. If we could agree on the contents of the polemic against MLOC it could be put out under both our names, otherwise you could print it and state what differences you have with us. Our reasoning behind the serialization is to commence a comprehensive attack against MLOC at the earliest possible date. At the same time, your publication of the polemic would be a step forward in the development of a journal along the lines you proposed in you letter of 12/21/78. We think it is important to work together, to unite with real comrades to attack real enemies. This will also help further the process of uniting some of the circles into one city.
In our joint response to MLC and in “Let’s Move...” we talk about a multi-lateral meeting (MLM). We see a MLM as an important forum for struggle. At this time, the objectives of a MLM would be to further clarify and unite, as many circles as possible, around the advanced party building line, particularly how to concretely move forward the key link. This unity would then be implemented in practice. In order for a MLM to be successful, many circles would have to be convinced that a MLM, face-to-face struggle, is an important way to further clarify the different party building lines and practice and strive for principled unity. Further, party building proposals would need to be circulated at least a month in advance to allow the attending circles to discuss the various proposals properly. The International Situation, because it is vitally interconnected with Party building, should be discussed during the MLM. A MLM, depending on the number of participating circles, would probably last 3-4 days.
We think that some principles of unity (POU’S) are needed for circles to attend. The POU’s should be able to exclude consolidated revisionists and opportunists, but not too high that we end up talking to ourselves. This is another reason for POU’s. An individual circle may hold that another circle has revisionist lines or is opportunist, but this perhaps correct conclusion is not shared by many other circles because they have not studied the line struggle carefully, the line struggle is underdeveloped, they are still struggling with that circle, etc. Then too, POU’s would help combat small-circle spirit and sectarianism in relations between circles. POU’s establish a common denominator. Their aim, for the proposed MLM, is to get the circles with the advanced line and the middle forces to attend, but on such a basis as to facilitate unity around the M-L line. Here is our initial list of POU’s:
1. All forms of revisionism and opportunism are irreconcibly hostile to the class interests of the international proletariat and must be combatted and defeated. The main international revisionist trends are: Soviet revisionism (and capitalism has been restored in the Soviet Union which is social-imperialist); Chinese Revisionism (and the “theory of the three worlds” is counter-revolutionary); Yugoslav revisionism; Social-Democracy; Trotskyism.
2. There is no genuine M-L party of the U.S. proletariat, or genuine M-L center in the U.S. Communist Movement, and party building is the central task of all U.S. M-L’s and advanced workers. Right opportunism and revisionism is the main danger in the U.S. Working-Class Movement (W-CM) and U.S. Communist Movement (CM); “left” opportunism must also be fought. Theoretical work is principal in this period where we lack a lot of M-L theory to guide practice, and practical work must be carried out simultaneously. Theory is needed to guide practice, and practice in turn serves to further develop theory. It is especially important to grasp the key link in the party building chain, in theory and in practice.
3. Contradictions among comrades are to be resolved through ideological and political struggle, Bolshevik criticism and self-criticism and transformation, in order to unite on a principled basis around line and practice and achieve higher communist organizational forms of unity.
The first POU is designed primarily to exclude revisionists of the Soviet and Chinese type, and Trotskyites as well. The second POU relates directly to Party building. The point on theory was made because we felt the struggle at the MLM should be how to actually make theory principal. Many circles agree with this in words. The importance of the key link in general was made so the MLM would be able to focus on uniting around the correct key link and how to carry it out. The third POU relates mainly to the attitude and practice comrades should have around principled struggle, and the need for higher M-L forms of organization. We are open to improvements in the POU’s.
As far as announcement of the MLM on party building, we think that a wide array of circles should receive this, even circles such as the Proletarian Unity League and the League for Proletarian Revolution (of course, with their present stand they could not agree to the initial POU’s above). But LPR, for example, might change their stand (this is a slim chance) with all the blatant examples of Chinese revisionism which appear in the bourgeois press daily. By announcing a multilateral meeting with definite principles of unity, we tell everyone we want to come together to struggle for unity, but not on just any old basis.
On the other hand, the POU’s should not be so high that only a couple of circles could agree with them before the MLM.
We need to make additional arrangements to insure the success of such a MLM. For example, we can take charge of the announcement, correspondence, and arranging a meeting location. The following is a rough timetable for a MLM:
1. By January 31 an announcement would be sent out to various circles.
2. By February 21 circles who agree with the POU’s and want to attend should indicate this.
3. By April 18 party building lines would be circulated among the groups that are to attend.
4. MLM-May 19-21 (or 22) – 3 to 4 days.
Suggestions for an agenda would be solicited and a proposed agenda circulated in advance. We would like to receive your criticisms of our proposal for a MLM. In addition, we would like to be able to tell other comrades in our announcement that you will attend. We hope that you comrades get behind a MLM and help make it a success. If we (you and us)) can develop unity on party building (in particular the NJTW, journal and need to concentrate some forces), the MLM will be an advantage to struggle for our line.
In your letter of 12/21/78, you raised the question about a plan to build the center and how to sustain the momentum after the joint statement. What we have laid out above represents our views as they have developed to date. Your idea for a journal that would contain differing views would provide an excellent vehicle to centralize the ideological and political struggle necessary to advance the process of drawing lines of demarcation. But as we indicated above, we think concentration of some comrades in one city is needed before such a journal could be sustained on a regular basis. These comrades would also lead the completion of the vital theoretical tasks (the NJTW), and carry out practical work. We think such a concentration, NJTW and a journal could emerge from a MLM, if the proper struggle takes place beginning now.
You asked if the Red Dawn Committee responded to our letter. The answer is yes, a short letter. We owe them a reply but will probably not be able to get to it until February. You also asked if you could print our letter addressed to Red Dawn in your upcoming journal. This would appear along with your reply (which we don’t need to see in advance). We think this would be a good thing in many ways, particularly in the struggle to gain clarity around the key link. It also sets a positive example for other comrades. In your reply to MLC’s call for a multilateral committee, you told MLC not to look on their “MLOC Summary” as private property (and to circulate it widely in the movement). We certainly agree with this. Moreover, we take the position that even correspondence should not be viewed as private property. Of course, there are some exceptions to this and discretion should be exercised. Before printing correspondence, it is a good idea to ask the other party if they object; they might have a valid reason, e.g. they might consider the timing inappropriate and recommend a later date.
You inquired about the CWG. In the opinion of the WCC, the CWG are ultra-leftists, and possibly neo-trotskyite. We still need to sum up their motion thoroughly, but we can say out a few things. We have had a considerable amount of practice with them. One of their cadre played an initial, positive leadership role in getting our initial M-L study group off the ground. Later, he fell into some opportunism in relations with us (by following CWG’s instructions), and CWG held he was only a CWG “sympathizer.” Their refusal to do Bolshevik self-criticism rivals MLOC, if you can imagine that. Regarding an IWWD leaflet, among other things, CWG tried to reduce Women’s oppression entirely to economic oppression. In Our Tasks on the National Question..., Aug. 75, CWG claimed they would do a concrete analysis of the Black National Question soon, but this was never done, nor did they ever explain why it wasn’t. This is rather typical. CWG started out holding that the CPC and the PLA, were the leading M-L parties in the international communist movement, then held that Mao and Hoxha are petty bourgeois nationalists and no country in the world is socialist, and now, according to Some Members of a Bay Area Study Group, hold that Lenin made serious errors (of principle). Against the Tide, which allegedly was going to set the international communist movement on the M-L path after 40-50 years of revisionism and opportunism, was supposed to be out over a year ago, but this maybe was held up to “criticize” Marx, Engels, and Lenin. CWG are petty-bourgeois intellectuals who isolated themselves for years in Lawrence, Kansas, a college town and home of the University of Kansas, an upper petty-bourgeois university. Thinking themselves most advanced, CWG wanted to wave their theoretical wand and have others do the practical work (this was the way they tried to relate to us – they did the theoretical work and we were supposed to carry it out). Although CWG made contributions at the beginning of their history, due to a metaphysical-idealist method and orientation, they have completely degenerated and their essence is ultra-left, and we think, neo-trotskyite. We would sum up their main errors as follows: separation of theory and practice: dogmatism (principles separated from the concrete conditions); metaphysics (one-sidedness); purism (e.g. they held that the advanced workers remain essentially aloof from the entire communist movement, until the “genuine” M-L.s appear on the scene speaking of themselves; and they desire “perfect” socialism since neither China nor Albania ever were on the socialist road – implicit in their writings in Forward’s No. 2-4); opportunism (e.g. refusal to do self-criticism); elitism. The CWG moved from Lawrence to Kansas City, but they haven’t been seen in over a year. Perhaps, they went on a “Long March” of their own and are holed up in some remote section of a Canadian Library. We hope that this brief presentation gives you a better understanding of CWG, but, as we say, we need to study their history more, especially as regards what seems to us their neo-trotskyite motion. We have an extra copy of Forward No. 1-4 and other material from them if you would like us to send this, and their last known is:
Basically, we don’t agree with the main purpose and the orientation and organization which PC proposes. PC says the main purpose is to win those in MLOC and close to MLOC away from the leadership. At a time in which those of us who recognize opportunism in MLOC, don’t have unity on what this is, and many groups don’t really realize the extent of MLOC’s opportunism or fully understand it, how can we be very good at winning anyone away from MLOC? We should concentrate on developing unity on what MLOC’s opportunism is, and secondarily try to convince those close to MLOC of MLOC’s opportunism. Then, PC’s orientation and organization is wrong. Their small circle, “political line is key link” way of having each group do its own thing, “criticize” other groups, will not serve to build unity, as they admit it won’t and it certainly wouldn’t convince those in MLOC or close to MLOC that we are going in a better direction. What we feel should happen is that a comprehensive polemic against MLOC should be done which exposes MLOC’s opportunism to the highest level possible in the movement (our suggested joint polemic) and that this be struggled over until other comrades have a higher level of understanding of MLOC and there is unity over this. In the short term in order to begin developing some basic unity on party building and MLOC, and in order, to a very small degree, to expose MLOC to those close to them, we could issue a very basic joint statement opposing MLOC. In writing PC and the groups PC wrote to, we will put forward points we feel groups should unite on in order to have a basic criticism of MLOC. We will put forward that PC should draft up something which incorporates these points and go through the process you comrades did in producing a joint statement. If PC disagrees with these basic points or with issuing a joint statement, that does not mean other comrades cannot do so. We will expand our views in our response to PC which we will circulate, and which you should receive in a few days.
In closing while this letter is somewhat lengthy (and we can guarantee that they won’t all be this long!), it is in keeping with our policy of concentrating on struggle with comrades we are closer to ideologically and politically. Comrades, we must intensify our efforts, in an all-around and planned way, to carry out the central task, particularly the steps necessary to advance building a genuine M-L center, and secondarily to win the broad masses. We look forward to this struggle with you, and we hope to hear from you in the near future.
With communist greetings,
Wichita Communist Cell