Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line

The U.S. Leninist Core

“COUSML”-“MLOC”: Cheap Tricks and Demagogy Can’t Hide Treachery – Centrism Means Unity with Social-Chauvinism

First Published: Bolshevik, Vol. 9, No. 5, December 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.

As the struggle for the Marxist-Leninist line of the international communist movement settles scores with the rotten, social-chauvinist theory of “three worlds” and its father, “Mao Tsetung Thought”, certain revisionist sects have come to the fore, presenting themselves as “anti-three worlds”, while preaching unity with the third worldist revisionists–in order to spread another form of revisionism–centrism.

The “Marxist-Leninist” Organizing Committee and the “Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninists” are two such sects in the U.S. Both raise “polemics” against social-chauvinism, acknowledging the well-known fact that the theory of “three worlds” is a social-chauvinist theory. But as we will prove, this is nothing but a sham, a deception, a cheap trick. These groups are particularly dangerous at this time because they are spreading the fallacy that the contradiction with opportunism is non-antagonistic, as sharp and definite lines of demarcation are being drawn, and at a time when all genuine Marxist-Leninist parties and organizations, following the leadership given by the Party of Labour of Albania and Comrade Enver Hoxha, are making a clean break with Chinese revisionism, an absolutely essential condition for moving forward the worldwide proletarian revolution. The centrist trend both in the U.S. and internationally proposes that “unity” be sought with the third worldist revisionists in deed, while opposing Chinese revisionism in words.

Within the so-called “polemics” themselves, which “COUSML” and “MLOC” are ostensibly raising in opposition to social-chauvinism, distortion is the name of the game, and revisionism is covered up, rather than exposed; Marxism-Leninism is not fought for— rather, ideological confusion is spread, through sophistry and phrasemongering. In the U.S., “COUSML” and “MLOC” have chosen a particularly interesting way of promoting the centrist trend by involving themselves in a debate over differences of opinion.

This article will examine one of these debates, “COUSML’”s “Reply to the Open Letter of the MLOC”, June, 1978, which is peddled at the “COUSML” bookstores, aptly named the “William Z. Foster Bookstore”–Foster, whose claim to fame was that he helped “pioneer” modern revisionism, along with Khrushchev and Browder–See Bolshevik, Vol. 8, No. 4. The differences of opinion between “MLOC” and “COUSML” must be viewed from a historical account as well as the present situation, in relationship to the struggle to build the Bolshevik Party of the U.S. proletariat.


“COUSML” is the brainchild of one Hardial Bains, the Canadian revisionist and agent of imperialism. The “Communist” Party of Canada, “ML” of Hardial Bains and “COUSML” spread exactly the same poison in regard to leeching off the struggle against the revisionist theory of “three worlds” in order to breathe new life into these scoundrels, who stand discredited in their respective countries; both spread revisionism in their twisted “polemics” against the theory of “three worlds”; both do the utmost in their respective countries to spread ideological confusion–sophistry is truly their trademark. When Bains switched from a thorough-going third worldist to “anti-three worlds”, “COUSML” followed suit. Likewise, both attempt to cover up their history of propagation of the theory of “three worlds”, their history of treachery to the international proletariat. Both pretend that they are defending the purity of Marxism-Leninism, and that they have “always” done so. We are certain, as the polemics led by the PLA against “Mao Tsetung Thought” intensify, that both the “C”PC and “COUSML” will try to pretend that they never went along with “Mao Tsetung Thought”, though they have promoted it for years as “the highest development of Marxism-Leninism of our era”. As of this writing, “COUSML” hasn’t yet pulled off the shelves of the “William Z. Foster Bookstore” their numerous treatises on the virtues of “Mao Tsetung Thought”, as they have done with their writings pushing the revisionist theory of “three worlds”. “COUSML”’s declaration at the Montreal “Internationalist” Rally of May, 1978, to the effect that “We will always support Comrade Mao Tsetung and the great Marxist-Leninist party which he led”, leads us to believe that “COUSML” will continue to vigorously disseminate eclecticism, as consistent with “COUSML”’s historical practice. Witness:
(1) “...by organizing in 1969 the American Communist Workers Movement (Marxist-Leninist), the first national center for the dissemination of Mao Tsetung Thought (our emphasis–ed.)...[1]
(2) “...the ACWM(ML) united all who could be united into the single nationwide Marxist-Leninist center, the first center for the wide-scale dissemination of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought (our emphasis–ed.) in the U.S.[2]
(3) “We held that ’immediately and at all costs’ there had to be a single nationwide center for the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists, a center for the dissemination of Marxism-Leninism (our emphasis–ed.), and we founded the American Communist Workers Movement (Marxist-Leninist) in May, 1969.[3]

The first quote is taken from a publication written in 1977, the other two are from 1978. It will be interesting to see how “COUSML” tries to cover up their history of pushing ”Mao Tsetung Thought”. While in 1978 they are saying that since 1969 they have been a “center for the dissemination of Marxism-Leninism”, in 1976 “COUSML” states:

As soon as it was formed, the OL promptly ’forgot’ about Mao Tsetung Thought for four years. . . The name even disappeared and Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-tung Thought became only (our emphasis–ed.) Marxism-Leninism.[4]


In a sense, a situation exists today very much like that of the great debates against Khrushchovite revisionism in the early 1960’s.Only today (our emphasis–ed.) we have great Mao Tsetung Thought and the experience of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution to guide us![5]

So, according to these representatives of Bains’ “International”, mouthing unity with “only” Marxism-Leninism is a sign of the OL’s opportunism, and the so-called “debates” against Khrushchevite revisionism suffered because they were guided “only” by Marxism-Leninism; and yet “COUSML” claims to have been the “center, for the dissemination of Marxism-Leninism” since 1969! As history has proven, the OL, later to become the “C”P “ML”, has always upheld the eclecticism, pragmatism and opportunism of “Mao Tsetung Thought”, which never has been, and never could be, a “guide” for fighting revisionism, since “Mao Tsetung Thought” is revisionism. The Chinese revisionists and their hangers-on have actively sabotaged the struggle against modern revisionism, precisely through the spread of “Mao Tsetung Thought” as a replacement for Marxism-Leninism, and only pretended to fight modern revisionism for their own pragmatic and selfish national interests (see “Letter of the CC of the Party of Labour and the Government of Albania to the CC of the Communist Party and the Government of China”, July 29, 1978).

“COUSML” sees it in its own interests to cover up its history; but they go one step further and cover up for the other revisionists too. “Progressive Labor” is one such revisionist grouping, which, in reality, can claim to be “the first national center for the dissemination of Mao Tsetung Thought”–the first franchised agents of Chinese revisionism in the U.S. “COUSML” has this to say in their behalf:

In 1962 the Progressive Labor Movement (which became the Progressive Labor Party in 1965) was founded as the first national anti-revisionist center in the U.S. (sic!). . . For a period, PL strived to uphold Marxism-Leninism, and it did lead some mass struggles and reprint a number of important documents from the international communist movement ... A careful examination of PL documents shows that right from the start PL had an extremely weak grasp of revisionism.[6]

As a matter of fact, “PL” had a “very good” grasp of revisionism—they should have, since virtually all of their leadership and founding members were old revisionists from the “C”P-USA! Imagine–this sect of “veteran fighters” and college kids off the most elite university campuses in the U.S. “COUSML” sums up as “the first national anti-revisionist center”. Our forthcoming book, on the history of revisionism in the U.S., will examine in detail the history of these agents of Chinese revisionism; suffice it to mention here that those “important documents of the international communist movement” that “COUSML” praises “PL” for distributing included “On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People” by Mao Tsetung, which “PL” advertises in 1969 as a summation of the “errors” of the “Stalin era” in the Soviet Union! “COUSML” cannot fail to trace history from the centrist viewpoint.

The Bainsites “C”PC-“ML” claimed that “China’s Chairman is our Chairman”–“COUSML” claims that “C”PC-“ML”’s Chairman “is their chairman”, therefore “COUSML” proposes, as did “ACWM”, its predecessor, that there be one party for Canada and the U.S.! One party for the U.S. and Canada was the plan behind the “Conference of North American Marxist-Leninists” in 1972.

When someone wants to organize the Party (sic), they should consult with other Marxist-Leninists. This is the method we have consistently followed. . . The organizations and individuals contacted included the Bay Area Revolutionary Union, the California Communist League and Mike Klonsky. The ’Call for a Conference of North American Marxist-Leninists’ was issued in 1972 in the same manner. It was a general call and the Preparatory Committee for the Conference sought to consult with and unite with all the Marxist-Leninist organizations.[7]

That is, it was a ”Conference of North American Marxist-Leninists”, which “sought” to consult with and unite with all the Marxist-Leninist organizations” in North America. That is, that the “Marxist-Leninists” of North America would unite in a single party, no doubt under the leadership of that “great pathfinder” Hardial Bains. “COUSML” reiterates this scheme another way:

COUSML proudly regards itself as but one section, one national branch, of an International Party, of international communism.[8]


For the proletariat of North America (our emphasis–ed.) this rally of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism had great significance and was a matter of great joy.[9]

It is a fundamental Marxist-Leninist principle that each country must have its own Communist party to lead the proletariat, in accordance with the specific socio-historic conditions of each country, in the overthrow of its “own” bourgeoisie. As the Communist Manifesto makes clear:

Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.

And the proposal for a single party for the U.S. and Canada is more than mere stupidity—it is utter betrayal. It was Trotsky’s infamous proposal that entire continents be under the “leadership” of a single party–for the purpose of sabotaging the revolution in all countries, to rot the proletariat of its mightiest weapon–its vanguard political party, which applies the science of Marxism-Leninism to the concrete conditions of each country.

As for “COUSML”’s claim to be part of an “international party of communism”–this is nothing but an attack on the Comintern, which was in truth “the united party of the revolutionary proletariat of the world”, and to which belonged the Communist parties of each country. That “COUSML” would dare to compare the wheeling and dealing of Bains and his gang to the Comintern led by Lenin and Stalin is an affront to every communist, an insult to the international proletariat, and a confession of their complete and utter contempt for the Third Communist International, whose decisions on matters of principle shine like a beacon illuminating the path of struggle for the international proletariat, as well as for the one international communist movement today, led by the Party of Labour of Albania.

The examples above are a clear indication that rather than a “Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninists”, “COUSML” represents a Centrist Organization of U.S. Social-Chauvinists, who, while professing to be “Internationalists” in words, are liquidators of proletarian revolution in the U.S. in deed. In this light the debate between “MLOC” and “COUSML” as a debate between two centrist forces will reveal that although some differences exist as to how they plan to “reconstruct” the Party, both unite on how to liquidate the struggle for the Party of a New Type.

What becomes clear in going through “COUSML”’s “reply”, is that their attack on Marxism-Leninism is spearheaded at the necessity of perservering in the struggle for the single Marxist-Leninist line in order to hammer out the Party’s program for proletarian revolution in the U.S. This is to be expected, since the hammering out of the Party’s program of action is the key link to building the Party of Lenin and Stalin in the U.S., the one political party of the proletariat, the birth of which “COUSML” and “MLOC” seek to hold back.

In order to attack the Marxist-Leninist line, “COUSML” has pulled out of “MLOC”’s demagogy what they have borrowed from the line, namely, that in order to build the Party in the U.S. the class conscious proletarians must apply Marxism-Leninism to the concrete conditions of the U.S. and work out the line, program, strategy and tactics. “MLOC” of course, while giving lip service to Party building, to provide itself with new covers for its revisionist history of opposition to Marxism-Leninism, its revisionist program in opposition to the Marxist-Leninist line, goes so far as to say that they have “always led” the battle for the key link being the working out of the Party’s program, while “MLOC”’s activities are a clear picture of the worship of spontaneity and the belittlement of the conscious element. In 1976, when the OL had to admit that “political line is the key link” (as they distorted it), “MLOC”, as loyal defenders of “Mao Tsetung Thought”, loyal defenders of the “center”, proposed that the key to forming the Party was that “Marxist-Leninists Unite!” on: “unite and don’t split; practice Marxism, not revisionism; be open and above board, don’t intrigue and conspire”! Unity and not a split with opportunism was, and still is, “MLOC’s credo. In 1976 they bitterly complained that the OL wouldn’t unite with them–unity which they are still seeking to cement, now with “C”P-“ML”.

But this is not the difference of opinion between “MLOC” and “COUSML”. In fact, “COUSML” says:

The MLOC’s entire Party-building plan revolves around the ’Draft Party Program’. For the MLOC, the ’Draft Program’ is the Holy of Holies, the Platonic Idea descended to earth and given fleshy form.[10]

“COUSML”, as the representative of the Bains’ “International” in the U.S., says “C”PC-“ML”’s program is our program! “C”PC-“ML”’s destiny is also “COUSML”’s destiny. We stand by Lenin’s definition of the importance of the Party’s program:

The need for unity, for the establishment of common literature, for the appearance of Russian workers’ newspapers arises out of the real situation, and the foundation in the spring of 1898 of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party, which announced its intention of elaborating a Party programme in the near future, showed clearly that the demand for a programme grew out of the needs of the movement itself. At the present time the urgent question of our movement is no longer that of developing the former scattered ’amateur’ activities, but of uniting–of organization. This is a step for which a programme is a necessity, (our emphasis–ed.) The programme must formulate our basic views; precisely establish our immediate political tasks; point out the immediate demands that must show the area of agitational activity; give unity to the agitational work, expand and deepen it, thus raising it from fragmentary partial agitation for petty, isolated demands to the status of agitation for the sum total of Social-Democratic demands.[11]

As Comrade Lenin clearly sums up, the program is a necessity for uniting, for organization. The need for it arises out of the real situation, out of “the needs of the movement itself”, in each and every country. Where “COUSML” tries to paint a picture of the Party program as a settled question and therefore unimportant, Comrade Lenin shows us its practical significance, its real importance.

Continuing with their attack, “COUSML” puts forward that since the program of the Party was worked out by Bains, “the greatest Marxist-Leninist of North America” (sic), “MLOC” is therefore obstructing the path Bains has charted, and so says “COUSML”:

The MLOC has good reason to attribute supernatural powers to the ’Draft Program’, for by this means it (A) covers over its actual social practice, its real program, with fine-sounding words to dupe the masses. . .[12]

A splendid observation, but according to this nonsense, “MLOC”’s program would be “correct”, but their practice would be “incorrect”. Following this logic, revisionists like the Bainsite “C”PC-”ML” have “correct” programs, but they simply don’t carry them out! Only a simpleton could be deceived by such ridiculous arguments! Is not the Khrushchevite program a revisionist program? The “Communist” Party of China’s And, as we have shown in previous issues of Bolshevik, “C”P-“ML”’s program (like all the revisionist programs) is a program of reforms for the maintenance of capitalism, which they are indeed carrying out.

“COUSML”’s objection to “MLOC’s duping of the masses is that “C”PC-”ML” and “COUSML” should have total hegemony in the sphere of duping, as witnessed in “COUSML”’s second reason that “MLOC. . . attribute(s) supernatural powers to the ’Draft Program’”:

. . .(b) continues to factionalize the movement and oppose Marxism-Leninism being the theoretical basis of the Party under the banner of the pseudo-theory that the ’Party Program’ is the basis of the Party.[13]

Thus, according to “COUSML” (in complete harmony with the Bainsites in Canada and all the other revisionist sects in the U.S.), proclaiming adherence to Marxism-Leninism is a sufficient basis of unity to build the Farty, because to adopt the Party program, the application of Marxism-Leninism to our concrete conditions, “factionalize(s) the movement”. As we said earlier, the centrist revisionists such as “COUSML”, “C”PC-”ML” and “MLOC” are seeking to hold back the split with opportunism, and specifically their adaptation to Chinese revisionism–thus, their endless harangues about “factionaliz(ing) the movement”. Which movement? The “North American Movement”? Certainly they cannot possibly mean the “movement” in the U.S.–not “MLOC”, who is the pivot of all unity! We would be interested to discover why “MLOC” is so unjustly accused, when they admit that

Today the CP(M-L)’s line on trade unions tails directly behind what we have pioneered. Other organizations tail on these questions as well.[14]

“MLOC” thus issues itself a certificate of bankruptcy, and “COUSML” claims they are “factionalizing the movement” with this “pioneering” program! Indeed, the so-called “splitters” of “MLOC”, who claim to be against the social-chauvinist theory of “three worlds”, have invited every third worldist clique in the U.S. to their meeting to discuss their ”pioneering” draft program:

Bay Area “Communist” Union
Buffalo Workers Movement
Chicago Communist Collective
Committee for a Proletarian Party
Communist Workers Group
Colorado Organization for Revolutionary Struggle (“MLMTT”)
Durham Organizing Collective Fruitvale Law Collective
J-town Collective
League of Struggle League for Proletarian Revolution
Lexington Communist Collective
Los Angeles Workers Group
Marxist-Leninist Collective
Marxist-Leninists Forward
Pacific Collective
Philadelphia Workers Organizing Committee
Potomac Socialist Organization
Proletarian Unity League
Red Dawn Committee
“Revolutionary Communist” League(“MLMTT”)
Seattle Communist Workers Group
Sunrise Book Collective
Tucson Marxist-Leninist Collective
Wichita Communist Cell
“Workers” Congress
“Workers” Viewpoint Organization

As the reader will note, not only does this list include the third worldist revisionists in the U.S., it also includes two groups closely associated with the Khrushchevite Guardian, groups who maintain that the Soviet Union is still a “socialist” country which gives “internationalist” aid, etc., agents of Soviet social-imperialism such as the Philadelphia Workers Organizing Committee and the “Proletarian” Unity League. Both of these groups openly proclaim that the “left” is the main danger, going to such extremes as pronouncing the “C”P-“ML” and the “RC”P ”ultra-left”!

Needless to say, “COUSML”’s accusations of “factionalism” are not aimed at “MLOC”, in regard to the U.S. “movement”. As a matter of fact, to the credit of the U.S. Leninist Core and all other genuine Marxist-Leninists in the U.S., only the genuine orthodox Communists were not invited to this conventional fiasco of unity! Obviously, it is not “MLOC”’s revisionist program that will ”factionalize the movement”—quite the contrary. But rather, the Marxist-Leninist program which will deepen the split with opportunism in the U.S., which only Marxist-Leninists are capable of working out, which is hammered out in opposition to opportunism and revisionism–in opposition to the reformist programs of all the revisionist groupings and sects in the U.S. Thus, absent were the Marxist-Leninists who are affecting the complete rupture with opportunism while winning the unity of the advanced workers, which is won, not by decrees or gatherings with the opportunists as “MLOC”’s centrist stance proclaims, but by persistent, stubborn and resolute struggle against the opportunists. In this way the class conscious workers will rise to the task of the day and build the united Party of the U.S. proletariat. The rupture with opportunism is what “COUSML” opposes, with their objections to “splits”.

But Comrade Lenin answered all of “COUSML”’s “objections” long ago:

The objection may be raised, further, that the present moment is inopportune for the elaboration of a programme because there are differences of opinion that give rise to polemics among the Social-Democrats themselves. I believe the contrary to be true–this is another argument in favour of the necessity for a programme. On the one hand, since the polemic has begun, it is to be hoped that in the discussion of the draft programme all views and all shades of views will be afforded expression, that the discussion will be comprehensive. The polemic indicates that the Russian Social-Democrats are showing a revived interest in extensive questions pertaining to the aims of our movement and to its immediate tasks and tactics; precisely such a revival is essential to a discussion of the draft programme. On the other hand, if it is not to degenerate into personal rivalry, if it is not to lead to a confusion of views, to a confounding of enemies and friends, it is absolutely essential that the question of the programme be introduced into the polemic. The polemic will be of benefit only if it makes clear in what the differences actually consist, how profound they are, whether they are differences of substance or differences on partial questions, whether or not these differences interfere with common work in the ranks of one and the same party. Only the introduction of the programme question into the polemic, a definite statement by the two polemicising parties on their programmatic views, can provide an answer to all these questions, questions that insistently demand an answer.[15]

“COUSML”, in a useless effort to hide ”in what the differences actually consist, how profound they are”, not between “COUSML” and “MLOC”, whose differences boil down to methods and personal rivalry, but between the genuine Marxist-Leninists in Canada with “C”PC-“ML”, and between the genuine Marxist-Leninists in the U.S. with “COUSML”, must pretend that all the programmatic questions have been answered, that there already exists a “Marxist-Leninist program”.

The revolutionary Marxist-Leninists have a program too.[16]

The reader will ask, what is this “revolutionary Marxist-Leninist program”? The Bainsite “Internationalists” reply:

They are for the proletarian revolution that will utterly destroy the U.S. monopoly capitalist system and smash its state machine.[17]

We must state it bluntly. This is utter crap. “C”PC-“ML”’s revisionist program calls for two stages in Canada, inherited from the “C”PC(R); while “COUSML” inherited the “anti-monopoly coalition” of the “C”PUSA(R). Thus, they say “destroy the U.S. monopoly capitalist system”–or said another way, “unite to lead the masses to victory over the monopoly capitalist dictators”[18].

But what Comrade Lenin has taught us about imperialism, the highest and last stage of capitalism, is this:

Monopolies, oligarchy, the striving for domination instead of striving for liberty, the exploitation of an increasing number of small or weak nations by a handful of the richest or most powerful nations—all these have given birth to those distinctive characteristics of imperialism which compel us to define it as parasitic or decaying capitalism.[19]

It is the system of capitalism which must be destroyed, which has reached the stage of imperialism–“parasitic or decaying capitalism”. Monopoly capitalism, the “economic essence of imperialism”, as Lenin defines it, is not a new system, as “COUSML” would have us believe, but as Lenin taught:

From all that has been said in this book on the economic essence of imperialism, it follows that we must define it as capitalism in transition, or, more precisely, as moribund capitalism.[20]

The entire bourgeoisie must be overthrown and expropriated in all capitalist countries in a one stage revolution. Their state machine must be smashed, and on its ruins must be established the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is the only road to emancipation, the only way to build socialism, the only way to achieve the final aim of the complete abolition of private property, the abolition of all classes and class distinctions–communism. This is the fundamental question which both “C”PC-“ML” and “COUSML” liquidate through their Trotskyite call for a “Party of North America”.

Furthermore, the state machine belongs to the ruling class, not to the “system”. As Comrade Lenin teaches:

According to Marx, the state is an organ of class rule, an organ for the oppression of one class by another; ...[21]

This fundamental principle of Marxism-Leninism is denied by “COUSML”, part and parcel of how they propagate the revisionist “anti-monopoly coalition” program of reforms. First, they put forward that the proletarian revolution “will utterly destroy the U.S. monopoly capitalist system”, and secondly, “smash its (the monopoly capitalist system’s) state machine”. What is conveniently omitted through the use of these revisions is the target of the revolution, the bourgeoisie. The U.S. proletarian revolution will overthrow, by force, the entire bourgeoisie, as a class–not only the “monopoly capitalist dictators”; will smash the bourgeois state machine, and on its ruins establish the dictatorship of the proletariat; expropriate, without compensation, the entire bourgeoisie. The genuine Marxist-Leninists in Canada have correctly shown how in Canada this means a one stage revolution against U.S. imperialism and the Canadian bourgeoisie. This and only this line of conduct will provide the basis for destroying the capitalist system and make possible the building of socialism.

The reader will also take note that “COUSML” conveniently omits the dictatorship of the proletariat. They simply move on to their next point on Party building after saying, “smash its state machine”. As all class conscious proletarians know, this is not simply “forgetfulness” on “COUSML”’s part–whose every other word is a denouncement of...pick your choice. Moreso, “COUSML” is claiming that these revisionist statements comprise a “Marxist-Leninist program”. Genuine Marxist-Leninists are struggling to build the Party of the proletariat in each and every country where it does not yet exist, to assure the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. And where the proletariat has triumphed in Socialist Albania alone, genuine Marxist-Leninists, led by Comrade Enver Hoxha, are working to strengthen their Party of Labour, to assure the further consolidation of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the construction of socialism. This is a fundamental principle of the Marxist-Leninist doctrine–socialism cannot be built without the dictatorship of the proletariat. Revisionists and opportunists of all kinds consistently attack all the fundamental principles of Marxism-Leninism with such sheepish tricks as omission.

In fact, “COUSML”’s revisions on the questions of Party building and proletarian revolution aren’t in the least original.

They (the ’revolutionary Marxist-Leninists’–ed.) are for building the Party on the basis of Marxism-Leninism in the course of leading the revolutionary mass movements and merging them into one irresistible torrent of antifascist proletarian socialist revolution (sic).[22]

What vigorous worship of spontaneity! Another version of this same trash is “build the Party in the heat of the mass struggle”, as the OL formulated it. All the revisionists in the U.S., without exception, have gone against the Marxist-Leninist teachings on the chief form of activity in the first period of Party building, propaganda. In one way or another, all of them peddle the lie that somehow the work of the first period (winning the vanguard of the proletariat to the side of communism) can be substituted with the work of the second period (winning the masses to the side of the vanguard). And why? To further spread their liquidationist line, to further spread the belittling of theory, to aid the bourgeoisie by calling for more worship of spontaneity. This is nothing but pure treachery, especially in the U.S., where the belittling of theory has continued for over a century; where the working class has never had its political party, the mightiest of its weapons, which has resulted in a prolongation of the barbarous exploitation and oppression of the peoples of the world by the bloodstained claws of U.S. imperialism. With empty phrases about “reconstitution” of the Party, they all go against Comrade Stalin’s teachings on the two periods of Party building:

The first period was the period of formation, of the creation of our Party.

He continues,

In this period the Party, as a driving force, was weak. It was weak not only because it itself was young, but also because the working-class movement as a whole was young and because the revolutionary situation, the revolutionary movement, was lacking, or little developed, particularly in the initial stages of this period. . .

. . .The Party confined itself to mapping the movement’s strategic plan, i.e., the route that the movement should take; and the Party’s reserves–the contradictions within the camp of the enemies inside and outside of Russia–remained unused, or almost unused, owing to the weakness of the Party.

Comrade Stalin sums up the principal task of communism in the first period:

The principal task of communism in Russia in that period was to recruit into the Party the best elements of the working class, those who were most active and most devoted to the cause of the proletariat; to form the ranks of the proletarian party and to put it firmly on its feet. Comrade Lenin formulates this task as follows: ’to win the vanguard of the proletariat to the side of communism’.”[23]

In another work, Comrade Stalin stresses the importance of the first period of Party building:

In the initial stages, Social-Democracy was unable to spread its activities among the masses of the workers and it, therefore, confined its activities to propaganda and agitation circles. The only form of activity it engaged in at that time was to conduct study circles. The object of these circles was to create among the workers themselves a group that would subsequently be able to lead the movement. Therefore, these circles were made up of advanced workers—only chosen workers could attend them.[24]

And Comrade Lenin, founder of the mighty Bolshevik Party of Lenin and Stalin, taught us this about propaganda work in the first period:

As long as the question was (and in so far as it still is) one of winning over the vanguard of the proletariat to Communism, so long, and to that extent, propaganda was in the forefront; even propaganda circles, with all the defects of the circle spirit, are useful under these conditions and produce fruitful results.[25]

The fruitful results of the careful work of building the Party resulted in the glorious October 1917 Socialist Revolution, an earth-shaking victory for the masses of oppressed and exploited proletarians throughout the world. The first socialist motherland could not have been achieved, nor can socialism be achieved anywhere without the leadership of the proletariat’s vanguard Party, the Party of a New Type build along new revolutionary lines, as opposed to “MLOC” and “COUSML”’s plans of “reconstruction”. Both Lenin and Stalin make crystal clear the absolute necessity to put “propaganda ... in the forefront”, “as long as the question was (and in so far as it still is) one of winning over the vanguard of the proletariat to Communism”. Comrade Lenin further taught us, in reference to winning over the proletarian vanguard ideologically–“That is the main thing. Without this not even the first step towards victory can be made.”[26]

In complete opposition to these vital teachings of Lenin and Stalin, however, “COUSML” proposes that the Party be built “in the course of leading the revolutionary mass movements”! In other words, they plead that the Marxist-Leninist party not be built at all—that the worship of spontaneity continue unabated, that the belittling of the conscious element proceed at all costs. They make very clear that they have no intention of creating “among the workers themselves” as Stalin taught, “a group that would subsequently be able to lead the movement” , but rather they will continue to whip up such “revolutionary” movements as the “forced busing movement”, the “anti-wage/price control movement”, the “memorialize Martin Luther King movement”, etc. etc. But what else can we expect from the Bains “Internationalist” lackies in the U.S.–“COUSML”?

After all, according to “COUSML”, the U.S. proletarian revolution is a two-stage revolution! The sinister and foolish “theoreticians” of “COUSML” are living in the past–trying to turn the wheels of history backward–and we do mean back! So far back that they wind up saying that what we need in the U.S. is the American Revolution! Their constant prattle about the forthcoming “American Revolution” goes hand in hand with the passage quoted above, where they state that the U.S. proletarian revolution will be an “anti-fascist proletarian socialist revolution”. Whether in the form of “American Revolution” or “anti-fascist revolution”, it all adds up to the same thing: two stages–first, bourgeois democracy; second, the socialist revolution. “COUSML”’s reformist program leads them into a frenzy–they are “battling fascism in the U.S.”, for democratic rights, in opposition to fascism which they claim is in power in the U.S., or as they put it, “Nixonite fascism without Nixon”! Even if the bourgeoisie implemented its fascist dictatorship before the proletariat was able to seize state power in the U.S., this still would not mean two stages. Our strategic objective would remain the same: the overthrow of the bourgeoisie and the seizure of state power by the proletariat. As Lenin taught us, all the objective conditions are ripe under imperialism for the proletarian revolution. That is the era we live in–the era of Leninism, the era of imperialism, the eve of the socialist revolution. The era remains the same, the strategic objective remains the same–the U.S. is not a colony or a neo-colony, but a highly developed capitalist country, a bloodthirsty imperialist superpower–the one stage revolution remains the same regardless of whether or not the bourgeoisie changes its method of rule and resorts to fascism. As Comrade Stalin said, in analyzing the situation during the time of rising German fascism:

The masses of the people have not yet reached the stage when they are ready to storm capitalism; but the idea of storming it is maturing in the minds of the masses–of that there can hardly be any doubt.

He continues,

This, indeed, explains why the ruling classes in the capitalist countries are so zealously destroying or nullifying the last vestiges of parliamentarism and bourgeois democracy which might be used by the working class in its struggle against the oppressors; why they are driving the Communist Parties underground and resorting to open terrorist methods to maintain their dictatorship.

In this connection the victory of fascism in Germany must be regarded not only as a symptom of the weakness of the working class and a result of the betrayals of the working class by the Social-Democratic Party, which paved the way for fascism; it must also be regarded as a symptom of the weakness of the bourgeoisie, of the fact that the bourgeoisie is no longer able to rule by the old methods of parliamentarism and bourgeois democracy, and, as a consequence, is compelled in its home policy to resort to terroristic methods of rule–as a symptom of the fact that it is no longer able to find a way out of the present situation on the basis of a peaceful foreign policy, and that, as a consequence, it is compelled to resort to a policy of war. . .

But while the bourgeoisie chooses the path of war, the working class in the capitalist countries, brought to despair by four years of crisis and unemployment, is taking the path of revolution. This means that a revolutionary crisis is maturing and will continue to mature. And the more the bourgeoisie becomes entangled in its war combinations, the more frequently it resorts to terroristic methods in its fight against the working class and the labouring peasantry, the more rapidly will the revolutionary crisis develop.”[27]

Only the worldwide proletarian revolution can once and for all deliver the peoples of the world, the hundreds of millions of exploited and oppressed, from the menace of fascist tyranny, slavery, and the holocaust of imperialist wars. The heroic revolutionary struggles being waged throughout the world by the oppressed nations and peoples, for national and social liberation, are daily dealing death blows to the fascist regimes in the colonies and neo-colonies–in Iran, Chile, Nicaragua, Panama, Brazil, Argentina, Uraguay, Zaire, Zimbabwe, Azania, South Korea, Thailand, the Phillipines, to name only a few. And in the advanced capitalist countries, including the U.S., the only way to prevent fascism and the threat of imperialist war is through proletarian revolution. The proletarian revolution will not only prevent fascism in the U.S., but is also the greatest aid the U.S. proletariat can render to the masses of the colonies and neo-colonies who are savagely and brutally repressed by the fascist regimes in the service of U.S. imperialism. By overthrowing our “own” bourgeoisie we thus render assistance to the worldwide proletarian revolution. This is our proletarian internationalist duty–and only social-chauvinists would imply that it is conditional on which method of rule the bourgeoisie uses–and even more so in the citadel of imperialism, the bastion of reaction, the U.S.

Thus, the U.S. proletarian revolution is “anti-fascist” only in the sense that it, and only it, can prevent fascism in the U.S., or smash it, were fascism to be instituted in the U.S.; only in the sense that the U.S. proletarian revolution will render a great aid to the masses suffering under fascist rule in the colonies and neo-colonies. In the case of fascist rule being implemented in the U.S., our tactics would have to take this into account. “COUSML”, on the other hand, in pronouncing it an “anti-fascist proletarian socialist revolution”, makes it a question of strategy, in order to sneak in the “two-stage revolution in the U.S.” line. But we state once again most emphatically, in complete accordance with the teachings of Marxism-Leninism: whether or not the bourgeoisie resorts to “open terroristic methods to maintain their dictatorship”, to fascism, our strategic objective remains the same–the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, and the seizure of state power by the proletariat. Of course, “COUSML” is not anti-fascist at all; in fact like Kautsky before them, today’s centrists, by opposing the split with the social-chauvinists, social-fascists, social-pacifists, social-democrats, pave the way for fascism.


Throughout this entire book of sophistry, which is billed as the Marxist-Leninist response to “MLOC”’s “Open Letter”, not once does “COUSML” touch on ”MLOC’”s centrlsm. Nor can they. Rather, it has been written to keep this concealed–the centrists of “COUSML” preferring instead to throw diversion after diversion. For example, “COUSML” accuses “MLOC” of “wavering and vacillating” on the theory of “three worlds”. But is it “waverings and vacillations” that has “MLOC” striving to unite with every third worldist clique in the U.S.? Clearly, it is not. Nor is it “conciliation with revisionism”, as “COUSML” says of “MLOC” (and which “MLOC” says of “COUSML” in their “Reply to “COUSML”’s “Reply”). Centrism is revisionism–the line of “MLOC” and the line of “COUSML” are both revisionist lines–both preach that the contradiction with opportunism is non-antagonistic–a clear revisionist tenet which both uphold as their starting premise. Comrade Stalin gave us a precise definition of centrism:

Centrism must not be regarded as a spatial concept: the Rights, say, sitting on one side, the ’Lefts’ on the other, and the Centrists in between. Centrism is a political concept. Its ideology is one of adaptation, of subordination of the interests of the proletariat to the interests of the petty bourgeoisie within one common party. This ideology is alien and abhorrent to Leninism.

Centrism was a phenomenon that was natural in the Second International of the period before the war. There were Rights (the majority), Lefts (without quotation marks), and Centrists, whose whole policy consisted in embellishing the opportunism of the Rights with Left phrases and subordinating the Lefts to the Rights.

What, at that time, was the policy of the Lefts, of whom the Bolsheviks constituted the core? It was one of determinedly fighting the Centrists, of fighting for a split with the Rights (especially after the outbreak of the imperialist war) and of organising a new, revolutionary International consisting of genuinely Left, genuinely proletarian elements.

Why was it possible that there could arise at that time such an alignment of forces within the Second International and such a policy of the Bolsheviks within it? Because the Second International was at that time the party of a bloc of proletarian and petty-bourgeois interests serving the interests of the petty-bourgeois social-pacifists, social-chauvinists. Because the Bolsheviks could not at that time but concentrate their fire on the Centrists, who were trying to subordinate the proletarian elements to the interests of the petty bourgeoisie. Because the Bolsheviks were obliged at that time to advocate the idea of a split, for otherwise the proletarians could not have organised their own monolithic revolutionary Marxist party.[28]

And “MLOC”, with its “Open Letter” to every revisionist grouping in the U.S., is carrying on precisely with the traditions of the Zimmerwald International of which Kautsky rose as the foremost representative of the Center. “Its ideology is one of adaptation, of subordination of the interests of the proletariat to the interests of the petty bourgeoisie within one common party.” That’s what their “Open Letter” is all about–attempting to subvert the struggle against the social-chauvinist theory of “three worlds” by preaching a reconciliation with the third worldists, while professing internationalism in word, calling for unity with the social-chauvinists in deed, delaying the birth of the monolithic Communist party. The following excerpts from “MLOC”’s “Open Letter” reveals this even more clearly:

With all those organizations who can unite in the distribution of the Draft Party Program, yet see significant differences to resolve on specific questions, but not on fundamental principles (our emphasis–ed.), we would enter into discussions for the formation of a Leninist organizing committee.

Some organizations have carried out class struggle in the recent past, in one instance or another, but have committed fundamental revisions of Marxism-Leninism (our emphasis–ed.). With these organizations we are prepared to meet and engage in struggle for the purpose of achieving unity over the correct path for proletarian revolution in this country. (sic!)[29]

This masterful piece of vaguery and diffusiveness brings to mind Lenin’s statement to the effect that opportunists wiggle like snakes between two mutually exclusive poles. With those organizations in the first group, “MLOC” has no differences “on fundamental principles”. Which principles? Obviously it has nothing whatsoever to do with Marxist-Leninist principles, since presumably those groups in the second bunch (who “have committed fundamental revisions of Marxism-Leninism”–in plain language–revisionists) will also join their “Leninist” organizing committee once they have “unity” on “the correct (sic) path for proletarian revolution in this country”! Their excuse for this is that supposedly the organizations of the second kind have “carried out class struggle in the recent past”. “Class struggle” has become a handy catchword for the revisionists, who distort its meaning in order to conceal the open alliance with the bourgeoisie (as in “class struggle” trade unions of the “C”P-“ML”–i.e., replacing worn-out union bureaucrats with “C”P-“ML” bureaucrats). What “MLOC” really means to say here is not class struggle, but class collaboration. The unity they seek is with those organizations which have, like themselves, bent over backwards to worship the spontaneous movement, with so very many sects who consistently drag at the tail end of it, petty-bourgeois whimpering philistines who oppose ideological struggle, who view open polemics over the questions of line, program, strategy and tactics as “ultra-left” and would therefore agree to discuss, to reach agreements and elastic resolutions at private conferences, even if they have made “fundamental revisions of Marxism-Leninism”, and precisely for this reason they hide in conference rooms.

Is it not clear that “MLOC” intends to do its utmost to “subordinate the proletarian elements to the interests of the petty bourgeoisie”? Their sham farce of “polemics” against social-chauvinism cannot hide the fact that they are pursuing a “classical” centrist line, classical centrism in the sense that like the Kautskyite Zimmerwald International (which Lenin in his time unmasked and defeated) were professing to be Internationalist in words, and calling for unity with the social-chauvinists in deeds. “MLOC” professes to stand with the true Internationalists, with the Party of Labour of Albania and the International Communist Movement, while at the same time calling for unity with the third worldist social-chauvinists, Khrushchevite revisionists, and other centrists like themselves, “COUSML”.

“MLOC”s boldfaced opposition to Internationalism in deeds, to the rupture with opportunism, can be seen in the following:

In order to achieve the greatest possible genuine unity to avoid unnecessary and harmful splits (our emphasis–ed.), the correct method to proceed is principled discussion on the Draft Party Program. For these reasons we strongly urge a meeting of our organizations.[30]

The U.S. Leninist Core challenges “MLOC” to a public meeting, an open polemic–or is “MLOC” proposing that only a closed meeting between “different organizations” can proceed in principled discussion? Or does “MLOC” propose to possess the only correct method? We are sure “MLOC” will at least consider our proposal since as of one month ago the U.S. Leninist Core received a letter from “MLOC” that acknowledged that Bolshevik makes a contribution to the struggle for proletarian revolution in the U.S., and made the proposal that we exchange publications. This shows some good faith. Let’s see how far “MLOC” is willing to take it. We expect a public answer to our proposal one way or the other, just as you asked for a written answer to your request, which we have answered in the affirmative. However “MLOC” chooses to respond to our open challenge, of this we are certain. The “unnecessary and harmful splits” “MLOC” refers to are with those organizations who “have committed fundamental revisions of Marxism-Leninism”. The split with opportunism and revisionism is unnecessary only to the revisionists. And the split with social-chauvinism is harmful only to the bourgeoisie, who couldn’t remain in power another 5 minutes without the opportunists, as Comrade Lenin correctly stressed. Genuine Marxist-Leninists fight for the split with opportunism and revisionism, which is completely necessary and beneficial–they fight for it because the struggle against imperialism is a sham and a humbug without it. As Comrade Lenin said:

A split with such people is necessary and inevitable, for it is impossible to accomplish the socialist revolution if you join hands with those who pull in the direction of the bourgeoisie.[31]

Rather than pursue a split with such people, the social-chauvinists whom “MLOC” claims to be against, they issue open invitations to gather together and “hash things out”. After all, “MLOC”’s paper is named Unite! They want unity all right–unity with their own bourgeoisie and all the other lackies, so together they can better spread revisionism and opportunism. The U.S. Leninist Core challenges “MLOC”, not to a “unity” conference, but to open polemics, where the fight for the one Marxist-Leninist line will confront, in the crucible of the ideological struggle, “MLOC”’s centrist position of “unity” with the social-chauvinists. Our aim is the unity of the genuine Marxist-Leninists, which must be fought for and not passed by decree. If “MLOC” can pull its head out of the clouds it will realize that it lives in a dream world–can they really believe that any of these petty-bourgeois sects will give up their own organizations and bow down to “MLOC”’s demagogue, Weisberg? Klonsky–give up his front page photos of his handshakes with Hua Kuo-feng, dressed in his favorite (colonial) white suit? His pleasure cruises to China? And Avakian–give up his house on the hill? His bodyguards and his shrink? No, these are not likely candidates for “MLOC”’s scheme. In any case, the unity “MLOC” desires proves their “polemics” against the theory of “three worlds” a complete sham, their words hollow. As Comrade Lenin said,

Unity with the social-chauvinists is betrayal of the revolution, betrayal of the proletariat, betrayal of socialism, desertion to the bourgeoisie, because it is ’unity’ with the national bourgeoisie of ’one’s own’ country against the unity of the international revolutionary proletariat, is unity with the bourgeoisie against the proletariat.[32]

And this “unity” is precisely what “MLOC” is preaching–not only to the various revisionist cliques in this country, but also to genuine Marxist-Leninists whom they are trying to influence with their centrist position, and their claims to be defenders of the international communist movement. That is what makes them so dangerous in this time when the genuine Marxist-Leninists must gather their forces, weld a leading center and build the Party, resolutely repulsing the influences of modern revisionism and specifically its Chinese version. We know that “MLOC” has been able to confuse honest comrades who sincerely desire to fight for proletarian revolution, who see the necessity of smashing the theory of “three worlds” towards this end. It is to these comrades we address ourselves, who may agree with us that it is time to put an end to intrigues and open the polemics and make the disagreements public. It is these comrades who will repulse the “unity” efforts with the social-chauvinists and instead fight for the strengthening of the unity of the international communist movement in deed, by fighting for the one Marxist-Leninist line, which is the only correct way to proceed, and which will result in a complete break with Chinese revisionism through drawing sharp the line of demarcation with the centrists in our own country.


While “MLOC” calls openly for unity with the social-chauvinists, “COUSML” is a bit more crafty about it. They spread centrism through implication–that is, by accusing every revisionist group–from the “C”P-”ML” to “MLOC”–of being “sectarian”. Just as they propagate social-chauvinism under the guise of “polemics” against the theory of “three worlds”, they propagate that “ultra-leftism” is the main danger through their “polemics” against the right opportunists and revisionists. The following examples bear this out:

As idealists, the MLOC does not derive its plans from careful study of the surrounding conditions and determination of the ways and means of realizing (sic) Marxism that best answer to the situation, but from eternal and never-changing prescriptions. . . [33]

What MLOC’s platitudes mean is that the MLOC takes disunity and factionalization of the U.S. Marxist-Leninist movement as a first principle, and then defines a whole series of prerequisites for ’unity’ in order to keep the movement divided.[34]

All this shows the MLOC’s complete lack of any definite stable principles and its adventurist policy on the question of unity.[35]

And note this gem!

The OL was founded by Mr. Klonsky and associates as a group of factional splitters of the Marxist-Leninist movement ...[36]

This of course is another of “COUSML”’s brilliant observations. We wonder when “COUSML” realized that “C”P-“ML” is a group of factional splitters–while it was OL and it “abandoned” “Mao Tsetung Thought” (which it never did), or now when they are the recognized “party” by the Chinese revisionists? As for the observation that “MLOC” is “dogmatist”—we wonder if this is the same “MLOC” that calls for unity with those who have “committed fundamental revisions of Marxism-Leninism”? “MLOC” has always said that “unity” can only be developed through “concrete practice”, i.e., the worship of spontaneity, and “COUSML” accuses them of “dogmatism”! But there is a method to this madness. “COUSML” has two aims to fulfill: (1) the further strengthening of centrism within “MLOC” in hopes that “MLOC” unites with the “North American Marxist-Leninists” in Bains’ “International”; and (2) to cover Chinese revisionism by waging a “polemic” against dogmatism and sectarianism, while leaving untouched the main danger internationally revisionism and right opportunism.

The fight against the main danger has been and continues to be a line of demarcation between genuine and sham. All genuine Marxist-Leninist parties and organizations internationally have fought, and will continue to fight against the main danger, as Comrade Enver Hoxha summed up in his Report to the 7th Congress of the PLA:

The class struggle waged during the whole existence of the Party, as well as recently, has shown that the main danger and enemy to our Party and the entire international revolutionary communist and workers’ move-ment has been and still is right opportunism, revisionism.[37]

The stand and fight against the main danger is shown not only in word, but in deed. The right opportunism of belittling theory is combatted by training the class conscious proletarians in the study of the classics of Marxism- Leninism in the struggle to build the Party, to prepare the advanced workers to take their proper place as leaders of the Party of the proletariat. Economism is comb at ted by applying the universal principles of Marx-ism-Leninism to the concrete conditions of the U.S. proletarian revolution, by working out the program, strategy and tactics of the proletarian revolution, by welding a core of professional revolutionaries capable of giving the spontaneous mass movement a planned and conscious character—that organization of professional revolutionaries is the Party of the proletariat. Revisionism is combatted by fighting for the one Marxist-Leninist line of the international communist movement led by the Party of Labour of Albania with Enver Hoxha at the head, exposing all distortions of the scientific doctrine of the proletariat, dialectical and historical materialism. This is the revolutionary practice of the genuine Marxist-Leninists in the U.S., who are carrying out in deed the line of the international communist movement and its application to our concrete conditions, which will lead to the overthrow of our “own” bourgeoisie, the dictatorship of the proletariat and the construction of socialism. Proletarian Internationalism indeed.


“COUSML”’s “Reply”, “MLOC’s “Reply to COUSML’s Reply”, boil down to a hegemonic in-fight, a falling out among thieves. We have demonstrated that they have no principled differences whatsoever—both are revisionist groups who have slightly different versions of how they spread centrism. They feed off each other with their “polemics” back and forth. That is, “MLOC’s “Open Letter”, which is openly centrist and thoroughly revisionist, meets with a revisionist “polemic” by “COUSML”, a “polemic” which hides the essence of the revisionist line “MLOC” is pushing. Utilizing this method, more revisionism is spread, more centrism is propagated, more ideological confusion is promoted. “COUSML” and “MLOC” employ the same methods used by their fellow Fosterites. For example, OL’s slogan during the Watergate scandal was “Dump the Bum”–RU’s was “Throw the Bum Out”. Difference on line? None. Then why the polemics? It was a hegemonic in-fight for “recognition”, with the dual purpose of furthering the spread of revisionism, of ideological confusion, a diversion to keep the essence of the revisionist line covered up, which has served to keep at the lowest possible level the political consciousness of the proletariat, strengthening the influence of bourgeois ideology in the reformist-led workers movement.

The fact that “COUSML” and “MLOC” utilize the same method can be seen by the following:

To put a good face on a bad business, the MLOC has issued its ’Open Letter’ and sent it by mail to every organization they could think of. The ’Draft Program’ is given as an ultimatum (??), except for minor revisions. And what is the basis of this ultimatum? To stop the struggle against social-chauvinism![38]

Why does “COUSML” cover up that it was not only “every organization” that “MLOC” could think of, but specifically the third worldist sects? Should “MLOC” have hand delivered it? Would “COUSML” have then united? Or does “COUSML”, by covering up that “C”P-“ML”, “RC”P, ATM-IWK were the distinguished invitees, pretend to be waging a general struggle against social-chauvinism? Or another quarrel which “COUSML” may be addressing is that “MLOC” should not have proposed the draft program as the ultimatum—maybe “COUSML” can answer, what should have been the ultimatum?

And, continues “COUSML”,

Regarded in itself, the MLOC is just an intellectualist sect, one of many, with neither stable principles (as opposed to unstable principles?–L.C.) nor roots in the masses (show us a sect that does–L.C.), but somewhat more interested than most others in the arts of public relations and of international intrigue.[39]

From one intellectualist sect to another continues “COUSML”,

And the MLOC too has its program. It stands for infiltration and disruption of the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists through idealist anti-revisionism (??). It stands for conciliation of the Klonskyites and war on the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists. We resolutely oppose this program and call on the MLOC to give it up (!). (And take up Bains?)[40]

So, it would seem from these wordy declarations and “stern denunciations” of “MLOC” that “COUSML” would have nothing whatsoever to do with them. After all, in “COUSML”’s own words, “MLOC” is trying to “stop the struggle against social-chauvinism”, “is just an intellectualist sect” interested in “international intrigue”, and to top it off has declared “war on the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists”! However, all of this phrasemongering goes up in a puff of smoke. “COUSML” proposes the following:

We will not take part in the MLOC’s indecent farce (as opposed to the decent farce in Montreal? Indecent farce vs. decent farce–is this their difference of opinion?–L.C.) of preparation for its ’Founding’ ’Party’ Congress . . . but we are willing to hold discussions on the burning questions facing the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists (our emphasis–ed.). We hold that the agenda should be: how to advance the struggle against social-chauvinism . . . We will regard such discussions as a continuation of the ones that the MLOC, arbitrarily and without notice to us, broke off well over two years ago.[41]

Since “COUSML” proposes to “MLOC” that the agenda should consist of “how to advance the struggle against social-chauvinism, we are left to assume that “COUSML” is not quite sure on how to proceed. They want to hold heart-to-heart talks on “the burning questions facing the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists with “MLOC”, who they say has declared “war on the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists”. They want to discuss “how to advance the struggle against social-chauvinism” with “MLOC”, who they say is trying to ”stop the struggle against social-chauvinism”. Wonderful logic isn’t it? Utterly centrist indeed!

What “MLOC” and “COUSML” agree on, aside from other things, is the necessity to spread centrism at this crucial time, when the lines of demarcation are being firmly drawn between the genuine Marxist-Leninists, the proletarian internationalists in deed, and the social-chauvinist third worldists, revisionists and opportunists of all stripes. What they have unity on is the “central task” of spreading ideological confusion, at a time when the eclecticism and pragmatism of “Mao Tsetung Thought” and the revisionist theory of ”three worlds” is being repulsed, and ideological confusion is giving way to ideological clarity; at a time when the genuine Marxist-Leninist parties and organizations throughout the world are resolutely defending the purity and authenticity of Marxism-Leninism, and applying it to the concrete conditions of each country. What “COUSML” is really annoyed about is that “MLOC” broke off discussions with them “arbitrarily and without notice . . . well over two years ago”. Perhaps “MLOC”’s own hegemonic designs got in the way of the joint dirty work “COUSML” had in mind, of bringing “MLOC” into Bains’ “International” fraud of “North American Marxist-Leninists”.

The speech delivered by “COUSML” at the “Internationalist” Rally in Montreal, sponsored by Bains’ “C”PC-“ML”, is a despicable, fraudulent distortion of the struggle for proletarian revolution in the U.S. Its no wonder that the revolutionary proletariat of the U.S. has not nor will ever be rallied to “COUSML” or Bains’ “International”. Nor can “COUSML”’s all-out support of Bains’ “International” be confused as support by the revolutionary proletariat in the U.S. To all of “COUSML”’s claims that it did, we categorically reject such a claim and stand by the truth that the U.S. revolutionary proletariat was not present or in anyway represented. More so, we believe that “COUSML”’s role in full assistance to Bains’ call to this Rally, had the sole purpose of shamming to the international communist movement and of giving themselves legitimacy by claiming that who they brought to the rally was the advanced workers and genuine communists of the U.S. The U.S. proletariat will be represented by its political Party in the international communist movement, when it is founded. It is the responsibility of the class conscious proletarians in the U.S. to unmask before the whole of the international communist movement such brazen opportunist sects as “COUSML” and “MLOC”, and their false claims of unity with the international communist movement. The “C”PC-“ML” and Bains is promoted by “COUSML” as the legitimate representative of the Canadian proletariat–this is also a fraud. The revolutionary proletariat of Canada, the Marxist-Leninists and advanced workers are combatting the Bainsites, the third worldists, and all the opportunists in Canada, which will witness the foundation of a genuine Communist party of the Canadian proletariat and the victory of the proletarian revolution which it will lead.

“MLOC”, although for not so obvious reasons, did not attend the “Internationalist” Rally, the whys and wherefores being hotly disputed today by “COUSML” and “MLOC”. Although in “MLOC”’s words, “Several messages were sent to the Communist Party of Canada/Marxist-Leninist, indicating our support and desire to participate in the Rally” and “. . .at no time has the MLOC even opposed or criticized the Internationalist Rally”[42], they did not end up going. “MLOC” has its own scheme in mind, its own plan for shamming before the international communist movement, and no doubt the Rally ended up not fitting into their scheme. “COUSML” is hopeful that “MLOC” will reconsider, and rather than pursue personal rivalry interest, will give up its program and join “COUSML” in promoting and submitting to Bains’ “International”. Bains’ “International” presents a grave danger to the international communist movement, because they were able to deceive genuine Communist parties into thinking the Montreal Rally was genuinely proletarian internationalist. But we are confident–Bains cannot hide forever, and his “International” will meet with the same fate as did the yellow Second International.

“COUSML” and “C”PC-“ML” promote one Party for Canada and the U.S., and they claim this is the unity of the Canadian and U.S. proletariat. The U.S. proletariat and Canadian proletariat will weld unity based on proletarian internationalism through the fraternal relationship which will develop between the Marxist-Leninist parties of the Canadian proletariat and the U.S. proletariat, when they are founded. As proletariats of neighboring countries the mutual assistance given each other will facilitate the struggle for proletarian revolution and socialism in each respective country. We stand by the fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism that the proletariat of each and every country must overthrow its “own” bourgeoisie. “C”PC-“ML” and “COUSML” propose a vain unity based on a mutual admiration society—this vain unity will remain only between “C”PC-“ML” and “COUSML”, and whoever else “COUSML” brings into Bains’ “International” of centrists.

In the traditions of the Zimmerwald Left, of Lenin and the Third Communist International, the parties of the Canadian and U.S. proletarians will prove to be internationalist in deed. As for “MLOC”, and in conclusion, we remind them of Lenin’s words:

In Russia, the complete severance of the revolutionary Social-Democratic proletarian elements from the petty-bourgeois opportunist elements has been prepared by the entire history of the working-class movement. Those who disregard that history, and, by declaiming against ’factionalism’, make themselves incapable of understanding the real process of the formation of a proletarian party in Russia, which has developed in the course of many years of struggle against various varieties of opportunism, are rendering that movement the worst possible service.[43]



[1] “U.S. Marxist-Leninists, Unite in Struggle Against Social-Chauvinism! ”, p. 22

[2] “Reply to the Open Letter of the MLOC”, p. 41

[3] ibid., p. 70

[4] “Mao Tsetung Thought Versus Opportunism”, p. 12

[5] “U.S. Marxist-Leninists” etc., p. 20

[6] ibid., pp. 28-29

[7] ibid., pp. 22-23

[8] “Reply”, p. 80

[9] ibid., p. 79

[10] ibid., p. 15

[11] V.I. Lenin, “A Draft Programme of our Party”, Collected Works, Vol. 4, pp. 229-230

[12] “Reply”, p. 15

[13] ibid., pp. 15-16

[14] ibid., p. 38

[15] V.I. Lenin, “A Draft Programme of our Party”, pp. 230-231

[16] “Reply”, p. 19

[17] ibid., p. 19

[18] “U.S. Marxist-Leninists”. etc., p. 40

[19] V.I. Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, Peking Edition, p. 150

[20] ibid., p. 153

[21] V.I. Lenin, The State and Revolution, Peking Edition, p. 8

[22] “Reply”, pp. 19-20

[23] J.V. Stalin, “The Party Before and After Taking Power”, Collected Works, Vol. 5, pp. 103-104

[24] J.V. Stalin, “The Russian Social-Democratic Party and its Immediate Tasks”, Collected Works, Calcutta Edition, p. 16

[25] V.I. Lenin, “Left-Wing” Communism, An Infantile Pisorder, Peking Edition, p. 98

[26] ibid., p. 97

[27] J.V. Stalin, Report to the Seventeenth Congress of the C.P.S.U.(B.) on the Work of the Central Committee, pp. 14-15, p. 18

[28] J.V. Stalin, “Industrialisation of the Country and the Right Deviation in the C.P.S.U.(B.)”, Collected Works, Vol. 11, Red Star Press, pp. 293-295

[29] “Reply”, Appendix, p. 90

[30] ibid., p. 91

[31] V.I. Lenin, “The Tasks of the Third International”, Progress Publishers, p. 28

[32] ibid., p. 30

[33] ”Reply”, p. 23

[34] ibid., p. 60

[35] ibid., p. 64

[36] ibid., p. 41

[37] Enver Hoxha, Report Submit’ ted to the 7th Congress of the Party of Labour of Albania, p. 109

[38] “Reply”, p. 9

[39] ibid., p. 13

[40] ibid., p. 20

[41] ibid., p. 12

[42] Class Against Class, No. 11, August, 1978, p. 57

[43] V.I. Lenin, The Collapse of the Second International, Progress Publishers, p. 52