Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line

’An Observer’

How RCP Defends Chauvinism and Anti-Party Blocs

A Reply to ’The Communist’ on the National Liaison Committee


First Published: Class Struggle, No. 9, Spring 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.

The task of strengthening communist unity and rallying all Marxist-Leninists to a single, unified vanguard party of the working class is a matter of utmost importance to the revolutionary movement in the U.S.

But to mention this task immediately poses the question: How can it be accomplished? Should Marxist-Leninists promote opportunist blocs and nationality federations as the path forward? Or should they unite on the basis of clearly defined principles and a program integrating the universal truths of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought with the concrete practice of the U.S. revolution?

The choice between these two paths has recently been placed on the table by the so-called Revolutionary Communist Party. It appears in the Fall/Winter 1977 issue of The Communist, RCP’s theoretical journal, in the form of an article entitled: “Marxism, Nationalism, and the Task of Party Building.”

The RCP clearly opts for the opportunist path in this article. It is an all-round defense of building anti-party blocs in the style of the Mensheviks of Lenin’s day, of “new” white chauvinist theories on the national question, and of nationalist federationism rather than democratic centralism.

The article purports to be the real history of RCP’s ill-fated National Liaison Committee (NLC). This was a bloc of organizations initiated in 1972 by the former Revolutionary Union (RU), later renamed the RCP. It included the Black Workers Congress (BWC), Puerto Rican Revolutionary Workers Organization (PRRWO) and, temporarily, I Wor Kuen (IWK). The bloc disintegrated in 1973.

The article was written by a former member of the Black Workers Congress, who later led a right-opportunist group called the Revolutionary Workers Congress, and who has now joined the RCP. It promises to sum up the lessons, both negative and positive, of this dismal period in the RCP’s background.

All communists owe the RCP a vote of thanks for taking this approach, even if it is about five years late. For it enables everyone to sharply contrast the RCP’s line and practice on party-building with the line and practice of the Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist). In particular, the NLC can be contrasted with the Organizing Committee to form a Marxist-Leninist Party (OC), initiated by the former October League (OL) and other organizations prior to the founding of the CPML.


The NLC’s purpose, according to the article, “was not, as some had slandered, to secretly go off and form the Party, but rather to take concrete steps toward building it through common work and ideological struggle and to be in a stronger position to unite all who could be united around a correct line to form the Party when more of a basis had been laid to take that step.”[1]

Thus the NLC was a “step forward” in party-building. But two questions immediately arise. First, what was the political basis of unity for this step? Second, what was the plan for organizing the party?

The OC, by way of contrast, was formed on the political basis of the “Call to Unite” published by the OL. It contained ten clearly stated principles drawing lines of demarcation between Marxism-Leninism and revisionism in the context of the U.S. revolution. As for a plan, the OC established a period of pre-Congress discussion and study wherein the unity principles would be elaborated into a draft program. It set a relatively definite time period, so as to enable all members of the participating groups to take part in the process and to publicize the discussion among the masses, involving them as well. It made use of a central newspaper to serve as the “scaffolding” for the “building” under construction, i.e., the Party. It had an organization to prepare for the Congress, with each group having one vote. As the Congress would open, each group would dissolve, with the decisions of the Congress to be binding on all.

All this is well known in the communist movement and was quite different from the NLC’s approach. To this day no one is quite certain as to what was the NLC’s political basis of unity. It depends on who you talk to. There was no equivalent of the “Call to Unite.”

To be fair, however, the RCP’s article makes an attempt to clear this up. It says that the NLC was opposed to “revisionism and Trotskyism,” although it never spells this out. It recognized “that in the U.S. there is only one working class, a single multinational proletariat, and this multinational proletariat, especially the industrial proletariat, is the main and leading force of the revolution.” The article admits, however, that this “recognition” was often a verbal ploy. Finally, it agreed on “the need to build the party.”[2]

What does this add up to? A few phrases of the most general and vague type, the purpose of which is to avoid utterly the drawing of firm and definite lines of demarcation. This method has a long history and was clearly exposed by Lenin:

In speaking of the fight against opportunism, one must never forget a feature that is characteristic of present-day opportunism in every sphere, namely its vagueness, diffuseness, elusiveness. An opportunist, by his very nature, will always evade formulating an issue clearly and unequivocally, he will always seek a middle course, he will always wriggle like a snake between two mutually exclusive points of view and try to “agree” with both and to reduce his differences of opinion to petty amendments.[3]

A further examination of the NLC’s supposed “unity” around “the need to build the party” exposes this opportunism in detail. It brings up the second question, the matter of the NLC’s plan for party-building. The RU, of course, had a plan. This was to establish its hegemony over the other groups around its opportunist line. But it knew it could not get agreement on this.

The NLC was thus initiated without any clear and jointly agreed upon plan. The RCP’s article indirectly admits this. It describes the period “towards the end of the existence of the NLC” as also being the period “shortly before the discussion of the Party building proposal.”[4] In other words, the NLC carried out its activities for about a year without a definite and organized discussion of what was supposed to be its purpose. When it finally did get around to it, the NLC disintegrated!

The RCP’s article goes on to describe what the NLC substituted for a plan: “The NLC was seen as the cornerstone of the new Party. This was roughly summed up in what became the unofficial slogan of the NLC: ’the subordination of each organization in the Liaison Committee to what was coming into being’ (the multinational communist Party).”[5]

This slogan–“what was coming into being”–was more than “unofficial,” it was notorious. All were to bow to its “dialectical” aura. But the essence of dialectics is that truth is concrete. “What is coming into being,” however, was a formulation that meant whatever each group wanted it to mean, or that could hide whatever each wanted to hide. As such, it was metaphysical hogwash, a perfect example of Lenin’s exposure of opportunism for its “vagueness, amorphousness, elusiveness.”


How could the NLC get away with this nonsense? What was it designed to cover up? The answer can be found by surveying the views of its various organizations on the question of communist tasks, specifically on the matter of the principal task.

By 1972, many Marxist-Leninist forces had broken with the revisionist CPUS A. Many local circles were formed in opposition to revisionism and much work had been done to spread and unite these circles, to integrate them with the working class movement and most importantly to establish a Marxist-Leninist line around which to form a new party. Clearly, party-building had become the central task for all Marxist-Leninists in the U.S. Of the three strategic weapons of the working class–the party, the united front and the people’s army–the party is the fundamental weapon. It is the proletariat’s highest form of organization; it is required to guide the united front and the armed struggle to victory. Lenin summed this up sharply:

In its struggle for power, the proletariat has no other weapon but organization. Disunited by the rule of the anarchic competition in the bourgeois world, ground down by forced labor for capital, constantly thrust back to the ’lower depths’ of utter destitution, savagery, and degeneration, the proletariat can, and inevitably will, become an invincible force only through its ideological unification on the principles of Marxism being reinforced by the material unity of organization which welds millions of toilers into an army of the working class.[6]

The revolutionary trend within the communist movement had applied this general understanding to the concrete work of forging such a party.

Contrast this with the view of the RCP’s article: “During the period prior to the formation of the RCP, the period Marxist-Leninists were faced with was characterized by the fact that on one hand there existed no vanguard party, but on the other hand there were tremendous mass movements… The correct road was to begin the process of linking of Marxism-Leninism, Mao Tsetung Thought with the mass movement, and in particular to begin the process of merging communism with the practical struggles of the working class. In this way the RU was able to deepen its theoretical understanding, to conduct ideological struggle within the context of carrying out practical work as the main task.”[7] (Emphasis added).


Put briefly, RCP says the main task of communists was practical work to build the mass movement. It put forth a line of spontaneity, implying that the Party would emerge out of the economic struggles and reform movements, as opposed to a conscious effort on the part of communists. This is a completely erroneous, right opportunist line. It utterly disarms the proletariat of any real ability to lead the class struggle and move it forward. In fact, it sabotages the mass struggle by compelling communists to tail behind it rather than march at its head.

One thing can be said for the RCP. It has consistently held to this line throughout its history, and it continues to do so today. The only “exception” was the “brief period” after the disintegration of the NLC, after some internal splits in the RU, and after RU became quite isolated for its open white chauvinism. At that point RU changed its name to RCP, unable to unite with any significant forces. It took a few months to publish a “programme” and hold a “congress.” And for this brief period, party-building was proclaimed the central task. Immediately afterward and since then, it has been back to “practical work as the main task,” and “economic work as the center of gravity.”

As for the BWC and PRRWO, the RCP’s article and subsequent history reveals that they were both mired in right opportunism on this question. Like the RU, they had a spontaneous view of party-building. PRRWO, for example, which was earlier influenced by the Black Panther Party’s line of the “rainbow coalition,” believed that there should be “separate vanguards” for each nationality. In its earlier period, the Bay Area Revolutionary Union (BARU) under mainly its same present RCP leadership, parroted this same petfy-bourgeois line and went so far as to turn away Afro-Americans who applied for membership in BARU, telling them instead to join the Panther Party.


Both BWC and PRRWO entered the NLC with strong tendencies toward a view that each nationality should have its own party, or party faction, but that these might federate in-the distant future into a “multinational” party. The next step for PRRWO, as RCP points out approvingly, was “to set for itself, as its central task, the building of national forms of organizations.”[8] Finally, PRRWO flip-flopped over to the line of the former Communist League (CL), declaring party-building to be the “only” task, i.e., to build the party in isolation from the class struggle.

BWC evolved somewhat differently. It proclaimed the central task to be “the raising of the proletarian banner in the Black liberation struggle and to build the leadership of Black workers in the struggle of the entire multinational working class and in the anti-imperialist struggle of all the people in the U.S.”[9] This was a deviation towards both nationalism and syndicalism. Next was the move toward CL. A good number of BWC members, however, began to raise a correct line, but the organization then shattered into several groups. Those who fought most consistently for a correct line, including some leading cadres, later joined with the OC and then the CPML.

Two points stand out in all this. First, none of the NLC groups ever held a common, definite plan for building a party. Second, what they did hold in common was opposition to the OL and the Marxist-Leninist line that party-building was the central task. The RCP article practically admits this: “The three organizations joined in the NLC because they shared basic unity around some major questions–as opposed, for example, to the opportunist lines represented by the October League (OL) and the Communist League (CL).”[10] PRRWO and BWC, however, soon proved that they didn’t “share” opposition to CL with the RU. In fact, they united with CL briefly in another anti-party formation, the so-called “Continuations Committee.”

The conclusion is obvious. When a formation is established without definite principles of its own, but against Marxist-Leninists, it is nothing but an opportunist bloc. And when that other force is targetted specifically for its stand on the centrality of party-building, it is an anti-party bloc. In this case it was an anti-party bloc against OL.

This bloc was bound to fail, as is demonstrated even by RCP’s account of its development. It followed the well-known path of all such opportunist endeavors. As Lenin pointed out in his day:

In order to build unity it is not enough to be able to shout ’unity.’ It is necessary, in addition, to have some sort of political program, a program of political action. The bloc of liquidators, of Trotsky, the Vperyodists, the Poles.. .etc., etc., was foredoomed to a scandalous downfall because it was built on a lack of principles, on hypocrisy, and empty phrases.[11]

The RCP ignores this lack of principles in relation to party building. Instead, it attributes the split to an ideological struggle between “Marxism” and “Bundism,” i.e., Black and Puerto Rican nationalism. RCP, of course, portrays itself as the great upholder of “proletarian internationalism.” If it made any errors at all, the article suggests, these were minor and stemmed only from the contradiction between “ignorance and knowledge.”[12]


There was a narrow nationalist deviation throughout the history of the NLC, especially in the lines of BWC, PRRWO and a faction inside the RU. But what was RU’s, and now RCP’s, line on the national question? It had just produced a public document Red Papers #5, which, among numerous errors, launched an attack on the right of self-determination of the Afro-American nation. It claimed this nation was “dispersed,” that it no longer existed in the Black Belt South. It claimed to “agree” with the self-determination slogan but disagreed that it was “central” in the struggle. In fact, RCP never raises this slogan in its mass work, even in a “secondary” way. It attacks those who do, however, as “dogmatists.” Its “agreement” with the slogan, then, is simply a ploy designed to keep Marxist-Leninists in its own ranks in line.

The OL and others had soundly criticized RU’s line. It was a fancy rehash of Lovestone’s, Browder’s and Gus Hall’s revisionist attempts to liquidate the national question in the CPUSA. Despite its “left” guise, OL said, it was bound to lead to white chauvinism.

RU’s next step in the NLC was seen in another document, National Bulletin #13. This contained a formulation declaring that “all nationalism is nationalism.” This was not only a reminder of the Progressive Labor Party’s previous chauvinist formulation stating that “all nationalism is reactionary.” It was also a perversion of dialectics. Bourgeois formal logic all the way back to Plato rests on the “law of identity,” i.e., “A is equal to A.” This means an entity is static and does not contain a contradiction within it. Dialectical thinking, on the other hand, rests on the law of the unity and struggle of opposites, i.e., “A is equal to A and not-A.” Everything contains a contradiction, the development of which enables things to change. RU’s formulation fits right in with bourgeois logic.

RU’s errors, however, were not confined to the realm of philosophy. While the Ku Klux Klan and other fascist gangs were stoning schoolbuses full of Black children in Boston, RU headlined its newspaper with “Smash the Boston Busing Plan.” What is more, its “Worker” newspaper in Boston declared the terror attacks on the buses to be “justified militancy” on the part of white anti-busing forces. RU’s line in practice, then, had shown OL’s criticism to be correct.

As the NLC blew apart, RU took its opportunism a step further: Black nationalism, and not white chauvinism, it said, was the “main danger” in the communist movement on the national question. In fact, RU refuted this position with the chauvinist example of its own line and practice.


The Marxist-Leninist view on this question begins by making two distinctions in regard to nationalism. While distinguishing its proletarian internationalism from the ideology of nationalism, it always draws a line of demarcation between the nationalism of the oppressor nations and that of the oppressed nations. Great-nation chauvinism, like all aspects of imperialist policy, was characterized by Lenin as “reaction all along the line.”[13]

In regard to the nationalism of the oppressed peoples, a further distinction is drawn, dividing it into two. On the one hand, there is a progressive or revolutionary side to this nationalism, insofar as it is primarily directed against imperialists and has a general democratic content representing the oppressed nationality’s striving for national equality and its defense of its national culture. Communists must unite with this aspect.

On the other hand, there is a “narrow” or reactionary aspect which is primarily directed against the workers of the oppressor nation and serves as a vehicle to maintain the rule of the exploiting classes and imperialism. Communists oppose this aspect.

In the era of imperialism, then, communists pursue a policy of both unity and struggle with the nationalism of the oppressed nations. They make no concessions to it ideologically, but unite with it practically in the struggle against imperialism.

Communists also should practice a “division of labor” in regard to combating reactionary and narrow nationalism. In the U.S., for instance, white communists have the primary responsibility for taking up the struggle against white chauvinism and winning the white workers to support the right of self-determination of the oppressed nations. Minority communists, on the other hand, have the primary responsibility for combating narrow nationalism and promoting unity with the white workers.

RCP’s account of the NLC demonstrates that this “division of labor” policy was sabotaged by all the groups involved. Communists have always shown that for white cadres to aim their main fire at narrow nationalism would be interpreted as white chauvinism among the minority nationalities, thus confusing the whole issue. In fact, such a line promotes both white chauvinism and narrow nationalism.


RCP’s incorrect policy on the “division of labor” is linked to its incorrect assessment of which deviation on the national question, white chauvinism or narrow nationalism, poses the main danger to the people’s movements. The Marxist-Leninist view, both historically and today, is that white chauvinism is the main danger and narrow nationalism the secondary danger. This is true both in the mass movement and in the communist movement. It is based on a concrete assessment of the main promoters of white chauvinism and reformist nationalism respectively.

RCP turns all this upside down and backwards. Its article states that the NLC “represented a significant break, at least to a large degree, with some of the major ideological and political weaknesses of the movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s, which were rooted in the nationalism and the tailing after the bourgeois nationalism of the oppressed nationalities.”[14] (Emphasis added). And further: “There was a strong basis for bourgeois ideology within the new movement, mainly taking the form in those times with regard to the national question of narrow nationalism and tailing after bourgeois nationalism of the oppressed nationalities.”[15] (Emphasis added)

Thus RCP still defends this line. To be sure, its latest article makes a passing reference to white chauvinism, but in such a way as to deemphasize it: “While maintaining and even stepping up its chauvinist poison propaganda,” it says, “the ruling class especially through its so-called liberal wing put tremendous effort into promoting and spreading bourgeois nationalism among the oppressed nationalities.”[16] (Emphasis added).

RCP then discusses the effect of this on the communist movement. As for narrow nationalism, it points out a truism: “This bourgeois line was not walled off from the revolutionary movement.”[17] But what about white chauvinism, which was also “maintained and stepped up ”? Did it manage to breach the wall, given the busing hysteria then and the Bakke campaign now? If it did, RCP would like to keep it a secret. In fact, its entire 47-page article makes no mention of it. This amounts to targeting Black nationalism as, not only the main danger, but as the only danger.

This line is RCP’s latest pronouncement on this subject. About eight months earlier, however, in the May 1977 issue of The Communist, RCP must have felt some temporary embarrassment over its line. It found it necessary to add this footnote to a longer article:

At the time this article was originally published (June, 1974) it was certainly the case that among what is broadly referred to as the ’communist movement’ the tendency to tail after the bourgeois nationalism of the oppressed nationalities was definitely the main deviation on the national question–and this had been the main deviation within the RU for some time before that as well. And as this remains the case with most opportunist so-called “communist” groups in the U.S. today–such as the OL, WVO and others. But this question of main deviation, like every other question, must be treated dialectically and not something fixed and unchanging, or something which is the same in all situations and in every context. As the article points out, the main deviation among the masses of people on this question is definitely white chauvinism. Further, within the ranks of the geunine Marxist-Leninists, while the tendency to tail after the bourgeois nationalism of the oppressed nationalities may indeed be the main deviation at times, the opposite tendency–to tail after white chauvinism and liquidate the national question–is overall the main danger to combat.[18] (Emphasis added).

Read this mismash carefully. Can a clear statement be found as to the present main danger on this question in the communist movement? As cited from Lenin before, this is exactly how an opportunist “will always wriggle like a snake between two mutually exclusive points of view and try to ’agree’ with both and reduce his differences of opinion to petty amendments.”

To return to the latest article, RCP pays some lip service in it to the “progressive role of nationalism.” But again, it tries to play both ends against the middle. A revolutionary nationalist, it says, can temporarily make a contribution to the struggle. Soon, however, he or she will either go backwards or make a “radical rupture” and “advance to Marxism-Leninism.”[19]

This is subjective and idealist nonsense. The point is not what individual nationalists may or may not do. Some will be mainly progressive all their lives; some may go forward or backward. The real question is the role of revolutionary nationalism as a social force. It will be around, to one degree or another, as long as imperialism subjugates the oppressed nations–and even under socialism. What is more, this particular social force, the national liberation movement, is the main strategic ally of the workers’ movement in the anti-imperialist united front. Communists can and must unite with this force, regardless of whether or not individuals within it become communists or not.


RCP concludes its discussion of nationalism with an open and all-round endorsement of subjective idealism. In a flippant reply to its critics, it states:

One argument that sometimes comes up is that, yes, BWC and PRRWO fell into nationalism, but it was caused by RU’s ’white chauvinism.’ This is bourgeois logic pure and simple, not Marxist dialectics, and liquidates the all-important question of ideology... There is no basis for opposing one form of bourgeois ideology with another; bourgeois ideology can only be opposed with proletarian ideology.[20] (Emphasis added).

This sounds very learned, very profound, complete with its references to “ideology” and “dialectics.” But the writer is playing a trick with the term “oppose.” Watch how it works.

On one hand, bourgeois ideologies spontaneously “oppose” each other objectively in life all the time–Black nationalism goes up against white chauvinism, feminism against male chauvinism, etc. Any worker can point to a hundred examples. And the “basis” for it is rooted in the fact that imperialism subjugates the oppressed, in the fact that imperialism enforces an objective contradiction between oppressor and oppressed nations. This is the historical and material reality our RCP philosophers conveniently toss out the window.

On the other hand, is nationalism the correct way to “oppose” white chauvinism? No, it is not. But here the term “oppose” is being used in an entirely different way. Rather than as a spontaneous objective factor, it is being used here in the conscious sense as a component of the subjective factor, of the efforts by communists to advance revolutionary class consciousness and advance the struggle. RCP’s philosopher makes a complete muddle of these two uses of the term “opposition” and winds up in outer space.

But to return to the substance of the question. White chauvinism certainly does help to promote narrow nationalism. To use an obvious example, one only has to observe a gang of fascists yelling epithets at a crowd of Blacks to see it in practice. It is not the sole factor, since nationalism is also rooted in the efforts of the bourgeoisie of an oppressed nation to secure its domination over its own internal market and to expand its domain. But to say this objective condition is also the sole factor is likewise one-sided and wrong. Stalin explains this quite clearly:

If there were no Great-Russian chauvinism, then, perhaps local chauvinism also, as a retaliation to Great-Russian chauvinism, would exist only in a much reduced form, in miniature, so to speak; because, in the final analysis, anti-Russian nationalism is a form of defense, an ugly form of defense, against Great-Russian nationalism, against Great-Russian chauvinism. If this nationalism were only defensive, it might not be worth making a fuss about. We could concentrate the entire force of our activities, the entire force of our struggle, against Great-Russian chauvinism, in the hope that as soon as this powerful enemy is overcome, anti-Russian nationalism will be overcome with it; for, I repeat, in the last analysis, this nationalism is a reaction to Great-Russian nationalism, a retaliation to it, a certain form of defense.[21]

Stalin’s qualification–“if this nationalism were only defensive” –is further explained in this work in relation to a tendency among minority nationalists in the Soviet Union to war with each other. This would be similar, say, to a gang fight between Black and Puerto Rican youths here. In aiming his fire at narrow nationalism in this situation, this was Stalin’s main target.

The RCP does not apply any of these lessons to the NLC. In fact, it can never even criticize narrow nationalism effectively and correctly because its own line is thoroughly nationalist, although of the white, great-nation variety.

This implies that the nature of the NLC was not simply that of an anti-party bloc. Instead, it was also a federation of nationalists. In this sense, RCP’s clamor about “Bundism” has some truth, but it was wide of the mark. It was not aimed at the main “Bundists,” the RU itself.

The struggle against nationalist federationism has a long history in party-building. It goes back to Lenin’s struggle against the Mensheviks and the Jewish Bund. In the present-day movement there were three attempts along these lines: RU’s NLC, the CLP’s “Continuations Committee,” and PRRWO’s “Revolutionary Wing.”

All three of these failed miserably. Not only did they hold back the efforts to build the Party, they also provided fertile ground for police agents to carry out all sorts of wrecking activities.

All three must also be contrasted with the work of the OC, leading to the founding of the CPML. Here Marxist-Leninists of various nationalities and 11 organizations were entirely capable of uniting in one party, based on a clear and correct program and sound organizational principles.

Today party-building remains the central task of the communist movement, to be carried out and accomplished in the heat of class struggle. There are tens of thousands of advanced workers who remain to be won to communism and the Party in order to firmly set the organization on its feet. There are still communists in organizations under opportunist leadership, in independent organizations and collectives, and working in isolation as individuals. All these must be rallied and won to a single, unified party.

The CPML has taken the initiative again in carrying out this task today. It has recently called for new unity efforts and the formation of a Unity Committee to advance the efforts to build a single, unified party. This party is one built on clear-cut principles and a revolutionary program. The unity efforts of the CPML and the growing unity trend are doing much to advance the cause of multinational unity. They are a blow against the Menshevik-bloc of the RCP which was reflected in the NLC.


[1] “Marxism, Nationalism and the Task of Party Building,” The Communist, Fall/Winter, 1977, p. 131.

[2] Ibid., p. 128.

[3] V.I. Lenin, One Step Forward, Two Steps Back (Peking: Foreign Languages Press, 1976), p. 265.

[4] “Marxism, Nationalism,” The Communist, p. 142.

[5] Ibid., p. 132.

[6] Lenin, One Step Forward, p. 280.

[7] “Marxism, Nationalism,” The Communist, p. 133.

[8] Ibid., p. 142.

[9] Ibid., p. 142.

[10] Ibid., p. 131.

[11] V.I. Lenin, “The Liquidators Against the Party,” Collected Works (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1972), vol. 18, p. 24.

[12] “Marxism, Nationalism,” The Communist, p. 169.

[13] V.I. Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (Peking: Foreign Languages Press, 1975), p. 146.

[14] “Marxism, Nationalism,” The Communist,/em>, p. 133.

[15] Ibid., p. 140.

[16] Ibid., p. 140.

[17] Ibid. p. 141.

[18] “Living Socialism and Dead Dogmatism,” The Communist, May 1977, pp. 160-61.

[19] “Marxism, Nationalism,” The Communist, p. 157.

[20] Ibid., p. 170.

[21] J. Stalin, “National Factors in Party and State Affairs,” Selected Works (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1953), vol. 5, p. 254.