First Published: Resistence, Vol. 9, No. 5, July 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.
When in January of this year, we made a call for all genuine Marxist-Leninists in this country to take up the struggle against the sham unity call of the CP-ML, we were very aware that this was the signal for the consolidation of right opportunism in the U.S. Communist movement. The participation of ATM and IWK with the CP-ML in the Committee to Unite Marxist-Leninists reaffirms this view.
Some honest forces in the anti-revisionist communist movement may ask us: Why does LPR-ML oppose unity? Isn’t it correct for those 3 forces to seek unity?
The old popular saying that without unity there is no strength has never been truer than today for our movement. We support unity. But not in the abstract world. We struggle for unity based on principles, in the interests of the proletarian revolution. Unprincipled unity, based on class collaboration, can only help to set back rather than advance our struggle. Therefore, we oppose it. And we oppose all attempts to make out of unity a magic clincher used in the face of war, fascist attacks, popular upsurges, etc in order to avoid our tasks.
We say that the Unity Committee of the CP-ML Is un principled because the organizations in the Committee did not attempt to solve their contradictions in open and above board ideological struggle, through criticism and self-criticism and repudiation of incorrect lines. Instead of principled unity forged in the crucible of class struggle and in front of other communists, and advanced forces, they opt for closet agreement, for patting each others backs, for covering for each other’s opportunism. As good representatives of right opportunism, they forged an all unity-no struggle alliance, which, together with their sectarianism toward the rest of the communist movement, guarantees the strengthening of the CP-ML. This will mean, unfortunately for the U.S. multinational working class, the consolidation of class collaboration and reformism all along the line.
Despite their claiming to be united based on Marxism-Leninism Mao Tse Tung Thought, their lack of principles shows at every step. Take for example ATM’s explanation (???) of their participation in the Committee.
We have a common basis for unity in our support for the Theory of Three Worlds and the Communist Party of China, our upholding the unity of the proletariat and oppressed nationalities, our upholding the right of self-determination for oppressed nations, our view on the need for a Leninist vanguard party, and other important questions. With principled and above board struggle, we are confident that a single, vanguard party will emerge from this trend. Revolutionary Cause, Vol. 3, No. 5, pg. 2.
This statement, when analyzed in the light of ATM’s line in their “Fan the Flames” pamphlet (in which they launch a series of attacks on the opportunism of the CPML on the Chicano question, as well as on many other questions), and the CPML’s article on the Chicano question (in which they in turn attack ATM and their position) is really a joke. This is even more so when confronting this statement with ATM and the CPML’s practice in the national movements. But ATM would have everybody forget about the CPML’s and their own right opportunist line and practice by saying:
In the past our organizations have had many disagreements, some quite sharp. In fact the ATM (ML) characterized the October League (the leading group which formed the CP-ML) as right opportunists. This was a serious error. We believe that the OL did make certain rightist errors. However, these deviations did not warrant declaring CP-ML as right opportunists. We incorrectly placed them in the camp of the enemy, when in fact they were in the camp of the people. Looking back over the 1970’s the OL, and now the CP-ML, have held consistently to a Marxist-Leninist general line. They repudiated certain incorrect lines. While certain disagreements remain, we are confident that these questions will be struggled out within the Committee to Unite Marxist-Leninists. Revolutionary Cause, Vol. 3, No. 5, pg. 2.
This is the traditional backsliding of all opportunist’s. ATM is pointing to a non-existent self-criticism by the OL, retracting their characterization of OL as right opportunists without mentioning what were the things to which they referred to as right opportunism and claiming that all along these were correct Marxist-Leninist lines and practice. Neither do they mention what were the things for which supposedly the OL criticised itself as being right opportunist. This unprincipled way of making “self-criticism” is very vague, of changing lines without clear explanations of why those changes of covering for the opportunism of others, etc. Is what we mean when we speak of opportunism the unprincipled unity that the Unity Committee is promoting.
Again, some honest forces in the anti-revisionist communist movement might ask us: Why does LPR-ML oppose that an organization change its line?
Comrades, we are not questioning the right of an organization to change its assessment of another organization. If anybody, ATM in this case, is convinced that they have incorrectly characterized other organizations or individuals as opportunists, it is correct and definitely a good communist practice to repudiate that error. But what is incorrect, what Is not communist, is to take one label, “right opportunist”, and replace it with another, “held consistently to an Marxist-Leninist general line”, without making a concrete analysis of the line and practice of the organization in question and showing why it is not opportunist as previously held, but Marxist-Leninist.
And if this is the way in which they are dealing with the differences they had had up to now, what can we except In the way of resolving the differences which still remain? Shaky promises that those differences will be resolved in a principled way are not enough. At least not in the light of how past differences were resolved. Whether they will be struggled out or negotiated as opportunists do, is a matter that is yet to be seen. However, the way in which they dealt with the question of whether or not the CP-ML. is the true communist party of the U.S. multinational proletariat gives us a good indication of the kind of ideological struggle we are going to see coming from the Unity Committee. In this respect, ATM and IWK in a joint editorial point out:
A characteristic of our movement Is that while all of these farces have made contributions to the revolution, there is still no single, leading center for our movement. Such a center inevitably emerges through the party-building struggle, providing theoretical and practical leadership to the movement through the correctness of its line. Its demarcation with opportunism and its ability to give consistent practical leadership to the revolutionary movement.
In this country to date, no one group has been able to demonstrate such a role as the single, leading center. A single unified communist party still has to be forged. Getting Together, Vol. 9, No. 6, pg. 16.
It is obvious from this statement that ATM and IWK do not consider the CP-ML the party. But although in the editorial they criticize the CLP, RCP, WVO and MLOC for building “their own parties” based on revisionism, trotskyism and opportunism, they conveniently forget to take a stand on the fact that the OL also built their “own” party. And at the same time that ATM and IWK talk about the fact that there is no leading center, the CP-ML celebrates the anniversary of the formation of their party and announce:
Where would the struggle against capitalism and revisionism in this country be, if it weren’t for the CPML?
Would the forces against imperialism and superpower hegemonism, against war, fascism and racial discrimination be at the present level without the CPML’s work?
Would the budding revolutionary influence within the labor movement exist?
What would be the state of the Marxist-Leninist press if not for the Party?
The first anniversary is a time to sum up these and other aspects of the Party’s work, both strengths and weaknesses. The Call, Vol. 7, No. 23, pg. 2.
Beautiful. The “unity trend” wants to have its cake and eat it too. The CP-ML thinks itself the party but yet slavishly unites with ATM and IWK who in turn unite with the CP-ML on the basis that there is no party and it has to be built. They put two big cotton balls in their ears so as not to hear ATM and IWK imply that the CP-ML is NOT the party. While claiming to be the party of the proletariat they spinelessly unite with those who hold that such a party does not exist, and there is no mention on either part of this fundamental difference. With a party like this, how can the proletariat maintain its hegemony and wage proletarian revolution? The CP-ML has no proletarian guts to defend the hegemony of the proletariat and its party, and cannot be trusted by the proletariat.
At the same time, ATM and IWK recognize that there is no organization that can be considered the vanguard party of the U.S. multinational proletariat and also spinelessly refuse to take a stand on the CP-ML’s self-proclamation that they are the party, and unite with the CP-ML in the guise of building that party. In the last analysis the only real objection that ATM and IWK have for recognizing the CP-ML as the party is that they are not yet, organizationally speaking, that is, in that party. But as soon as they resolve this contradiction by forming the “CP-ML Unified” it is clear that any remaining differences will automatically vanish.
In the history of the Communist movement, different forces have tried to push certain lines or rush in the formation of their parties by using “scare tactics”. For example, they have used the question of the rising threat of fascism, and the question of the mass upsurge In order to justify their opportunist practice of building Menshevik parties, or of liquidating party building altogether in order to build instead the mass movement.
A concrete example was the Communist League who rushed In their “Communist Labor Party” using the threat of fascism. When they held their first Congress, the leadership of the CLP told its membership that this was their first and last party Congress, because “fascism is coming”. They claimed that since fascism was coming it was a security risk to hold any more Party congresses. In this way they liquidated the highest body of authority in a party where the membership as a whole expresses its views, and through which democratic centralism is implemented. In many other so-called revolutionary organizations bogeys such as the war and fascism have also been used for similar purposes. In PRRWO, for example “security” was used to keep members isolated from each other, uninformed even of the line of the organization. Many other organizations in the later period have used the bogey of the “mass upsurge” to liquidate party building and instead build the mass movement. They claim that the mass upsurge requires the building of a broad mass movement and although they give lip service to party building, forget that the party Is needed to lead such a mass upsurge and that party building must be linked to the struggle of the masses.
Nowadays the clincher is “the war is coming”. Rather than preparing the masses ideologically, by explaining its Inevitability, causes, consequences, need to oppose it, etc., and organizationally, by building a strong vanguard Marxist-Leninist Party of the proletariat, they go about In a frenzy screaming “the war is coming” and justifying their opportunism with the danger of war. Thus today the CP-ML, IWK and ATM use the bogey of the war to justify their unprincipled unity, to rush the party without vigorous Ideological struggle to establish firm lines of demarcation – the only way to real unity. The very real danger of war is thus used by these opportunists to justify their get-rich-quick schemes and they go about like “The Three Monkeys”, hearing no evil, speaking no evil and hearing no evil about each other, and covering for each other’s opportunism.
Some honest comrades may ask us: Isn’t It true that there is a danger of war and that this requires that we build the Party? We answer: Yea, the danger of war is real and imminent. And it is precisely this danger that requires that we double our efforts to build the party all the more stronger. Our party must be solidly united on a principled basis so as to be able to face this danger and effectively lead the working class in opposing the war and waging revolution. A party pushed into existence without clear lines of demarcation and vigorous ideological struggle, is a party unprepared to face the danger of war.
The creation of the Unity Committee represents the strengthening of right opportunism, of the main danger to our movement, and it has to be resolutely combatted. It requires a thorough exposure of their line on party building as well as their political line in all major questions (international situation, national question, trade unions, woman question, etc.) In fact, the task of exposing and defeating this sham unity trend is a very important one for our movement and cannot be postponed. Talking about the building of a genuine Marxist-Leninist Communist Party in the U.S. in the absence of an all out struggle against all forms of opportunism concentrating on the main danger of right opportunism and revisionism is pure idle talk. Marxist-Leninists have always opened their way in fierce struggle against all sorts of opportunism and falsehoods and in our country, it will not be different. A correct party building effort has to be based on the criticism and repudiation of all sham party building mockeries in existence. Of them all, the Unity Committee Is most dangerous because it appears under the cover of Marxism-Leninism Mao-Tse Tung Thought, of support for the 3 worlds theory and the CPC, of support for the right to self-determination of the Afro-American nation, etc. It’s also more dangerous because it counts with the support of many honest forces the world over, most notably the CPC, who has been mislead about the CP-ML and has recognized these false right opportunists as the party of the U.S. proletariat. This recognition by many forces in the international communist movement has greatly helped the CP-ML to strengthen its influence in our movement. And it is an indisputable fact that this has influenced honest comrades who have joined the Unity Committee out of a genuine desire for Marxist-Leninist unity.
So comrades, let’s carry out our work. Let’s make the task of exposing and combatting Right opportunism and its main proponent a central point in our party building effort. Let’s in fact “practice Marxism and not revisionism, unite and don’t split; and be open and above board, and don’t intrigue and conspire.”