Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line

What Went Wrong?

Articles and letters on the U.S. communist Left in the 1970’s

Edited and introduced by Charles Sarkis

Proletarian Unity League

A Letter to the League of Revolutionary Struggle

January 16, 1979

Dear Comrades of the League of Revolutionary Struggle (M-L),

We are writing in response to the letter sent to us by I Wor Kuen, dated September 1, 1978. Due to the merger of the IWK and the August Twenty-Ninth Movement (M-L) into the League of Revolutionary Struggle (M-L), we are sending this reply to the LRS (M-L).

We were happy to receive your letter. Committing our discussions to paper will allow us to distinguish major from secondary differences, clear up misunderstandings, and formulate our respective positions in the most unambiguous way possible.

At the same time, however, we were disappointed and discouraged by some of the contents of your letter. It contains numerous misrepresentations of our positions, including those we have set forward through publications. Perhaps these misrepresentations have come about through a combination of poor presentations on our representatives’ parts, and poor note-taking or faulty memories on your representatives’ parts. We don’t think that trying to assign responsibility for these mistakes will help the cause of Marxist-Leninist unity at this time. But we do want to point out as strongly as possible that a number of statements you make in your letter, and many of the representations of our positions found in your notes of May 1977, are not true.

Before proceeding to the main criticisms you raise, we would like to raise two objections to the methods of struggle you have employed. First, you make sweeping statements about what we think, or what we say, yet in a six-page single-spaced letter you do not quote us saying any of these things even once. You say you “have also read the position of PUL put forward in the book, Two, Three, Many Parties...” (page 1). But your letter gives little evidence of being familiar with what we say – instead, it gives evidence of being familiar with rumors of what we say, or certain conceptions of what we say. We disagree with this method of struggle.

Second, you have a tendency to argue, “if you think that ’left’ sectarianism is the main danger, then essentially you are saying...” or “if you think that ’left’ sectarianism is the main danger, then you must think....” This is also a bad style, in our opinion. Now there may be reasons for making certain deductions about the true meaning of something we say. But you can only do so on the basis of careful documentation of what we have actually said, and explaining the logic of the jump from what we say to what you think, we are essentially saying. There are some important differences between what we do say and what you say, and that would be the best starting point.

At the center of our differences lie our respective views of the main danger to the Marxist-Leninist movement.

This question concerns not simply how we view this or that organization, or how we sum up this or that experience; it concerns the ideological foundations of our activity, what we understand as Marxism-Leninism Mao Zedong Thought and as a Marxist-Leninist line, and what we understand as semi-anarchism, a “left” opportunist line, or semi-liberalism and a right opportunist line.

You make a number of statements concerning our line on the main danger:

Your organization puts forward the view that the entire Marxist-Leninist movement in the US has an ultra-left-sectarian line, (page 1)

You also say that the Marxist-Leninist forces like ATM and IWK have done the most damage to the revolutionary movement, (page 1)

We want to take up these and other charges cited below in four parts: the theory of the main danger; party-building line; tactical applications; history of the Marxist-Leninist movement.


Both statements quoted above are quite false, as a reading of our publications will show. We say quite clearly that the main danger to the Marxist-Leninist movement has come from the “left,” and we say that a “left” line (in one of a number of varieties) has dominated the Marxist-Leninist movement, particularly over the last five or so years. But we nowhere say that “the entire Marxist-Leninist movement in the US has an ’ultra-left-sectarian’ line,” and we would ask you to try to find any concrete evidence for this claim. Such a position would indeed be both arrogant and pessimistic, but it has nothing to do with our views or practice.

We have certainly never said “that the Marxist-Leninist forces like ATM and IWK have done the most damage to the revolutionary movement,” and again, we would ask that you give some source for this extremely grave charge. In this connection, we would like to treat your claim that “your book also negates the role of Marxist-Leninist organizations such as ATM and IWK that originated in the revolutionary national movements of the 1960s, took up Marxism-Leninism, and who have made significant contributions over the past eight or nine years. In discussions with the representatives of PUL when we raised this criticism, you stated that you did not view the role of such groups as significant, but only groups such as CLP, RCP and the CPML as having an impact on the Marxist-Leninist movement.” (p. 2) These two criticisms are to some extent contradictory: you seem to have us saying that those groups (“like ATM and IWK”) who have supposedly done the most damage to our movement have at the same time had little impact on that movement.

Two, Three, Many Parties of a New Type? represented an attempt on our part to develop a concrete analysis of the deviation of which little is known – the danger “against which we have ceased to fight, thereby allowing it to grow....” (Stalin): the danger of ultra-leftism, of “left” opportunism. On this basis, we examined a number of the major arguments and characteristic practice of the “Left-Wing” of the Marxist-Leninist movement. We dealt first of all with line, and only secondarily with the organizations themselves. We were not mainly concerned with labelling such and such an organization as “left” deviationist or whatever, but of explaining what constituted a “left” deviationist line. So our book is not a rating system of organizations, but a concrete analysis of the historical, social, and ideological roots of contemporary “Left-Wing” Communism, and its effects on party-building line, political line, and the practice of the communist movement.

Of course, in dealing with the major features of the ultra-left line, we also had to deal with the major proponents of the “left” line on various questions. This did not mean that we analyzed the 12 most significant organizations, and it certainly didn’t mean that we analyzed even one organization in complete detail. We were less concerned with the particulars of individual organizations than with a more general “description of some tendencies in our own organization as well as in the communist movement at large. We do not exempt ourselves from the spontaneous ’left’ drift which affects the Marxist-Leninist forces as a whole at this time.” (from TTM Preface, p. vi.) So we did deal with organizations like the Revolutionary Workers League/Puerto Rican Revolutionary Workers Organization, Workers Viewpoint Organization, the October League (M-L), Revolutionary Union/Revolutionary Communist Party, the Communist League/ Communist Labor Party; but we also dealt with the analyses of organizations like the League for Proletarian Revolution (M-L), the Workers Congress (M-L), and the Philadelphia Workers Organizing Committee. We did not deal very much with either the ATM (M-L) or the IWK. Why?

There were two main reasons. First, the IWK was not a leading proponent of the “left” line in the communist movement. We were not aware, and still are not, of any analysis by the IWK which summarized in a particularly characteristic way a major feature of the “left” line. In our book, we talked about the WC(M-L) more than we did the IWK. Does this mean that we think that the WC(M-L) is overall a more significant organization than IWK? Certainly not. But the WC(M-L) summarized in a particularly strong way a number of conceptions we believe are “left”: its analysis of amateurishness in the Marxist-Leninist movement, of economism, and of the Iskra “principle.”

The ATM(M-L) was a bit different case – as a member of the Revolutionary Wing, it belonged to a collection of organizations whose views had a very wide impact in the communist movement. But the ATM(M-L) had gone through a number of major changes, had broken with the “Wing” and was in the process of charting new directions. Therefore, we did not want to spend a great deal of time analyzing positions of the ATM(M-L) which the comrades themselves then considered erroneous.

The second reason for not discussing the lines of the ATM(M-L) and the IWK in greater detail was that in the first case, the line was changing and we didn’t know what the ATM(M-L) still thought or had rejected; and in the second case, that of the IWK, aside from one contribution early in 1976, there was not a great deal of more general analyses to discuss. You say in your letter that “Our organization’s views on the Marxist-Leninist movement in the US and our central task of forging a single unified communist party in this country are publicly known.” (p. 1) But in fact until its Journal #3, January 1976, the IWK did not hold that party-building was the central task; and to this day, the IWK has neither published a theoretical analysis explaining the historical, social, and ideological roots of right opportunism in the US, nor refuted in print analyses which say that the main danger instead comes from the “left.” The only substantial analysis of party-building published by the IWK was that found in Journal #3; the analysis of the degeneration of PRRWO published in Getting Together, while contributing something to this earlier analysis (in fact, we have found it useful in some of our circles), was unavailable to us before publishing our book, and in any case it did not deal with a number of very important features of any party-building line.

In fact, to this day, the IWK has not presented before the Marxist-Leninist movement an explicit line which identifies the particular period the communist forces are in, and the strategy and tactics for party-building, etc. Recently the IWK joined forces with others in putting forward a particular plan for party-building, although the relation other organizations besides the LRS(M-L) and the CPML will have to this plan has yet to be clarified. But in any case, a particular plan is not the same thing as a line, against which the plan can be measured. The lack of an explicit party-building analysis on your part has made it difficult for us and others to understand some of your current views. For example, we think your claim that the OL made a “consistent and consolidated right error on the question of party building” (Journal #3, p. 33) was incorrect. No matter how critical we have been of the OL/CPML for their ultra-leftism, we have never said that they were consolidated opportunists. Since the IWK and LRS(M-L) have apparently rejected this earlier analysis of the OL, will they explain what was wrong with it?

On the one hand, you claim that we say “that the Marxist-Leninist forces like ATM and IWK have done the most damage to the revolutionary movement”; on the other hand, you criticize us for not taking them more into account. We would like to point out that we did deal with several of the ATM(M-L)’s positions, despite the changes they were going through: their definition of political line (TTM, pp. 44-5), their claim that the RCP was just as dangerous as the CPUS A (TTM, p. 166), their summation of the Dasco strike, as well as the IWK summation of the Jung Sai strike, which we described as “valuable summaries of experience authored by comrades” (TTM, pp. 141-42). The example of the RCP-CPUSA is a good indication of our procedure: there we purposely did not cite the ATM comrades by name, even though the quote on that page comes from them. We did not want to single out organizations we felt were putting forward somewhat contradictory analyses – trying to fight “left” opportunism and at the same time clinging to certain ”left” ideas. We were more concerned with criticizing a wrong way of thinking than criticizing a particular organization.

Further, we have consistently made positive criticisms of the ATM, for example, when we felt that the comrades were making a positive contribution to the struggle against ultra-leftism. Just as we talk about the tendencies towards ultra-leftism affecting the movement as a whole, including ourselves, we also talk about the struggle against ultra-leftism as something occurring in the movement as a whole, not simply those organizations who have concluded that the main danger comes from the “left.” We cite the ATM(M-L) in this connection in the Introduction to our book (TTM, p. 7) and again in the article “On the Small Consequences of Sectarianism,” p. 37 of The Ultra-Left Danger and How to Fight It. We hope the LRS(M-L) will build on the ATM’s critique of ultra-leftism.

Finally, in our book, we explicitly cite the contributions of a number of past and present organizations to the critique of ultra-leftism: we do not pretend for a moment that we have originated the idea that ultra-leftism could present the main danger to the communist movement (see TTM, pp. 206-7). You have to keep in mind that we were discussing in our book the particular problem of ultra-leftism among today’s communists, and not all the other problems which we face and which various communist organizations – including the ATM(M-L) and IWK – have tried to solve.

We did not say – and no member of our organization could possibly have said – that we “did not view the role of such groups [“Marxist-Leninist organizations such as ATM and IWK that originated in the revolutionary national movements of the 1960s, took up Marxism-Leninism, and who have made significant contributions over the past eight or nine years”] as significant....” (your letter, p. 2) Our view has always been as expressed in our letter of greetings to the LRS(M-L): “Over the years, both the August Twenty-Ninth Movement (M-L) and the I Wor Kuen have made important contributions to the fusion of Marxism-Leninism with the workers and national revolutionary movements in the United States.” Why else would we have sought to establish relations with both groups in the first place?

We do have definite differences about the level of fusion in the US at this time, and these may have some bearing on your criticism. We continue to believe that Marxism-Leninism is relatively isolated from the mass movements in this country, and that – despite a number of important advances, especially since 1968 or so – anti-revisionism continues to exist as it has for the past 20 years on the margins of US society. We believe a serious, scientific analysis of Marxist-Leninist experience in the mass movements will demonstrate as much. Your descriptions of Marxist-Leninist influence, such as that found in your letter, seem to us subjective and one-sided, and you rarely give attention to the real weaknesses of anti-revisionism in this country: ”The ties of the Marxist-Leninist forces among the masses have deepened and the Marxist-Leninists have been playing an increasingly important role in struggles such as against the Bakke decision, to save the International Hotel, in workers’ struggles, and the national movements, etc.” (We also wonder why you couldn’t think of any concrete examples other than the Bakke work and the I-Hotel struggle; isn’t this a little self-centered?) Of course our ties have deepened compared to what they were ten years ago; but to talk only about our ”increasingly important role” without pointing to the continuing isolation of anti-revisionists from crucial sections of the mass movements seems to us somewhat misleading.

Despite this important difference of analysis between our organizations, we think we have failed to struggle hard enough to learn from your work and experience, which is far greater than our own – especially in the national movements. We have very little direct knowledge of the national revolutionary movements in the US, and almost none of those movements in which you have done much of your revolutionary work. In this situation, it has been wrong in our discussions with the IWK comrades (we have had less opportunity to speak to the ATM) for us not to seek more guidance in this crucial area of communist work. We should not have allowed discussion of our differences around the communist movement to overshadow everything else and make it difficult to discuss other subjects.

This brings us to your analysis of “left opportunism,” and your description of “revisionism” as the main danger to the communist movement. We believe this analysis makes four basic errors.

First, it confuses the concept of the main danger to the communist movement – a danger which is internal to that movement – with the main enemy to the workers’ movement. Your analysis consistently mixes together these two dangers. For example, in Journal #3, you state that “The main danger in the communist movement internationally as well as in the US today is revisionism.” (p. 19) But the paragraph that follows this, the paragraph supporting this conclusion, points only to factors such as “rightist thinking in the working class,” without saying anything at all about the actual situation in the US communist movement itself. Especially in a situation where the communist movement largely exists on the margins of society, to collapse these two main dangers and to mechanically assume that both the communist and workers’ movements face identical immediate obstacles, to ignore the key contradictions internal to the communist movement (not to mention those specific to the workers’ movement), can only tie our hands in the struggle to bring Marxism-Leninism Mao Zedong Thought to the masses. Ultra-leftism has not been the main enemy in the workers’ movement very often in history, although that has occurred. But surely you recognize that the histories of communist parties are full of examples of situations in which some form of ultra-leftism posed the main danger within those parties. Should communists in those situations have ignored the ultra-left danger in favor of pronouncements about the obstacles posed by reformism to the further revolutionarization of the non-Party masses? Obviously not.

Second, you confuse revisionism – a specific anti-Marxist trend – with right opportunism, a tendency or trend within Marxism-Leninism. A Marxist-Leninist organization may be right opportunist, but a revisionist organization by definition cannot be Marxist-Leninist. For example, in the same Journal issue cited, having said that revisionism is the main danger in the US communist movement, you say, “Our greatest danger lies still with right opportunism such as seen in the new communist movement in the form of the line of the Revolutionary Union.” (p. 27) Or, “The most dangerous form of opportunism is revisionism – consolidated right opportunism under the guise of Marxism-Leninism.” (p. 18) ATM makes a similar error when they say, “Our time and energy is better spent in the organization of the political struggle and directing our main blows at right opportunism in the form of revisionism and reformism.” (Red Banner #2, “Editor’s Note”) (We believe this error has affected your analysis of the Revolutionary Workers’ Headquarters. Many comrades who for some time denounced the RU/RCP as “revisionist,” ”out of the Marxist-Leninist movement,” and so on, have had a hard time explaining the birth of the RWH and analyzing the positive significance of that group’s foundation. More on this later.)

Third, you often consider ultra-leftism to mean “terrorism, Trotskyism, anarchism.” This is incorrect. Ultra-leftism and “left” opportunism are deviations within Marxism-Leninism. Terrorists (those who raise terrorism to a principle, since Marxist-Leninists do not rule out completely the use of “terror,” as Lenin pointed out), Trotskyites and anarchists represent ideological trends outside of and completely opposed to Marxism-Leninism. An ultra-left organization may be Marxist-Leninist, but a terrorist, anarchist or Trotskyite organization by definition is not Marxist-Leninist. Yet you sometimes say, “While there is some presence of ultra-leftism in the US revolutionary movement today (terrorism, Trotskyism, anarchism), rightism is the greatest threat.” (p. 19)

Now there are certainly no solid walls between the communist movement and the mass movements, revisionists and right opportunists, or ultra-lefts and anarchists. But there are nonetheless big differences between all three of these sets of terms, and they have big practical implications. For example, one reason why this whole distinction between right or “left” opportunism and right or “left” revisionism is so important is that with opportunists (precisely because they are not yet revisionists), persuasion can continue as the main method of resolving contradictions. This has major consequences for how we conduct struggle within the communist movement.

Your failure to make these distinctions relates to your fourth, most general error around this question: reductionism, a type of subjectivism (see pp. 163-70 of TTM for a related analysis). You belittle the danger of “left” errors unless represented in their most extreme forms (i.e., PRRWO/RWL, the only organization we know that you characterize as “left”). You reduce other errors to their “essence,” and then describe them as rightist or ultra-rightist on that basis. We disagree with this method. All deviations from Marxism-Leninism are in essence rightist, and while it is very important to understand this, it is not sufficient – particularly for fighting them.

All revisionists are in essence politically Right; this is their common nature whether they are revisionists of the old line or of today, abroad or in China. However, they alter their appearance in different periods or under different conditions. Some emerge as Rightists; others dress themselves up as “leftists.” Peking Review #6, 2/10/78, p. 6

In part because you reduce almost all errors to their rightist essence, you fail to understand the depth of “leftist” thinking and action in the Marxist-Leninist movement.

For example, in dismissing our analysis you say that, “You try to fit within this category of ’left-sectarians’ ATM, IWK, CPML and other Marxist-Leninist groups, as well as including opportunist groups such as RCP, CLP, and WVO within this group” (p. 1). Here again you turn every question of line into one of individual organizations. It is true, for instance, that the RCP line today is a consolidated opportunist line, mired in semi-Trotskyism. But in looking at the history of the Marxist-Leninist movement, we shouldn’t restrict our analysis to labelling groups and then moving on to other things. We have to analyze what factors produced both defeats and successes. There is no solid wall between deviations within the Marxist-Leninist movement and revisionist organizations of the right or “left” who develop out of it.

If we look at the major failures of the last dozen or so years, we find that they are represented by organizations which found themselves on the “Left-Wing” of the communist movement and then gradually consolidated semi-Trotskyite or “left” revisionist lines: the Provisional Organizing Committee, Progressive Labor Party, CLP, RCP, etc. As we say in our pamphlet, The Ultra-Left Danger and How to Fight It:

On one side we have those organizations in and around the “Left-Wing,” or largely relating to its perspectives. It was from this section that a number of groups slipped into semi-Trotskyism and “left” revisionism (groups like the Workers Viewpoint Organization, Puerto Rican Revolutionary Workers Organization, Revolutionary Workers League, etc., not to mention the Communist Labor Party). It was also from this section that the two biggest organizations emerged who today consider themselves the anti-revisionist communist party in the US, the RCP, and the CP(M-L). [p. 2; emphasis added. This was written before the split in the RCP, producing the Revolutionary Workers Headquarters.]

We can see from this quotation that your assertion that we lump ATM, IWK, and CPML with the CLP and WVO is just not true. What we point to, however, are the lessons we must learn about the main danger to the Marxist-Leninist movement from the degeneration of organizations like the RCP. The failures of one organization after another to develop into a real pole of communist leadership and eventually into a true vanguard party must be attributed mainly to the influence of the ultra-left line, rather than to the influence of a semi-reformist line.

If we think about the current difficulties of the international Marxist-Leninist movement, we can see experiences to learn from in this connection (though we would not extend our conclusions about the US Marxist-Leninist movement to the international movement). Take a look at the messages sent to the Communist Party of China hailing their Tenth National Congress just five years ago. A significant number of the newly-formed Marxist-Leninist parties whose messages were featured by Peking Review at that time have in recent years attacked the Three Worlds concept in violent terms, and in some cases have attacked the Chinese Party itself: the Communist Party of Japan (Left), the RCP of Chile, the CP of Italy (M-L), the CP of Britain (M-L), the CP of Germany (M-L), the CP of Brazil. These have been well-known organizations in the international Marxist-Leninist movement, with longer histories in their countries than many other parties and organizations, and long contact with the Chinese Party. We haven’t read all their analyses of the Three Worlds concept, but we have a sense of many of them. In our view, their repudiation of the Three Worlds concept stems from ultra-left premises rather than rightist assumptions; we would be interested in your thoughts on this. These and other events show the great risks we run if we downplay the extent of “left” errors and refuse to take up serious analysis of them. As you say, “all forms of opportunism must be battled, but one must accurately characterize a deviation or else one will wind up making other deviations and distorting reality.” (p. 5) If we mischaracterize most “left” deviations as “rightist” (as we believe you do), we will be unable to learn from the recent experiences of these parties, and this error of analysis will inevitably reinforce other “left” errors in theory and practice.


In your letter you have brought up the Gang of Four, and it is clear that Marxist-Leninists have a great deal to learn from that experience as well. You claim that “you have tried to characterize the ’gang of four’ as ultra-leftists to suit your own purpose for the struggle in the US. But the Communist Party of China has very clearly time and time again put forth that the ’gang’ were ultra-Rightists which posed as ’leftists’ to gain credibility. But they were not ultra-leftists.” (p. 5) In fact, we have never called the Four themselves ultra-lefts. We have only followed the Chinese in pointing out that they took advantage of an “ultra-left trend of thought.” (See Peking Review #15, 1978; you refer us to this same issue.) We have studied some of the many analyses of the ”Gang of Four” that have come out of China, and we can’t say we have a terrific grasp of the distinction between “Left in form, Right in essence” or “Left in appearance, Right in fact” – both designations commonly used to describe ultra-leftists – and the term “fake Left but real Right.” It seems to us that the latter term can be useful in characterizing the errors of individual leaders. But in characterizing a line or deviation, an objective phenomenon, and in trying to account for the widespread influence of that deviation, the subjective intentions of the ringleaders are not really at issue (intentions become more important when the Party is trying to “cure the disease and save the patient” of course). The question here is the ideological source of the deviation, and the forms it takes.

In assessing the Chinese analyses of the “gang of four,” we have to look at the sum total of the analyses and exercise our independent judgement about them. For example, the Chinese have devoted extensive articles to the anarchism and semi-Trotskyism of the “gang of four” ; we know from our study of ultra-leftism that Marx, Engels, and Lenin have held that anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism formed the ideological sources of ultra-leftism. The Chinese have repeatedly described the “gang of four” as denying the role of production in the building of socialism in an idealist way. This too usually stems from the “Left.” The Chinese have written many accounts of the “gang of four’s” elevating contradictions among the people into contradictions with the enemy (in their policies towards veteran cadre, for example). This is also most often associated with ultra-left lines.

Moreover, if we look at the sum total of Chinese analyses rather than simply those three or four which might best suit a particular position, we will find that the Chinese comrades do not “very clearly time and time again put forth that the ’gang’ were ultra-rightists which posed as ’leftists’ to gain credibility.” (p. 5) Look at Chairman Hua’s speech in Peking Review #10, March 10, 1978, where he states,

They pushed an extreme ultra-Right line, which manifested itself in an ultra-left as well as an ultra-Right form. As a rule, it was when they struck an ultra-left pose that their capacity to deceive became quite great, (p. 16)

In Peking Review #6 of the same year, the “gang of four” and Lin Piao are denounced as “...revisionists who donned the mask of ’Leftists’ but were ultra-Right in essence” (p. 6). In another article of the same issue, the author says,

Another important reason why the “gang of four” was able to work so much havoc under the same guise [the “Left” guise – PUL] not long after the shattering of the Lin Piao clique is that the “Leftist” mask of the Lin Piao anti-party clique had not been fully exposed or criticized in the light of the true features behind it. (p. 9)

In the more recent series, “Pseudo-Leftism and Reality,” Peking Review says that, ”The gang took over revolutionary slogans and with feigned revolutionary zeal swung them to an ultra-’Left’ extreme.” (See for example, Peking Review #38.) Finally, when the Chinese characterize the general deviation of which the gang took advantage, they are unequivocal: it is an ”ultra-left trend of thought” (Peking Review #15, 1978, pp. 7-8).

These quotes show that the CPC does not reject outright the characterization of the “gang of four” as ultra-“Left,” as long as the ”ultra-left in form, Right in essence” nature of the ”gang of four” is clearly understood. But they show two things even more important: 1) that the form taken by the “gang of four’s” errors was most frequently ultra-left, and that they did the most damage in that guise. In other words, the main danger presented by the “gang of four” occurred in their ultra-left form or ultra-left guise. 2) That one of the important contributing factors to this danger was that the study of “left” errors was downplayed. The “gang of four” apparently worked to insure that the “left” danger in China, like the “left” danger in the US Marxist-Leninist movement, was the danger of which “little is known” (See Chapter II, Section J of TTM). As the article you yourselves cite says, “Whoever dared mention the word ’Left’ was regarded by the gang as one committing a heinous crime.” (P. 8)

In the US communist movement, many comrade organizations consider almost any mention of ultra-leftism a sure sign of revisionism. Some restrict the definition of ultra-leftism to anarchism, terrorism, and Trotskyism, and can only bring themselves to term a line ultra-left when it takes the completely extreme form of the PRRWO/ RWL line. All this has helped make ultra-leftism ”the danger we have ceased to fight.” (Stalin)

Your downplaying of the study of “left” errors results in wrong analyses of current organizations. Your view of the RWHq is a case in point. You have always viewed the RU/RCP as a rightist organization; your article in GT (March 1978) on the RCP split summarizes this position. You also insist (correctly, in our view) that ”the RCP’s current reactionary line is a consistent extension of aspects of the RCP line going back even to the old RU.” But while we agree that the RU/RCP has fairly consistently represented a strain of opportunism in our movement, it has been “left” and not right opportunism that has characterized that organization (in fact, in our first letter to the IWK of March 20, 1976, which initiated contact between our organizations, we dealt at some length with our differences around this question of the nature of the RU’s errors). Whereas you think the RCP is currently a rightist organization, we consider its line basically semi-Trotskyite at this point. We do not understand how you can look at the RCP’s imitation of the PLP in its attacks on China, its “Mao Memorials,” its attack on normalization of relations between China and the US, its promise to “give Teng hell” when he visits our country, its reduction of communist mass work to the formation of ”shock troops,” its adventurist seizures of “symbolic” buildings like the Statue of Liberty, its continuing struggle against so-called ”Bundism,” and a host of other examples of petit-bourgeois revolutionism, and say “This is right opportunism”!!! In fact, we believe it impossible to explain the RCP’s flagrant and headlong rush into “left” revisionism on the basis of any analysis which considers them a consistent long-time exponent of rightism.

Such an analysis also makes it difficult to appreciate the significance of the formation of the RWHq, since that organization was founded in struggle against “left” opportunism. Because you disagree with the target of this struggle, you incorrectly argue that “the RWH has not really broken with the opportunism of the RCP” (GT, 3/78). While we disagree with a number of important points in Red Papers 8 and recognize significant remnants of the RU/RCP line in that document, the key thing is the RWHq’s break with the overall “left” line of the RU/RCP. In other words, the key thing is that the RWHq really has broken with the opportunism of the RCP – even if that break remains uneven. The RWHq’s line lies to the right of the RCP’s, just as ours does. And just as we think the RCP’s line is basically semi-Trotskyite at this point, we think the RWHq’s line is basically Marxist-Leninist. You have only to look at ”its manifestations in the real world,” as you advise, to recognize this about the RWHq line. But instead of seeing this, you warn the RWHq of the necessity to “make a real break,” call on them to “join the Marxist-Leninist forces,” and even go so far as to assert – without any proof – that the RWHq “carries a basically incorrect line on the international situation”! The international line of the RWHq is obviously basically correct – even though you may disagree with certain of its features; in fact, the RWHq has published a more thorough analysis of certain international events than any of the “Marxist-Leninist forces” of which you speak in your article. It is your general misunderstanding of the “left” danger that enables you to miss the significant break with opportunism that occurred in the RCP split. Only if we recognize that break can we explain how out of an organization which many had banished from the communist movement arose a group which obviously has the potential to make major contributions to the revolutionary cause.


The IWK is laboring under big misunderstandings of our party-building line. Their letter says,

... your position is that such questions as the national question are not essential to be struggled over prior to the formation of the party. This negates the crucial struggle that we must wage against opportunists who counterpose the national question with the workers’ movement; refuse to uphold the struggle of the oppressed nationalities for full equality and an end to national oppression; or who like bourgeois-liberals relegate the national question to simply a question of “formal” rights, not recognizing that the national movements in the US are profoundly revolutionary in character, a component part of the proletarian revolution, and that national oppression can only be ended with the overthrow of the capitalist class....

Further, you negate the other areas that must be struggled over and united around firmly to ensure that the party is based on Marxism-Leninism, and to draw clear lines of distinction with opportunism. It is our task to struggle for a correct line on the major questions of principle facing the Marxist-Leninist movement, including upholding the three worlds theory of the international situation, a correct line on communist work in the workers movement and the trade unions, and other questions.

Saying that the party can be built without developing a correct line on the national question or on other important political questions means that the party will be condemned to be built on incorrect and opportunist positions....

The RCP for example has become a thoroughly revisionist force not because they developed and struggled for a position on the national question, on China, etc. but because of the content of their line. Your view of party-building denies the importance of combatting national chauvinist and revisionist lines like the RCP and therefore objectively covers for them. (p. 3)

Again you do not provide a single quotation or other piece of evidence to back up these claims. You do not provide such evidence because you cannot – our book and our pamphlets set out a very different line.

Our book does distinguish between questions we think have more immediacy in our present situation and questions we think have less. Does this mean we think these are questions the Founding Congress would need no position on? Absolutely not, as our book says quite clearly:

Some specific characteristics of the various national questions in the US (particularly the Afro-American and Chicano national questions), the nature and potential of the women’s emancipation movement, many tactical questions of international line, the character and history of the CPUSA and the possibility or no of united action with it, the trade union question, the full strategy for revolution, just to name a few, all require attention. Though crucial when considered over the past and future course of the US revolution, these questions do not have the same importance at this time as the problems we have dealt with in this section, and they therefore do not demand the same thoroughgoing resolution the latter problems require, (pp. 218-219)

We argue in support of this position that, “... the two-line struggle in our movement concentrates itself on a relatively few problems, and there the movement will have to establish the ideological foundations for unity. On the basis of that unity, the communist forces can settle for more rudimentary positions on other questions.” (p. 219)

So we speak of issues around which the communist forces can settle for “more rudimentary positions” given the ideological foundations for unity established through the “thoroughgoing resolution” of other problems. We do not say that we need no position on these questions in order to form the Party; we simply distinguish them from the more “burning issues” of the ideological struggle.

For instance, the two-line struggle has focused in practice and in theory less on the specific characteristics of the Afro-American people than on the general line taken towards the fight for reforms and democratic rights in the era of imperialism, including towards consistent democracy, of which the right to self-determination constitutes a particular case. Establishing the ideological basis for unification depends more on the resolution of these issues than on the debate between ill-supported and poorly-understood positions on all the specific revolutionary problems presented by the Black people’s national homeland, (p. 218)

We devoted this section of our book largely to determining the ”necessary and the possible” in the struggle for the Party; and we attempted to base our arguments on a concrete analysis of how to attain genuine communist unity at the earliest possible time. Certainly we may have erred in the weight we gave (or didn’t give) to specific questions; but you apparently object to our whole approach. If that is the case, we would like to understand your alternative method.

Do you seriously believe that ”...your position is that such questions as the national question are not essential to be struggled over prior to the formation of the party?” Why would we have made a pamphlet about busing and the struggle against white-supremacist national oppression our very first pamphlet if that were the case? If we didn’t attach a great deal of importance to the struggle around issues of political line, would we have included a whole chapter on “left” opportunism in political line in our book? Far from claiming that questions such as the national question “are not essential to be struggled over prior to the formation of the party,” far from holding that “the party can be built without developing a correct line on the national question or other important political questions,” TTM says, “Struggle over certain key features of political line is necessary for establishing the ideological foundations of the Party” (p. 212). We go on in that section of the book to single out the relationship of democratic struggles to socialist struggles, with a focus on the struggle against white-supremacist national oppression, as an area where “party-formation demands a fairly well-defined tactical approach” (p. 213). This section even mentions your own organization by name, in support of your general stand towards consistent democracy and the fight for national equality: ”Both the I Wor Kuen and the WVO, on the other hand, uphold the Black nation position, yet the IWK’s advocacy of consistent democracy in the working class has practically nothing in common with the WVO’s ’left’ economism and instead probably shares a great deal with that of the PWOC” (p. 214). We conclude by saying that “The preeminent practical significance of issues related to democratic rights and the fight against national oppression force the question upon the movement no matter how disorganized its forces” (pp. 215-16). We may well differ over the place in party-building of certain specific questions concerning the Black Belt Nation in the South. It is also clear that there are major differences in the contributions our organizations have made to the struggle against national oppression in this country. But none of this can be used to argue that we think the national question is “unimportant,” and neither our theory nor our practice will support such an argument.

Let us take another example you cite. Do we fail to realize that ”it is our task to struggle for a correct line on the major questions of principle facing the Marxist-Leninist movement, including upholding the three worlds theory of the international situation”? Comrades, doesn’t our book say, “Communist unification in a Party or other organizational form also requires unity around the principles guiding the internationalist policy of the working class, as well as a rudimentary line on world affairs” (p. 216)? Don’t we go on in that section to spell out some of the features of this line (pp. 216-19)? How can you make these claims if you have read our book? True, we do say at one point that, “We doubt that the US communist movement is in a position to elaborate a definitive position on which of these tactical applications best serves the international working class,” speaking of the tactical applications developed by the Albanian and Chinese Parties. This was written before the Albanian critique of the three worlds thesis was published, and we would modify that statement today. But the charge that we do not think it necessary to struggle for a correct position on the international situation falls on its face.

It seems to us that instead of approaching our differences in a spirit of unity and struggle, you again avoid documentation in your criticisms in favor of one-sided claims about our positions. We think this is a sectarian approach, and we don’t think it’s the only evidence of sectarianism in your work. Consider two examples. In Getting Together, II: 1, you state that GT will “facilitate the ideological struggle in the communist movement... We recognize that our view is not the only view in the communist movement and therefore we intend to open the pages of Getting Together to other viewpoints. We will print the statements and views of other groups and individuals as a way of promoting the exchange of ideas and principled struggle.” We thought this statement represented a good initiative in the communist movement, but unfortunately this fine statement of objectives has remained a largely paper resolution. You have not translated it into deeds, except to print an occasional letter which agrees with your own positions. Printing occasional letters by organizations that agree with you does not go very far to promote the exchange of ideas or principled struggle.

Or consider your and Unity’s recent coverage of the postal contract struggle. The descriptions mention only the Postal Workers Contract Committee, and not any of the other rank and file organizations which have grown up in the post office. The October issue even has a letter from two New York GPO workers which makes it sound as if no one did anything in the New York/New Jersey area aside from Getting Together. Yet the New York/New Jersey area has seen a lot of struggle around the walkout at the Bulk center and the defense of the Bulk workers. Unity never mentions the rank and file organizations which have played a role in this struggle, and doesn’t attempt to broaden the knowledge of these two workers or its readers through any comment. The letter is left standing as if it represented the truth – as if “most of the time these [Getting Together] leaflets were the only source of information the workers had.”


You make several claims in relation to our tactics in the struggle for communist unity. You say that, “In the recent past period, you spent much of your time trying to unite with forces such as the PWOC, Guardian, and others who objectively cover for Soviet social-imperialism and revisionism,” and ”This has led you in practice to have a view of blocking against the Marxist-Leninist forces. For example, your representatives have stated to ours on various occasions that you would, and have, united with the Guardian against groups we consider Marxist-Leninist, because you view the latter as the ’main danger.’” (Both from p. 5) The first point is based on a big misunderstanding. We have devoted a certain amount of attention to our unities and differences with the “anti-dogmatists.” We have conducted a two-year struggle with the leadership of the Organizing Committee for an Ideological Center. We would suggest that you read the three pamphlets that came out of that experience (The Ultra-Left Danger and How to Fight It; Party-Building and the Main Danger; On the “Progressive Role” of the Soviet Union and Other Dogmas). You will see there that we have not been involved in a ”unity struggle” with the PWOC, but rather a broad struggle concerning the line and tasks of building an anti-”left” opportunist, Marxist-Leninist tendency. Among other things, that struggle has enabled a pro-three worlds view to gain a hearing within a certain section of our movement; and where you have pretty much chosen to boycott that struggle, we at least have done a little to win some comrades from that section to a more correct view of the nature and role of the USSR. In this regard, it is completely ridiculous to claim that the PUL has advocated joining the Guardian clubs, as the comrades of the ATM(M-L) told several sources in the past. Misrepresentations like this hardly serve the struggle for communist unity. And as to ”uniting with the Guardian against groups we consider Marxist-Leninist,” we have no idea what you are talking about, and wish that rather than make unspecified charges, you would document your points.

There is a further point. We have sought exchanges and struggle with the CPML, with the IWK, and with the ATM(M-L). We have tried to struggle with the CPML on two major occasions: following their first call for Marxist-Leninists to unite; and following their most recent call to form a unity committee in December, 1977. In both cases, we wrote letters to the CPML, presented our views, and asked for replies. At first, we requested meetings, but the CPML would not meet with us. Nor has the CPML responded to our letter of March 1978 concerning the unity committee. Both ATM and IWK received this letter as well. We should point out too that we initiated liaison with both the IWK and the ATM(M-L) – we sought you out for discussions and exchanges of views, you did not seek us out. Finally, a year and a half have gone by since we published TTM; three years have gone by since we published our busing pamphlet. Yet the CPML, the ATM(M-L), and the IWK, all of whom have newspapers and journals, have not even publicly taken notice of our positions. Instead of publicly refuting what you believe to be an incorrect line, you have publicly ignored our views and those of comrades who think in a similar fashion, and instead presented your opinions orally to a number of comrade organizations. This of course prevents us from replying to your views, and keeps an open struggle from occurring.


You make a series of grave charges about our views on the history of the US Marxist-Leninist movement.

Essentially, you put forward PUL’s line as the leading line in the movement, and place yourself at the center of the movement, as the leadership of the so-called ”anti-left-sectarian trend.” (p. 1)

Your book writes these struggles within the NLC and around the NCC off as being incorrect, as contributing nothing, and you essentially say that nobody’s analysis was correct and no significant advances were made until PUL came into the movement. We feel this is an arrogant attempt to rewrite the history of the communist movement around yourselves, and it is also idealist and non-dialectical and pessimistic. (P- 2)

We feel that your book also negates the role of Marxist-Leninist organizations such as ATM and IWK that originated in the revolutionary national movements of the 1960s, took up Marxism-Leninism, and who have made significant contributions over the past eight or nine years. (P


Your claims that we “essentially... put forward PUL’s line as the leading line in the movement, and place yourself at the center of the movement” or that we ”attempt to rewrite the history of the communist movement around yourselves” are further examples of sweeping, completely unsubstantiated charges. You nowhere give any evidence to support this perspective, aside from pointing to the undeniable fact that we have a definite analysis of the communist movement, and we happen to believe it to be true, or else we wouldn’t have put it forward. It is extremely difficult to argue against undocumented charges, which do not openly base themselves on quotations, examples, or some form of evidence to back them up. You claim that you wrote your letter ”in a spirit of bringing out our differences as openly and as sharply as we can in order to try to promote the struggle for principled unity” (p. 6). We think this purpose would have been helped had you brought the discussion out of the realm of sweeping accusations and instead brought forth some hard evidence.

We definitely have differences with the IWK about the history of the US Marxist-Leninist movement and the balance sheet of its accomplishments and failures. Struggle over this history, seeking truth from facts and taking a cautious rather than an overconfident and know-it-all approach, could significantly advance US communists in our theoretical clarity. We can seek this through examination of some fundamental historical problems concerning the movement. For example: when did the Marxist-Leninist, anti-revisionist movement begin?

Our position on this problem underlies some of the major conclusions of our book. Our analysis of the ultra-left danger derives from our study not simply of the communist movement during the last five or six years, but since the beginning of organized anti-revisionist activity. Following the revisionist capture of the CPUSA, a series of groupings broke away from that party and attempted to build a revolutionary party of the US working class. In our view, the POC, the PLP and several other early organizations suffered mainly from ultra-left errors, and eventually succumbed to “left” revisionism, in semi-Trotskyite and even openly anarchist forms.

In arguing for the opposite thesis – that right opportunism has constituted the main danger – a number of Marxist-Leninist organizations have attempted to foreshorten the historical record. Instead of looking at the Provisional Organizing Committee and Progressive Labor Movement experiences, for example, they ignore them, as if they have nothing to teach communists today. TTM takes up the false representation made by the WVO to this effect on pages 57-58, in a long note. The WVO tried to claim that the anti-revisionist communist movement only began around 1968. This is the date of the founding of the Bay Area Revolutionary Union, of the California Communist League, and probably close to the year when some present members of WVO left PLP.

What view does the LRS(M-L) take? In the first issue of its newspaper, it says “This is the first time since the formation of the anti-revisionist communist movement in the early 1970s that two major, established Marxist-Leninist organizations have succeeded in resolving their differences and merged” (our emphasis). Comrades, what events mark the formation of the anti-revisionist communist movement? It can’t be the first break-aways from the CPUSA: those took place in 1958, in 1960, 1961, and later years, and they occurred on anti-revisionist bases. The Communist Party of China certainly considered a number of these organizations anti-revisionist for a time, since it maintained relations with them (particularly PLP, but not only PLP by any means). It can’t be the founding of the BARU, since that took place in 1968. It can’t be the founding of the October League since that took place in Los Angeles in 1969. Around the same time, a number of other Marxist-Leninist collectives formed, including the Georgia Communist League (which merged with the October League), and others. In 1972, both PRRWO and IWK adopt Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought, and the BWC slowly consolidates around Marxism-Leninism Mao Zedong Thought after its founding in 1970. But is this what you mean by saying that the anti-revisionist communist movement formed in the early 1970s??? Comrades, doesn’t this deny quite a bit of anti-revisionist history? Isn’t it a bit sectarian and arrogant? Is this what you mean when you accuse us of ”negating the role of Marxist-Leninist organizations such as ATM and IWK”?

You say we write off ”significant struggles” such as those “in the NLC” (p. 2) and “around the CL’s National Continuations Committee.” (p. 2) You write,

... in the NLC, the RU’s liquidation of the national question, economism, tailing and bowing to spontaneity were exposed. While the RU’s line was not thoroughly defeated in the movement, most of the Marxist-Leninist groups and independent Marxist-Leninists were able to see that the RU’s line was opportunist. (p. 2)

Wherever the question of “exposure” comes up, we always have to ask: exposed what to whom”! We have three points to make about this example. First, you yourself describe PRRWO and the “old BWC” as “’left’ opportunist.” (p. 5) Therefore, we have to assume that the PRRWO and old BWC did not do this exposing according to you, since they were “left” opportunists. That leaves only one other possible candidate for having exposed the RU, namely yourselves. Yet, and this is the second point, you are on record as saying the following about your role “in the NLC”:

We objected to the RU’s sectarianism in the National Liaison Committee... but did not and were not able to pinpoint the ideological source of the RU’s errors and link it up to their overall party building line. In the anti-war movement we disagreed with the way the RU promoted opposition to the war in Indochina based on how the war economically affected one’s pocketbook, but we did not deepen this criticism so that we could trace this difference to the RU’s economism and general right opportunism.

We believe that all of the criticisms we had of the RU were basically correct. However, because we were unable to and did not see the importance of raising these differences to a general theoretical level, others could not really learn from our struggle. And for ourselves, because we could not link the source of the RU’s errors in practice to their general line and ideological source, our ability to thoroughly repudiate their opportunism and thereby develop a correct approach was hindered. (pp. 23-24, Journal #3)

We agree with you that a number of your criticisms of the RU pointed to major errors of the RU line. But we believe that the analysis you made subsequently of the RU line – as a right opportunist, reformist line – was mistaken. And certainly, on the basis of the “’left’ opportunist” “old BWC and PRRWO” and the IWK whose line prevented others from really “learning from our struggle,” it is hard to see just who correctly exposed the RU around what.

Third, you say that the RU’s “liquidation of the national question, economism, tailing and bowing to spontaneity were exposed” and that ”most of the Marxist-Leninist groups and independent Marxist-Leninists were able to see that the RU’s line was opportunist.” But isn’t it obvious, comrades, that one’s evaluation of this episode depends on one’s analysis of the ideological nature of the RU’s line? Since we believe that the RU liquidated the national question from the “left” (“left” economism), that they tailed not the trade-union bureaucrats but the most anarchistic sentiments among students and a small section of the workers, that they bowed to the spontaneity of radicalized students and intellectuals, and that the main form of their opportunism was “left” rather than right, we likewise believe that the struggle in and around the NLC did not in the main expose the RU’s errors on these questions. True, most Marxist-Leninist groups and individuals saw that the RU’s line was opportunist – but they analyzed this opportunism as rightist, not ultra-leftist. This ultra-leftist-influenced evaluation of the RU set the basis for the emergence of still more ultra-left positions following the RU’s isolation (WVO, Revolutionary Wing, etc.), as we argue in our book. The conclusions reached about the RU in the wake of the NLC experience therefore had both positive and negative features: the RU line was isolated (positive, though many comrades then dismissed the RU organization entirely, which, as the RWH experience has shown, was a very big mistake) and the ultra-left line was paradoxically strengthened (negative).

We could pursue this point by examining the NCC experience and that of the Revolutionary Wing, but our perspective emerges clearly enough from the above example. If by “negating the role of Marxist-Leninist organizations such as ATM and IWK,” you mean that we do not date the formation of the anti-revisionist communist movement from the time the IWK adopted Marxism-Leninism Mao Zedong Thought, that we agree with the IWK Journal #3 that other Marxist-Leninists could not really learn from the IWK struggles in the NLC about the true ideological source of the RU’s errors, and that we do not think correct conclusions about the RU were drawn from the struggle against it, then we must plead guilty.

Twenty years of anti-revisionist activity have provided US Marxist-Leninists with a wealth of experience. This experience is extremely valuable, and only a fool would ignore it. But despite the best efforts of thousands of revolutionary comrades, despite the leadership that Marxist-Leninists have frequently provided to important mass struggles, and despite the many individuals who have been won to the stand of Marxism-Leninism through these struggles, a concrete, sober-minded analysis of that experience has to conclude that the main feature of that experience is negative. Before you warn us again about our “pessimism” and “arrogance,” let us try to prevent two possible misunderstandings. We do not mean that the experience of the US Marxist-Leninist movement is worthless because it is mainly negative – on the contrary, it is perhaps even more valuable because it is negative. And we certainly do not mean that Marxist-Leninists should not have boldly taken up the banner of communism and fought against the bourgeoisie, the trade union misleaders, modern revisionism and Trotskyism, attempting to build up the revolutionary party of the proletariat. What we mean by ”mainly negative” is that the communist movement has mainly accumulated examples not to follow, lessons by negative example, and has learned mainly what not to do, rather than accumulated models to emulate in building a Marxist-Leninist Party worthy of the name in this country. The most important difference we have with the IWK at this time is your refusal to look at these negative lessons, evaluate them at their full significance, and proceed to the rigorous, scientifically-based analysis necessary of their causes and of how to proceed differently. We do not ask that you agree with the lessons we have drawn from these experiences, although of course we will continue to struggle for our understanding of these events until convinced of some better way to understand them. We only ask that you recognize the full seriousness of the situation in the US Marxist-Leninist movement, and make the painstaking analysis that the situation calls for from every communist. We would mention, too, that we are not the only Marxist-Leninist organization in the international communist movement that has recently looked at the anti-revisionist history in its country and concluded that its experience was mainly negative.

Finally, you refer in your letter to the “uncomradely tone and insinuations” in our letter of July 9, 1978, in which we first sought your criticisms in writing. We have reviewed that letter, and we honestly can’t find the tone or insinuations you describe. Regarding the confusion surrounding this exchange – who was supposed to write what when, etc. – our letter specifically says, “Apparently, there had been some misunderstandings somewhere along the line....” While we do put forward our own point of view about what occurred, we don’t put the blame for anything on you, and we can’t find anything uncomradely in our tone. As for any “insinuations,” we don’t know what you mean, but thought you might be referring to the second-to-last paragraph, which reads: ”Third, putting your criticisms in writing seems to us the principled and comradely course for you to take, especially since you have chosen to go ahead and express your criticisms to comrades outside both our organizations without first communicating them in writing to us (the comrades of ATM(M-L) have apparently done the same).” We don’t see any insinuation here, but simply a direct statement of fact: both the IWK and the ATM(M-L) had said quite a few things about our line and work (many of them false) to a number of comrades outside our organization, without ever transmitting their criticisms in writing to us.

In proposing liaison nearly three years ago, we wrote, “we believe that the potential for a great deal of unity, and certainly, for very fruitful exchange exists between our two organizations... We look forward to learning from your experiences and your perspectives, and hope that we will be able to discuss these questions and deepen our unity through struggle.” We still think that way. We believe the LRS(M-L) can make major contributions to the struggle for a unified communist party in this country, just as the IWK and the ATM(M-L) already have made important contributions to that struggle. Along with the rest of the communist movement, we would like to benefit from those contributions. You wrote your letter “in a spirit of bringing out our differences as openly and as sharply as we can in order to try to promote the struggle for principled unity.” We have responded as openly as we can. We have done so at such length to emphasize the seriousness with which we regard your criticisms and your organization, and the hope we have that we will be able to overcome some of our differences in the near future. We want to work more closely with you. In a spirit of unity and principled struggle, we suggest that we circulate your letter and ours to those organizations to whom you have presented orally your views of our line, or who would have an interest in the exchange of our views.

In a world situation marked by the growing prospects of world war, and in a domestic situation marked by increasing attacks upon the democratic rights and living standards of the masses, the need for Marxist-Leninist unity has never been greater. Despite the obvious misunderstandings and other differences which have emerged recently between our two organizations, the LRS(M-L) and the PUL share an important unity. That unity has never been more precious. To fail to build on it would betray the interests of our class, the oppressed peoples, and the popular masses as a whole.

Like you, “we look forward to your reply and furthering the struggle to try to resolve our differences.” We also look forward to furthering the struggle to deepen our unity.

In struggle, but also in communist unity,
Executive (Central) Committee
Proletarian Unity League