The Wichita Communist Cell (WCC) has flipped out. Their “sum-up” letter of March 19, 1979 is a frenzied distortion of innumerable questions, ranging from lies about correspondence, including falsifying a letter it purports to “reprint,” to gross misquotes of our counter-proposal. They would like to drag us, and everyone else, too, into a gossip match. But while we expose the chief lies and distortions, we must first explain the political significance of this latest round of slanders.
Why did WCC make such a vicious and violent response, which does not even deal with many major specifics of our counter-proposal, such as our revisions of the principles of unity, among other things? The reason is that the different proposals, and the different methods proposed for struggling around both the preparation for the conference and the conference itself, reflect two totally different conceptions of the character of a Marxist-Leninist party, the formation of which is supposed to be our agreed-upon principal task. To build a Party of a New Type, a different method is required than to build a social-democratic party of the Second International type.
WCC makes very clear just what sort of party their goal is in their “sum-up.” After ridiculing us for allegedly saying that “struggle over Mao Tse-tung Thought is the most important thing in party building and should be the most important thing in party building and should be the most important thing at the conference” (p. 4 – emphasis original) – which we nowhere said (more on this below) – they then mention the questions of Mao Tse-tung Thought, imperialist war, if the PLA goes revisionist, and if there is fascism. WCC says: “If deciding these things were the main thing when we don’t have a party, how will building and actually forming the party and putting it firmly on its feet (Stalin) ever take place! Wouldn’t it be better to have a party which can decide lines on burning questions a thousand times better than we can now?” (p. 4 – emphasis original) In other words, the “party” WCC wants to form will not have a line on such questions as “Mao Tse-tung Thought,” imperialist war, revisionism in the international communist movement, or the PLA, or bourgeois democracy and fascism. Plainly put, this means that this “party” will have neither a common ideology nor a common program. Everything should be left up for grabs until after the ”party” is formed.
The established Leninist line, proved and verified by decades of both positive and negative historical experience in the international communist movement, is that, at the founding party congress, a party program must be discussed and adopted. The party must be built from the top down, and, with the founding of the party, the congress becomes the top. Besides a common ideology and party program, there must be party rules to insure the solidity of the party organization. All these conditions must be met before we can say that a vanguard Marxist-Leninist party has actually been established. But for WCC, it would ”be better to have a party which can decide lines on burning questions a thousand times better than we can now.”
Needless to say, such a view as WCC’s is thoroughly anti-Leninist, and in fact reflects a desire not to build a Leninist party of the new type, free of factions and ideologically, politically and organizationally steeled and united, but a desire to build a Menshevik-Maoist party of the old type, riddled by factions, “two-line struggle”, and dominated by individualism, careerism, autonomism, and bureaucracy. WCC’s line amounts to the conciliators’ line of “a party of Bolsheviks and Mensheviks,” or, to update this, “a party of Leninists and Maoists,” without, of course, the Bolshevik-Leninists.
In the struggle against the liquidators, Lenin ran up against the very same line on the character of the party. He described the view of the liquidators on the question of party unity this way:
One view on unity may place in the forefront the ’reconciliation’ of ’given persons, groups and institutions.’” The identity of their views on Party work, on the policy of that work, is a secondary matter. One should try to keep silent about differences of opinion and not elucidate their causes, their significance, their objective conditions. The chief thing is to ’reconcile’ persons and groups. If they do not agree on carrying out a common policy, that policy must be interpreted in such a way as to be acceptable to all. Live and let live. This is philistine ’conciliation,’ which inevitably leads to sectarian diplomacy. To ’stop up’ the sources of disagreement, to keep silent about them, to ’adjust’ ’conflicts’ at all costs, to neutralise the conflicting trends – it is to this that the main attention of such ’conciliation’ is directed. In circumstances in which the illegal Party requires a base of operations abroad, this sectarian diplomacy opens the door to ’persons, groups and institutions’ that play the part of ’honest brokers’ in all kinds of attempts at ’conciliation’ and ’neutralisation.’[1]
This sounds as if it had been written yesterday! Organizational unity without unity on Party work and policy, sectarian diplomacy, neutralizing conflicting trends – what is all this but an indictment of precisely the line and practice of WCC, both in general and also around the “MULC”?
Since at bottom the differences are over whether to have a Bolshevik Party or a Menshevik Party, naturally, we have each proposed radically different methods to build our radically different parties. Since WCC’s model is in reality a party of factions, with no common ideology or program, it is thus not so important to emphasize drawing clear lines of demarcation as the basis and prerequisite for party unity. But for us, as with all other genuine Leninists in the U.S. and around the world, we strive for iron ideological unity on the science of Marxism-Leninism, for orthodox Leninism, and manifested in a common program. This is the only way we can weld a core and build a party that can actually be revolutionary, that can actually lead the proletariat in fulfilling its revolutionary historical mission.
But our Menshevik-Maoists aim at no such revolutionary party. Their party will follow the program of “the movement is everything, the final aim nothing.” But to get over, to appear genuine in today’s historical conditions, they too must claim to be “Leninist,” “Bolshevik,” etc. But what threatens their treacherous shell game is the struggle to draw clear lines of demarcation. WCC, to build their Menshevik-Maoist party, must direct their main fire at those who want to draw clear lines of demarcation, for that, and that alone, can stop and expose their opportunist schemes. That is the greatest threat to the unprincipled factional alliance they are trying to put together, because it rips the covers off all the maneuvers, deals, and slanders.
WCC’s method is to “unite to demarcate” (WCC’s new-found chums P.C. now openly admit that this is their formula in their letter of March 22, 1979, on the “MULC ”). Of course, as with all other Mensheviks and Maoists, that principled drawing of lines of demarcation never takes place; instead, they are riddled with factions and unprincipled alliances and back-stabbing galore. Open polemics and ideological struggle to draw clear lines of demarcation thus pose a grave threat to the maneuverers. Anyone who is for a revolutionary party must at least attempt principled, open, honest ideological struggle and drawing lines of demarcation, and they, too, threaten the likes of WCC. Thus, to oppose the Leninists, instead of waging principled ideological struggle, the opportunists resort to every manner of slander.
So “unite to demarcate” inevitably leads to what Lenin called “sectarian diplomacy,” of campaigns of slander. Lenin described the activities of these opportunists this way:
The Mensheviks and otzovists joined in furious attacks on the Bolshevik Center, against which they levelled the most savage accusations. Not disagreements in principle, but the ’malice’ of the Bolshevik Center – that is what estranges us from the Party above all and before all, said both the Mensheviks and the otzovists.
... And thousands of accusations on all manner of occasions, including that of so-called ’criminal actions’ (read: expropriations), were hurled against the Bolshevik Center with the aim of drawing a veil over differences of political principle and of pushing them into the background.
Compare Yonov’s comment: “No less insistent was Comrade Martov in assuring the plenum that the ’dangerous deviation’ to the Right were an invention of the spiteful Bolsheviks, that the Party had only one enemy and that was the Bolshevik Center with its factional ruling of the roost?”[2]
But, he also said, the maneuvers of the opportunists will end in no good:
If now Axelrod and Martov and Co. in the ’Necessary Supplement,’ and Alexinsky and Co. in the leaflet of the Vperyodists again try to drag out accusations against the Bolshevik Centre, tittle-tattle, slander, lies and insinuations – then these gentlemen condemn themselves.
... it should now be clear to one and all that the people who are once more beginning a squabble (Axelrod, Martov, Alexinsky and Co.) are simply political blackmailers who want to sidetrack questions of principle by scandalmongering. And we shall not treat them as anything else but political, blackmailers. We are not going to concern ourselves with any question other than the implementation by the Party of its anti-liquidationist and anti-otzovist policy, leaving Axelrod, Martov and Alexinsky to wallow in the mire as much as they like.[3]
Yes, our liquidators and Mensheviks likewise try to drag us into their foul discussions, and they also condemn themselves just as much as their political ancestors did in Lenin’s day. And likewise we, those who openly declare that we model ourselves after the Bolshevik Party of Lenin and Stalin, will not be diverted from our anti-economist, anti-social-chauvinist, anti-Maoist policy, and dragged down into a mud-slinging contest with the gossips and story-tellers of WCC and Co.
These different conceptions of the character of the party, which leads to different methods of building these different types of parties, naturally leads to entirely different conceptions of the conference on party-building. We have outlined in our counter-proposal to the “MULC” these different conceptions. What we will do here is expose more concretely and in depth in just what ways WCC’s “unite to demarcate” line has led to the type of abuse and “sectarian diplomacy” which Lenin showed characterized liquidators.
To return to the excerpt from WCC’s “sum-up,” nowhere in our counter-proposal did we say that “the struggle over Mao Tsetung Thought is the most important thing to party-building,” etc. On page 7 of the counter-proposal (typed version), we say that “the struggle against Maoism must be a major contemporary focus of the struggle for Leninism, for the Party of the New Type, and against opportunism and social-chauvinism.” We also say that “A major battleground at this conference must be an evaluation of Mao.” (p. 12) Yes, we stress this question, but only as one of the most important questions, not the only or most important question. WCC tries to reduce our correct argument to absurdity and one-sidedness, because only by distorting and lying about our views can they “defeat” us. In fact, it is we who introduced a whole series of other questions (such as the polemic against the economist-Menshevik strategy of sending cadre into the factories, in order to focus the debate on all the key questions of party-building. But the problem among the circles has not at all been a one-sided pre-occupation with the struggle against “Mao Tse-tung Thought,” but actually a defense of Mao and a refusal to take up this historical struggle against revisionism.
Really, despite all the posturing and phrase-mongering, the circles that defend Mao and refuse to take up the struggle to repudiate Maoism stand on this question to the right of “CPUSA(M-L)” and “COUSML”, and actually belittle theory even more than they do. But WCC ridicules the importance of this struggle by saying “we have not been concerned about being the ’first’ to trash Mao Tse-tung (it’s the fashionable thing nowadays don’t you know).” (p. 1) What the would be comedians of WCC fail to mention is that it is impossible to be the first to expose Mao since, as documented in Bolshevik of December, 1978, it was Stalin himself and the Comintern who long ago were the “first to trash Mao Tse-tung” and his clique as “margarine communists,”[4] and all we are really trying to do is re-establish the correct verdicts of the international communist movement.
For us, Maoism has been a major roadblock to building a genuine Marxist-Leninist Party and has helped reinforce all the economist worshipping of the “masses,” belittling of theory and pragmatist view of practice, and all the social-chauvinist treachery of allying with U.S. imperialism. And, as if by reflex, WCC still reduces the question to examining solely what the PLA has said on Mao, rather than stressing that this is first and foremost a question of Marxism-Leninism versus revisionism, and not a mere evaluation of just one party’s views on this question. If WCC had any principles at all, they would openly defend Mao in the face of the attack on “Mao Tsetung Thought” in the international communist movement. If we still upheld “Mao Tsetung Thought,” we would do our damnedest to defend it. But since we oppose it, and since we are well aware of the great damage this variety of modern revisionism has caused, we are doing our damnedest to thoroughly expose it! Apparently, WCC feels content to make vague pronouncements on this burning question, preferring to “unite to demarcate” and take a clear position only after they see who lines up with what position.
But WCC’s justifying lagging behind events does not end there. They have raised to the level of a theory that if there is imperialist war, if the PLA goes revisionist, or if there is fascism, then we should not postpone consideration of other questions and incorporate these new questions as among the most important ones we immediately take up. What naked social-chauvinism to argue that if there is an imperialist war, we should just merrily proceed along with the “MULC” as if nothing has changed! And they even raise this about fascism, too! Well, you damn better well deal with these questions if your “party” wants to be of any use to the proletariat, if it will not be an irrelevant sect that ignores the burning questions. If the bourgeoisie leads the masses to slaughter, perhaps WCC will still be trying to develop its “party-building theory” and try to call another “MULC” to decide what to do. WCC here justifies the lack of preparations and utter amateurishness of U.S. communists in preparing for such crises as imperialist war and fascism, and, by making such theories, actually themselves help lead the masses to slaughter. This is the role of the social props of the imperialist bourgeoisie. And couldn’t WCC’s argument about the PLA also have been applied to the struggle around the “theory of the three worlds”? In fact, this was precisely the argument put forward by the Mensheviks in the Red Dawn Committee in July, 1977, when they vehemently opposed and obstructed taking up any debate, study, and struggle against the “theory of the three worlds.” This is an idealist, social-chauvinist approach to party-building that sees building the party in the U.S. apart from the conditions and trends in the international communist movement. It leads to a plan devoid of time and space, separating the subjective and objective conditions with a Chinese Wall. Already we are seeing the sad results of this lagging, as the “three world”-ers at the February Denver forum caught the supposedly anti-“three worlds theory” circles with their pants down, without a position on the recent imperialist war in Indochina, disgracefully unprepared to expose the imperialist aggression of the Chinese, Soviet, and U.S. imperialists, and all their lackeys, for a re-division of that region.
No, WCC, we have never said that a party can only be built “after all the lines of demarcation have been drawn.” You put this in quotes (p. 4), but we never said it, and you give no source because there is no source for this quote save your conniving imagination. This would be the height of idealism, the line of grasping absolute truth. But what we do say, in line with Lenin and Stalin, is that lines of demarcation must be drawn on all the major questions of ideology, program, principles, organization, and strategy. It is really this formulation that you curse and that drives you so wild. And, of course, you yourselves are not altogether against drawing lines of demarcation, either. You openly uphold “some of Mao Tsetung’s teachings’ on the party. Which ones? On the emperor appointing his successor? On the negation of the role of the party congress in the four “principles” of democratic centralism? On the negation of the need for a party program, for a new communist international, or what? Genuine Leninists today will at least hesitate to continue endorsing the bankrupt and evermore exposed “teachings” of Mao, and would today demand serious struggle and study to root out all of Mao’s anti-Leninist garbage that spelled disaster and misery for the CPC, the Chinese people, and the international communist movement. But WCC wants to build another CPC, and sees this conference as a step along that road. Fine, preserve your emperor-worship if you will. But do not expect us to cease our merciless exposure of your factionalist and liquidationist activities.
WCC also does not stop at distorting the words of Demarcation and the U.S. Leninist Core, but proceeds to distort the words of Lenin himself. They complain, “However often Demarcation and the ’Core’ trot out Lenin’s quote on drawing lines of demarcation, it will not help them grasp the essence of the quote, which is: in order to unite (into a patty) we must first draw lines of demarcation.” (p. 4) Their attempt at rendering Lenin more profound is actually a total distortion of Lenin and an attack on Leninism. They show their utter contempt for Leninism and quoting its scientific theses with their sick little pun about how we “trot out” this quote, as if quoting Lenin was actually the private domain of the Trotskyites. It was none other than the works of Comrade Stalin himself, the ideological bulwark against both Trotsky and Mao, that are filled to the brim with quotes from Lenin.
Although citing the “lines of demarcation” quote apparently makes WCC’s skin crawl, we will quote it again in order to compare it to WCC’s distorted version. Lenin said: “Before we can unite, and in order that we may unite, we must first of all draw firm and definite lines of demarcation.”[5]
Let us point out three distortions by WCC. First, they leave out the word “before,” because, to WCC, “before” they will supposedly “draw lines of demarcation,” they want to “unite.” Second, related to this, they also leave out the word “first,” because they “first” want to “unite,” rather than, as Lenin said, “first of all draw firm and definite lines of demarcation.” Third, the essence of this quote, and all of Lenin’s and Stalin’s writings on this question, is that principled unity can only be on the basis of first having drawn lines of demarcation between Marxism-Leninism and revisionism. Only in this way can the opportunists be exposed and purged, and the genuine forces sorted out and united. The goal is not to unite everybody, but to unite only those who have demarcated against all shades of opportunism and have accepted the ideology and program of the genuine Marxist-Leninists. All the rest can go hang, and we will most certainly assist in placing the rope around their necks. True, drawing lines of demarcation is not an end in itself but only a means to achieving the unity of the genuine forces. But neither is unity an end in itself, for we do not desire unity with the opponents of Marxism-Leninism, and can only distinguish between who upholds and who opposes Marxism-Leninism not by looking at the labels forces give themselves, but only by ideological struggle to draw clear lines of demarcation. This should be elementary to any Leninist. But we are forced to go through this Leninist principle bit by bit to untangle all the confusion spread by the anti-Leninist Maoists of WCC and their allies.
Naturally, the WCC opponents of drawing lines of demarcation do not offer much of a reply to the political points we have raised. In fact, they warn against doing this, and say, “Groups are being goaded into jumping into the fracas in an unorganized way.” (p. 7) All of a sudden open polemics make ideological struggle unorganized, and detract from organizing this conference! What a confession that this conference itself is an obstacle to the ideological struggle to draw lines of demarcation! No, WCC, it is you who want to stop the organizing of ideological struggle, and instead create another “pre-party” organization, another RU, OL, or MLOC, that stands opposed to open polemics in front of all communists and class-conscious workers. It is precisely you who, despite all your slanders, are trying to create another unholy alliance like the so-called “revolutionary wing.” So you are trying to halt the ideological struggle now so that it will be minimized at your “MULC” later, so that there will be no preparation for a conference by ideological struggle.
But WCC, after ordering a halt to the polemics, is not silent itself. Instead, while trying to prohibit the polemics, they try to reserve the last word for themselves. They offer a series of rambling, sporadic pin-pricks and empty, limp wisecracks as “polemics” against us, which really serve to confuse issues further. Mostly they are tired old economist arguments borrowed from the “three world”-ers, OL, RU, WVO, LPR, and Co., such as “practical work in the working class is negated,” the “only’s” of LPR, sending cadre into the factories (p. 7), etc. But old economist lines never seem to die, merely to crop up again by new generations of opportunists. We have answered all these before, and in the future will deepen our exposure of economism, a task we consider to be quite “practical.”
They also repeat their hostility to building a real center, saying that “any group which has the gall to call themselves such are some of the worst opportunists.” (p. 2) Presumably if some of their pro-“Three worlds” friends like COReS or LPR do not say they are the center, then these social-chauvinists are less opportunist than someone who is opposed to social-chauvinism but mistakenly claims to be the center. And, despite their undocumented assertion, Demarcation and the U.S. Leninist Core nowhere “suggest” that we are the “embryo of the center,” but only assert that we strive to build a center and believe we are part of the embryo of a developing Bolshevik trend and part of the embryo of a Marxist-Leninist center. In fact, every Marxist-Leninist also should strive to be part of the embryo of a center. If they do not, they have no business calling themselves Marxist-Leninists. As to who will constitute the center when it is finally built, we are sorry to disappoint you, WCC, but we don’t include you in this.
Also of particular note is how WCC intensifies its attack on Leninism. They ridicule us this way: “We just import What Is To Be Done? and One Step Forward and we have all the theory we need to build the party.” (p. 7) Perhaps you Maoists would like stiff tariffs to prohibit these “imports”? To WCC, Leninism is a foreign “import,” and ideology fine for the remote conditions of old Tsarist Russia, but out of date for our “new” American conditions. To them, Leninism must be “improved” upon. In response to us, they say, “We study the experience of other parties to understand the correctness and incorrectness of that experience to apply it to what we are trying to do.” (p. 7) We would be very interested in learning just what WCC considers to be the “incorrectness” of the experience of the building of the Bolshevik Party under Lenin’s leadership. This is more negating of the Bolshevik Party as our model, more eclectic equating the international significance of the CPSU, CPC, PLA, and CPUSA. WCC thinks we must go through the same process as Lenin and develop a new line on the party, as Lenin had done, for apparently they think Leninism inadequate and out of date. But the failures of the international communist movement have not been the failures of Leninism, but the failures of anti-Leninism, the product of consistent deviations from Leninism. You do not agree, WCC? Well, then stop bothering us and go and join one of the batch of anti-Leninist parties already out there. If you want to be an anti-Leninist, you need another “new party” only for reasons of careerism.
[missing text in the original – EROL] process as Lenin and develop a new line on the party, as Lenin had done, for apparently they think Leninism inadequate and out of date. But the failures in the international communist movement have not been the failures of Leninism, but the failures of anti-Leninism, the product of consistent deviations from Leninism. You do not agree, WCC? Well, then stop bothering us and go and join one of the batch of anti-Leninist parties already out there. If you want to be an anti-Leninist, you need another “new party” only for reasons of careerism.
The rest of WCC’s “polemics” are just as absurd. They attack us for not having responded to their “Let’s Move Party Building Forward” pamphlet or their letters. We suggest they take their heads out of the Red Book and try to respond to our exposures of their pamphlet in our counterproposal, which spends several pages on and quotes six times from their pamphlet.
Their aversion to drawing lines of demarcation is also seen in their statement that “We are not interested in Demarcation’s journal as much as how they think that journal contributes to party-building, in fact how they think their overall work contributes to party building and winning the broad masses. We doubt that they would stop to explain this to us in their journal since they have so far not done so, nor have they responded to “Let’s Move” and letters we wrote them on party-building in their journal.” (p. 5) First, these views are put out all throughout the journal and elsewhere in our explanation of the need for theoretical work, drawing lines of demarcation, etc. Second, WCC throws out the need for polemics on the topics raised in the journals Demarcation and Bolshevik. Third, Demarcation and the U.S. Leninist Core have already replied to WCC, but are attacked for doing this as “goading” other groups, etc. You can’t have it both ways. Fourth, WCC wrote no letter to Demarcation about its journal. The letter they did write was written to Red Dawn, about Red Dawn’s first journal, which Red Dawn never printed. Demarcation said it would print the letter with a response. This was not done because of technical and practical problems, which led to Demarcation also not printing several other articles, each lengthier than WCC’s letter to Red Dawn. Besides, all the essentials of WCC’s line and letter have already been responded to in our counter-proposal. So who are you trying to kid?
Moving on to the debate on the conference itself, WCC drools all over itself again to portray us as opposed to the conference, maneuvering for position, etc. Why would we fight for a counterproposal, going down to such detail as time and place, if we didn’t want a conference? But again, we must state clearly that we are opposed to the type of conference that WCC has proposed. This we have said from the beginning, and say again. We are only for a conference that will aid party-building, and we will oppose and have opposed with all our might everything that stands in the way of Leninism and building a genuine vanguard party in the U.S. We oppose this anti-Leninist conference and its aim, the establishment of another “pre-party” anti-Leninist group. The method of obscuring lines of demarcation means that this new group or federation will be cut from the same mold as “MLOC,” and will share the same opportunist fate. WCC seeks to establish a national federation of small circles based not on the party spirit of doing the necessary work to build a center and a party, but on small-circle spirit, on opposition to the drawing of clear-lines of demarcation that would lead to the slaughter of the circles and the creation of party unity. WCC and its allies jealously guard their circle spirit and defend it with the fear and protectiveness of a child pouting that “it’s my ball, so if you don’t play the game the way I want, I’ll leave.” When a counter-proposal to “MLOC” ’s “joint statement” was presented last year by Demarcation and WROC, WCC and several other circles praised it. But when the same method of a counter-proposal is now used by the U.S. Leninist Core and Demarcation, this time against the “MULC” proposal of WCC that makes many of the same errors as “MLOC,” WCC and Co. scream bloody murder.
Perhaps the height of WCC’s almost crazed protection of small circle spirit is their wild accusation that Demarcation is “trying to sneak the Core in with changed POU’s.” (p. 5) A strange way to “sneak” a group in, writing a joint counter-proposal with it and openly signing it and circulating it as such! But WCC can only see the world through its own eyes, with its own conceptions, and to them relations between two groups can only be based on sectarian diplomacy (as they tried, and failed, with Demarcation, as we show later), so they automatically assume that everyone else does the same. They apparently use this to justify their failure to even address most of the proposal changes in the principles of unity, which alone shows that WCC has no intentions of following the Leninist norms of open polemics, but only stands for slander and abuse. Our counter-proposal makes clear that, far from the point on eliminating mention of there being no center as a principle of unity for the conference being a new one, this point was raised last year by Demarcation, well before there were relations with the U.S. Leninist Core. And in Demarcation’s journal, it is mentioned how, also last year, Demarcation raised at “MLOC”’s meeting on its “joint” statement why the U.S. Leninist Core was not invited, although weakly and inconsistently.[6] In essence Demarcation raised nothing new here. So, to say that the principles of unity were changed to “sneak” in the U.S. Leninist Core is absurd.
The one who is being sneaky is really WCC, which so graciously invites Demarcation, but forbids the U.S. Leninist Core. It is not “childishness” as you suggest, that has led Demarcation to say it will not attend if the U.S. Leninist Core is prevented from attending, but strict and firm adherence to Leninist norms and principles, something which is quite foreign and probably seen as another exotic “import” by WCC. We again call on all genuine Marxist-Leninists and class-conscious workers to boycott this conference and organize a new conference around Leninist norms.
Just what WCC’s “principles” are can be seen in that while they are not afraid to sit down and debate with the social-chauvinists of LPR and COReS, and have never criticized themselves for this, they are deathly afraid of any meeting, forum, conference, or any other form of ideological struggle with genuine Marxist-Leninists, with those who are waging a ruthless struggle against opportunism in order to build a genuine Marxist-Leninist party. WCC and their allied small circles panic at the thought of the slaughtering of their small circles. Further, what emerges as the additional “secret” principle of unity is a position on the “revolutionary wing.” This “secret” principle of unity says that all those purged from the “wing” were genuine, and all those not purged were opportunists. And, with the characteristic duplicity and vagueness of all opportunists, WCC and Co. dare not state their views openly on this burning and controversial question.
We also see that our two groups and “ultraleftism” have now become the main danger, at least regarding the “MULC.” (p. 7) This fits in well with WCC’s opposition to having right opportunism as the main danger being a principle of unity. It shows this conference is now being openly organized to “concentrate on repulsing ultraleftism.” The truth comes out, finally. In reality, this means the “MULC” is concentrating on repulsing Leninism, and aims at consolidating on Maoism Those genuine Marxist-Leninists who still think there is value in attending this conference should consider this point carefully and take a stand on whether or not they unite with this purpose and focus of the “MULC,” and carefully examine just what an anti-Leninist clique they have been suckered into.
Another hint and indication of the nature of this conference is WCC’s admission that “If we included economism or small-circle spirit and sectarianism as a line of demarcation (in practice) we would not have a conference.” (p. 1) True, true, true. But it is not your goal to oppose these, either, but to support and defend these opportunist views in your fight against so-called “ultraleftism.” In fact, WCC’s call for a joint party-building plan with those who are characterized by economism, small circle spirit, and sectarianism, shows that it is upon these and other anti-Leninist lines that its conference and proposed plan are based. To “ultraleftism,” there is no room for compromise, but to economism, small-circle spirit, and sectarianism, there is a pleasant welcome. It does not matter how many workers have been turned off to communism or fired because of the trade unionist antics of the economists. It does not matter that the suffering of the masses is prolonged by the absence of a vanguard party, chiefly due to economism and right-opportunism. No, all this can be forgiven. But “ultraleftism”? You must burn in hell for eternity for that. This is the catechism of WCC.
WCC also lets the cat out of the bag by saying that “the purpose of the conference is not to draw lines of demarcation on party-building.” (p. 4) Of course, the purpose is to “unite to demarcate,’ to build a new organization. WCC again tries to distort what we said into meaning that we expect this conference to fully and finally draw all the lines of demarcation. And, as usual, they do this without one single quote from our counter-proposal. What we did propose was that “The main purpose, content, and focus of a conference on party-building must be to have an open and all-embracing discussion, to hold sharp and principled ideological struggle on the key questions related to our principal task of party-building. We are only for a conference if its method is open polemics and its aim is to draw clear lines of demarcation.” (p. 11) It is opposition to this correct formulation, and not to some one-sided proposal to draw every line at one conference, that really is WCC’s position. Because they are unable to defeat it, they must distort it. WCC says that, “Unity on a principled basis is the goal, aim, not drawing lines of demarcation.” (p. 4) First, we said drawing lines of demarcation was the aim of the conference, not an overall aim. Second, with whom are we to unite? Everybody? No. We can “unite on a principled basis” only after lines of demarcation are first drawn. That is why it is our immediate aim, as the prerequisite to principled unity. All along WCC has been bobbing and weaving when their “unite to demarcate” line has been exposed. But they’ve gotten smashed flush in the face by their own cheap distorting of what Lenin said and what we proposed based on Leninism.
After spreading the provocative lie that the U.S. Leninist Core are “agents,” WCC still wants Demarcation to attend and to discuss illegal work at the conference! They do not even address our proposal to discuss the relation of reform and revolution instead (p. 18 of counter-proposal). And, yes, we do have a “disdain” for the abilities of the Menshevik-Maoists to organize security, for you are already playing right into the hands of the political police and real agent provocateurs by stirring up again all the lies and slanders of the “three-world”-ers about the U.S. Leninist Core. If you had any principles at all, you would at least stop and consider the consequences of your slander campaign. But you and all the other paid and unpaid agents of the bourgeoisie will be made to pay your debts even if this can only be done after the dictatorship of the proletariat itself has been established. For now, we must expose how you objectively aid the bourgeoisie by insisting that illegal work be discussed at this legal conference. It is only the honest but naive revolutionaries who fall into this trap of discussing illegal work at legal conferences, that end up getting burned. We urge any genuine Marxist-Leninists that still attend this conference to carefully avoid this trap. Especially after our exposure of this ruse by WCC, anyone who still wants to discuss illegal work at this coalition “MULC” is either a fool or a provocateur.
Our champions of “criticism and self-criticism and transformation” are also so offended by our principled and open polemics that they accuse us of being “uncomradely” (p. 2). But, as usual, they never bother to explain how or where or when. This shows how well they react to Leninist criticism, how they meet it with sneers and defensiveness, and avoid taking the issues head on. Our method has been to first uphold a Marxist-Leninist line, and then and only then, judge other forces as to whether or not they also uphold Marxism-Leninism. If the Maoist shoe fits, WCC, then wear it, and stop expecting us to treat you as “comrades.” We only treat other Leninists that way. You would facilitate the ideological struggle much better if you openly declared that you and we are guided by different ideologies, you by Maoism, and we by the scientific socialism of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin.
If WCC wanted to draw lines of demarcation, then they would make sure that there was the widest possible discussion and debate of all views of the circles, and guarantee this at the conference. They openly declare that in their paper for the conference, they will spend a lot of time attacking Demarcation and the U.S. Leninist Core (p. 4). This is precisely why they have raised every conceivable obstacle to our being at the conference and defending our views.
So we put the ball back in the court of WCC and Co. – if you think we are the “main danger” and “ultra-left,” if you think it so worthwhile to “expose” us, then we challenge you to come to our public forums and struggle for your line, so that all Marxist-Leninists and class-conscious workers can see for themselves just who is really revolutionary and just who is anti-Leninist, opportunist, and social-chauvinist. You have already debated your “comrade” social-chauvinists of LPR and COReS. We will see how you respond to a challenge to a debate with Leninists.
WCC never tires of charging that our counter-proposal was “late.” We are accused of maneuvering, of waiting to see other responses, and even of “disdain for democratic centralism!’! (p. 7) First, they say, “Much of what was in their counter-proposal regarding the Conference had already been relayed to us by phone 2-3 weeks ago,” meaning 2-3 weeks before the deadline. So then what is the big deal? WCC already had the basic ideas, so we did not “surprise” them. Next, by what authority had we empowered WCC to set dates for our work and determine our priorities? As we will show, it was they who vetoed any meetings between us, and to this day, our groups have never met and never agreed to any common schedule of activity, let alone agreed on democratic centralism! So the charge of us being “late” is ridiculous, for we never agreed to their dates to begin with. It should also be pointed out that in the work around the joint statement on Albania, WCC and KCRWC were far tardier in meeting agreed-upon dates for replies than we were here for meeting dates not agreed upon. WCC and KCRWC first sent a critique of the original draft. Then, on the next round of communications they came back with a whole new second list of changes, after this question was supposed to have been settled. WCC blamed this on KCRWC, but they also must then blame themselves for having allied with KCRWC in the first place, another self-criticism they avoid (after having promised a self-criticism of their activity around the joint statement). We bring this question up here not only to show how absurd it is to raise meeting deadlines as a principle, but also to show that on this question, WCC and Co. are the supreme hypocrites. Further, we were not “late” because we wanted to see the other replies. Our counterproposal only makes some secondary mention of a few of them, and then only on points and views that have been promoted for some time and elsewhere, such as on P.C.’s conciliationism or RWP’s views on purging (which Demarcation had taken up explicitly before in communications with RWP). Rather, our primary concern was in quality, and not in rushing to meet WCC’s arbitrary deadline at the expense of the best and clearest possible statement.
Finally, another such distortion by WCC is their denial that they wanted to restrict polemics in general, but “only” in the initial presentation. Later, supposedly, there would be polemics. First of all, the whole essence of WCC’s “unite to demarcate” approach is opposed to the Leninist approach on open polemics. Secondly, their “initial sum-up” tells us that the new agenda will allow 45-60 minutes for each initial presentation. This, would be, at minimum, the majority of the first day, and set the pace for the entire conference. If a group cannot find time for open polemics in a 45 to 60 minute presentation, then are we unfair in accusing WCC of trying to restrict polemics in general? “Not polemical, huh?” Not polemical, yes.
Since much of what else WCC said has already been responded to in our counter-proposal, we will not belabor the points again here. We urge a close study of our counter-proposal, which exposes just how WCC’s whole line on party-building mandates their opposition to open polemics and drawing lines of demarcation, and how their “build the center is the key link” line has led to their “MULC” being, in essence, non-polemical and unprincipled.
We have shown how WCC’s opposition to open polemics, principled ideological struggle, and drawing lines of demarcation is anti-Leninist and opportunist, and how this has led to their Menshevik-Maoist proposal for the conference. Their proposal is liquidationist because it liquidates and prohibits the work necessary for building a vanguard Marxist-Leninist party. Their attempts at “neutralizing trends” has led them to a sectarian diplomacy, the kind which Lenin described. While we will not honor every point of slander by refuting it, we shall now explain just how WCC’s sectarian diplomacy has been an attempt at political blackmail to sidetrack questions of principle by scandal-mongering and maneuvering.
This brings us to WCC’s greatest lies and distortions – their relations with Demarcation. A picture is presented of the innocent WCC being seduced and then jilted by the conniving Demarcation. A supposed set of facts and a doctored-up document are presented as “evidence.” But let us look at what really happened, and how WCC distorts the truth.
The work on the joint statement on China’s cutting off aid to Albania brought a number of circles in contact with each other that had either no or only scanty contact previously. Among these were Demarcation and WCC. Demarcation never saw the work on the joint statement as primary or an end in itself, but rather as a way of facilitating the organizing of forces opposed to Chinese revisionism and establishing communication and ideological struggle among them. In the course of this struggle, it appeared that Demarcation and WCC were saying some similar things – opposition to the economism of “MLOC,” emphasis on theory and propaganda, etc. While there were differences all along, there appeared to be at least some important points of unity between the two groups.
Demarcation sent letters to various circles about how to continue the struggle after the joint statement and raise it to a higher level. Some of these letters sounded out the circles about the possibility of a coalition theoretical journal as a “forum for debate.” This idea was in fact a retreat from Demarcation’s own view of a principled struggle for the hegemony of a correct line, and was withdrawn before ever reaching the stage of a formal proposal.[7] This lapse was the one major deviation by Demarcation from an otherwise consistent record of struggling to build the party from the top down and draw clear lines of demarcation. While Demarcation has publicly withdrawn this idea and attempted to explain the errors behind it, WCC, which at first agreed to it, has had nothing further to say about it.
What Demarcation received in reply from WCC at that time was more than was expected, to say the least. We have included this letter of January 16, 1979 in its entirety, so WCC’s brand of love-hate maneuvering and Maoist practice of making and breaking alliances is thoroughly exposed. In short, this letter is nothing but a love letter.
WCC told Demarcation, “Comrades, your appearance on the scene in an active way has been truly refreshing and invigorating to us, and in the coming weeks and months ahead we want to concentrate on further developing principled unity with you.” (p. 7) They even go so far as to raise the question of the merger of our circles and relocation into one city! (p. 3) Mind you, this is the first communication from WCC on party-building itself to Demarcation!
WCC’s “plan” for this merger involved chiefly two things. First, there was to be a joint polemic against “MLOC.” Demarcation was just to do the part on the international situation, while WCC was to do the part on party-building. Very slick. As usual, this glossed over the struggle to draw clear lines of demarcation before uniting, since Demarcation never upheld WCC’s “build the center is the key link” line, which is an essential part of WCC’s line.
The second part of WCC’s scheme was for WCC and Demarcation to jointly call for a multilateral meeting (now the “MULC”). WCC felt it needed an ally to pull this off, and first went to Demarcation. Demarcation did not automatically jump at either of WCC’s ideas, and said that putting out its journal, including its own attack on “MLOC,” was its priority. But if it was up to WCC, Demarcation would never have put out this exposure of “MLOC,” but instead would have subordinated itself to WCC and written a “joint” polemic based on WCC’s line.
After WCC’s approach to Demarcation failed, they had to find a new ally. But WCC had to cover its tracks in a number of ways. When Demarcation asked WCC about the importance and significance of the Denver meeting, WCC said its significance was just local, and not national, and their main aim was to help the RWP in the local struggle with some people still close to COReS who were supposedly “vacillating.” Demarcation was interested in attending this forum if it would have nation-wide significance to party-building. But WCC discouraged Demarcation from attending, since this would have been a threat to WCC’s hegemonic scheme. WCC kept Demarcation out of Denver so it could get all the “glory” for its “announcement.” Of course, WCC was all along planning to use the occasion of this gathering of circles to spring its “MULC” announcement, and did not want Demarcation there lest WCC have a “rival” for a “MULC”-maker, or raising “embarrassing” questions about lines of demarcation, etc. Had Demarcation not still wrongly trusted WCC’s sincerity and judgment, it would have gone to Denver anyway. But Demarcation was suckered in by WCC’s promises. Even so, WCC tries to make it appear as if Demarcation was actually at the Denver forum, saying that the initial proposal to Demarcation was discussed at the Denver forum, saying “proposals had already been discussed between several groups including Demarcation” (p. 3), as if Demarcation was there. So first WCC maneuvers Demarcation out of Denver, then tries to make it look like Demarcation was “close to developments from the very beginning” (p. 3), implying the Denver meeting.
Once WCC’s plan for a joint call with Demarcation for its “mule” failed, they then saw the Denver meeting as the place for their next maneuver. But they had to cover up their tracks. So, the “reprint” of the part of their letter to Demarcation on the “MULC” is actually a doctored-up copy. Clumsily changing typed dates in handwriting, they alter what appears on page 6 of the original letter. Originally, the “announcement” (that’s what they call it on January 16!) was to have been sent out January 31 – before the Denver meeting of February 3! But the doctored-up version they circulated to the rest of the circles says the announcement would only be sent out February 10 – only after the Denver meeting! In this way, they make it appear that all along WCC sought for the Denver meeting to empower it to send out such an “announcement,” while, in fact, all along they had been plotting behind the scenes. Is it so “uncomradely” to call WCC a pack of liars and swindlers based on these maneuvers? Who else but liars and swindlers would go to such lengths to say one thing to one circle and another thing to another circle? Who else, indeed?
But WCC’s lack of shame does not stop here. Conveniently they neglect to mention that WCC and Demarcation agreed in January to a series of visits to each other’s cities. At that time, WCC did not complain that this would disrupt their work around the “MULC.” After their Jan. 16 letter, they explicitly said they were available to travel to New York to hold discussions. This, by the way, was the reason written responses to WCC were not immediately done by Demarcation, since there would first be face to face discussions. In fact, the later proposal for a forum by both Demarcation and the U.S. Leninist Core was merely a revised proposal of the series of trips agreed upon a few weeks before. But now the forum proposal had supposedly become a trick to sabotage the “MULC,” to divert WCC from its pressing tasks, etc. No, face-to-face meetings were not new proposals at all. But after WCC had propositioned Demarcation in WCC’s Jan. 16 letter, and Demarcation had refused to be WCC’s whore, WCC wanted no part of Demarcation any more.
WCC also tries to distort many other aspects of the communications with Demarcation. They claim that on the U.S. Leninist Core, “we put forward our views and Demarcation would not listen to them.” (p. 3) But it is a fact that WCC wrote a letter to the U.S. Leninist Core saying that a circle close to them had said they were doing good theoretical work, and that WCC wanted an exchange of literature “for starters.” Hardly a firm put down, as WCC would have others believe. In their initial reaction to inviting the U.S. Leninist Core to the “MULC,” WCC said that the main question involved whether they see themselves as the center, which the U.S. Leninist Core does not. They then left this question open. They said that while the U.S Leninist Core was “not axed out of the “MULC,” WCC still did not agree to invite them. So it was still an open question. WCC even said that they would be more in favor of this than others! So it was not Demarcation not listening to WCC, but WCC listening to Demarcation and not taking a clear stand. Apparently WCC’s initial interest in the U.S. Leninist Core faded as it reopened its alliance with KCRWC.
Part of WCC’s campaign of slanders is to set other groups against Demarcation by name-dropping. They accuse Demarcation of saying there was ”no need to struggle with MLC over their practice in the working class movement.” (p. 7) In fact, that struggle has already been going on since last year, and is continued in our counter-proposal. WCC also pulls out of context Demarcation’s remark that Sunrise was “messed up,” which was made because when Demarcation went to deliver the “MULC” announcement to the Sunrise bookstore on a Saturday afternoon, there was no one representing their group there but only a person mopping up the floor. Demarcation never said Sunrise should not be at the conference, but was in fact the only one trying to let it know about the conference. As far as we know, Sunrise has not responded to the original announcement, and had not even finished reading it several weeks after we gave it to them. This is what we meant by messed up.”
So here is WCC’s track record of unprincipled maneuvers. First, they strike up an alliance with WCRWC and KCPR (now KCRWC’s silent partner). When that breaks down, they run to Demarcation to build an alliance against KCRWC with whom they had their brief falling out; and against PC, who characterized WCC’s response to its proposal for a joint statement on “MLOC” as just like the “wing”! But when that never materializes, WCC swings back again to ally with KCRWC and PC against Demarcation and the U.S. Leninist Core. And to cover up their unprincipled maneuvers, which often happen so fast that they might not be noticed but by the keenest of eyes, they imply that it was Demarcation that sought an unprincipled alliance, that Demarcation maybe did “write things similar to our views to get us close to them” (p. 7), and so on.
In the struggle against liquidationism, Lenin exposed the activities of these very types of “matchmakers”:
The Mensheviks did not venture to propose a Central Organ with a majority of their own trend, although, as is seen from Martov’s argument above quoted, they recognized the existence of two opposite trends in the Party. The Mensheviks did not even think of proposing a Central Organ with a majority of their trend. They did not even attempt to insist on a Central Organ with any definite trend at all (so obvious at the plenary session was the absence of any trend among the Mensheviks, who were only required, only expected, to make a sincere and consistent renunciation of liquidationism). The Mensheviks did not even think of proposing a Central Organ with a majority of their trend. They did not even attempt to insist on a Central Organ with any definite trend at all (so obvious at the plenary session was the absence of any trend among the Mensheviks, who were only required, only expected, to make a sincere and consistent renunciation of liquidationism). The Mensheviks tried to secure ’neutralisation’ of the Central Organ and they proposed as neutralises either a Bundist or Trotsky. The Bundist or Trotsky was to play the part of a matchmaker who would undertake to ’unite in wedlock’ given persons, groups and institutions,’ irrespective of whether one of the sides had renounced liquidationism or not.
This stand of a matchmaker constitutes the entire ’ideological basis’ of Trotsky’s and Yonov’s conciliation. When they complain and weep over the failure to achieve unity, it must be taken cum grano satis. It must be taken to mean that the matchmaking failed. The ’failure’ of the hopes of unity cherished by Trotsky and Yonov, hopes of unity with ’given persons, groups and institutions’ irrespective of their attitude to liquidationism, signifies only the failure of the matchmakers, the falsity, the hopelessness, the wretchedness of the matchmaking point of view, but it does not at all signify the failure of party unity.”[8]
The latest object of WCC’s affection appears to be Red Dawn, whose “spirit” of their reply WCC now adores. So, with just as little knowledge of Red Dawn as they had of Demarcation, a new love is born. No doubt one day still another love letter will be publicly released, announcing that “your appearance on the scene in an active way has been truly refreshing and invigorating to us.” We wish the Mensheviks the best in their marriage of convenience, but caution to predict that there isn’t room enough on this planet (or in one “MULC”) for the bourgeois careerists and factionalists in WCC and Red Dawn, and that their marriage will not be long-lasting.
For WCC and Co. to charge that the relations between Demarcation and the U.S. Leninist Core are “unprincipled” (p. 6) is also a desperate attempt to split us up. It is actually WCC and Co. that have lied through their teeth in their mad quest for a satisfactory alliance of circles to build a new federation-type “pre-party” organization. Their sectarian diplomacy and rapid-fire making and breaking of alliances is a typical feature of all opportunists, from the “matchmakers” of Lenin’s day to Mao Tse-tung and his permanent playing off one faction against the other.
We once again ask all those who still plan to attend the conference WCC is leading: do you really want a conference with these swindlers? We have put out the facts for you to examine, how they combined stale flattery with secret maneuvering and then lied and doctored up documents to cover up their tracks. WCC thought they could blackmail us, but only ended up blackmailing themselves. Their tactics of vague charges, not taking a clear stand, maneuvering, and responding to principled polemics with innuendo and slander have now been exposed. Those still attending this conference should not blame us for not warning them, but only blame themselves for not listening if they take the bait and end up getting stung. But perhaps before it is too late they will demand an answer from WCC as to why they have maneuvered so, switched dates in their doctored letter, and lied in their correspondence.
As for Demarcation and the U.S. Leninist Core, we cannot spend the rest of our lives responding to the likes of WCC. WCC and friends will have their conference, without our two groups, and maybe some sort of federation will come out of it. This conference will be a platform for opportunism and a vehicle for a new anti-Leninist, Maoist formation. We cannot stop them. All we can do is mercilessly and ruthlessly expose their unprincipled activity and double-dealing. But it is bound to fail, just as the Russian “matchmakers” failed since there is no basis for the organizational unity WCC yearns for.
April, 1979
Demarcation
U.S. Leninist Core
[1] Lenin, “Notes of a Publicist,” CW, Vol. 16, p. 212
[2] Ibid., p. 223
[3] Ibid., p. 224
[4] Bolshevik, “Mao Tse-tung Thought, A Counter-Revolutionary Concept,” December 1978, p. 68
[5] Lenin, “Declaration of the Editorial Board of Iskra,” CW, Vo.. 4, p. 354
[6] Demarcation, March, 1979, p. 33
[7] Ibid., pp. 59-60
[8] Lenin, “Notes of a Publicist,” op. cit., p. 213