October League (Marxist-Leninist) Building a New Communist Party in the U.S.

Introduction The following articles are taken from THE CALL/EL CLARIN [Vol. 1, No.’s 6, 7, and 8], the political newspaper of the October League (Marxist-Leninist) a nationwide, multi-national organization. The October League believes that the main task facing the U.S. Communist movement is that of building a new Communist Party. The articles discuss how this new party is to be built and why the Communist Party U.S.A. no longer serves the needs of the masses of American people. Readers are encouraged to write to the October League with their comments on the Party Building pamphlet. Information on bulk rates are available by writing to the October League. PART ONE: Why We Need a New Party In 1949, Mao Tsetung, Chairman of the Communist Party of China, summed up the experiences of the past three decades leading up to the victory of the Chinese revolution: A well-disciplined Party armed with the theory of Marxism-Leninism, using the method of self-criticism and linked with the masses of people; an army under the leadership of such a party; a united front of all revolutionary classes and all revolutionary groups under the leadership of such a Party-these are the three main weapons with which we have defeated the enemy.[1] Today, in many respects, the U.S. is different from China. China, of course, was a backwards, semi-feudal, semi-colonial country while the U.S. is an advanced capitalist country. China was a country oppressed by foreign domination while the U.S. today is one of the two main superpowers in the world which dominates the smaller countries. These differences (just to name a few) change the form of the class struggle here in the U.S. from that of the Chinese revolution, but the principles which have been accurately summed up by Comrade Mao Tsetung still apply and remain universal. For revolution to be successful here in the U.S., for the imperialists to be overthrown and for a socialist government, a workers’ government, to be established, the three weapons of revolution must be taken up by the masses. A Party armed with Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought (Marxism-Leninism in this epoch), using the method of self-criticism and linked to the masses of the people; a United Front of all those that can be united to oppose imperialism and its policies of war and fascism; and the Armed Struggle of the masses aimed at the dictatorship of the imperialists – all three are necessary for final victory. THREE MAGIC WEAPONS All of these weapons must be developed simultaneously according to the level of the struggle. However, at each stage of development, one of the three must be stressed. At this period, it is the central task of U.S. communists to build a new communist party and all other work must be developed in accordance with this task. Because like the people in China before 1921 (the founding of the Chinese Communist Party), the people in the U.S. are fighting against exploitation, war and racism, without conscious leadership, without a Communist Party to guide them through the difficult twists and turns of class struggle. Stalin, in his work, Foundations of Leninism, equated this to an army going to battle without a “general staff.” He pointed out that a party must be built which can “see farther than the working class; it must lead the proletariat and not follow in the tail of the spontaneous movement.” In other words, the Party is the “political leader” of the working class. It brings the concentrated experiences of the class to the economic struggles which develop among the workers spontaneously. It is, in fact, those very opportunists who worship the spontaneous economic struggles of the workers and who are afraid of the working class moving beyond that stage, to the stage of revolutionary consciousness, who most strongly resist the idea of a party. Without such a vanguard, disciplined, united organization at the head of the working class movement, embodying the theory of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought and the militant fighting spirit of the working class, the masses will be left at the mercy of the capitalists and their agents who will foster disunity and the deadening spirit of class collaboration instead of struggle. The struggle to build a new party is also opposed by the present Communist Party of the U.S.A. who tells us, “There already is a communist party. What do we need another one for? ” HISTORY OF CPUSA Let’s stop and examine the record of this “party” and see if this conclusion bears truth. The CPUSA was founded in May, 1921, in Woodstock, New York, as a merger between the Communist Party and the Communist Labor Party. For more than 25 years, the CPUSA led the struggles of the working people for the 8-hour day, for the building of the CIO, in the fight for the rights of the Afro-American and other minority peoples and in the struggle against fascism. Today, however, this once proud party of the U.S. proletariat has been taken over by a pack of opportunists who have abandoned the principles of Marxism and have attempted to become “respectable” in the eyes of their own ruling class. The present struggle to reconstruct the Party is a part of the continuing history of the U.S. communist movement against revisionism and opportunism of all kinds. It was in a series of struggles against revisionism and opportunism that the Party was born and in which it grew strong. What is opportunism? Lenin described it as “the sacrifice of the fundamental interests of the masses to the temporary interests of an insignificant minority or in other words, the alliance of a section of the workers with the bourgeoisie against the mass of the proletariat.”[2] The basis for such an alliance came about with the rise of imperialism because imperialism, through the domination of its colonies, was able to generate enough super-profits to bribe the upper-strata of the working class within the imperialist country. These super-profits (profits above and beyond the normal profits for the capital invested) created the basis for the imperialists to live in elegant splendor while the masses of people were going hungry. However, it also enabled them to create a section of parasite workers who earned much more than they produced, if they worked at all. These labor lieutenants of capital were totally beholding to imperialism for their crumbs and hateful of the colonial peoples who were rising up in revolution. It was among this labor aristocracy that the old social-democratic parties of the Second International based itself, as well as among the middle class intellectuals. This was the source of racist and chauvinist ideas within the working class. OPPORTUNISM OF LABOR LEADERS Because of this, these parties stunk from chauvinism and every time the ruling class of those countries would go to war to extend their goal of world domination, the parties of the Second International would call upon the workers to “Defend the Fatherland” or side with capitalists against the workers of other countries. This social chauvinism became the main form of opportunism under imperialism, pitting the workers of one country or race against another. The most recent example of this kind of opportunism was the support of the U.S. trade union leadership, Meany, Fitzsimmons, etc. for Nixon’s barbarous policies in Indochina. The present leaders of the CPUSA have rooted themselves among this bribed strata of the labor movement and through them they are tied to the lead strings of the U.S. imperialists and the Soviet social imperialists. When the parties of the old Second International took the road of class collaboration, Lenin led a determined struggle against them and led the formation of a “party of a new type,” the Bolshevik Party. This party of a new type broke with national chauvinism, parliamentarism and bourgeois respectability. The communist movement in the U.S. has a similar history of struggle against opportunism which goes back to the period of slavery, when such opportunists as Weitling, Kreige and others refused to take up the freedom struggle of the Black slaves. This opportunist line called on the white workers to avoid the ”contamination” of politics (i.e. the abolition of slavery) and concentrate on its “own economic struggles.” This degenerate thinking was opposed by Karl Marx himself, who called on the U.S. workers to fight alongside the Black slaves saying, “Labor cannot emancipate itself in the white skin when in the black it is branded.” The sharpest struggle against opportunism in the U.S. communist movement took place during the Second World War, when the leadership of the CPUSA was usurped by Earl Browder. The then General Secretary of the Party led it down the path of revisionism during this period, when the Party abandoned the revolutionary theories of Marxism-Leninism. From 1943 onward, Browder advocated the line of “peaceful transition to socialism.” He abandoned the Leninist theory of imperialism, that imperialism is the moribund, decadent, monopoly stage of capitalism headed for its final collapse. In April, 1944, he declared in “Teheran,” his right opportunist program, that U.S. monopoly capitalism was still “progressive,” retaining “some of the characteristics of a young capitalism.” He claimed that there was therefore a “common interest” between the workers in the U.S. and the big bourgeoisie and that together they could save imperialism from its inevitable crisis and collapse. In his haste to “save the imperialists” from destruction, his main act was to liquidate the Communist Party. In May, 1944, Browder presided over the dissolution of the CPUSA, the party of the proletariat and formed the non-party organization, the Communist Political Association of the U.S.A. To smash the working class movement he and his boss Roosevelt knew that first they had to destroy the party. In this attempt to liquidate the Party and Marxism-Leninism in the U.S., Browder was met with the resistance of the whole international communist movement and those within the CPUSA who defended the proletarian line, like William Z. Foster. Under Foster’s leadership, the party was reconstituted and Browder was expelled in 1946. Foster summed up the effects of Browderism upon the party’s work. In the work among the Negro masses Browder’s theory that the Negro people, having abandoned (satisfied) their national aspiration, were now integrated into the white population, threw confusion into the ranks of the Communists and their sympathizers and undermined their fight for the rights of the Negro people. In the field of women’s rights, Browder’s reliance upon the progressive role of the bourgeoisie tended to liquidate all conception that the women would actually have to fight for their rights in order to get them... In the South, where the Communists had carried on so heroically for so long, work was practically abandoned.[3] Browder’s line also had its effects on trade union work, liquidating the party organization in the unions and opening the doors of the party to a flood of disenchanted middle class radicals who showed only disdain for the working people whom the party spoke for. The CPUSA ceased to be a left force in the union movement and called upon the workers to settle things through cooperation with the company. Browder told the working class that socialism could only come through “peaceful transition” through the elections. This was the respectable way. BROWDER’S DOWNFALL Following Browder’s defeat within the party, Mao Tsetung sent a telegram to Foster congratulating him and the Party on their victory. In this telegram in 1945, Comrade Mao pointed out that the opportunists (revisionists) were doing their utmost “to extend their influence to China too.”[4] Mao Tsetung saw that revisionism represented a world-wide phenomenon and foresaw the attempts, which came to a head in the 1950’s to liquidate socialism in the Soviet Union and later attempts by Liu Shao-chi to turn the Chinese Communist Party into a party of the capitalist roaders. While Browder was defeated, the CPUSA never fully drove Browder-ism out of the party and it never again regained its stature among the working class and the minorities. With the death of Joseph Stalin, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was taken over by the Khrushchev revisionists who abandoned Leninism and have taken the once proud birth place of socialism down the road of capitalist restoration. Modern revisionism (the same politics as the Second International as applied to today’s conditions) has consolidated itself into a powerful counter-current against Marxism-Leninism. Faced with the McCarthy attacks and anti-communist witch-hunts of the early fifties, the Gus Hall leadership once again liquidated the party, wrote revolution out of the party constitution and has now turned the party into an organization of labor bureaucrats and petty-bourgeois reformists, following the path of the party of the Soviet Union. The new Browderites have called on the workers to “work things out peacefully” with the imperialists, saying that the future of the workers no longer lies in socialist revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat, but in a series of “radical reforms” (pressured out of the capitalists by electoral lobbying) through which socialism can evolve peacefully. In the CPUSA’s own words, Of course, we advocate social change by peaceful means, through political institutions and peoples organizations within the American constitutional framework.[5] As always, the opportunists and revisionists were met with the resistance of honest working class forces everywhere around the world. As in the periods of the collapse of the Second International, and the rise of Browderism, sharp struggles and splits developed in Communist parties everywhere in the world, including the CPUSA. The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China, where the modern revisionists suffered a major defeat, set the stage for the emergence of a whole new group of communist parties and organizations. In the United States, there were several splits from the CPUSA whose objectives were the reconstruction of the Communist Party along revolutionary lines. So far, none of these groups have succeeded. Several of them have degenerated into ultra-leftist sects and have died a quiet death. Several others have begun to root themselves among the masses and are leading some important struggles within the working class movement. Endnotes [1] Mao Tsetung, “On the People’s Democratic Dictatorship,” Vol. 4, SW, p. 422. [2] Lenin, “The Collapse of the Second International.” [3] William Z. Foster, “History of the Communist Party of the United States,” p. 432. [4] Mao Tsetung, “Telegram to Comrade Wm. Z. Foster,” Vol, 3, SW, p. 287. [5] “New Program of the Communist Party USA,” May, 1970, p. 92. PART TWO: The Struggle Against Ultra-“leftism” Many groups have begun to see the need for a new communist party, hi the U.S. and as the movement away from the revisionist Communist Party U.S.A. grows stronger, no doubt, many more will join in those efforts. In general, this is a positive development and represents a growing distaste for the reformism and the “socialism through the ballot box” line of the present CP. But within everything, a struggle between opposites exists. Among sections of the so-called “party-building” groups, there exists a strong tendency towards left opportunism. This trend is characterized by sectarianism, dogmatism and isolation from the working class struggle. The past decade has witnessed the failure of every group (up until now) which broke organizationally from the rightism of the CPUSA to keep away the influences of “ultra-leftism.” These groups include the Provisional Organizing Committee (POC) which split from the CP in the late ’50’s and the Progressive Labor Party (PLP) which began in the early ’60’s. Both of these groups at one time represented the hopes of the many honest communists within and outside of the CP that a new revolutionary communist party could be built. This had to be a party that would not abandon the revolutionary struggle of the working class in exchange for a seat or two in the House of Representatives; one that would not abandon the militant struggles of the Afro-American people and other oppressed minorities in the name of “integration” and one that would speak for the aspirations of the basic proletariat rather than the bought-off union leaders and the middle-class professionals who the present CPUSA aspires to represent. LIQUIDATED THE NATIONAL QUESTION But both POC and PLP failed to establish strong ties to the mass movement of the workers and minorities. Both soon liquidated the national question and under the guise of fighting the “class struggle” launched an attack on the movement for the national rights of the Black, Chicano and Puerto Rican peoples. Finally, both failed to merge with the developing international movement led by the Communist parties of China and Albania and instead dropped their Maoist disguises and attacked Mao Tsetung and China for supposedly “abandoning the revolution” and “selling out.” Today, these groups have either died or have become impotent, losing any influence they might have once had. However, the damage they have done has been costly. The wrecking and splitting activity of these super-“leftists” was in large measure responsible for the destruction of SDS, the largest anti-imperialist student organization in the US. It also helped isolate the ideas of Marxism-Leninism from a significant number of minority people and organizations who sadly have mistaken their brand of “leftism” for genuine scientific socialism. Furthermore, today there are still several groups who cling to this type of thinking. In part, this leftism today stems from a reaction to the rightism of the revisionist party. In part, it reflects the social base of the communist movement at the present time. The fact that a great deal of the present day communists come from the ranks of the middle classes or the intelligentsia is only natural. It stems from the fact that the mass movement, which so greatly affected the students and intellectuals during the ’60’s brought many of them into the ranks of the working class. These conditions brought to many more the great need to give life to the theory of Marxism-Lenin-ism by integrating it with the struggles of the working people. Many got factory jobs and groups sprung up throughout the country with the purpose in mind of organizing the working class. However, within the conditions of life of these students and middle class revolutionaries lie the very seeds of these “leftist” diseases: sectarianism, dogmatism and anarchism. This is nothing peculiar to the United States today. The middle-class intellectuals have always been the first to take up revolutionary ideas. But their small producer’s mentality developed through a life-time of isolation from manual labor and social production gives birth to leftist thinking like sectarianism (“I am the vanguard while everyone else is backwards.”) This is why communists in all countries have always urged the revolutionary intellectuals to integrate themselves with the masses and have warned them against isolating themselves. The great upsurge of the Chinese people against foreign domination produced the May 4th Movement in 1919. This student movement actually sparked the movement of the workers and peasants for independence and democracy and gave impetus to the formation of the Chinese Communist Party in 1921. But, Mao Tsetung was quick to point out: In the Chinese democratic revolutionary movement, it was the intellectuals who were first to awaken. This was clearly demonstrated both in the Revolution of 1911 and the May 4th Movement... .But the intellectuals will accomplish nothing if they fail to integrate themselves with the workers and peasants. In the final analysis, the dividing line between revolutionary intellectuals and non-revolutionary or counter-revolutionary intellectuals is whether or not they willing to integrate themselves with the workers and peasants and actually do so.[1] “Leftism” has always plagued the intellectuals whose isolation from social production and collective work engenders individualism and purism as well as a distaste for collective discipline. In writing about the inner-party struggles in the Soviet Union, J.V. Stalin made a class analysis of right and left opportunism within the ranks of the movement. I think that the proletariat, as a class, can be divided into three strata. . . . One stratum is the main mass of the proletariat, its core, its permanent part, the mass of ’pure-blooded’ proletarians, who have long broken off connection with the capitalist class. This stratum of the proletariat is the most reliable bulwark of Marxism. The second stratum consists of newcomers from non-proletarian classes – from the peasantry, the petty bourgeoisie or the intelligentsia. These are former members of other classes who have only recently merged with the proletariat and have brought with them into the working class their customs, their habits, their waverings and their vacillations. This stratum constitutes the most favorable soil for all sorts of anarchist, semi-anarchist and ’ultra-left’ groups. The third stratum, lastly, consists of the labor aristocracy, the upper stratum of the working class, the most well-to-do portion of the proletariat, with its propensity for compromise with the bourgeoisie, its predominant inclination to adapt itself to the powers that be, and its anxiety to ’get on in life’.[2] This in general describes the class origins of this “leftism” But let’s examine some of the ways it manifests itself among the groups working for the building of a new party. Certain of the groups who have taken an ultra-“leftist” course have isolated the tasks of party-building from work within the mass movement of the people. To them, building a party is the task of a handful of intellectuals, working in isolation from the masses. They argue that “the mass movement is meaningless without the leadership of the party.” They have no faith in the people’s ability to learn through the struggle and so they participate in mass work for the sole purpose of “winning the handful of advanced workers” to their organization. The propaganda put out by these “leftists” is dry, stale dogma instead of lively and vigorous. It is characterized by isolation from the things going on around them and a one-sided leaning towards everything old and formalistic. They know everything about pre-revolutionary Russia but nothing about the U.S. and the lives of the workers. UNITED FRONT AGAINST IMPERIALISM Most importantly, the present-day ultra-“leftists” oppose the strategy of the united front against imperialism. The united front is based on the objective conditions in the world today. Its purpose is to unite all that can be united to oppose imperialism, headed by the U.S. monopolists and social-imperialism, headed by the revisionists in power in the U.S.S.R. These two superpowers work together to hold back and destroy revolution, while at the same time, fighting among themselves to spread their influence and power. In each country, the united front has its own characteristics. In an oppressed country where foreign troops have invaded, like Vietnam, the goal of the united front is to drive out the aggressors and establish peoples’ rule, under the leadership of the working class. In the advanced capitalist countries, where the conditions are different (the U.S. is an aggressor nation, not an oppressed nation) the form changes, but the essence of the united front remains the same. This policy was articulated by the Chinese Communist Party in an exchange of letters with the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1963 called “A Proposal Concerning the General Line of the International Communist Movement:” The U.S. imperialists have thus placed themselves in opposition to the people of the whole world and have become encircled by them. The international proletariat must and can unite all the forces that can be united, make use of internal contradictions in the enemy camp and establish the broadest united front against the U.S. imperialist and their lackeys.[3] It goes on to say: The proletarian parties in imperialist or capitalist countries must maintain their own ideological, political and organizational independence in leading revolutionary struggles. At the same time, they must unite all the forces that can be united and build a broad united front against monopoly capital and against the imperialist policies of aggression and war.[4] While some of the ultra-“leftists” oppose the united front entirely, others say that united front work cannot go on “until there is a party.” So while supporting the united front in theory, in practice they ignore the work that must be done on a day to day basis and are concerned only with building their own circles, organizations or “parties.” Instead of pushing forward the work in the plants of organizing strikes, working in the unions and building up the caucuses and other rank-and-file movements, these “leftists” can be found only when it comes to selling their own newspapers or giving out their own leaflets. In this way, they create mistrust among the working class for communists, traditionally the hardest fighters for the workers’ cause. They isolate themselves from the real advanced workers, not necessarily the ones that will come right out and join a Marxist study group, but the real leaders of the working class who emerge through the course of struggle. We have no doubt that these “super-leftists” will ultimately declare themselves “the new communist party.” But we ask, what kind of a party will this be? How will it differ from the dozens of Trotskyist and previous sects like the POC and PL? The answer is, it will not. It is true that building a party requires conscious work on the part of the communists. A party is the organized, conscious expression of the working-class struggle and cannot develop out of the struggle spontaneously. It takes years of difficult work, developing an experienced core of cadre, raising the theoretical level and deepening the ties with the masses. While being close with the united front, the communist organization is at the same time separate with an independent life of its own. This is what we call “independence and initiative.” However, while modern revisionism, or right opportunism, is the main ideological enemy which confronts the world revolutionary movement, within the newly emerging communist movement here the main danger is “leftism” and sectarianism. Without a staunch struggle against sectarianism, dogmatism and ultra-“leftism” in general, all the cries for a new party won’t mean a thing. Endnotes [1] Mao Tsetung, “The May 4th Movement,” Selected Works, Vol. 2, p. 238. [2] J.V. Stalin, “Sources of Contradictions Within the Party,” J.V. Stalin, Selected Works, Cardinal Pub., p. 212. [3] “A Proposal Concerning the General Line of the International Communist Movement” Foreign Language Press, p. 12. [4] Ibid., p. 19. PART THREE: Tasks of the Communist Movement At the recent forum sponsored by the Guardian in New York, representatives of several communist organizations spoke in a spirit of unity about the tasks ahead. This was a very encouraging sign and showed the growing maturity of the movement. But unity cannot be built on good intentions alone. For real unity to be forged and a party constructed which includes the different forces which now exist as separate entities, work on three levels must take place: 1) ideological, 2) mass work, and 3) organizational work. IDEOLOGICAL TASKS The movement in the U.S. today is characterized by a new awakening among the people and most significantly among the industrial workers. This is a measure of the depth of the crisis which the monopoly capitalist class finds itself in at the present time. The present strike wave, the revolts against government cut-backs and the meat boycott add more testimony to this depth. However, the main weakness of the movement is (and historically has been in this country) the lack of conscious leadership and a high theoretical level. To build a new Party, a break must be made with the disregard for theory which has characterized the revisionist CPUSA. This neglect for theory along with their tailism towards the trade union struggle has been the chain with which they have tied the working class movement to the capitalist system. The CPUSA’s political paper, the Daily World, is marked by the absence of any theoretical guidance and reads like any other liberal piece of journalism. This is characteristic of the CP’s abandonment of the final aims of the struggle and their infatuation with reforms under capitalism. At a similar period in Russian history, V.I. Lenin wrote his now famous words: Without a revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary movement. This idea cannot be insisted upon too strongly at a time when the fashionable preaching of opportunists goes hand in hand with an infatuation for the narrowest forms of practical activity.[1] Lenin was showing that political education of the workers must come from “outside” the working class as a conscious effort on the part of the communists. Spontaneously, on their own, they can develop only trade-union consciousness. While integrating closely with the struggles of the working class, the young communist movement must take part NOW in the political education of the workers. The political questions which confront the working class today revolve around strategy – “Who are our friends and who are our enemies?” This question cannot be answered based on the subjective wishes of any group or individual, but on a concrete analysis of the conditions here today in the U.S.; a scientific study of the various class forces and the relationship between the working class and the nationally oppressed peoples. Can we say that this kind of theoretical study has been done yet? No, it hasn’t. And because it hasn’t, come the problems of sectarianism, of failing to build unity based upon firm principles. For principled unity to be built among the various sectors of the communist movement, the theoretical level must be raised or unity will be superficial or transitory and opportunism will take over within our ranks as it did in the CPUSA. Lenin goes on to say: Yet for Social-Democrats (communists – ed.) the importance of theory is enhanced by three other circumstances, which are often forgotten: first by the fact that our Party is only in process of formation, its features are only just becoming defined and it has yet far from settled accounts with the other trends of revolutionary thought that threaten to divert the movement from the correct path...[2] There are those today who would have us down play the fight against revisionism, to down play the ideological struggle for the sake of practical unity. But, unless this fight is waged through the course of the struggle, no new party can be forged and reformism and economism will continue to dominate the workers’ struggles. When we say that opportunism must be fought in the “course of the struggle” we mean that it is not enough to stand back and criticize the revisionists or the trade union leadership. The people can only learn from their own experience. This brings up the importance of putting theory into practice. MASS WORK There are some elements of the movement, generally characterized by “ultra-leftism” who think that a Party can be called into being or “declared” at one or another conference. These people have disdain for the mass struggle of the people and view communists only in a narrow sense of holding certain Marxist ideas. A real Communist Party can only develop in the course of struggle. It is here we, as well as the masses, learn to distinguish between what people SAY and what they DO. In recent months, we have seen more and more examples of communist groups playing a leading role in the workers’ movement; leading strikes; and building united-front demonstrations against the government’s policies of war and fascism. The increased level of this kind of work has made a higher level of unity among the communists possible. Our mass work must be based at the point of production. It is here that the young communist organizations must concentrate their forces at the present time. The trade union struggle is our starting point because this Is the basic organization of the working class. Because this movement is dominated by the most corrupt and rotten leadership imaginable, a rank-and-file upsurge has been on the rise in recent years. Led by the Black and other minority workers, this rank-and-file movement is bringing new life into the slumbering working class struggle. It is here that communists must be most active. It is here that the daily work of building the rank-and-file caucuses and intermediate or citywide organizations must be done, pushing forward, step by step, in accordance with the existing conditions, the political consciousness of the workers and the trade unions in general. Through this work, the various trends within the communist movement take shape as the organizations grow in size and, most importantly, begin to win the advanced workers to the revolutionary cause. These workers are the link to the working class as a whole. Of special importance here is work among the women workers. This is a special task, often neglected by some who feel that the women are “too backward.” The recent struggles at Farah, Shell and other militant strikes show the real power of the women as well as their willingness to take a militant stand along with the men. To help forge unity, as much practical cooperation as possible between the different groups should be encouraged. As they begin to develop unity in the course of practical work, organizational unity will become more of a reality. They must consult and work jointly in the united front and factory work whenever possible. This includes work among the multi-national as well as the national groups. This kind of cooperation is necessary because of the absence of one center. ORGANIZATIONAL TASKS The present situation where the communist forces are largely scattered and locally based makes our organizational tasks very great. While at present there are several centers and the people are often confused due to different policies and organizations (sometime even in the same plants); this can be used to gain a broad range of experiences. However, in no way should this situation be glorified to be anything but a weakness, a sign of backwardness and primitiveness. At present, several of the most advanced communist groups are organized along national lines rather than uniting communists of different nationalities into one group. Some of these groups have played the leading role of bringing revolutionary leadership and theory to the Afro-American, Puerto Rican, Chicano and Asian peoples’ movements, especially to the minority workers. This, of course, is the most important kind of mass work for communists at the present time. The separateness in general can be attributed to the opportunism and history of white chauvinism which has plagued some sections of the movement and backward levels of large sections of the white workers. This form has enabled many revolutionary-minded minority workers and intellectuals to be won to the communist movement who might not have joined a multi-national or mostly white organization. In some ways, this is a similar situation to the one the Russian Bolsheviks found themselves in pre-revolutionary Russia which was called “a prison house of nations” because of the severe oppression of the minorities under Tsarism. While Lenin always took a principled stand for multi-national organization, because of the objective conditions, many of these national forms of organization were preserved right up to the October Revolution in 1917. Today, we must work and push for a multi-national party. Where necessary, some national forms might be preserved even after the Party is built if it will bring minority forces into the Party and help forge class unity. But, ideologically and organizationally the Party must be united with a single center. Within the Party and the present communist organizations, there must be a type of “division of labor.” The white communists must take on the main responsibility for work among the white workers and especially for combating chauvinism and in that way, push the unity of the class forward. To the degree that this task is carried out, and white workers are brought into the struggle to take the side of the Black and other minority workers, this will make the special job of the minority cadre that much easier. Their special duty is, while working among the class as a whole, to work among the minority workers and combat narrow nationalism which directs itself against the white workers rather than against the monopolists. One more important organizational task calls for communists to build their present organizations along Leninist lines so that the party is formed on a sound basis. First, they must be built at the point of production on the basis of the factory nuclei or concentration. This will help insure its proletarian character and prepare it for the greatest organizational task ahead, that of leading proletarian revolution and building workers’ organs of rule. Aside from being factory based, rather than along community lines, like the revisionist parties (which are based on electoral districts) the communist organizations from the very beginning must develop democratic-centralism and combine secret and open work together. This task cannot be put off “until there is a party,” while loose, legal groups are formed for the present time. This type of opportunism on the organizational questions will foster opportunism on other questions not to mention hurting the chances of the present groups for survival against the fascist attacks, and their winning the respect and the trust of the working class. If we seriously take up these ideological, mass and organizational tasks and combat sectarianism and small-group mentality, the day will soon approach when a new Party can emerge, when the communist movement can be united and not scattered and isolated into dozens of small circles. At that time, the working class can step out of the darkness and out from under the mercy of the exploiters. This will be a great day for the people of the world and a day which brings the downfall of U.S. imperialism closer than ever. I AM CONVINCED THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHO ARE FIGHTING VALIANTLY WILL ULTIMATELY WIN VICTORY AND THAT THE FASCIST RULE IN THE UNITED STATES WILL INEVITABLY BE DEFEATED. Mao Tsetung Endnotes [1] Lenin, “What is to be Done?” [2] Lenin. “What is to be Done?”