Polemical guns of the October League

This is a pamphlet published in 1974 by a Maoist group active in the United States, the October League (Marxist-Leninist), later known as the Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist). The group was officially recognized by the Communist Party of China as its U.S. fraternal organization. It seems to have disappeared at some point during the 1980's. A similar group existed in Sweden, the KFML /SKP, which may (or may not) explain my interest in this somewhat unusual subject.

“Revolutionary Union: Opportunism in a `Super-Revolutionary' Disguise” is a polemic against a competing Maoist group, the Revolutionary Union (later Revolutionary Communist Party) of Leibel Bergman and Bob Avakian. The pamphlet contains short articles previously published in the October League magazine “The Call”. The OL accuses the RU of being sectarians, splitters, White chauvinists and of using goon tactics against competing Maoist groups. The rhetoric is indeed very similar to that of the KFML. While the OL for some reason never use the term “People's Front”, instead preferring “United Front Against Imperialism”, their main line of attack is that the RU isn't sufficiently popular frontist. The term “Three World Theory” isn't used either, presumably being a post-Mao term, but the OL does defend an early version of the theory against the RU.

The OL explicitly argues that Communists must support the “progressive” wing of the union apparatus against the “reactionary” wing. The progressive unionists referred to are Cesar Chavez (UFW), Arnold Miller (UMWA) and Ed Sadlowski (USWA), all three of whom were well known during this period. More sectarian leftists, apparently including the RU, denounced them as “class collaborators” and “out-bureaucrats” since (of course) they weren't Communists. By contrast, the OL supported them, quoting Mao and Stalin as proof-texts!

In another article, the OL takes the more controversial stand that Marxist-Leninists should support the Shah of Iran against “imperialism”, principally “Soviet social-imperialism”. By forcing the United States and the Soviet Union to accept higher oil prices, Iran (and OPEC in general) has objectively dealt a blow to the imperialist system. This is true despite the fact that the Shah is reactionary on most other issues. The OL also refuses to support a leftist insurgency in Oman, claiming that the rebels have connections to the pro-Soviet Tudeh Party of Iran, an agent of Soviet imperialism. (The Shah of Iran had sent troops to suppress the rebels.) Apparently, the RU supported the rebellion, claiming it was Maoist.

The real reason for OL's peculiar position was presumably that Mao's China had established good relations with Iran. This was part of China's march rightwards in foreign policy, from real opposition to both superpowers to an increasingly more pro-American position. Under Mao's successor Hua Guofeng, this became known as “Three Worlds Theory”. The RU/RCP was indeed uneasy about it, while the OL supported it.

The third article in this collection deals with the RU's truly bizarre anti-busing (!) position in Boston, where White racist mobs were attacking Blacks and White anti-racists during a busing struggle. The RU raised the remarkable slogan “People must unite to smash Boston busing plan” and attempted to recruit members of the racist group ROAR. Somewhat surprisingly, OL's article on Boston is the weakest and least informative in the collection, perhaps because the scandal was so widely known. OL believes that RU's position on busing is connected to their rejection of Black national self-determination in the United States.

The appendices accuse the RU of sectarianism towards women's struggles, homophobia, White chauvinism towards Chicanos, and physical attacks on the OL, the staff of the Guardian newspaper, and other groups.

I can't say that this is *the* most interesting material around, but it was intriguing to read the accusations that the RU/RCP had an “ultraleft” line already before Avakian expelled Bergman and turned the group into an adventurist admiration society for Jiang Qing.

In the end, I give this intra-mural Maoist polemic three stars. Of course, Mao and Stalin were two of the world's worst genocidal butchers, but that's for another time…