ALLIANCE 46   July 2002:
Appendix Three of: REFLECTIONS ON CURRENT SECTARIAN FORAYS IN THE INTERNATIONAL MOVEMENT.
Correspondences from the e-list of ISML Regarding: The Reasons for the Dissolution of the Lenin Committee (Italy) & What ISML Executive Knew About them


  Synopsis of the Following Messages:
These messages in-toto, establish that neither ISML nor Alliance were made aware of any political differences with the philosophy of either the ISML or Alliance, that might have prompted the Lenin Committee to split.
    Initial warning of the "Crisis in the Lenin Committee" was given to the ISML executive on January 1 2001 (Message 1). Through until March 2001, continued contact including condolences for Bland (message 4) were despite urging, quite non-specific as to the reason for the dissolution. Even until late 2001, ISML and the Lenin Committee were still trying to establish meetings (Message 6). Singh's obviously sectarian provocation was disguised as an apparently "innocent" item of information (Message 7). This prompted further enquiry from Kumar to both cmdes K and A (message 8 to 10), yielding only corroboration of prior information. This enables Kumar to respond to Singh in the light of previous knowledge of Singh's overall prior sectarian and manipulative behaviours (message 11). Kumar also urges Singh not to behave like a gossip-monger but reveal what sources he is quoting. Singh's continued persistence (Messages 14-15) leads Kumar to in turn - further pressure for disclosure from A (messages 16-19). Only when Kumar pushes A  for an open and frank statement - now being aware of the sources, does A offer an honest opinion (Message 19 - dated June 2002). Final message, Kumar's note to the still sick comrade K (Message 20 - dated 21 June 2002).
    It should be noted, that the serious illness of Cmde K retarded his active role in the events of the last months and even perhaps, in the dissolution of the Lenin Committee itself. It seems that the un-principled and "covert" behaviours of the other members of the Lenin Committee - are responsible for this little sordid and sorry saga of back-door behaviour.
Compiled by Alliance dated: 30th June 2002.


Table Contents:
Message 1: Subject: Crisis in the LC. Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001; From: K To Hari Kumar;
Message 2: Subject: Re: Crisis in the LC   Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001; From: Hari Kumar To K;
Message 3: Subject: Re: Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 From: Hari Kumar To K;
Message 4: Subject: Bill Bland Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001; From: K To JP cc: Hari Kumar;
Message 5: Subject: Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001; From: K to ISML c/o Hari Kumar;
Message 6: Subject: Re: re conference: Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001; From: K To: Hari Kumar;
Message 7:Message 2881 to ISML e-List; From:  "Bhagat Singh"; Sat Mar 30, 2002;                 Subject:  Information on Lenin Committee
Message 8: Subject: A Provocation; Sun, 31 Mar 2002; From: Hari Kumar To K.
Message 9: Subject: Re: A Provocation Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002; From: K To Hari Kumar
Message 10: Subject: Hi K; Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002; From: Hari Kumar To K:
Message 11: Message 2911; HK to ISML e-List; Mon Apr 1, 2002; Dis-Information and Provocation on The Lenin Committee.
Message 12:Subject: A provocation Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 08:43:30 +0200
From: K To Hari Kumar:
Message 13: Subject: Dear Cmde A: Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2002; From: Hari Kumar To A:
Message 14: Message 2943 "Bhagat Singh" to ISML e-list; ; Date:  Mon Apr 8, 2002;  Subject:  On the ISML Statement
Message 15 Message 2983; "Bhagat Singh" to ISML e-list; Apr 15, 2002; Re: ISML Digest Number 538;
Message 16: Subject:  Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002; From: Hari Kumar to K & A;
Message 17: Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002; From: A to: Hari Kumar;
Message 18: Subject: Re: Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002; From: Hari Kumar To A:
Message 19: Subject: LC(M-L)/ISML Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002; From: Cmde A To Hari Kumar:
Message 20: Subject: [Fwd: LC(M-L)/ISML] Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002; From: Hari Kumar to K:


Message 1: Subject: Crisis in the LC. Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2002
From: K To Hari Kumar
Dear Hari,
Sorry for the long silence due to two fundamental reasons;
1) my not very good health conditions;
2) crisis in the LC.
As to 1, I still suffer the consequences of having been run down. Almost a year has elapsed and I haven't yet recovered completely.
For point 2, I think that in a few months there will be an official documents of the Lenin Committee
about its future. I fear that one possibility is that  it could be dissolved  and its members could join other exiting organizations.
Best greetings and all the best for the new year to all of you.
Fraternally,
K


Message 2: Subject: Re: Crisis in the LC   Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 09:41:10 -0500
From: Hari Kumar To: K
My Dear K,
Thanks you very much for the reply. It was important to recieve that so I had some sense of what
was going on.
I had of course, guessed that all was not well - With either you or the LC.
As to yourself, My very sincere hopes for your swift recovery. Is there any more details? I hope
very much that you can recover fully.
As for the LC, I am of course worried to hear that as well. Again, my hopes for its happy
conclusions. May I ask you to extend to A my very warm greetings and hopes for a good new
year - assuming that your relations with him are still good?
With sincere best wishes for the New Year to you and to your family.
Fraternally, H


Message 3: Subject: Re: Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001; From: Hari Kumar To K:
Dear Cmde,
On a more personal level: How are YOU? I hope your health is a little better?
Let me also ask you regarding:
...............
4) I trust there will be an official announcement?? If not - can you tell me any more as to what has
happened?
Fraternal regards,
H


Message 4: Subject: Bill Bland Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001; From: K To JP cc: Hari Kumar
Dear John,
saddened by the news of Bill Bland's death, I send the Communist League my condolences and those of the former members of the Lenin Committee (m-l).
Fraternally, K


Message 5: Subject: Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001; From: K to ISML c/o Hari Kumar
Comrades,
this is a message to inform you that the Lenin Committee (marxist-leninist) has been dissolved.
The decision has been taken unanimously by its members. During the last few years the LC(m-l) has done what it seemed right to do and that it was able to do within the limits of its modest forces,
giving a contribution to the cause of communism - by organizing debates and seminars, circulating "Politica Comunista" and other materials of propaganda, meeting other organizations engaged in the reconstruction of the Party.
    At present it is necessary to look forward.
    For the time being its members will follow attentively what is going on among all the other marxist-leninist groups and single comrades and then will decide independently to join or not other organizations.
    Please note that personally I still hope to maintain contacts with you.
    Fraternal greetings.
    K


Message 6: Subject: Re: re conference: Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001; From: K To: Hari Kumar:
Reply to: Kumar's message of Monday, August 13, 2001 3:36 AM: Subject: re conference
Kumar Wrote:
> Dear K:
> It is now certain that the Albanians are coming to the London conference. We have a visa. ..Are >you or comrades from Italy able to come at all?? Please seriously try. With best wishes,
> h
>
Reply:
Dear Hari,
unfortunately none of us can take part in the London conference. I examined the possibilities to take part on a personal capacities but it is not possible. Anyway we want to be informed and be in contact. Fraternal greetings. K



Message 7:Message 2881 to ISML e-List; From:  "Bhagat Singh"; Sat Mar 30, 2002;                 Subject:  Information on Lenin Committee

Recently I was told by Alliance that no information had been received as to why the Lenin Committee was no longer with the ISML journal. The following statement which I have received from one of the Italian ML groups (but not the Lenin Committee) may help to clarify matters.
BS
>“The Lenin Committee relinquished the Editorial Board of ISML for the following reasons.
>The Lenin Committe did not share:
>1) the wrong and opportunist position defended by other members of the Editorial Board >(particularly, by the French CEMOPI) about the war against Yugoslavia.
>2) the position of “Alliance and “Communist League" on some questions:
>Dimitrov agent of nazism (!!!); after the conclusion of his trial; Stalin in minority in the PCUS since >1928; the PCUS and the 3rd International in the hands of a majority of revisionist since the 30’s; >etc.
>So far these absurd ideas never took place in the pages of ISML, but the Lenin Committee, when >it got to know them, considered impossible to co-operate with their supporters.                >Besides, the comrade who was present in the Editorial Board of ISML on behalf of the Lenin >Committee deemed more important to devote himself to the struggle for the reconstruction of the >Communist Party in Italy. 



Message 8: Subject: A Provocation; Sun, 31 Mar 2002; From: Hari Kumar To K.
Dear K:
I do need some help from you. See this attack below by Singh, who in a provocation aimed at Alliance & to ISML - writes about you & about the Lenin Committee the following. Please contact me URGENTLY about this.
If at all possible?
Fraternally Hari------------
SEE THIS:
Follows a forward to K from Kumar of Message sent to list by Singh - item Message 7 above.

Message 9: Subject: Re: A Provocation Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002; From: K To Hari Kumar
Dear Hari,
as you know very well the Lenin Committee has been dissolved not because of divergences between its members.
K


Message 10: Subject: Hi K; Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002; From: Hari Kumar To K:
Cmde:
1) I really am VERY sorry that you remain ill. I did not realise - last time we spoke it seemed that you had recovered. My sincere wishes for your full speedy recovery. .......
2) I have written an open reply to the e-list of ISML. You are now a member of that list so you can read it there. I hope that this is the end of this ridiculous "affair".
Fraternally,
Hari


Message 11: Message 2911; Mon Apr 1, 2002; Subject:  Dis-Information and Provocation on The Lenin Committee
TO ALL COMRADES ON THE LIST; & TO ELEMENTS OUTSIDE OF ISML WHO           ARE ON THE LIST - BOTH FRIENDS AND FOES.
A) THE FACTS IN CHRONOLOGY
1) It is incorrect that ALLIANCE told Singh anything to do with the Lenin Committee. There was NO official communication between Alliance, Revolutionary Democracy, &/or ISML. There WAS indeed, an un-official communication - at the level of an exchange of information - between           Hari Kumar and Singh - the editor of Revolutionary Democracy, that took place in December 2001, in India.
2) In response to a question as to who had taken a part in the London Conference, it was stated by myself who the participants at the conference had been by organisation. I also had been given prior  clearance by comrades of the ex-Lenin Committee - to divulge to whosoever asked - that they were in fact dissolved. The grounds I gave were that they had a number of serious personal crises of severe ill-health amongst a number of them. To the best of my knowledge - including from a telephone call placed today with leading comrades in Italy - this remains the case. One other factor that does emerge is that they also felt it wise to concentrate energy upon broader united fronts. THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF ANY OF THE MATTERS RAISED BY SINGH OF R.D.; as HAVING PLAYED ANY ROLE IN THE DISSOLUTION OF THE LENIN COMMITTEE. In fact the ALLEGATIONS - were labelled as "provocative" by the comrade in Italy.
(B) A POTENTIAL INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVOCATION AND ITS TIMING
1) Singh is an undoubtedly talented communist with an extraordinary potential. It is regrettable therefore that he continues to rely on dubious tactics such as slanderous gossip-mongering in the midst of his work. For approximately 35 years we in Alliance, and those of the CL (UK) [Including Bland] have looked forward, and URGED REPETITIVELY, Singh to undertake a systematic critique - against our views on Dimitrov. If we are wrong - said Bill (& we all agreed) - we should   know and if the evidence is sound - we must and will make full self-criticism. However, instead of performing this systematic polemical and scientific work, Singh apparently prefers to launch         these petty provocations. Why at this time in especial, is there this new provocation?
2) The Italian organisation that is part of Unity & Struggle in Italy - has split. The personality of Ubaldo Buttafava is in part - I believe from my own other sources - responsible. However there may be other - deeper ideological causes. Singh, is maybe responding to the pressures from these re-formations going on currently in Italy.
3) The recent death of Bland - has undoubtedly led to an objective weakening of the forces of ISML and of those of its leading forces - which does appear to include Alliance. Singh always opposed Bland and the line of non-sectarian unity in the international movement aimed at moving to an open debate on the history of the last 100 years. With Bland gone, he assumes that there is a vacuum of theoretical leadership.
4) The commitment to an on-going non-sectarian discussion aimed at renewing an international formation - that is part and parcel of the work of ISML - has undoubtedly had some positive resonance. The refusal of Unity & Struggle to date - of engaging in this work has been noted by large sections of on-lookers. What could be more helpful than to smear ISML with the shibboleth of a potential "secret control by Alliance and the CL" with its' "absurd ideas" on Dimitrov and "Stalin in minority in the PCUS since 1928; the PCUS and the 3rd International in the hands of a majority of revisionist since the 30's; etc.". The ALLEGATIONS OF SINGH, do note this: "So far these        absurd ideas never took place in the pages of ISML, but the Lenin Committee, when it got to know them, considered impossible to co-operate with their supporters." What arrogance! Does Singh think that the component forces of the Lenin Committee were so stupid that they only "got to know" of the views of Alliance last year?! They are not illiterate you know Singh! Do you to think Singh,    that even if your conjecture is true - that the comrades of the Lenin Committee would be astute enough to launch an open rebuttal of our "heretical" "ridiculous" views? Or do you believe they are craven cowards? Besides, I met with their then forces in some leisure several times and discussed AT LENGTH the proposals of Bland, the CL, and Alliance. Making EXPLICITLY CLEAR that these were NOT the views of ISML.
5) As time has gone on the demarcation line of those who have taken the principled line of "Down with NATO! Down with Milosevic!" [Line of the ISML organisations and groups and parties - has proven to be correct and in general more resonant with the truth - than the line taken by those supported by Singh et al i.e;: "Down With NATO Up With Milosevic!" It appears important now, since several leading components of the former PLA appear to support the overall line taken          by ISML rather than that of large sections of U&S & Brussels (PTB).
C) SOME INTERIM CONCLUSIONS
Innuendo and snide gossip - have no place in the re-building of the international communist movement. Singh should openly state who his Italian sources - so "authoritative"! - are. He - and more importantly - the other parts of Unity and Struggle - should openly discuss with ISML a series of principled talks. Singh should perhaps concentrate on a point by point rebuttal of the corpus of work built up by the CL and Alliance over the last 30 years.
Hari Kumar - for ISML in this instance.


Message 12:Subject: A provocation Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 08:43:30 +0200
From: K To Hari Kumar:
Dear  Hari,
the Lenin committee dissolved not because of divergences among its members and left the ISML
because of its dissolution.
The news you mention is only a provocation.
Sorry for not being in contact for so long but unfortunately my health is deteriorating.
Hoping to be better in the future, I send you my best fraternal greetings.


Message 13: Subject: Dear Cmde A: Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2002; From: Hari Kumar To A:
Dear Cmde A:
1) I sincerely hope all is well with you. I was very disappointed that we could not meet last time......
2) I was naturally very sorry to hear about the dissolution of the LC.
Recently Vijay Singh (Of Revolutionary Democracy - affiliated to Unity & Struggle) made a
provocation to the ISML about this. I used Cmde K's help to reply.
We have started an e-List for 'informal discussion'. I am going to subscribe you - ... In any case, there you will find the notes regarding Vijay's attempted provocation. ....
3) In any case, what is your overall position in general these days? I hope that you may still work
with the ISML? Are there comrades with you that should be in correspondence with us? ...
With Fraternal Greetings,
Hari Kumar


Message 14: Message 2943; From:  "Bhagat Singh"; Date:  Mon Apr 8, 2002;  Subject:  On the ISML Statement
The statement posted 1st April 2002 is, we are informed, a statement of the former Lenin Committee on the reasons why it did not maintain its relations with the ISML. It follows from this:
1) This is not an account of the reasons why the Lenin Committee was dissolved.
2) The statement is not part of some 'allegation' or 'provocation' directed against the ISML.
3) The entire reasoning advanced in Section B 1-5 and C represents a chain of wild conjectures and speculations.
    In terms of the political content of the ISML statement we state:
A. On the Question of Comrade Georgi Dimitrov it has long been upheld by some constituents of the ISML that Dimitrov was an agent of the Nazis.
The views of Comrade Stalin and the CPSU b on the merits of Comrade Dimitrov are well-known.
We do not think that there can be any scientific evaluation of the life and activity of Comrade Dimitrov which directly contradicts the views of Stalin and the CPSU b
It may be recalled that the ISML upholds the classics of Marx Engels Lenin and Stalin. However some constituents of the ISML do not uphold the views of Stalin on Comrade Dimitrov and a range of related questions in the period 1935 onwards.
2) Apropos of the NATO Aggression on Yugoslavia. The statement of the ISML implies that the stance of the the journal 'Unity and Struggle', or of large sections of it, was one of 'Down With Nato Up With Milosevic!' We are not aware that Unity and Struggle has stated this.
'All the progressive forces of the Yugoslavian Federation, including the peoples of Kosovo, the peoples of Europe and the World and the working class should have taken a stance against the    imperialist intervention. The right to self-determination for Kosovans at that time could not have been brought forward on the agenda as a practical issue. This was because, under the bombardment of the US, France, Britain, Germany etc and under the imperialist protectorate what kind of self-determination could have been talked off. 'On this point not all the parties and organisations of the Conference took the same stance. While some saw the stopping of the bombardment and the Kosova people's right to self-determination on equal footing, others supported the UCCA. The stances of different parties were shaped in accordance with the development of incidents and the amount of information'. (Unity and Struggle, No 8, p. 26).
    Let us also recall that Enver understood the necessity to defend the peoples of Yugoslavia from imperial aggression when he stated at the 7th Congress of the PLA that 'in case of any eventual      aggression against Yugoslavia by the Soviet Union or some other power the Albanian people will stand by the Yugoslav peoples'. And Seri i Populate in its editorial of January 1980 stated: 'Thus
everyone can rest assured that if the question arises of the defence of freedom and independence from imperialist aggressors of no matter what kind, the Albanians and Yugoslavs will once more    fight together against the common enemies as they fought in the past'.
(Revolutionary Democracy Vol. VII No 2, September 2001, pp. 94-5).
                BS 

Message 15 Message 2983; "Bhagat Singh" to ISML e-list; Apr 15, 2002; Re: ISML Digest Number 538
Hari Kumar continues to insist that the statement of the former Lenin Committee as to the               reasons why they broke their association with the ISML is misrepresentation, gossip and              denigration of the ISML
The reliability of this statement which reached us through the Editorial Board of Scintilla (Italy) is thus questioned. It seems that views which are unpalatable to some are not to be aired on the list and those who do this should "get out".
We have noticed that suggestions to "Get out" have earlier been directed to the KPDML
Hari Kumar had argued that the stand of "Unity & Struggle" was one of  "Down with Nato up with Milosevic". From citations from the journal we pointed out that this was not so. Hari Kumar is     discreetly silent on this question.
We have also pointed out that the ISML upholds the classic status of Stalin but that sections of ISML assail the views of Stalin on the historic merits of Comrade Dimitrov. Hari Kumar maintains a  discreet silence on this contradiction.
One question. Hari Kumar points out that the stand of ISML is one of Down with Nato Down with Milosevich and that sections deriving from and that sections deriving from the PLA support this position. It would be appreciated if Hari Kumar could substantiate this by citations from the Albanian literature.                BS.


Message 16: Subject:  Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002; From: Hari Kumar to K & A:
PLEASE WILL YOU RESPOND?? SEE BELOW
HARI
(This message also contains a forward of the message 14 sent to the e-list, by Singh).
______________



Message 17: Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002; From: A to: Hari Kumar;
June 5, 2002
Dear Comrade,
    As you know, the Lenin Committee (Marxist-Leninist) has been dissolved and exists no longer.
The reasons for the leaving of ISML by LC (M-L) were asked to LC (M-L) by the comrades of the Editorial Board of "Scintilla" (Italy), and were not meant to get fitted in any web list.
    Since you write to my person, I inform you that I do not intend to get personally involved in
"international" diatribes and quarrels of any nature. Excuse my bad English.
             My best greetings, A


Message 18: Subject: Re: Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002; From: Hari Kumar To A:
Dear Cmde:
Firstly thanks for replying. I hope that you are well.
K told me that the reason for dissolving the LC were nothing to do with differences on the views of Dimitrov. But I suppose that you are now telling me that they might have been due to that. Am I correct?
Let me suggest this Cmde:
I do not want you to get involved in "international diatribe" - but is it not correct to at least be frank and clear to ISML - in  a private manner if you insist - but in some manner at least - WHY the LC left the ISML? If in truth it is about the ideology of the ISML - this should be made clear. The ISML has nothing to do with Dimitrov at all.
IF it is due to the practical problems - that should also be made clear.
This is my personal view anyway.
With Sincere personal & fraternal respects,
Hari


Message 19: Subject: LC(M-L)/ISML Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002; From: Cmde A To Hari Kumar:
21.6.2002
Dear Comrade,
as you again apply to me personally, after the dissolution of LC(M-L), in order to know which were the reasons that led LC(M-L) to leave ISML, I answer you briefly:
1) The main reason was our will to devote all of our time and energies to the struggle for the
reconstruction of the Communist Party in Italy; in fact, after the dissolution of LC(M-L), we are
co-operating with other Italian communist groups in writing an Italian Marxist-Leninist journal and in
other revolutionary activities.
2) There were other reasons (besides the contradictions present inside ISML Editorial Board on
the Yugoslav war), too. Many LC(M-L) comrades, including myself, did not agree with the views - which we consider historically groundless, wrong and absurd - publicly expressed on some matters by political groups who were inside ISML Editorial Board: Dimitrov as an agent of nazism after the conclusion of his Leipzig trial; Stalin a minority in the Bolshevik Party leadership since the thirties; the Communist International in the hands, since those years, of a majority of revisionists. It is true that these views were never put in the pages of ISML, but the majority of comrades inside LC (M-L) has considered it not possible to go on co-operating, inside ISML, with political groups of other countries who have publicly supported them.
I hope my information satisfies your request, as I have nothing to add and will not deal with this
subject any longer.
With my best greetings and personal respects,
A.


Message 20: Subject: [Fwd: LC(M-L)/ISML] Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002; From: Hari Kumar to K:
Cmde K:
This came today to me. I think it is a pity that this was not openly expressed to me before. ...... Why should this attitude be taken? I am at a loss frankly.
With Personal Regards,
Hari


                            END APPENDIX THREE

 

ML Review     |     Alliance ML     |   WB Bland Archive    |    Albania Society