Introduction and Background

i) Leaves lies  to remain un-challenged - the most egregious of which is that Alliance & ISML avoid open debate;
ii) Perpetuates a camouflage over Singh's own political history, allowing him to continue his posture as 'the authority' of the international Marxist-Leninist movement;
iii) And what is even worse: it would endanger the goal of ISML, namely to foster a principled debate leading to a principled unity of the ML-ist movement of the world.

    We believe that underlying many of the differences between Singh and ourselves - is that Singh is intent on a sectarian and dogmatic approach to the Marxist-Leninist movement. To show this is a pattern of behaviour, we trace his approach back to his early political alliance with the sectarian of the two wings of the Marxist-Leninist Organisation of Britain.
    While this may be considered an arcane piece of "leftist train-spotting" - we believe that without a knowledge of that background Singh's current attitudes are not explicable.

    We must remind the reader of Lenin's attacks on sectarianism of any sort, tracing his own views back to Marx & Engels:

"And now we very clearly perceive the two lines of Engels's (and Marx's)     recommendations, directions, corrections, threats and exhortations. The most insistent of their appeals to the British and American socialists was to merge with the working-class movement and eradicate the narrow and hidebound sectarian spirit from their organisations."
V. I. Lenin: "Preface To The Russian Translation Of Letters By Johannes Becker, Joseph  Dietzgen, Frederick Engels,  Karl Marx, & Others To Friedrich Sorge & Others"; April 1907; Collected Works, Vol 12: Moscow, 1972;p.372.
http://www.marx2mao.org/Lenin/PRTL07.html

"Studieren, Propagandieren, Organisieren. You cannot be an ideological leader without ....theoretical work, just as you cannot be one without directing this work to meet the needs of the cause, and without spreading the results of this theory among the workers and helping them to organise.
    Such a presentation of the task guards Social-Democracy against the defects from which     socialist groups so often suffer, namely, dogmatism and sectarianism.
    There can be no dogmatism where the supreme and sole criterion of a doctrine is its     conformity to the actual process of social and economic development; there can be no      sectarianism when the task is that of promoting the organisation of the proletariat".
"What The Friends Of The People" Are & They Fight The Social-Democrats (A Reply to Articles in Russkoye Bogatstvo Opposing the Marxists); 1894; In Collected Works, Moscow, 1972; Vol. 1, p.298 OR AT: http://www.marx2mao.org/Lenin/FP94iii.html

"Indeed, it is high time to make a clean sweep of the traditions of circle sectarianism and --     in a party which rests on the masses -- resolutely advance the slogan: More light! -- let the     Party know everything, let it have all, absolutely all the material required for a judgement of all and sundry differences, reversions to revisionism, departures from discipline, etc. More     confidence in the independent judgement of the whole body of Party workers! -- they, and     they alone, will be able to curb the excessive hotheadedness of grouplets inclined to splits, will be able, by their slow, imperceptible but persistent influence, to imbue them with the "good    will" to observe Party discipline, will be able to cool the ardour of anarchistic individualism     and, by the very fact of their indifference, document, prove and demonstrate the triviality of     differences exaggerated by the elements tending towards a split. To the question -- "what should not be done?" (what should not be done in general, and what, in particular, should not be done so as to avoid a split), my reply is, first of all: do not conceal from the Party the appearance and growth of potential causes of a split, do not conceal any of the circumstances and events that constitute such causes; and, what is more, do not conceal them not only from the Party, but, as far as possible, from the outside public either. I say "as far as possible" having in mind the things that, in a secret organisation, must necessarily be concealed -- but in our splits things of this kind play next to no part. Broad publicity -- that is the surest, the only reliable means of avoiding such splits as can be avoided, and of reducing to a minimum the harm of splits that are no longer avoidable."
V. I. Lenin, 'Letter To Iskra' 1903; Collected Works Vol. 7, Moscow, 1965,                       pp. p.116; OR AT: http://www.marx2mao.org/Lenin/LI03.html

"More Light!" then on Singh's attacks upon ISML - and Alliance.

The Charges Laid By Singh:

Charge (i) That Alliance attempts to stifle debates of importance to Marxist-Leninists.
Charge (ii)  That ISML was founded as a sectarian diversion, to lead Marxist-Leninists away from the "only true path" of the ICMLPO (H).
Charge (iii) That the raison d'être of ISML and Alliance is to conduct an anti-Stalin & anti-Hoxha line.
Charge (iv) That the ISML has attempted to hide the history of the Italian section of ISML.

SINGH'S CHARGE (i): "Alliance stifles debates of crucial importance"

 "At the risk of incurring the wrath once again of Kumar and his calls of get off the list.."
Message 7:Message 3252; From:  "Bhagat Singh; Jun 9, 2002;
ALLIANCE 46   July 2002: Appendix Two;

    Yet Singh's inversion of day and night - is aimed at achieving these ends:
    It confuses who it is that covers up debate; and
    It confuses  who it is that refuses principled replies.

    In reality, Singh's own conduct for years has for many years been evasive while "discreetly" placing himself at the sectarian centre of the dis-organisation of a principled unity and debate amongst Marxist-Leninists. We will show this citing some key documents over the last 30 years.
    Let us first examine his conduct of the debate upon the role of Georgii Dimitrov. In reality, who has refused debate? We charge that is Singh.
    It is well known that the Communist League and Alliance have published a series of documents that consider the history of Dimitrov (See Dimitrov Page at the Alliance site:  Dimitrov Page).
    For a long time - for approximately 30 years - both Communist League & the Alliance organisation have asked, the movement at large and Singh  -  for a scientific consideration &/or a refutation - not simple invectives or dogmatic Holy Chants to the Dead.
    Here for example is W.B. Bland, in a letter to Singh written in 1995:

"When I was told to expect a letter from you which would "expose the error of our characterisation of Dimitrov as a revisionist", I looked forward to receiving it. I accept unreservedly that we are not infallible, so that, however hard we strive to publish the truth, we are indeed capable of making errors. Consequently, we welcome correction of our errors. Indeed, the principle of dialectics, in its original meaning, was that one party puts forward a proposition (the thesis), while another puts forward a counter-proposition (the antithesis), and out of this process of contradiction emerges a new proposition (the synthesis) which differs from both the thesis and antithesis but contains some elements of both and is closer to truth than either. I was hoping that your antithesis might assist us in correcting errors in our thesis and so attaining a synthesis closer to truth than either. But in order that this could be so, two things were necessary:
Firstly, the antithesis must be based on principle, and not on mere personal insults.
... You are .. .  accusing us, quite falsely, of  'intentionally disregarding' a text of which we were ignorant."
W.B.Bland to Vijay Singh; Ilford, June 1995; Letter One; See  Some Correspondences on Dimitrov

"You say that we:
". . . reject the opinion of Stalin as given in the obituary of Dimitrov, which expressed a positive appraisal for the role of Dimitrov".
(Your letter: p. 1, para. 1).
Yes, it is true that we reject the assessment of Stalin in the CPSU's obituary, signed by Stalin and others, to the effect that Dimitrov:
'. . . gave all his heroic life to the supreme service of the cause of the working class, the cause of Communism".
(Obituary of G. M. Dimitrov: in: 'World News and Views', Volume 289, No. 28 (9 July 1949); p. 326)."
W.B.Bland Addressed to Vijay Singh;  Ilford, June 1995  Letter One; In Two Unpublished Letters On Dimitrov; Some Correspondences on Dimitrov

"This in no way means that we do not regard Stalin as the greatest Marxist-Leninist of his era, and certainly not that we regard ourselves as superior Marxist-Leninists to Stalin. But we should not assume that he had supernatural intuitive powers which could unfailingly detect any concealed revisionist despite his concealment. It is now more than forty years since Stalin died, and a great deal has happened since. In the light of hindsight many things become clear and it would be the height of foolishness to maintain that because Stalin accepted Dimitrov as an honest Marxist-Leninist in 1949, this assessment is in 1995 sacred dogma which it is heretical to question.
Stalin was the first to reject any conception that his views represented some kind of dogma: "The Marxist-Leninist theory is not a dogma but a guide to action".
('History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks): Short Course'; Moscow; 1939; p. 356)."
W.B.Bland; Letter addressed to Vijay Singh;  Ilford, June 1995  Letter One; In Two Unpublished Letters On Dimitrov: Some Correspondences on Dimitrov

    Yet it should not be forgotten (by him or anyone else), that  he first introduced some younger comrades to the writings and analysis of Bland. Perhaps, however, this was because of his mistaken belief at the time that they were in fact written not by Bland but by one Mike Baker.  It is quite conceiveable that Singh's attitude to the Dimitrov question is at least a reflection of his tutelage to Baker. The personal history of Mike Baker has some relevance to the current discussion.

    Who was Mike Baker, and what might be his relevance to this current discussion?
    The break between Baker and Bland took place because Baker refused to accept democratic centralism and collective decision-making in the MLOB, as these stood in the way of his attempts to lead the organisation into sectarian policies. This is discussed in detail in the memorandum sent to the "Indian Comrades" by the Communist League in 1976 - to be found at the following web-page: Debate Within the MLOB.  [This is discussed in detail in the memorandum sent to the "Indian Comrades" by the Communist League in 1976 - to be found at the following web-page: Debate Within the MLOB].

    Baker had already left the realms of Marxism-Leninism in 1976, but by 1990 he had degenerated even further, becoming an open adherent of the "Movement for Workers Councils" espousing the views of Jan Appel (alias Max Hempel). In the foreword to his translation of the magnum opus written by the anti-Bolshevik Council Communist Appel - "Fundamental Principles of Communist Production & Distribution", Baker writes:

"In the literature of revolutionary theory... the historic document  now placed before the English speaking world.. may with some justice be claimed as the highest theoretical achievement of the German and Dutch revolutionary movement... (whose-ed) last dying embers were extinguished in the torture chambers and death camps of national Socialism or  in the Gulags and liquidators of Stalin's "first land of victorious socialism".......
    The perpetrators of this act of historical and scientific effacement were not Gen. Maercker's Freikorps, nor yet Ernst Rohm's brown-shirted thugs but the leaders of the International Communist movement.............the chosen ideological vehicle according to whose deceptive pseudo-proletarian and pseudo-revolutionary slogans that bogus "vanguard party of the victorious workers and peasants" was erected was that peculiar vulgarization of the scientific world outlook and method of Marxism which is indelibly associated with the name of V.I.Lenin";
(Translators Foreword to Appel J; "Fundamental Principles of Communist Production & Distribution" [1930]; 1990 published by the Movement for Workers Councils London; ISBN: 0-9516131-0-3;  pp.iii-iv).

"You say that you:
" . . . stand by the understanding that the late Mike Baker was a 'brilliant Marxist-Leninist"'. (Your letter: p. 4, para. 2).
But this 'brilliant Marxist-Leninist' refused to accept a decision of the MLOB that he should be replaced as Secretary, and stole the name, funds and the printing press of the MLOB. You imply that these are:
". . . not political issues",
(Your letter : p. 4, para. 2).
but an:
'. . . organisational question".
(Your letter : p. 4, para. 2).
However, I can recall no differences within the MLOB on what you call ‘political issues'. However, democratic centralism is not a mere organisational question but a vital principle of Marxism-Leninism:
"In order to function properly . . . , the Party must be organised on the principle of centralism, having one set of rules and uniform Party discipline . . . ; the minority must submit to the majority, and lower organisations to higher organisations".
('History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks): Short Course'; Moscow; 1939; p. 49).
You not merely deny my statement:
". . . that Baker retired from political activity after the split in the MLOB",
(Your letter: p. 4, para. 2).
But allege that this statement is a conscious lie:
"As you are perfectly aware, the MLOB published a number of seminal works (after the 'split')."
(Your letter: p. 4, para. para. 2).
I was aware of no such thing. I know of nothing published by the MLOB after what you call the 'split'. I called in to Collett's once a week for several months and was informed that they had no material from the MLOB.
However, you go on to say that:
". . . at a later stage the MLOB was dissolved when its members dropped their allegiance to Marxism-Leninism".
(Your letter: p. 4, para. 2).
So what was the end-result of Baker's 'brilliant Marxism-Leninism'? The dissolution of the organisation in which he played the leading role in initiating. While the second-rate people from whom Baker broke away carried on (as the Communist League) plodding away at the task of building a Marxist-Leninist Party, the brilliant Marxist-Leninist Baker renounced MarxismLeninism!"
W.B.Bland;  Ilford, June 1995  Letter One; In Two Unpublished Letters On Dimitrov
Addressed to Vijay Singh: See: Some Correspondences on Dimitrov

    Baker and following him - Singh - denied that Albania under Hoxha was a socialist state:

"Baker's position has for some years been that, because the APL has an incorrect policy in relation to China and the maoist groups, "its economic basis cannot be socialist".
(See Debate Within the MLOB).

"Dear Vijay..............
I note that you do not accept that the Albanian Party of Labour is following a revisionist course. Naturally, I find this consistent with the fact that you have not got round to analysing the class basis of the Indian social system, with your support of Dimitrov's revisionism, with your support of racial discrimination, and so on.
Yours sincerely, W. B.Bland".
Ilford, 18 November, (Between 1989-1991-Editor Alliance) Letter Two
Some Correspondences on Dimitrov

"As to self-criticism in our Party, its beginnings date back to the first appearance of Bolshevism in our country, to its very inception as a specific revolutionary trend in the working-class movement. We know that as early as the spring of 1904, when Bolshevism was not yet an independent political party but worked together with the Mensheviks within a single Social-Democratic party -- we know that Lenin was already calling upon the Party to undertake "self-criticism  and ruthless exposure of its own shortcomings." ………………… Lenin was a thousand times right when he said at the Eleventh Party Congress in March     1922:
"The proletariat is not afraid to admit that this or that thing has succeeded splendidly in its revolution, and this or that has not succeeded. All revolutionary parties which have hitherto perished, did so because they grew conceited, failed to see where their strength lay, and feared to speak of their weaknesses. But we shall not perish, for we do not fear to speak of our weaknesses and shall learn to overcome them".
(Vol. XXVII, pp. 260-61).
There is only one conclusion: that without self-criticism there can be no proper education of the Party, the class, and the masses; and that without proper education of the Party, the class, and the masses, there can be no Bolshevism.”
J. V. Stalin: "Against Vulgarising The Slogan Of Self-Criticism"; 1928: In "Works"; Volume 11; Moscow, 1954; pp.135-36. OR AT: http://www.marx2mao.org/Stalin/AVSC28.html

    Conclusion:
    We are forcibly reminded of the assessment made by Comrade Bland some years before  his death, when in an interview he characterised  Singh as an "un-principled opportunist". We have not before published this fact, preferring to avoid even the semblance of a personal attack, and it will be readily seen that the web and print published version of that interview does not cite Singh's name (Bland Memorial Interview with Communist League). However, Singh has taught us that this is not the time to disguise unpleasant truths. Perhaps we should not be surprised that for one who was for so long an acolyte of  Baker, Singh continues to espouse an essentially dogmatic and sectarian approach to the problems of Marxist-Leninist unity.
In Summary - the  Charge (i) That Alliance attempts to stifle debates of importance is false. In reality Singh has persistently refused to engage in any meaningful debate on serious questions. 

"At the risk of incurring the wrath once again of Kumar and his calls of get off the list I must state that given that the ISML was formed subsequent to the ICMLPO it would seem incumbent on the  former to state the reasons formally why the former was established and what are the political differences of the ISML with the ICMLPO."
Singh to Gazza: Message 6; June 9 2002; See:Appendix Two; e-list of ISML: On ISML & [ICMLPO(h)]; & on "self-criticism".

And then poses a question:

"Maybe you can also make your own enquiries on the reasons why the ISML was established despite the prior existence of the ICMLPO. Did this help the process of establishing international ML unity? Who, then, is responsible for the disunity in the international movement? Are there not profound political differences between the international trends? In such a situation is talk of unity in general correct? "
Singh to Gazza: Message 8: Jun 10, 2002; See: Appendix Two.

a)When  invited to the Founding Conference of ISML at Ischia he never raised doubts about the meeting itself, but  rather declared that he "could not attend for lack of time and finances" - [Personal Communication].
b) He was fully appraised in person, of the reasons and raison d'être of the ISML, by three of the founding members of the ISML: Cmde W.B. Bland in London on several occasions; Cmde H.Kumar in Delhi on three occasions; and Cmde J.Sherif in Moscow.
c) He has been directed to an article dealing with this very issue in Alliance (Number 19) at his own request, has been given copies of this to read at his leisure, and he knows that our Subject-Index page lists this article on the web at: "History of Three Cominterns Alliance 19 ". [See: Alliance 19].

"Very few parties and groups in the world were able to openly assess Maoism in 1968 -70. Amongst the few who warned early on about the true nature of Maoism, were the Communist League led by Bill Bland (UK); and the Proletarian Path led by Moni Guha (India), Centre d’Etude Sur Le Mouvement Ouvrier et Paysan International (CEMOPI) led by Patrick Kessels (France ). Even the PLA had not at that stage openly attacked Maoism although it is known that Hoxha had serious reservations about the CPC. The conclusion must be drawn that the correct Marxist-Leninist leadership of the PLA was hampered by an internal hidden revisionist element. When the PLA openly attacked Chinese revisionism, some erstwhile Maoist parties did repudiate Maoism. However a far more common reaction was for the Maoist parties to attack Hoxha and the PLA. Even of those parties that aligned themselves with the PLA, not all would formally carry out a self-criticism of their Maoist past, indicating that these parties had not yet fully  shed Maoist opportunism."
"Alliance 19: April 1996; Toronto; p. 23; at: "History of Three Cominterns": Alliance 19.

"So far as the ICMLPO is concerned there is the joint statement of Quito of 1994 which was the basis of many parties and organisations across the globe to unite. You may know about this document as it was published by the Communist League."
Singh to Gazza: Message 9 June 10, 2002; See: Appendix Two;

"2. MEETINGS AIMING CONSCIOUSLY AT THE FORMATION OF A NEW INTERNATIONAL.
There are several such meetings of which we are aware of that need to be considered. In chronological order these are :

1. Pyongyang November 1992. Sponsored by the state of North Korea and initially signed by 70 Parties, now signed by 200.
2. AEurope@ November 1993; signed by 11 parties.
3. Various Meetings in Brussels, sponsored by Parti du Travail de Belgique: May 1993; 1994; 1995; signed by about 55 parties.
4. Quito, August 1994; signed by 17 parties.
5. Sofia Fall 1995; attended by 3 parties.
6. Ischia Dec 1995; attended by 15 parties.
    Judging from the signatories there appears to be a pattern.

    Meetings 1 and 3 appear to form one bloc; while in the main 2 and 4 appear to form another block. It should be noted that several signatories of the 2 blocks attended or actually co-signed both blocks. Meetings 5 and 6 appear to be quite different. We will discuss the Quito block first.

Meetings of "Europe" Nov, 1993; and Quito; a Pro-Albanian block.
    This block unequivocally upholds the PLA as having been a socialist party and the PRSA as a socialist state. As such it has on the face of it a leading role in the formation of a Marxism-Leninist international. That this is the goal of the groups is made quite explicit:

AWe invite other Marxism-Leninist parties and organisations which for various reasons are absent from this meeting, to take part in this world and to join with us soon for a general conference of the Marxism-Leninist international communist movement@. Reprinted Communist League International Supplement March 1994; p.2. See Appendix to this Issue Alliance 19.     Later the Quito meeting of August 1994 proclaimed the "Communist Call to the Workers and Peoples", which has been published in a journal "Unity and Struggle- Organ of the International Conference of Marxism-Leninist parties and Organisations", July 1995. In the Quito Declaration it is stated that:
 
ARevolution requires unity of action from the working class and the peoples. We communists must create this unity. Conception and practice are interlinked. Alliances are necessary. In establishing such alliances we need above all to rely on our own strength, come together with others and practice unity with revolutionary objectives. We ... can form alliances which do not lead us to concessions in principles. Such alliances and actions should however, never lead us to forget that the class struggle must be carried through with force to the end.@
"Communist Call"; In "Unity & Struggle"; July 1995 Printed August 1995; re-printed in Appendix to Alliance 19.
 
        Furthermore it is stated (in the Quito Declaration) that:
  AIt is in our higher interest to reach a broad distribution and the review in each country. We also want to express our appeal to join in this activity and to support our proclamation at the conference to all Marxism-Leninist parties and organization which have not so far participated in it so far.@
"Communist Call"; In "Unity & Struggle"; July 1995; p.5; Printed August 1995; re-printed in Appendix to Alliance 19.
      We find all this very encouraging. Nonetheless, there are some rather disturbing features.

    These are the odd refusal to invite other well known pro-Albanian groups to discuss the way forward. On paper it appears there are open overtures to other groups. But in reality it appears these meetings are held in secret and then a Apost-facto Proclamation@ is issued ATo Unite@. It is simply scandalous for example that neither the Communist League (UK); nor CEMOPI ( France); nor the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party (Turkey) were invited to take part in these forums. Other groups in other countries were also doubtless excluded. Why not? This behaviour belies the words. It betokens a sectarian reality that is in opposition to the correct sounding words.

    One further point should be made to these comrades. If at the current stage there is confusion about the role of Mao Ze Dong in many people=s minds, how is it proposed to overcome this? Perhaps you feel these comrades are to be written off as worthless? We feel this is premature and very unwise. The time will come when some (we stress NOT all) such people are unable to be convinced, but is it true that this time is now? We do not think so. A principled debate with some convinced Maoists is still possible. We have attempted this in our AOpen Letter to Comrade Ludo Martens". [See: "Martens, Ludo - Polemics On Mao"; Letter to Ludo Martens]. Let us see what transpires over the next few years.

    We hope these comrades will not take it amiss if we point out that Engels said:
 

AHad we from 1864-1873 insisted on working together only with those who openly adopted our platform (ie the Communist Manifesto -ed) - where would we be today?@
Engels F; "Letter to Mr Wischnewetzky; In Selected Correspondence Moscow; 1955: pp.375-76; Cited Approvingly by Lenin in CW Volume 12; p.363."'
Alliance 19; April 1996: "The Path Towards A New Communist, Marxist-Leninist International: pp.30-31; at: Alliance 19
    END CITATION FROM ALLIANCE 19

    We still do not know why this was, but we do know the facts of the matter.
    MOREOVER: the groups that came together at the ISML foundation in Ischia, Italy - genuinely believed, and STILL DO - that even now - the debate between Maoists and Hoxha-ites still needs to proceed within one principled forum. We in Alliance, and those faithful to the dictates of the Principles of ISML - believe that there are still potentially honest but confused comrades who do not support Hoxha.
    Let us pre-empt Singh at this point and again, state that we of Alliance are openly pro-Hoxha . No honest person familiar with our work and publications could state otherwise without blushing for shame. BUT - we cannot think it right at this time  to refuse meaningful dialogue in a principled manner with Maoists.   As the Founding Principles of ISML state at the web-site of ISML:

"Many recent meetings of Marxist-Leninists, have recognised the need for a New International. Yet, despite the urgent need and desire of an International, the truth is that the communist movement is divided into many contradictory camps, which are incapable of discussing and debating. Sectarianism not only divides the movement but acts as a brake for the theoretical development of the movement. The main enemy we must fight and defeat, that Marx and Engels had to fight against, is still revisionism. Revisionism is born and spread from capitalism, and the bourgeois culture of egoism and individualism. Unfortunately revisionism has survived inside the communist movement, and this has caused the defeat of the first experience of Socialism."
See: ISML Principles & Founding Statements

"The Editorial Board of "INTERNATIONAL STRUGGLE - Marxist-Leninist", holds that     without ... a firm theoretical and historical clarity, it will be impossible to form a principled "United" International. At a critical stage in the development of the Russian Communist movement, Comrade Lenin called for "LINES OF DEMARCATION":
"We declare that before we can unite and in order that we may unite we MUST first of all draw firm and definite lines of demarcation as Iskra demands".
(Works Vol 5; Moscow 1977; p.367).
These "Lines of Demarcation" are required now, more than ever before. These lines can  only be drawn by a scientific and clear debate aimed at answering the questions above.
The answers to these central questions will undoubtedly assist us in taking up the challenges of all the theoretical questions thrown up by the world today. These theoretical questions include the development of global finance capital, which has taken advantage of the weakness of the world proletariat in the wake of the victory of the world revisionist movement."
See: ISML Principles & Founding Statements

"a) Defence and consistent upright acknowledgement of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin's thoughts and works, and of the consistent contribution to the theory and strategy of Marxism-Leninism by other Marxist-Leninist leaders."
See: ISML Principles & Founding Statements

"2. It is important that the journal involve all the groups who consider themselves Marxists-Leninists. For that reason the Editorial Board will try to contact all the Marxist-Leninist groups, organisations and parties who accept the Founding Principles Clause (1). The Editorial Board has the task to inform them about the journal and to encourage them to take part in its production and circulation and to attend the next conference. This conference is open to attendance by more than one organisation from those countries where the Marxist-Leninist Party has not yet been re-constructed."
See: ISML Principles & Founding Statements

"3. Until an open debate has achieved the clarity and the principled agreement that is required by the international Marxist-Leninist movement, no new, principled and meaningful Communist International can be formed. That is why a prominent section of "International Struggle" will be the "Discussion and Reply" section. The Editors will be scrupulously fair to all points of view that conform to clause (1). That is to say, we guarantee that ALL Marxist-Leninists will be able to have a written and printed reply, either on the basis of their own, or, on their party's, or group's behalf. Moreover, the Editors are mandated to ensure that a scientific, non-sectarian debate proceeds on MARXIST-LENINIST LINES. That is, a debate that is conducted on principled and factual lines; and eschews personality attacks, or character assassination."
See: ISML Principles & Founding Statements

Conclusion: Singh knows all too well the reasons for the formation of ISML  - the crying need for a  a non-sectarian approach. His mixture of sectarianism and dogma reveal only how well the willing pupil of Mike Baker learned his lessons.
In summary:
"Charge (ii)  That ISML was founded as a sectarian diversion, to lead Marxist-Leninists away from the "only true path" of the ICMLPO (H) " - is quite false.

"Our (personal) understanding is that a number of organisations outside the ICMLPO are outside because of their pronounced political differences with the ML tradition of Lenin, Stalin, the Comintern and Enver Hoxha."
Singh To ISML e-List: See Appendix Two

Conclusion: There are simply no grounds for his assertion.
CHARGE (iii):"The raison d'etre of ISML and Alliance is to conduct an anti-Hoxha line" - is manifestly false.

"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". "
Message 15: Appendix Three: Correspondence on Italy

"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."
Message 15: Appendix Three: Correspondence on Italy

    The truth is that Singh is simply attempting to smear ISML by equating ISML with the views of Alliance and of the Communist League.

    We have dealt in part with this in part -  under "Charge (ii) above. The clearest refutation of Singh's attempt at equating the views of Alliance and those of ISML - come from the Founding Principles & the Founding Statement of ISML - and from the fact that ISML has carried on articles on Dimitrov. So what are these accusations regarding the Italian section of the ISML, all about?
 We again recognise Singh's wish to undermine ISML.

    The Facts of the Italian imbroglio
     The events in temporal sequence were as follows:

    In circumstances of serious illness and bereavement, contacts with the Lenin Committee became tenuous about the end of 2000. By January 2001, the ISML executive was simply informed that the Lenin Committee was dissolving. ISML obtained only the volunteered reasons of "illness" and of "limited resources" coupled to a renewed attention on "party-building" in Italy. What contact remained, was apparently fraternal evidenced by a message of condolence received by Communist League on Bill Bland's death.
    Here Alliance must censure Kumar for one matter. He did not push the Italian members of the Lenin Committee hard enough, for fuller details regarding the dissolution. It should be remembered however, that Kumar had attempted to meet &/or communicate with the comrades several times - both in Italy and in the UK. The leading comrades had been immersed in serious illness, and in bereavements. Kumar simply and naively trusted the comrades of the Lenin Committee to behave in a principled and open manner.

    By April 2002, Singh's contacts with Scintilla (Italy) [Being the larger remnant from the notoriously sectarian "La Nostra Lotta" - the Italian section of "Unity & Struggle" led by Ubaldo Buttafava] - led him to obtain an inkling that there may have been some political content to the dissolution. Singh rushed to paint the ISML as a a 'tool' or a 'cover' for the heretical views of Alliance and Communist League. Singh did not give his sources until being challenged.
    Kumar then applied further pressure to the ex-leading comrades of the Lenin Committee. We believe that one of these - comrade K has behaved impeccably. We believe that he is still severely affected by an illness that retards his fuller involvement. We cannot however, be quite so sanguine about comrade A.
    This is the letter finally obtained in response to repeated requests of Cmde A - now working with  with Scintilla (Italy). It appears to confirm Singh's view of the reasons for the dissolution of the Lenin Committee and its leaving of ISML.
    The message is with all the correspondence at Appendix 3, but is quoted here in full - it is after all rather brief!:

"Message 15: Subject: LC(M-L)/ISML Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 18:43:50 +0200 (CEST);
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 19: Appendix Three: Correspondence on Italy "

1) On the Secretive Manner in which the Lenin Committee leaders have conducted themselves:
We do not attempt to disguise our surprise, that Marxist-Leninists should choose to "cover-up" their criticism of an international organisation and of a grouping with whom they had relations for several years.
So be it.

2) What of the content of the letter?
i) Cmde A: states one reason for leaving ISML was:  "the contradictions present inside ISML Editorial Board on the Yugoslav war".
Our Reply:
The Lenin Committee signed the Joint ISML Statement on the Yugoslav War (See:http://www.allianceML.com/isml/isml05/isml0507.html).
As far as we know no one coerced them!
The fact that some sections of ISML disagreed with that is hardly surprising.
It remains a confusing situation for many Marxist-Leninists.
In passing we note the fact that the Unity & Struggle group found itself in disagreement on this matter also. We must ask Comrade A:
"What will you do Comrade A - in the Unity & Struggle Group? Perhaps you will have to leave it and found yet another - but purer- international organisation?"

ii) Cmde A: states another reason for leaving ISML was: "(We) did not agree with the views - which we consider historically groundless, wrong and absurd  .. 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."
Cmde A accepts that "It is true that these views were never put in the pages of ISML".

Our Reply:
Well, Kumar remembers discussions with Cmde A where several times, A acknowledged serious deficiencies with the currently available Marxist-Leninist histories of the period. However, the key questions to put to A are these:
- "Was this an adequate reason for leaving a United Front (i.e.; the international United Front of ISML)?" and
- "Was the manner of leaving principled?"

As far as we are concerned, the answer to both question is "no".
-The United Front for the goals and objectives of ISML - to which Cmde A agreed - have NOT been fulfilled.
-The views of Alliance & of the Communist League - on the matter of Dimitrov is a secondary matter.
As for leaving on such grounds - there is not even an attempt to portray the historical grounds for these questions under contention. This approach is dogmatic and sectarian.
Let us ask Cmde A: "Is this a Marxist-Leninist method of conducting clarification in theoretical matters of considerable practical significance?"

"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."
Message 11 at Appendix Three: Correspondence on Italy "

"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."
Message 14 at Appendix Three: Correspondence on Italy "

Conclusion: To SINGH'S CHARGE (iv): "the ISML has hidden the history of the Italian section of ISML" - we have shown that we are not guilty.
HOWEVER, Singh was correct to point out a secretive process of the former Lenin Committee. This behaviour cannot be laid at the door of either Alliance or the ISML. The un-stated but implied charge of Singh in htis context - that the ISML is a tool/cover for ISML is false.

    Finally, we repeat to the ICMLPO) - that both the  ISML and the ICMLPO) have a lot to gain from joint discussions-meetings.
Alliance July 1, 2002. 

Appendix One: e-list ISML: Dimitrov Debate; & Alliance's call open principled debate. Appendix Two; e-list of ISML: ISML & [ICMLPO(h)]; & on "self-criticism".
Appendix Three: Correspondence on Italy

SEE ALSO:

Bland Memorial Interview with Communist League; 
Debate Within the MLOB
Some Correspondences on Dimitrov
Alliance 19