In order to build a Marxist-Leninist Party, communists must throw off all remnants of circle mentality, narrowness and factionalism. Factionalism can be defeated only when we place the interests of the movement as a whole above those of any group or trend. This can be done only when we have a scientific understanding of the movement’s history and level of development. Any Marxist-Leninist movement has an objective existence and development. To understand this objective phenomenon, we must first determine how to approach the question of who comprises the Marxist-Leninist movement at any given time. Within this framework we will trace through the birth and development of our own movement and outline the main deviations. On this basis we will go into a more detailed analysis and polemic against the major opportunist trends trying to establish themselves as the leadership of our movement.
Defining the contours of the Marxist-Leninist movement is vital to the development and consolidation of the Party. It is part and parcel of demarcating correct and consistent Marxism-Leninism from all forms of deviation, inconsistency and opportunism. On this basis, prior to the formation of the Party, determining the boundaries of the movement is an important means for determining organizational relations among the various groups within the movement. As we determine a group’s relation to Marxism-Leninism, we are providing an objective criterion for the type of joint actions possible: merger, coalition, unity of action, boycott, isolation, and so on. After the Party is formed, it must struggle against oppositional trends within its ranks which attempt to undermine Party unity and on the same basis determine which must be purged.
Like any other aspect of Marxism-Leninism, if separated from its real content and viewed one-sidedly, defining the Marxist-Leninist movement becomes a tool of opportunism. In this specific case, it is used to foster and reinforce sectarianism and factionalism. Each faction arbitrarily defines the Marxist-Leninist movement from its own narrow standpoint and puts its own line above all others. This is an especially dangerous tendency in the early stages of development of the movement, before a correct and consistent line has been established.
Any group’s relation to the communist movement must be determined by three criteria: 1) its line; 2) the historical development and degree of consolidation of the line; and 3) the group’s approach to the movement as a whole. Of these three criteria the most basic and fundamental is the line itself. For convenience in analysing the question of line, we can distinguish three aspects that must be taken into account: first, the approach to the various questions of line; second, the content of the lines put forward; and third, the practical application of the lines.
By ’approach to questions of line’ is meant both which questions are posed by a group and how they are dealt with. At any point in the life of a movement certain questions will stand out as most crucial for its further advancement. Such questions could be essential for determining strategy and tactics, or could be minor and secondary problems upon which the movement has stumbled and got stuck. For whatever reason, they have become the focus of the movement. In our movement, the question of political economy has been one such question. A group’s maturity in questions of line, then, will be shown partially by which questions it considers to be most essential for the movement’s development, which it considers objectively primary and which secondary. The most important question before any movement in the pre-Party period is the question of Party-building, since it is only in the context of this question that lesser questions can be properly posed. The role that a particular group assigns to this and other questions, then, indicates its understanding of the tasks before our movement and what is essential for resolving them.
Secondly, we must ask: how are a group’s positions put forward and defended? Are its positions only ’tentative’ and speculatory, based on superficial and one-sided investigation and analysis; or are they substantiated by comprehensive and thorough analysis?
These factors provide an indication of a particular group or organization’s place in relation to the communist movement, their level of advancement, and whether they may contribute to or hinder the movement’s development. To establish an objective assessment of these factors demands that we judge them in their proper context. We must take into account the level of the movement at any particular time, and the situation of the group or individual concerned, eg. their size, background, amount of experience, how they present themselves to the movement, and so on. This does not mean that the standards with which we measure the movement are determined by the movement’s degree of development. The standards in principle we must use are determined by the level we must achieve; we must measure the movement at any point in time in light of what is required for Party unity and Party work. The lower the level of development of the movement, or the groups composing it, the more we must concern ourselves with the general features of its development, given that on particular questions the various lines within the movement may still be very wide of the mark. We must consider at such a point the movement’s capacity to produce principled line and practice, even though such lines may be absent. It snould be clear that until the movement has developed a firm grasp on Marxism-Leninism to serve as its guiding line, it will be guided by bourgeois and petty bourgeois outlook. Determining the ability of the movement to emerge from a primitive state to a principled one is, therefore, also determining the ability of its participants to make a decisive break with their old habits and outlook and apply themselves fully to the outlook of the working class. This exists only as a potential until it is done in fact. It cannot be achieved simply through a declaration.
Our movement is still in its earliest stages, is still largely inexperienced, unformulated and spontaneously tends towards opportunism. In these conditions, a group or individual in the process of taking up Marxism-Leninism will quite often make serious mistakes, exhibit vacillation and inconsistency in the development of principle. Nevertheless, if such a group or individual readily acknowledges its errors, thoroughly analyses their class content and basis, rectifies and reorients its work, and over time sets a steady course without fanfare and great ado – this group would certainly be moving towards Marxism-Leninism. This would hold true even though this process might still be accompanied by more or less severe phases of vacillation. But the opposite is true of anyone who continually glossed over or hid their errors, constantly repeated them whether in the same or some different form, gave only token self-criticism or none at all, portrayed themselves as the vanguard element within the movement, and so on. Such actions only indicate an attempt to carry petty bourgeois interests into the working class under the cover of Marxism-Leninism.
We must struggle against inconsistency and vacillation within our movement at all times. When the movement is still in its infancy, such instability is to be expected since the movement still lacks the coherency and direction of a leading trend. We take this into account when analysing the development and positions of various groups, in that such weaknesses are common to the movement as a whole. Things are different once the movement has produced a principled centre. Once the line of march has been clearly drawn, there is no longer any justification for those who remain in the dark, for those who stumble and vacillate. The closer the movement comes to fusion with the advanced workers, to the Party, the greater the responsibilities we must assume and the tighter, more conscious, and more disciplined our ranks must become. Where formerly the movement was basically petty bourgeois in its composition and reflected all the instability of that class, with the Party it must be fundamentally proletarian and maintain the stability and discipline necessary for the revolutionary working class movement.
In terms of the content of any group or individual’s line, it is clear that the first and lowest-level demarcation point for the contours of the movement must be acknowledgement of the scientific validity of Marxism-Leninism. It is equally clear that over the years the practice of the international communist movement has isolated and eliminated several trends of self-proclaimed ’Marxist’ or ’Marxist-Leninist’ lines as being, in fact, anti-communist. Any Marxist-Leninist movement today must exclude these trends and constantly battle against any deviation towards them.
Over the entire history of the communist movement, the strongest and most pervasive opposition to revolutionary Marxism-Leninism has come from the right: the tendency to reformism, accommodation and compromise of principle, to class collaboration. There are two main trends of this opposition. First, “...revisionism (opportunism, reformism)...” (Lenin CW Vol.16 p.347), which today falls under the heading of Social-Democracy. This trend was in the process of consolidation from the late 1880’s and split from Marxism during World War I when it developed into its most open form, social-chauvinism. And second, Social-Democracy’s successor and counterpart, modern revisionism. The process of the consolidation of modern revisionism as an international trend can be traced to the middle 1930’s, specifically to Dimitrov and the VII Congress of the Communist International. The XX Congress of the CPSU in 1956 was the logical outcome of that consolidation and marked an even more comprehensive and open revision of Marxism-Leninism and the beginning of legal restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union. It also stands as the beginning of the process which led to the first principled, though incomplete and hesitant opposition to international modern revisionism.
Bernsteinism was the original amendment to revolutionary Marxism under the guise of Marxism. The content of this revisionism has the following main features: In the sphere of philosophy it replaced revolutionary dialectics with tranquil evolution. In political economy, it ’determined’ that the process of concentration of capital occurred at a very slow pace overall, and not at all in agriculture; that crises had slowed considerably, and with the advent of cartels could be eliminated altogether; that the “theory of collapse” of capitalism was “unsound”; and that Marx’s labour theory of value had to be corrected in terms of the theory of marginal utility, first elaborated by Boehm-Bowark. On this foundation, in the sphere of politics, the old revisionism completely denied the doctrine of class struggle and the necessity for the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. It replaced this fundamental of Marxism with reformism, the slow, evolutionary process of ’change’ through the parliamentary process. It reasoned that the state was no longer a class institution under bourgeois democracy since the ’majority’ ruled through parliament. Thus, revisionism as a whole amounted to a systematic formulation of liberal-bourgeois views under the heading of Marxism. Lenin describes the essence of this political trend as:
’The movement is everything, the ultimate aim nothing’ – this catch-phrase of Bernstein’s expresses the substance of revisionism better than many long disquisitions. To determine its conduct from case to case, to adapt itself to the events of the day and to the chopping and changing of petty politics, to forget the primary interests of the proletariat and the basic features of the whole capitalist system, of all capitalist evolution, to sacrifice these primary interests for the real or assumed advantages of the moment – such is the policy of revisionism. And it patently follows from the very nature of this policy that it may assume an infinite variety of forms, and that every more or less unexpected and unforeseen turn of events, even though it change the basic line of development only to an insignificant degree and only for the briefest period will always inevitably give rise to one variety of revisionism or another. V.I. Lenin Marxism and Revisionism CW Vol. 15 p. 37.
Revisionism is the rotten innards around which the skin of Social-Democracy wraps itself. During World War I it took the form of social-chauvinism, of open defense of one’s ’own’ bourgeoisie during imperialist war. Prior to and during World War II it took the form of social-fascism, of defense of any means to repress the working class movement and pave the way for fascism. The contemporary parties of this trend, such as the NDP and Parti Quebecois in Canada and Quebec, pose as the left wing of imperialism, its reformists and apologists.
Even though the 1920’s and early 1930’s were rife with ’Left’ errors in reaction to the Yellow Second International, and saw the development of an international counterrevolutionary ’Left’ opposition in the form of Trotskyism, Right opportunism proved more stable, tenacious and able to subvert the communist movement from within than did the ’Left’. Modern revisionism represents the success of the Right in gaining supremacy in all but two Parties of the international movement, just as old revisionism triumphed in all but one Party of the Second International. Modern revisionism is the continuation of Social-Democratic tendencies into the international communist movement; it is the ’fusion’ of Social-Democracy and Communism.
Modern revisionism holds to the same fundamental reformist line as Social-Democracy, but displays unique features all its own. It is distinguishable from Bernstein revisionism in two main ways:(see footnote #1)
1) It is “...revisionism in power which has swept over many countries and, in the first place, the Soviet Union, which was the first and most powerful socialist state in the world. p.145
2) Modern revisionism has a different social-economic base than old revisionism, in that the former base has been expanded. “For the old opportunism this base consisted of the petty bourgeoisie, especially, of the aristocracy of the working class. For the present revisionism, this base is broader: in the capitalist countries besides the workers’ aristocracy, the working class bureaucracy, which in the present conditions has grown excessively, has become a base for revisionism. Into this stratum enters all the army of the working class employees, officials, functionaries of the parties, of the unions, of the other organizations of the masses, of the publishing houses, of the economic enterprises, which are managed by the revisionists and which in essence have a capitalist character. In the socialist countries, the social base of support for modern revisionism is the old exploiting classes or their remnants, the strata with petty bourgeois tendencies and, especially, a big part of the privileged cadres of the Party, State, and economic apparatus and of the intelligentsia, who gradually degenerated into new bourgeois elements.” p.150 F. Shehu, About some Actual Problems of the Struggle Against Modern Revisionism, Some Questions of Socialist Construction in Albania Nairn Frasheri Publishing House Tirana P. 131-181
Modern revisionism has assumed a much more dangerous form than the other fully acknowledged anti-communist trends. It poses in the proud heritage and prestige of the first socialist state, has the material force of state power and a standing army to back its policies, and has a wide sphere of influence internationally in the form of modern revisionist ’Communist’ Parties. It is on this basis that modern revisionism is the gravest threat to the international working class movement.
In combination, Social-Democracy and modern revisionism possess the most influence of all the anti-Marxist-Leninist trends within the working class movement and are presently our strongest foes. As should be obvious if only from the limited information available on the two-line struggle in the CPC and PLA, the Right line extends deep into even the most principled sections of the anti-revisionist communist movement. Further, the tendency to accommodate the ’less offensive’ strains of opportunism, to smooth-over differences of principle and engage in ’wretched diplomacy’ rather than open polemics in an attempt to build ’unity’ in the anti-revisionist movement is still the standard modus operandi throughout the international movement. To re-establish a solid, consistent, principled and truly united international communist movement, a movement capable of providing Marxist-Leninist leadership through the most complex and difficult times, we must direct the brunt of our attack against the reformists, modern revisionists and Rights, whatever their peculiarities of line and wherever they are to be found.
But this does not mean that we leave the other opportunist trends untouched. Not at all. Side by side with Right opportunism there exists the ’Left’ form, which Stalin described as the “shadow of the Right deviation” (Works Vol.11 p.289). Under pre-monopoly capitalism, ’Left’ opportunism maintained an independent existence as a trend competing with Marxism: anarchism, or anarcho-syndicalism. This tendency posed as being more revolutionary, more ’left’ than Marxism, but if taken to its logical conclusion would have meant the destruction of the revolutionary workers’ movement. The ’Left’ form of opportunism produces the same objective result as the Right. Both bind labour to capital. Lenin referred to such ’Left’ forms as petty bourgeois revolutionism, since it is usually the petty bourgeois new arrivals, particularly the overproduced, demoralized intelligentsia, entering the working class movement who introduce and defend these tendencies. ’Left’ tendencies under imperialism have by and large been forced to abandon the classic forms of anarchism, but take on new forms serving the same function and are the direct descendants of the same petty bourgeois anxiety that gave rise to anarchism and adventurism. The modern ’Lefts’ have matured and become more sophisticated, now appealing, as Lenin put it, “from Marx who is understood wrongly to Marx who is understood rightly” (Vol. 15 p.38). However, they maintain the same class base and are in essence indistinguishable from the old forms of petty bourgeois radicalism.
What are the main ideological characteristics of this anti-communist trend? First, repudiation of the Party principle and Party discipline. This rejection is based on a gross distortion of the role of the Party, its relation to the masses, and its internal structure. The ’Lefts’ oppose the Party to the ’masses’, and are constantly harping on the ’tyranny’ of the leaders. This has proven to be nothing more than ’left’ projection of their own arrogant attitude towards the working class. In terms of the role of the Party as the general staff of an army in battle, the ’Lefts’ portray themselves as the ’purest’ of revolutionaries, who would never think of retreat or tactical compromise. Such rejection of compromise ’on principle’ and in all circumstances reveals a total failure to grasp the most elementary fact of the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat: in order to win a war, the proletarian army must be able to retreat in an orderly manner with the fewest possible losses, as well as advance. This applies to all operations of the proletariat, whether military or ’peaceful’ forms of struggle. But, the essential and most fundamental error of this trend is its ’revolutionary’ opposition to the state in general. This leads it to denying the necessity of the dictatorship of the proletariat and attempting to pass directly into communism. Lenin sums up this facet as follows:
Repudiation of the party principle and of party discipline – such is the opposition’s net result. And this is tantamount to completely disarming the proletariat in the interests of the bourgeoisie. It is tantamount to that petty-bourgeois diffuseness, instability, incapacity for sustained effort, unity and organized action, which, if indulged in, must inevitably destroy every proletarian revolutionary movement. From the standpoint of Communism, the repudiation of the party principle means trying to leap from the eve of the collapse of capitalism..., not to the lower, or the intermediate, but to the higher phase of Communism. V.I. Lenin “Left-Wing” Communism, An Infantile Disorder Foreign Languages Press, Peking p.31.
On this basis, despite their talk of ’serving the masses’ and their ’revolutionary’ opposition to any form of compromise, the inevitable result of the ’Left’ line is isolation from the masses, often in the form of Blanquism and terrorism, and the complete compromise of the working class movement to the bourgeoisie.
What is the main difference between the Right and ’Left’ forms of opportunism? Essentially that the Right tails behind the development of objective conditions and thus the movement, while the ’Left’ races too far ahead, seeks to skip necessary steps and loses touch with the movement. This difference manifests itself, as Stalin put it, ”...in their platforms, their demands, their approach and their methods...” (Vol. 11 p. 290). The Right restricts itself to old forms and is incapable of acting on the new content that inevitably arises during revolutionary times; the ’Left’ rejects old forms unconditionally, is incapable of the utmost flexibility of tactics and mastery of all forms of struggle. The Right thrives on compromise of principle; the ’Left’ cannot distinguish between compromise of principle and tactical compromise, and instead rejects all compromise as ’unprincipled’. The Right tends to bureaucratism; the ’Left’ towards commandism. The Right advocates extreme caution and hedges at every turn the ’Left’ knows no caution whatsoever, rejects the guidelines of systematic, deliberate evaluation of conditions. The Right answers every question with some modest, ’inoffensive’ reform; the ’Left’ answers with the most extreme and r-r-revolutionary of phrases. And so on.
As with the Right, so the ’Left’ form of opportunism has had its historical development. In 1908, Lenin noted that ’Left’ revisionism had not yet become an international trend, had “not yet stood the test of a single big practical battle with a socialist party in any country” (Vol.15 p.38). Twelve years later, he still maintained that “...the mistake of Left doctrinairism...is at present a thousand times less dangerous and less significant than the mistakes of Right doctrinairism...” (“Left-Wing” Communism p.109). However, the influence of the ’Left’ trend had grown enough for Lenin to also note that a struggle with the ’Lefts’ was imminent and should be consciously taken up by communists of every country. It was after Lenin’s death that the ’Left’ coalesced into an international trend and entered its first big practical battle, against the RCP(B) and the III International. This ignominious task was taken up by Trotskyism.
Trotskyism and neo-Trotskyism (formal acceptance of Marxism-Leninism and ’rejection’ of Trotskyism as a means to cover a fully developed ’Left’ line) are the most overt expressions of petty bourgeois revolutionism that attempt to penetrate the modern movement; they are its highest form. Trotskyism is the classic, and most reactionary, political expression of the class standpoint of the petty bourgeoisie: simultaneous opposition to both the imperialist bourgeoisie (which it envies) and the working class (which it fears), an opposition which in practice serves the interests of imperialism. Such ’opposition’ to imperialism can only be reactionary, attempting, as it does, to turn history back to the heyday of small capital. Thus, the essence of Trotskyism is:
Capitulation in practice as the content, ’Left’ phrases and ’revolutionary’ advanturist postures as the form disguising and advertising the defeatist content...” J.V. Stalin, Political Report of the C.C. to the XVI Congress CP5U (B), Works Vol. 12 p.307.
Trotskyism has become one of the main channels for bourgeois ideology in the working class movement, serving as a focal point for petty bourgeois new arrivals into the class. It offers them a means, through ’Left’ forms, to express their formal opposition to monopoly capitalism while actively fighting against the interests of the working class. As Stalin states:
What is the danger of this new Trotskyism? It is that Trotskyism, owing to its entire inner content, stands every chance of becoming the centre and rallying point of the non-proletarian elements who are striving to weaken, to disintegrate the proletarian dictatorship. J.V. Stalin Trotskyism or Leninism? Works Vol 16 p. 372.
Two things stand out in Stalin’s analysis. First, that it is an accurate description of the exact process of development of Trotskyism to this day, pinpoints the exact function fulfilled by Trotskyism and neo-Trotskyism. All the differences in style and peculiarities in line, all the squabbles among the numerous Trotskyite sects, only reflect the diversity, petty proprietorship and competitiveness of the petty bourgeoisie. In opposition to communism, the Trotskyites stand united in the use of ’Left’ justifications for whatever line put forward and of blocs with the Right whenever and in whatever form possible. Trotskyism has indeed proven to be a rallying point for non-proletarian elements. Secondly, Stalin indicates in theory what has been proven conclusively by the practice of the international working class movement, namely that the distinctive characteristic of ’Left’ deviations in general and Trotskyism in particular is not that such tendencies express themselves in a given programme or set of ’principles’, but that they surface in innumerable forms and will take any position so long as it fulfills the requirement of objectively subverting the working class movement. This follows directly from its class basis and position as a rallying point for oppositional elements.
Trotskyism as a political tendency had been largely discredited by the late 1920’s and had little influence among rank and file workers. This continued to be the case even through the late 1930’s, when the Comintern and the Parties of the advanced capitalist countries were busily discrediting the entire communist movement. The culmination of that turn to the Right, the XX Congress CPSU in 1956, however, marked an open revival of Trotskyite tendendies worldwide. Except for the CPC and PLA, there had ceased to be any substantial Marxist-Leninist trend to represent and defend the international interests of the world’s working class. This has provided an excellent environment for Trotskyite tendencies, and for the ’anti-revisionist’ neo-Trotskyites. The main outcome of this revival has not been greater influence within the working class, but greater influence within the young and still unformulated anti-revisionist communist movement. The danger is not primarily that Trotskyite tendencies will be able to pull a section of the working class under their control, but that they will subvert and wreck the new communist movements before the latter have had time to mature. Our movement, then, must wage a particularly vigorous struggle against all shades of Trotskyite and neo-Trotskyite trends. Our movement cannot allow them to develop unchecked.
Though their influence is bound to be limited to the petty bourgeois new arrivals, hangers-on, and bourgeoisified elements of the working class, Trotskyites constantly attempt to ingratiate themselves with newcomers to Marxism-Leninism, and the disruption of the movement and accommodation of opportunism they carry with them can cause great damage to the working class movement. We must not be fooled by the bizarre and pathetic forms Trotskyism resorts to today, or think that all has been finished on this front. It has only been recently that the struggle of the CPSU (B) and the Comintern against Trotskyism has begun to force its way out from under the blackout imposed by the anti-Stalin campaign of the modern revisionists. Adequate attention has not yet been paid to the transcripts of the 1935-1937 trials of the counter-revolutionaries in the U.S.S.R. which show clearly the depths to which Trotskyism and ’Left’ opportunism in general sank and will continue to sink in order to subvert the revolutionary workers’ movement. Any and every Trotskyite and neo-Trotskyite group or faction must be ruthlessly drummed out of any contact with the working class. The clearest and most well known example of the ’Left’, neo-Trotskyite trend attempting to attach itself to our movement and the working class is the CPC(ML).
Right and ’Left’ opportunism were the two principal enemies against which Bolshevism waged battle. At the same time, “Leninism was born, grew up and became strong in relentless battle against opportunism of every brand, including Centrism...”. J.V. Stalin Some Questions Concerning the History of Bolshevism Works Vol. 13 p.87.
Centrism is the third deviation clearly demarcated as alien to Marxism-Leninism. Centrism does not mean simply taking a ’middle course’ between two extreme tendencies. Rather, it is the course of conciliation and accommodation, the attempt to merge two diametrically opposed tendencies. In Stalin’s words:
Centrism must not be regarded as a spatial concept: the Rights, say, sitting on one side, the ’Lefts’ on the other, and the Centrists in-between. Centrism is a political concept. Its ideology is one of adaptation, of subordination of the interests of the proletariat to the interests of the petty bourgeoisie within one common party.
J.V. Stalin Industrialisation and the Right Deviation Works, Vol.11 p.293/
The Centrist position fulfills a double role for opportunism in the communist movement. It is, at one and the same time, a festering ground for consistent conciliators, for those who constantly play the role of ’neutral’ uniters of the various trends in the movement, and a stopping-off point for those in transition from one form of opportunism to another. For the latter elements, Centrism serves only as a temporary vehicle. This usage of Centrism is most evident in the earliest stages of a movement’s development, while clear and precise lines are still in the process of being drawn and organizational forms built up around them. The Centrists will move in one direction or another so soon as an opportunist trend to their liking has mustered enough strength to stand on its own and vie for influence in the movement.
For the consistent conciliators, Centrism is a constantly desired, but not necessarily attainable, position. As the principled elements of the movement consolidate and exert leadership, combatting and defeating one after another opportunist deviation, the ground upon which the Centrists stand is more or less rapidly cut from beneath their feet. The more defined the antagonism between the Marxist-Leninists and the opportunists, the more irreconcilable the struggle between the two, the less successful are the Centrists’ efforts to create and maintain a middle ground.
This is shown clearly by the history of Trotskyism. As a trend within Menshevism, Trotskyism’s entire political development was characterized not only by ultra-revolutionary phrase-mongering, but also by Centrism, by constant attempts to play the role of conciliator, appeaser, ’uniter’ of factions. Stalin notes that Trotskyism continued to operate within this framework even after its formal ’break’ with Menshevism and entry into the RCP(B). The characteristic feature of the Trotskyites during this period was their “permanent wavering” between Bolshevism and Menshevism. It could not have been otherwise. Trotskyism came under the discipline of the Bolshevik Party only when it had become clear that Menshevism had no future on its own in the Russian revolution. It was Trotsky’s role to attempt to subordinate the interests of the proletariat to those of the petty bourgeoisie within the RCP(B) and so within the Russian movement. It was only through the process of being fully defeated in all its machinations and driven from the Party that Trotskyism dropped any attempts to conciliate, to try to strike a compromise, and went over exclusively to the counter-revolutionary ’Left’ opposition. Given the opportunity, Trotskyism would have maintained the ’Left’-Centrist position indefinitely, as it gives the appearance of principle while affording the greatest latitude for conciliation and compromise.
Centrist’s ’soft’ attitude towards opportunism, and thereby towards the bourgeoisie, is absolutely incompatible with consistent Marxism-Leninism, and is itself “camouflaged opportunism” (Stalin). Clearly the Marxist-Leninist movement cannot establish a firm, principled basis, the advanced workers cannot be won to the banner of communism, and the Party built on a solid foundation, the class cannot be raised to the level of revolutionary political consciousness without an incessant struggle against Centrism.
Our movement has produced several variations of Centrism: En Lutte! and the smaller groups most closely aligned with it, who have introduced Centrism into Party-building under the plea of ’unity’; and the forces around the Editorial Board of C.R.
The development of consistent Marxism-Leninism is inseparably bound up with the fight against these main anti-communist trends. Obviously, no individual or group who stands by any of these trends can be considered a Marxist-Leninist or within the Marxist-Leninist movement. Wherever such elements appear they must be fought, isolated and defeated. That much should be clear.
It is also clear that opposition to these main trends constitutes the first and broadest outline around the Marxist-Leninist movement. The existence of this line cannot be denied, but it is very broad indeed and allows for only the most formal level of ideological unity. The question still remains: On what basis do we judge whether this general line of demarcation has in fact been drawn? This basis can only be political line and practice, the determination of the class interests represented in each. It is only through ideological struggle, through thorough analysis and criticism of every line put into the movement that we can determine which lines in fact advance the interests of the proletariat and which advance the interests of some other class. In this struggle
...it does not suffice to look at the name it attaches to itself. Hitler’s party, too, called itself ’national-socialist’! The only correct criterion is whether or not it defends and upholds the interests of the working class, whether or not it fights for its cause. And in order to elucidate this matter one should see to whose advantage are the ideology, policy and all practical activities of this or that party. ’Don’t put faith in phrases’, Lenin teaches us, ’but rather see to whose benefit they are’.
Party of Labour of Albania The P.L.A. in Battle with Modern Revisionism Nairn Frasheri Publishing House Tirana p.309.
Analysis of line indicates a group’s political trend. But since there is always the possibility that an organization’s formal positions may deviate from their practical work, we must always consider questions of line from the standpoint of their practical application. It is possible to maintain ’Left’ positions in theory, and yet have an entirely Right practice. It is possible to maintain formally correct positions in theory and yet pursue opportunism in practice. Both theory and practice must be considered, compared, and judged according to principle. Errors in theory will inevitably result in practical errors, while spontaneously opportunist practice may result in an equally opportunist theoretical justification. As the movement grounds itself more firmly in principle, as a leading trend develops that draws both theoretical and practical lines, many opportunist elements will attempt to attach themselves to the centre by ’accepting’ the prevailing and correct line. These elements hope to be pulled along on the basis of their declarations of good intentions. In such cases, independent practice, application of line, is the main means of judging the actual grasp of principle, of separating the wheat from the chaff. Such is the third aspect that must be considered for the criteria of political line.
At the same time, the line and its practical application are not the only criteria for being inside or out of the Marxist-Leninist movement. If this were the case, whenever an error was made, those making the error would immediately be outside the movement That cannot be the case, for as Lenin and Stalin have pointed out, there are differences between deviations and trends, and comparable to this there are two categories of errors Lenin characterizes deviations as positions not yet “crystallized”, not yet “absolutely and fully defined, but merely the beginning of a political trend...” (X Congress RCP (B) CW Vol. 32 p.249). Following this view, Stalin elaborated:
Nobody in our Party is absolutely ’infallible’. Such people do not exist. But there are different kinds of errors. There are errors in which their authors do not persist, and which do not develop platforms, trends or factions. Such errors are quickly forgotten. But there are
errors of a different kind, errors in which their authors persist and, from which develop factions, platforms and struggle within the Party. Such errors cannot be quickly forgotten. Between these two categories of errors a strict distinction must be made.
J.V. Stalin The Seventh Enlarged Plenum of the E.C.C.I. Works Vol. 9 p.78.
Clearly Lenin and Stalin are speaking of the extent of consolidation of incorrect lines and the level of investment their authors have in maintaining an incorrect view. By extent of consolidation we mean how thorough-going and developed an error is: has it developed spontaneously as a result of inexperience and amateurishness or a minor misunderstanding of a complex point of theory, or is it obviously ingrown, fully permeating one’s line and practice. Eecause fully consolidated opportunism takes many forms, we must be thorough in our efforts to determine the extent of consolidation of any group’s errors. The measure of an organization’s degree of consolidation can be either consistently incorrect lines on several questions, or consistently deep-rooted opportunism on one particular question. Still another measure is inconsistency itself: the inability to establish and maintain correct lines, the constant shifting of positions or general confusion of line. By level of investment in erroneous lines we mean what attitude is taken towards them: are they easily seen, thoroughly analysed, the basis pinpointed and corrective steps taken immediately; or are errors recognized only “under the threat of isolation from the movement, are they given only superficial analysis, is the solution only formal self-criticism and ’correction’ with de facto maintenance of the error in a slightly different form.
From this it should be clear that a thorough analysis of the political history of the various groups and organizations, the historical development of their lines, the frequency and degree of consolidation of their errors, is a second vital factor in defining the contours of the movement. This factor is extremely important in a young movement still dominated by petty bourgeois outlook, when many groups and circles make errors and a consistent Marxist-Leninist trend has yet to be established. It is a stock-in-trade of the consolidated opportunists to foster both a liberal and a factional attitude towards errors, and to move back and forth between these two approaches freely, depending on whether they are criticizing themselves or someone else. On the one hand, they attempt to justify their own opportunist tendencies on the grounds that no one is perfect, least of all themselves, and everyone, after all, makes mistakes. Having reduced all errors to the lowest common denominator, they conveniently avoid the fact that any error, if persisted in, leads to consolidated opportunism, and that any error, if not tracked down to its roots, will rise in a new form. On the other hand, such consolidated opportunism always adopts a factional attitude towards the errors of other groups, and invariably scores its ’greatest victories’ against equally consolidated opportunist trends. It is not enough to consider what one or another tendency says about itself at the moment. In order to see what lies behind an organization’s official positions, we must dig into its history.
The above two criteria are fundamental to determining an organization’s relation to Marxism-Leninism and consequently to the communist movement. But there is a third criteria that must also be considered: how an organization or individual approaches the movement. There are several factors involved in correctly applying this criteria.
The initial question for this criteria is: how is the Marxist-Leninist movement understood in relation to the working class movement? Is the communist movement to lead or only support the mass movement, raise or reflect its spontaneous political consciousness? If it is to raise the working class movement, how is this to be done, how is the proper relation to be established between them? Answers to such questions will not only reveal a group’s understanding of the general tasks of communists, but will also show the basis from which they view the Marxist-Leninist movement.
Secondly, what is the group’s analysis of the overall development of the communist movement? How does it view the class basis of the movement, its level of maturity, its degree of fusion with the working class? Who does it include within the movement and for what reasons? Who does it exclude, and what attitude does it take towards those outside the movement? What role do they assign themselves within the movement’s development?
Following from the above, the third consideration must be how a particular group or organization applies its views of the movement in practice. Given that the size and resources of various groups in our movement effects their ability to relate to the movement as a whole, we must determine whether or not a group actively participates in the life of the movement to the best of their ability. Does it attempt to establish the widest possible contacts, constantly strive to develop its local work as a contribution towards future Party work, view its local activities in light of the development of the movement nationwide, participate in the national debate, polemicize in favour of its own views and against opportunism, put the interests of the movement as a whole above those of any circle, including its own, and so on. Further, if a group does participate in the life of the movement, how is this participation conducted? How are relations between various groups established and on what basis, how is debate and polemic pursued? In Mastering Bolshevism Stalin described the process for determining this factor:
What is a political trend in the working class? A political trend in the working class is a group or a party which has its own definite political face, platform and program, which does not and cannot hide its views from the working class but, on the contrary, openly and honestly carries on propaganda for its views in full view of the working class, does not fear to demonstrate its real aims and tasks to the working class but on the contrary, goes to the working class with an open visor to convince it of the correctness of its views.
J.V. Stalin Mastering Bolshevism Proletarian Publishers S.F. p.9-10
If such a standard applies to the working class movement as a whole, it applies all the more in determining who rightly stands within the communist movement. And it applies not only to those who hide their views by outright denial, by “a false and pharasaical trampling of their own views in the dirt” (Ibid. p.10), but also to those who refuse to develop an open political program, who avoid polemics, and attempt by one or another means to conceal their views so as to insert themselves into the movement unexposed.
An organization’s attitude towards the rest of the communist movement is an essential measure of its attitude towards organizing the revolutionary workers’ movement in general. It should be clear that anyone who considers themselves to be part of the communist movement must come to terms with these questions and seek the answers for them. In so doing they document before the movement as a whole what they consider its composition, tasks and aims.
It is only when we correctly combine all three criteria that we will be able to establish a truly objective view and outline of our movement, overcome sectarianism and factionalism, combat liberalism and accommodation, and build a true Party outlook and a true Party. Once we have set our sights correctly and established a principled framework from which to view the movement, the first step in drawing the parameter of our movement is completed. From here we can move on to trace out our immediate history.
Objectively, the present Marxist-Leninist movement in Canada and Quebec developed in direct relation to two main international phenomena and their effects here. These two phenomena are:
1) The Crisis of Imperialism.
This includes, first, the world-wide production and monetary crisis in all its concomitant aspects: inflation, recession, increased unemployment, continual political crisis, tightening and/or bankruptcy of various levels of the state budgets, increased military spending, trade wars, isolated military confrontations, the threat of world war, and so on. Secondly, the crisis of imperialism involves the weakening of U.S. hegemony in the imperialist camp resulting from its own internal contradictions and the restoration of capitalism in Russia and its rapid rise as a highly competitive and well-armed superpower; the increased competitiveness of the Second World powers, the lesser imperialist nations, but most notably West Germany and Japan; developing contradictions within the Third World countries, which either serve to weaken specific imperialist powers or weaken the imperialist system as a whole. This latter factor includes the socialist states, the communist-led national liberation movements, and the formation of cartels by the ruling classes of some of the Third World raw materials producing countries.
2) The International Split in Communism.
On the one hand, the rise and consolidation of modern revisionism on a world scale, with the CPSU at its head; and on the other hand, the consistent defense of Marxism-Leninism by the principled elements of the Party of Labour of Albania and the Communist Party of China.
How do these developments relate to the creation of the present Marxist-Leninist movement in Canada and Quebec? Through two inter-related processes. Firstly, the general crisis of imperialism has intensified the class oppression of the proletariat and has resulted in a spontaneous defensive strike struggle of unparalleled dimensions. Even in this spontaneous framework, the working class is demonstrating its objective role as the most consistent and determined opponent of imperialism and the only social class possessing the means to wage a prolonged and decisive struggle. The crisis of imperialism has also accelerated the destruction of wide sections of the petty bourgeoisie, forcing hundreds of thousands from their ’independent’ and parasitical positions into productive wage-slavery. Sections of this de-classed petty bourgeois element have attempted to stabilize their deteriorating position through alliances with the labour aristocracy to form the NDP and PQ, or through the ’unaffiliated’ youth and student movements, while others have gravitated towards the spontaneous working class movement. Secondly, the international split in communism has provided a framework within which the advanced workers rising from the militant trade union movement can forge their political consciousness in opposition to modern revisionism and its local representatives, the Communist Party of Canada. The struggle between modern revisionism and Marxism-Leninism has also provided the grounds for certain sections of the old CPC and new petty bourgeois student movement to attach themselves to the working class movement as its political representatives, in formal opposition to the reformist and revisionist tendencies. Which of these sections in fact oppose reformism and revisionism and are laying the groundwork for a true Marxist-Leninist Party remains to be seen.
Parallel to the initial stages of development of the strike movement and the circulation of the Chinese and Albanian polemics against modern revisionism, we find the first ’rupture’ in the then solid front of modern revisionism in the CP Canada. There had been isolated, individual breaks from the CPC’s revisionism from both the Right and ’Left’ throughout the preceeding twenty year period, but the establishment of an ’oppositional’ centre did not come about until 1964 with the formation of the Progressive Workers Movement in Vancouver. Whatever the extent of genuine Left opposition to modern revisionism within the rank and file of the PWM, it was not enough to offset the opportunist tendencies of the leadership. This is most clearly expressed in the liquidation of the group and the political development of one of the founders and mainstays of the PWM, and apparently one of the most active carryovers from that period into the present movement: J. Scott. Scott’s political tendency is most succinctly expressed in his pamphlet Two Roads. This pamphlet is an outrightly anti-communist work under the guise of support for People’s China. Through this pamphlet, Mr. Scott has revealed the full consolidation and true content of his ’anti-Russian revisionism’ and has shown graphically one of the main reasons the PWM did not develop as a leading Marxist-Leninist trend, namely, Mr. Scott’s neo-Trotskyism. But in 1964 the reality of Mr. Scott’s views was not fully apparent and the PWM was the only acknowledged ’Marxist-Leninist’ group in Canada.
Simultaneous with the development of the ’anti-revisionist’ opposition from the ’Left’ within the old CPC, certain sections of the petty-bourgeoisie began to move towards formal acceptance of Marxism-Leninism. How is this to be explained?
The petty bourgeoisie is a class fading rapidly from the historical stage. Caught between the two great millstones of capitalist society, the petty bourgeoisie is constantly ground into non-existence as a class. The rapid decline of the traditional ranks of the petty bourgeoisie in Canada and Quebec is shown by the analysis that “five groups of petty bourgeois...(farmers, fishermen, independent businessmen, investors and self-employed salesmen)...” had decreased from 14.7% to 10.9% of ’income earners’ between 1948-1968, “a loss of over 20% in just twenty years.” (from Capitalism and the National Question in Canada, article by Leo Johnson). Even given the bourgeois ’sociological’ categories, the decline is clear.
At the same time, this process of absolute disintegration is supplemented by a relative revival. While fading overall, the petty bourgeoisie is constantly being regenerated through small production and small merchant ventures, and the addition of new sectors of the working population whose conditions of work, income and life-style are either more petty bourgeois than proletarian or are in a transitional state. Thus, the disintegration of the petty bourgeoisie proceeds through turmoil – constantly having large sections of the lower and middle strata thrown down into the working class, while simultaneously a small strata of the petty bourgeoisie and labour aristocracy successfully scramble to the security of the upper strata.
Of special importance to the development of our movement is the general overproduction of the petty bourgeois intelligensia following World War II. University enrollments showed a marked increase in the post-war period, particularly in the 1960’s when the large post-war generation matured. Tens of thousands of students from predominantly petty bourgeois backgrounds entered the universities during the last decade only to find that their ’promised land’ had been messed by the crisis of imperialism. They simply were not needed. Thus thousands of students who, according to their own ambitions, should have become professors, lawyers, or ’artistes’, have in fact become... ex-students. The ranks of the petty bourgeois new arrivals to the working class have thus become swollen with disillusioned ex-students with one or another degree of intellectual training who, having failed to realize their ambitions in the petty bourgeoisie, attempt to justify their existence in the proletariat.
This ’unjust’ treatment of the petty bourgeoisie under monopoly capitalism gives it a jaundiced, misanthropic outlook and a grudge against society at large. To the extent that the petty bourgeoisie opposes imperialism, it does so out of jealousy. Its material aspirations for ascendancy into the privileged positions of imperialist society are continually frustrated by the ’cut-back’ of those positions due to crisis. At the same time the petty bourgeoisie is fundamentally hostile to the working class since the conditions of proletarian existence deny ascendancy and petty privilege. The frustration of the petty bourgeoisie’s material ambitions thus results in simultaneous hostility to both the big bourgeoisie and the proletariat. It cannot fulfill its own narrow interests with either, and consequently vacillates between the two. Only the lowest strata of the petty bourgeoisie and the semi-proletariat have conditions of life so near wage-slavery as to be natural allies of the working class. The middle and upper strata are in fact allies of imperialism, since their opposition to it may be bought with petty reforms.
Arising from its material class position, the mentality of the petty bourgeoisie is primarily characterized by narrowness, eclecticism and vacillation. Lacking an independent material basis, it also lacks an independent ideology, although this does not stop its exponents from trying to invent one. Politically, this takes the form of severe instability and wavering:
This wavering flows into two ’streams’: petty bourgeois reformism, i.e. servility to the bourgeoisie covered by a cloak of sentimental democratic and ’Social’-Democratic phrases and fatuous wishes; and petty bourgeois revolutionism – menacing, blustering and boastful in words, but a mere bubble of disunity, disruption and brainlessness in deeds. This wavering will inevitably occur until the taproot of capitalism is cut.
V.I. Lenin New Times and Old Mistakes in a New Guise CW Vol. 33 p. 21
The physical penetration of the petty bourgeoisie into the working class has a twofold effect. On the one hand, the petty bourgeois new arrivals do not immediately drop their old class outlook and ambitions simply because they have been thrown down into wage-slavery. Their petty bourgeois outlook coexists with their wage-slavery, and this contradiction works itself out in perpetual scheming to return to the ranks of ’proper’ society. Petty bourgeois outlook is brought wholesale into the working class and is maintained there through the steady influx of new arrivals. On the other hand, the proletariat has developed and exists in close physical contact with the petty bourgeoisie, not only on a daily basis in production and the retail trades, but also by personal and family connections. This close contact and interpenetration subjects the proletariat to the corrosive effects of petty bourgeois mentality, and in political life:
It is clear that the passing of certain individuals, groups and sections of the petty bourgeoisie into the ranks of the proletariat is bound, in its turn, to give rise to vacillations in the tactics of the latter.
V.I. Lenin Differences in the European Labour Movement CW Vol. 16 p.351.
In 1926, Stalin elaborated and deepened this basic analysis in analysing the sources of contradiction in the Party. He names two primary sources, both of which still apply to determining the source of vacillation within the proletariat. First, “the pressure exerted by the bourgeoisie and bourgeois ideology... in the conditions of the class struggle...”; and second, “...the heterogeneity of the working class, the existence of different strata within the working class.” This second point is so important for the present discussion that we will quote the passage in full:
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 the 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 favourable soil for all sorts of anarchist, semi-anarchist and ’ultra-Left’ groups.
The third stratum, lastly, consists of the labour 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’. This stratum constitutes the most favourable soil for outright reformists and opportunists.
Notwithstanding their superficial differences, these last two strata of the working class constitute a more or less common nutritive medium for opportunism in general – open opportunism when the sentiments of the labour aristocracy gain the upper hand, and opportunism camouflaged with ’Left’ phrases, when the sentiments of the semi-middle-class strata of the working class which have not yet completely broken, with the petty bourgeois environment gain the upper hand. The fact that ’ultra-Left’ sentiments very often coincide with the sentiments of open opportunism is not at all surprising. Lenin said time and again that the ’ultra-Left’ opposition is the reverse side of the Right-wing, Menshevik, openly opportunist opposition.
J.V. Stalin The Seventh Enlarged Plenum of the E.C.C.I. Works Vol. 9 p. 10-11.
Such is the class basis and mode of operation of petty bourgeois influences in the working class. This is not to say that every single member of the working class who comes from one strata or another will automatically function in this way. Nor is it to say that at any given time other circumstances will not force representatives of the two opportunist strata to alter their approaches slightly, go from Right to ’Left’, or vice versa, at a moment’s notice. Such is the case when a particular group or particular deviation has been exposed or has exposed itself spontaneously and is being challenged within the movement. Such was the case with Trotsky, and as we shall see later, such is generally the case in our movement as well.
With the prolonged and intensified crisis of imperialism, the petty bourgeois parties have increasingly appealed to the working class for support of their narrow interests. They become ’radicalized’, that is, they find they cannot influence the working class unless they appear to shift to the Left, unless they become ’socialists’, unless they assume ideological forms that appeal to the working class. In Canada and Quebec this can be seen in both the CCF/NDP and the PQ. This process of ’socialization’ of the petty bourgeoisie intensifies during times of economic and political upheaval and crisis. The more desperate the conditions of the petty bourgeoisie, the more anxious the appeal. We must not forget for a moment that however desperate the petty bourgeoisie may be, no matter how Left it may appear, no matter how much it may talk about ’the needs of working people’, it is appealing to the working class with the sole purpose of securing its own privileged position over the working class. We must not forget that the petty bourgeoisie as a class fights
...against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. If by chance they are revolutionary, they are so only in view of their impending transfer into the proletariat, they thus defend not their present, but their future interests, they desert their own standpoint to place themselves at that of the proletariat.
Marx – Engels The Communist Manifesto SW Vol. 1 p. 17-18
Only when elements from the petty bourgeoisie abandon their own narrow interests and place themselves under the leadership of the proletariat can they be considered objective allies of the working class. They then become a social force that promotes and supports the class interests of the proletariat. The petty bourgeois parties, such as the NDP and PQ, attempt the opposite: to subordinate the interests of the proletariat to those of the petty bourgeoisie, and turn the workers movement into a social force promoting the rehabilitation of the middle class.
In this general movement of the petty bourgeoisie towards the working class, one section eventually attaches itself directly to Marxism-Leninism. If this move is genuine then all is well. Those elements of the petty bourgeoisie, and particularly the intelligensia, who completely abandon their own class interests and wholly adopt the interests of the proletariat become the basis for a conscientious communist movement. But in fact, the initial wave of petty bourgeois elements who gravitate towards Marxism-Leninism do not throw off their old class standpoint, remain petty bourgeois in their thinking, and spontaneously attempt to adopt proletarian ideology to their own narrow interests. This becomes a rampant tendency when there is no consistently principled Marxist-Leninist centre or Party to oppose such a move. In Canada and Quebec, this tendency has been the main characteristic of our movement since the mid-1960’s. The growing strength of the spontaneous workers movement and the suppression of the petty bourgeois terrorist movement by the Canadian state forced large sections of the politically active petty bourgeoisie, particularly the ’left-wing’ of the student movement and the terrorists, to adopt the ideology of the working class, Marxism-Leninism, as their new banner. If these new arrivals to Marxism-Leninism had made a decisive break with their previous political outlook and habits; if they had come to the working class consciously, instead of unconsciously, spontaneously, and opportunistically; if they had made a sober assessment of their past practice, and determined to oppose every attempt to revive or perpetuate it; if they had not only adopted the form of Marxism-Leninism, but mastered its content; if, in short, these elements had ceased being petty bourgeois, and had fully assumed the tasks before the working class, our movement would not be in the sorry state that we find it in today. But in fact, of all the organized petty bourgeois political tendencies that have gravitated towards Marxism-Leninism, of all those who claim to represent the highest interests of the working class, none have proven that they can consistently stand by Marxism-Leninism or in fact advance the workers class interests. Just the opposite. What has been proven is that there are as many ways to adapt Marxism-Leninism to the interests of the petty bourgeoisie as there are opportunists in the movement.
It is important to note that by-and-large the rank and file of the various groups led by such petty bourgeois elements are dedicated and hard-working,and seriously believe they are building the proletarian revolution. However, by not developing their own knowledge of Marxism-Leninism, by not becoming self-reliant theoretically, and thus lacking the necessary framework to consistently oppose opportunism, the rank and file of our movement has not yet taken up its responsibility for ousting such elements, has not yet been able to break the grip of the opportunist leadership and create the grounds for sound Marxist-Leninist leadership. The dominance of opportunist tendencies in our movement has retarded its development, has prevented it from providing principled communist leadership for the workers movement, and has resulted in little more than ’Left’ phrases and reformism. Based in the arrogance and self-righteousness of petty bourgeois moralism, subjectivism, and a firm belief in ’their historic mission’ or their ’vanguard’ role, the leading opportunists create a monstrous clamour of proclamations, slogans, and ’actions’, and – factionalism prevails. Each faction, in its own view, represents ’genuine’ Marxism-Leninism, the embryo or the mature version of the ’real’ Marxist-Leninist Party. Each excludes the others. What is the result of such factionalism?
1) Factionalism not infrequently brings matters to such a pass that the Party workers, blinded by the factional struggle, are inclined to guage all facts, all events in the life of the Party, not from the point of view of the interests of the Party and the working class, but from the point of view of the narrow interests of their own faction, from the point of view of their own factional kitchen. p. 27
2) ...factionalism interferes with the training of the Party in the spirit of a policy of principles; it prevents the training of cadres in an honest, proletarian, incorruptible revolutionary spirit, free from the rotten diplomacy and unprincipled intrigue. Leninism declares that a policy based on principles is the only correct policy.” p. 28.
3) ...creates within the Party a peculiar factional regime, as a result of which the whole internal life of our Party is robbed of its conspirative protection protection in the face of the class enemy, and the Party itself runs the danger of being transformed into a plaything of the agents of the bourgeoisie. p. 29
4) the evil of factionalism consists in the fact that it completely nullifies all positive work done in the Party p. 29.
J.V. Stalin Speeches on the American Communist Party
To gain a clear understanding of the present condition of our movement and how to proceed from here, it is imperative to recognize that Stalin’s description fits our movement to a tee; that the overwhelming tendency of our movement thus far has been towards opportunism, liquidation of principles in general, and the fostering of factionalism; that up to the present time, all of the declared Marxist-Leninist parties, groups, and individuals have, to one degree or another, contributed to lowering our tasks and to corrupting the class content of our propaganda; that our movement has not been reared on consistent Marxism-Leninism, but on unprincipled compromise and reformism. This applies equally to the PWM, which represented petty bourgeois mentality from within the first stirrings of an anti-revisionist movement, to the Internationalists/CPC(ML), which rose out of the petty bourgeois student movement of the mid 1960’s and represented the first ’major’ effort of the petty bourgeoisie to adapt Marxism-Leninism to its own interests; to those groups developing from the late ’60’s student movement and the SDS/terrorist oriented tendencies across Canada; to all those groups and organizations emanating from within the student movement or the nationalist/terrorist movement in Quebec.
What, then, constitutes the Marxist-Leninist movement in Canada and Quebec today?
The growth and consolidation of a consistent, principled Marxist-Leninist movement is a process of development. This process involves the full transformation of the class outlook of the bourgeois and petty bourgeois intelligentsia who comprise the bulk of the movement in its early stages. These elements, and the movement they make up, can only be said to be tending to the working class, tending to Marxism-Leninism, until a consistent and proven leading Marxist-Leninist trend is established. Throughout the development of such a trend, the various participating individuals and groups have differing levels of formulation, greater or lesser degrees of vacillation in their outlook, a clearer or dimmer view of the tasks before them. The most consistent, stable, and principled elements compose or gravitate towards the effort to establish a centre based on clear principles. The more vacillating, unstable and still petty-bourgeois elements gravitate to and compose the centres of opportunism. However many tendencies may result from this process, there are two basic trends that stand on either side of the general line of demarcation: those who are in fact transforming their outlooks and are laying the foundation for the Party, and those who have got ’stuck’ along the way and are forging the parties of opportunism. The process of development of a leading Marxist-Leninist trend is also the process of weeding out opportunists. More accurately, since this process takes place spontaneously prior to the consolidation of a principled centre, it is a process of opportunism exposing itself, consciously denying the movement, rather than the movement keeping out or driving out the opportunists. One of the clearest examples of this for our movement has been the political history of the CPC(ML). Though it got stuck at its initial ’acceptance’ of Marxism-Leninism, between 1967-1970, far from being decisively exposed and cut off from its attempt to establish credibility as a communist organization, the CPC(ML) was dealt with as if it was fully a part of the incipient movement. It was not until its ’party’ proclamation that the CPC(ML) began to be viewed as outside the movement. As an opportunist trend it was isolated from the movement, but almost completely by its own efforts.
Just as groups and individuals can get stuck in their development, stabilize into one or another form of opportunism and eventually put themselves completely outside the communist movement; they can also, depending on their degree of consolidation, get ’unstuck’, and return to the tasks at hand. Herein lies the importance of self-criticism and rectification of errors. Such self-criticism and rectification must fully grasp the error, its class base, and method of correction if it is to completely root out the deviation or opportunist trend. If the error is not rooted out, it simply takes a different form, and the act of ’self-criticism’ is reduced to a means to opportunist ends. Again the CPC(ML) serves as an excellent example. Under the pressure of attack and the lining-up of forces against it, the CPC(ML) apparently began to alter its approach to the movement, began to openly seek out the Marxist-Leninist circles for discussion, began to put forward its line into the movement, began to debate and polemicize with other groups in a formally more correct manner than previously, and even went to the point of ’admitting’ errors and unsolved questions of line. In fact, during the last few months of 1974 and the first of 1975, the CPC(ML) tended to much more extensive analysis and less slanderous criticism of its opponents than vice-versa. Of course, to the extent that it maintained itself as the party, this new approach was extremely contradictory and indicated a sham. But even so, if the CPC(ML) had continued along this course, and if the rank and file had been able to push the leadership further on questions of principle and fuller participation in the movement, the CPC(ML) could have, to that extent, cut itself loose from its opportunist moorings, and begun to move toward the movement. There would have been a legitimate basis for the CPC(ML) to thoroughly criticize its earlier history, begin to root out its errors, repudiate its claim to be the Party, and take an active part in developing a consistent and principled Marxist-Leninist movement. In the CPC{ML)’s case this did not occur. In fact, it never actually came close to such a major break with its entrenched opportunism. Even in its short history it had developed too much inertia. Its action was merely a feint, and since the Spring of 1975, the CPC(ML) has fully returned to its sectarian stand towards the Marxist-Leninist movement and resumed its place submerged in the marsh. As long as it is content to stay there, it denies itself the means to fundamentally rectify its errors and continues to set itself against the movement. The same applies to any group in that position.
The composition of the movement is not at all static, but changes along with the changes of its component parts. It is constantly gaining elements as they move towards Marxism-Leninism, and losing others as they gravitate to opportunism. Until a leading communist centre is established, such turnover will continue to have full play. Given this process of development, it should be clear why it is necessary to take all three criteria into account when trying to determine whether a particular group or individual is or is not part of the movement. It is also apparent that these criteria can combine into many different variations: the political history of a particular organization may show a consistent tendency to exit the movement, though at the moment they are considered to be part of it; an organization may have been outside the movement for some time, and be tending back in; or hovering on the outskirts, following a Centrist course; or entering and exiting the movement at a rapid pace; and so on. In order to correctly determine the position each group or individual occupies at any given time, all of these factors must be taken into consideration and balanced against each other. This is the only way to establish an objective view of the various Marxist-Leninist groups and the movement as a whole. This objective view is the only basis from which to correctly assess our movement in terms of the development of principle. And this assessment is the only basis from which we can correctly determine where we are in the Party-building process, which groups and individuals comprise the grounds for development of a leading trend, and which need to be fought and defeated.
The Marxist-Leninist movement in Canada is young, has little practical experience in communist work, and suffers from a low theoretical level. We must make no bones about this state of affairs if we are to change it. Because of this low theoretical level and the continued domination of opportunist tendencies, there is as yet no leading centre or trend in our movement. In this situation we must simultaneously conduct an unflinching ideological struggle against even the slightest deviation and vacillation from the fundamental principles of Marxism-Leninism, and break down the existing factionalism. This means we must concentrate on in-depth analysis and criticism of line, dealing with both method and content, and avoid the usual cursory treatment that lines are given in our movement. At the same time we must also define the contours of our movement in terms of consolidation of opportunism and approach to the movement as a whole. On the one hand, does a group participate fully in the life of the movement, openly defend and debate its line, polemicize in a principled way, avoid slander and intrigue, make thorough self-criticism, and so on. On the other hand, does opportunism thoroughly permeate a group’s line, and do they actually refuse to rectify the error when it is clearly recognized as such.
On this basis we can date the birth of our movement to the period between the mid-1960’s and roughly 1970. The primary characteristics of this period were the beginning turn of the petty bourgeois radicals to Marxism-Leninism, and the initial establishment of opportunism within the embryo of the new movement. The existence and strength of opportunism in our movement dates from its inception. The beginnings of our movement involved only the slightest stirrings towards Marxism-Leninism. Even on the West coast, where the formal opposition to modern revisionism was most extensive, these stirrings were not sufficiently strong to produce an ongoing, consistent and principled movement.
During this time, there were two main self-proclaimed anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninist groups: the PWM and the Internationalists. Of the two, only the PWM could be said to have taken any sort of step towards Marxism-Leninism, and as such formed the main part of the microscopic movement. But the PWM’s political history shows just how small a step towards Marxism-Leninism this was. The scarce information we have from that period indicates a general agreement between the PWM and the Internationalists on a petty bourgeois nationalist analysis of Canadian political economy, and thus basic strategy for revolution in Canada, manifesting itself in practice in nationalist opposition to U.S.-based trade unions. Until the late 1960’s, the PWM leadership publically related to the Internationalists as if they were fully within a developing Marxist-Leninist movement. Subsequent events and lines put forward solidification of the nationalist line on strategy for revolution couched in ’Left’ phrases, failure to concretely advance the Marxist-Leninist movement on Party-building, liquidation of the organization, and the content of the line in Scott’s Two Roads provides fairly clear evidence that the main elements of the PWM leadership ’split’ with modern revisionism as a ’Left’, neo-Trotskyite anti-Party faction. Further investigation is necessary to determine the composition of the PWM, but we must draw a distinction between the rank and file of the PWM and that section of the leadership grouped around J. Scott. It is to the rank and file opposition to modern revisionism, however unformulated and spontaneously opportunist it may have been, that we trace the beginnings of our movement.
As to the Internationalists, who formally adopted Marxism-Leninism during 1967-68, it can be stated conclusively that in ’accepting’ Marxism-Leninism, it never departed from the radicalism of the untransformed petty bourgeois intelligentsia. Anyone who takes the time to read Mr. Bains’ existentialist essay, “The Necessity For Change”, will easily recognize this fact. The CPC(ML)’s programme is merely an extension of this adaptation in the classic Trotskyite form, abounding in ultra-revolutionary phrases thrown up around a solidly reformist core. In relation to Quebec, they upheld, not the right of nations to self-determination, but the armed ’national liberation’ of Quebec, thus playing directly the tune of the petty bourgeois nationalists and relegating the class question into oblivion. On the trade unions, they upheld an anarchosyndicalist opposition to the U.S.-based unions in particular and ’big unions’ in general, combining both efforts into a struggle to give the economic struggle a ’political’ character – the infamous ’right to organize politically’ campaign. On the Canadian revolution, they initially called for a two-stage revolution, allowing even the ’patriotic’ imperialists to remain intact under the dictatorship of the proletariat; when this was later ’rectified’, it still maintained the encouragement of non-monopoly ’patriotic’ bourgeoisie, the ’pro-Communist capitalists’, under socialism, and thus revealed themselves as being pro-capitalist ’communists’. On the Party, the CPC(ML) lacked even the most elementary conception of a Leninist Party, evidently had no intention of developing one, and was content to declare its own precious self a party of sorts in complete isolation from both the working class and the Marxist-Leninist movement. In short, the CPC(ML) emerged as an extremely eclectic, neo-Trotskyite trend.
During the course of 1964-1970 a split occurred in this opportunist camp as these two groups gradually moved from fairly close and friendly relations to being arch-enemies, primarily over the question of Party-building. Each was solidifying into its peculiar variety of ’Leftism’. The PWM was moving further and further away from Party-building and the Party principle, completely reneging on any leadership role or responsibility on the Party question – a position Mr. Scott apparently maintains to this day. On the other hand, the Internationalists were speeding rapidly towards the creation of their nationwide sect, the CPC(ML). By 1969-1970, the ’contradictions’ between the two had reached the bursting point. The Internationalists, who had formed themselves as the CCM(ML) in 1969, declared their ’party’, while the PWM simply wound down and liquidated itself. By its act of ’party’ declaration the CPC(ML) verified the full consolidation of its opportunism, raised it to a higher organizational form, stopped all attempts at relating to the movement in an open and above-board manner; in short, proved in theory and practice that it had nothing in common with Marxism-Leninism. By its act of liquidation, the PWM proved itself incapable of assuming the tasks before the movement and thereby unfit as an organized force of any kind in the future Marxist-Leninist movement. Except for individual participation by former rank and file PWM members, the PWM reversed its halting motion towards Marxism-Leninism and ceased to have any relationship to the still embryonic movement.
The second phase of the growth of our movement dates roughly from 1970 to early 1972. The events of 1970-71 had left the young Marxist-Leninist movement in a state of suspended animation. The movement consisted only of amorphous groupings of isolated collectives and individuals. The number of these groupings began to increase across the country as the petty bourgeois youth/student/terrorist ’movement’ was suppressed by the state (particularly in Quebec) or simply faded out as a movement (as in the rest of Canada). Simultaneous with the undercutting of their own organizations and their ability to remain independently viable, the petty bourgeois radicals began to take notice of the rising working class movement, and concomitant with it, the theory of working class revolution Marxism-Leninism. Even though the petty bourgeois movement had flirted with Marxism-Leninism when the various organizations were still ’independent’, still openly hostile to the working class, and still an overt, reactionary ’opposition’ to imperialism, it was not until they had been broken up or were in decline that Marxism-Leninism was ’adopted’ in full force. The internal life and composition of the movement continued to be shaped largely by a series of contradictions between various shades of levels of petty bourgeois opportunism. The most important and glaring examples of this process were the relations between the CPC(ML) and the larger radical petty bourgeois organizations beginning even the slightest turn towards Marxism-Leninism. Groups such as the Partisan Organization in Vancouver or the Red Morning in Halifax were immediately set upon by the CPC(ML) and either absorbed en toto, in part, or were split apart. Resistance to the CPC(ML)’s wrecking activities at this stage was itself one-sided and often spontaneously opportunist. These elements could only filter out into the movement as individuals or small groupings, raw materials for a still very primitive and unformulated movement.
This lull period in the movement’s infancy began to change around the beginning of 1972 when small, isolated circles across the country began to form themselves into publicly active Marxist-Leninist organizations. This was the beginning of the third phase of development, lasting from January 1972 to the Fall of 1974. The first moves toward re-establishment of declared Marxist-Leninist organizations came in Quebec. The Mouvement Revolutionnaire des Etudiants du Quebec (MREQ) was formed as a ’Marxist-Leninist’ student organization ’supporting’ working class struggles in January 1972, and C. Gagnon’s (L’Equipe de Journal) pamphlet Pour Le Parti Proletarian was published in the Fall. Reacting against the ’Leftist’ form of their own petty bourgeois political radicalism, and against the ’Leftism’ of the CPC(ML), these elements entered Marxism-Leninism openly from the Right, via Economism. During 1973, an open and informal anti-CPC(ML) trend began to expand and organize its efforts. By September 1973, most of the active anti-CPC(ML) ’Marxist-Leninist’ groups in Quebec concretized their Economism in practice in the Comite de Solidarite aux Luttes Ouvrieres (CSLO), a ’Marxist-Leninist support group’ for the trade union struggle.
The Internationalists and MREQ followed similar patterns of development, both coming from the petty bourgeois intelligentsia and both attempting to gain entry into the working class movement. Yet, the CPC(ML) proclaimed their turn to Marxism-Leninism from the ’Left’, while the MREQ, with only a smattering of ’Left’ phrases, came from the Right Objectively, of course, both groups entered the movement from the Right, that is, from a petty bourgeois class stand, but circumstances determined different forms in which this class standpoint would manifest itself. Coming into a wide-open field, the Internationalists gave vent to their ’radicalism’ in the standard ’intellectualist’ form of adventurism, a ’Left’ stance in general. The MREQ, on the other hand, while also coming from the petty bourgeois intelligentsia, were moving into a field already dominated by ’Leftism’, in the form of the CPC(ML), which was being spontaneously rejected by both the advanced workers and the developing Marxist-Leninist circles. A presence in the movement could only be made through rejection of the ’Left’ line, but having not transformed their own class outlook, this new wave of petty bourgeois intellectuals automatically moved into the Right stream.
Meanwhile, a similar situation was developing across Canada, though on a less extensive scale than in Quebec. Cohesive groups, formed on spontaneously developed opportunist bases of unity, or even no formal bases of unity, began to appear. In the Toronto area, though the circles were not developed enough to produce their own newspapers or tracts as in Quebec, the Right to Strike Organization was formed as Ontario’s version of the CSLO. Only a few of the local collectives participated. On the West Coast, the formation of the Vancouver Study Group provides the best example of the new Marxist-Leninist proclaimed groups, revealing a Right orientation through its concentration in the nationalist trade union movement. These organizations and all the various small groups and individuals scattered between them and in the Maritimes, also came to Marxism-Leninism generally from the Right, via Economism. This Rightist reaction to the ’Leftism’ of their earlier political work and the ’Leftism’ of the CPC(ML), contributed to maintaining the low theoretical level and the prevalence of opportunism in the movement.
Across the country, none of the main or smaller groups actively took up the question of Party-building, though Gagnon’s pamphlet had posed the question again. There was very little national contact. Nevertheless, a localized debate and exchange of positions began to take place. It was during this time that the anti-CPC(ML) forces began to view themselves as an oppositional movement, a direct challenge to the CPC(ML), as the ’genuine’ Marxist-Leninist movement. Up to this point, then, we can say that the Marxist-Leninist movement was comprised of all the spontaneously anti-CPC(ML) groups and individuals who upheld, at least formally, the fundamental principles of Marxism-Leninism. It was an amorphous collection of spontaneously Economist, extremely amateurish groups, united on their formal dedication to Marxism-Leninism.
The fall of 1974 marks a turning point into a fourth phase in the movement’s life, lasting until the fall of 1975. It was during this period that the majority of the movement, starting again in Quebec and spreading across Canada, began to recognize Party-building as the central task of the movement. On the basis of the spontaneous opportunism of the previous few years, a national exchange of positions and contacts began to develop. The movement began to line up into general trends, primarily on the questions of political economy and Party-building, the two questions remaining unanswered from the first phase of our movement’s existence.
There are three significant developments that took place during this period of formation of trends: one that laid the groundwork for our present state of affairs on the question of Party-building, and two that contributed to the present contours of our movement. The first of these is that virtually every group that put forward a position on Party-building adopted the idea of a ’pre-party organization of struggle to create the Party’. As will be shown later, this is a totally incorrect conception of the process of Party-building and is in fact a conception that springs from and further fosters factionalism in our movement.
The second important ’event’ was the publication of Jack Scott’s Two Roads (see footnote #2). This pamphlet is, to our knowledge, the clearest, most concise, most consolidated expression of the neo-Trotskyism underpinning the PWM’s failure to move ahead on the Party question its liquidation as a viable group, its trade union stance, and Mr. Scott’s ’working class’ nationalist line (as stated in Canadian Revolution #3). Although Mr. Scott has not as yet elaborated line on all the crucial questions facing our movement, his line in Two Roads is sufficient to hang him. Two Roads is a product of classic Trotskyism at work: an attack on the fundamental principles of Marxism-Leninism under the guise of ’true, ’ ’pure’ communism, couched in a ’pleasingly’ academic ’critical’ style. This work is not the spontaneous error of an initiate, a novice to the movement. Mr. Scott has had some familiarity with Marxism-Leninism for some time now. Two Roads is a polished and insidious attack on Marxism-Leninism. Under the banner of ’principled’ criticism, but devoid of principle, Mr. Scott attacks Lenin, the October Revolution, Stalin and the CPSU(B) when they were consistently upholding Marxism-Leninism, and on the basis of standard bourgeois ’facts’ speculates with the secondary errors of the Russian Party while ignoring, to the advantage of his own petty bourgeois reformist and nationalist line, the fundamental errors of principle committed throughout the international movement. Such anti-communism is often difficult for a young, inexperienced, and theoretically backward movement to grasp, as is evident from the amount of praise and accommodation Mr. Scott has received in the movement, even after publication of this book. The difficulty in seeing the actual intention of such material is all the more reason it must be thoroughly exposed. This is especially the case when it is put out by an individual with a long ’radical’ history, an individual who is looked-up to and respected as an authority, an ’old comrade’, by the movement. This is precisely the case with Mr. Scott. Our movement must clearly recognize Mr. Scott’as a fully developed neo-Trotskyite, specifically of the Issac Deutscher mold; that Mr. Scott and all who hold to the Two Roads’ line have nothing in common with Marxism-Leninism; that Mr. Scott may attempt to maintain viability within the movement by showing a ’willingness,’ even an ’eagerness’ to ’debate’ or ’polemicize,’ but this in no way places him within the Marxist-Leninist movement, and is to be understood simply as a ruse; and that along with his petty bourgeois nationalist analysis of Canadian political economy, Mr. Scott’s Two Roads’ line puts him side by side with the CPC(ML) as one of the enemies of the movement.
The third significant development within this period was that the pre-Party organization initiative of the major Quebec-based groups stimulated the creation of a Centrist trend in the form of the journal Canadian Revolution. It is true that the C.R. is a coalition of sorts and not a cohesive political organization. It is also true that the Editorial Board has not put forward a political line for proletarian revolution in Canada and Quebec, and has not as yet officially lined-up with any grouping. All of this is simply a function of the C.R.’s political position: Centrism. The line that is put forward in the journal’s editorial policy – drafted by and acting as the basis of unity of the coalition – is a direct statement of Centrism, and as such the coalition represents a Centrist trend. C.R. was conceived as an attempt to accommodate the whole of the anti-CPC(ML) forces who are formally proclaimed Marxist-Leninists. It consciously acts as a catch-all for opportunism, does not attempt to play any role in consistently directing the ideological debate it fosters, serves objectively as a media, a festering ground for lack of formulation under the guise of ’principled debate’, and actually encourages the consolidation of spontaneous opportunist errors and petty bourgeois outlook of the many young and amateurish circles of the movement. By not providing consistent Marxist-Leninist leadership to the ’great debate’, the C.R. stands as a rallying point for the most backward elements of our movement, for liberalism and every shade of opportunism – historically the classic role of a Centrist trend. Since its inception, insofar as the C.R. Editorial Board refused to raise its basis of unity to one of Marxist-Leninist principle and put this into practice by guiding the debate along consistent Marxist-Leninist lines; refused to elaborate views on the questions facing our movement while actively fostering every shade of opportunism; and refused to enter into the life of the movement through debate and response to criticism – to that extent the Editorial Board constituted a consolidated form of opportunism and placed itself outside the Marxist-Leninist movement.
While Centrist tendencies are bound to emerge until we have rid our movement of petty bourgeois influences, Centrism cannot be maintained long in the form of C.R. . The C.R. resulted from the peculiar dynamic of the movement in the fall of 1974 and spring of 1975. The major anti-CPC(ML) Quebec groups, being larger, more organized, and more consolidated in their lines than the circles across Canada, had begun putting forward their various peculiarities on the Party question. The circles of the next most developed locale, Toronto, being unable to unify into large organizations and being behind in the formulation of their lines, but not wanting to miss the Party bandwagon, turned to the ’most accessible’ means to establish contacts and force themselves and the other smaller circles to begin to articulate ’something’ at least, a position of some sort. The result: a ’forum for debate’. But even at its inception, the C.R. began to move towards disintegration. Each of the groups participating in the coalition Editorial Board were already tending toward one or another of the main trends developing at the time. Despite initial appearances of organizational unity, since the C.R. lacked the wherewithall to pose as a leading trend, it was only natural and a matter “of time before it would begin to split amongst the existing ones. The movement was rapidly lining up its forces across the country, and the same process took place within the bloc which formed the C.R. The editors’ speculation on which way the wind was blowing showed that it was blowing differently for each section of the coalition. As this process continues and deepens, the C.R. is bound to pass out of existence, but this will not mean an end to Centrism. The same class tendency that gave rise to the C.R. will simply emerge in a different, and ’higher’, form.
By the fall of 1975, then, those comprising the movement had already begun to narrow. Mr. Scott had passed from the furthest opportunist fringes to outside the movement altogether, objectively siding with the CPC(ML). The Editorial Board of the C.R. was moving rapidly along the same path. The C.R. board did not formally refuse to debate its position or raise its level, but instead chose to simply ignore criticism when it was given. To this extent the C.R. board was not itself taking an active part in the movement, was not advancing and defending its own lines, or rectifying its errors, and was placing itself outside the movement in its capacity as C.R.(see footnote #3). A similar situation was developing among the Quebec-based groups. To the extent that their pre-Party organization proposals revolved around the declaration of the Party by one or another group in isolation from the rest of the movement, behind closed doors, and within only the Quebec section of the movement, and insofar as they followed-up on their proposals, groups such as the MREQ and En Lutte! were also moving rapidly towards fully consolidated opportunism and were tending to move outside the movement. At this time the movement was characterized by the establishment and early phases of consolidation of trends, and the lining-up of smaller circles and groups around the larger organizations, beginning the formation of broad factions. In Quebec and Ontario, the two main centres in this process were En Lutte! and the MREQ, the two most consolidated groups. Judging from the Vancouver Study Group’s statements in C.R., most of the young Marxist-Leninist forces on the West Coast were gravitating around the old PWM line on political economy, and presumably J. Scott. And, scattered throughout the country, many smaller, less defined groups had begun to gravitate towards the C.R., oblivious to its actual role and the impending break-up of its Editorial Board.
The formation of the Canadian Communist League (Marxist-Leninist) in November 1975 marked the beginning of the present phase of our movement, a phase involving major changes in the level of consolidation and composition of the movement. Even with the many changes, the Marxist-Leninist movement in Canada and Quebec is still only in the early stages of development and exists as an assortment of individuals, groups and organizations tending towards Marxism-Leninism. The vast majority of the movement’s forces are still dominated by spontaneously developed opportunist errors – specifically a Right deviation: the tendency towards Economism, conciliation, and compromise of Marxism-Leninism in general. This domination by opportunism will remain, though its form may change, until the establishment and consolidation of a principled Marxist-Leninist tendency. Until that time our movement will persist in an embryonic and spontaneous state, with certain sections passing from spontaneously evolved opportunism to consolidated, entrenched opportunism and revisionism, moving themselves from inside to outside the still inconsistent and developing movement. On the other hand, the consolidation of opportunism in one section of the movement, or the opportunism of a self-proclaimed Marxist-Leninist organization outside the movement (for example, the CPC or CPC(ML)), does not automatically give rise to a principled trend in another section, even among those who oppose the opportunist trend. We have witnessed the process of consolidation of opportunism quite clearly in the case of the CPC(ML), and every section of the movement can recognize opportunism in this gross form. But thus far, the movement has been unable to produce a consistent Marxist-Leninist centre, and has been unable to recognize the same development of consolidated opportunism in more subtle forms: namely, J. Scott, En Lutte!, Canadian Revolution, and the CCL(ML).
Mr. Scott’s position vis-a-vis the movement remains unchanged. He fully maintains and defends his petty bourgeois nationalist analysis of Canadian political economy and thus strategy for revolution in Canada and Quebec, and has not, to the best of our knowledge, repudiated the Two Roads’ line. For its part, the Editorial Board of C.R. has become even more consolidated in its position. Although finally offering a response to criticism leveled against it, the Editorial Board refused to recognize any error whatsoever on its part, defended its position in toto, and superficially altered its basis of unity to prettify its opportunism. All of this being more of the same classic Centrism. At the same time, the process of dissolution of the coalition continues at pace, with one opportunist section splitting off entirely and another apparently still participating but now representing the Toronto branch of the CCL(ML).
With the formation of the CCL(ML) we are witnessing a repeat performance of the formation of the CPC(ML). Like the CPC(ML), the CCL(ML)’s main features are liberalism and adaptability of line on the one hand, and die-hard, arrogant factionalism on the other. The CCL(ML) shows that though the general deviation within the movement is to the Right, under pressure of criticism and exposure, the Right tendency will just as easily resort to ’Left’ forms of revisionism and opportunism as cover. The reformist, Economist, and social-chauvinist content of its line, at least partially covered by ’revolutionary’ phrases; the nearly programmatic elaboration of its particular variety of petty bourgeois outlook; its refusal to make fundamental and thorough-going self-criticism, and instead to defend and praise its past errors and maintain the continuity of its deviation; and its self-proclamation as the organization to declare the Party, its back-peddling and denials of this self-proclamation – all of this clearly shows that as far as historical development, level of consolidation, and content of line, the CCL(ML) has moved itself directly outside the Marxist-Leninist movement. At the same time, however, the CCL(ML) has not been fully able to follow in the CPC(ML)’s path. The CCL(ML) cannot simply declare itself the Party within a few weeks of formation, as the CCM(ML) did. Instead, the CCL(ML) must at least go through the motions of debate, exchange of views, polemic, and so on; is, in fact, forced to maintain some participation in the life of the movement. To do otherwise would mean complete isolation. The CCL(ML) is demonstrating that the consolidation of opportunism is a process that fully takes into account ’objective’ conditions. From the inception of the pre-Party idea, the groups which merged to create the CCL(ML) have been moving outside the movement. In terms of line, the CCL(ML)’s positions are completely opportunist. In terms of historical development and degree of consolidation, they have proven to be consistent and quite consolidated in their opportunism. Only in one aspect of their present approach to the movement, in their willingness to polemicize, do they maintain a thread of connection, an avenue from the outside, into the movement. If they are in fact salvageable Marxist-Leninists, it will be through this exchange of views and polemic that they will be able to rectify their errors and join fully in the movement for the Party. If, on the other hand, they are only using this connection as a means to gain legitimacy and recruits for their opportunism, then the movement must expose this maneuver for what it is. It is the responsibility of the movement to take up the League’s call for open polemics, draw them out, and lay bare the depth of their opportunism. In this context, it is necessary once again to mention the role of C.R. The C.R.’s Centrist position assists all opportunist tendencies in our movement, but especially the CCL(ML). Opportunism can survive only if it is tolerated and accommodated. By maintaining itself as a ’non-directing forum* for virtually every shade of opinion falling within its amorphous dividing lines, the C.R. Editorial Board provides a platform and a certain amount of credibility to the various opportunist tendencies. As the most rapidly developing opportunist centre, this is precisely what the CCL(ML) needs to preserve itself within the movement as a ’vanguard’ organization. More, this ’legitimacy’ is exactly what it needs in its attempts to expand and consolidate its faction by splitting the movement, by pressuring the smaller groups to line up with one or another opportunist tendency. The effects of the League’s formation and activities are readily apparent throughout the movement.
The most revealing of these effects can be seen in the recent activities of En Lutte!. Prior to the League’s formation and for the first few months following, it can be said that as much as anyone En Lutte! still remained within the movement. The fact that En Lutte! did not immediately join in with the CCL or immediately issue its own pre-’party’ call, seemed to indicate that En Lutte! may have stepped back from its previous opportunism. But En Lutte! soon gave in to the League’s pressure, and began to issue its own frantic appeals for ’unity’ and its own pre-’party’ In terms of line, En Lutte!’s differences with the CCL amount only to a falling out among thieves. In all essentials, their positions on fundamental questions are as alike as two peas in a pod. This elaboration of En Lutte!’s line has meant that in order to join the CCL in ’debate’, it has left the movement altogether.
Aside from these four main opportunist groupings which have fallen out of the movement – J. Scott, the CCL(ML), C.R., and En Lutte!– there exists a variety of groups who claim to be Marxist-Leninist. To our knowledge these groups align as follows:
The groups which identify with En Lutte!: the Toronto Communist Group, and the Bolshevik Union, both based in Toronto; and the May 1st Collective, on the West Coast. The Toronto Communist Group had, in its brief existence, either as individuals or as a group made some contributions on various questions that indicated a certain potential towards Marxism-Leninism, but its leading role in the development and defense of C.R. fully negated the advances it had made. In this endeavour, the TCG was merely complementing En Lutte!*s Centrism with its own, and as En Lutte! has recently revealed, this spontaneous ’merging of the minds’ was given organizational substance sometime before November 1975 when the TCG became the unannounced Toronto branch of En Lutte!.
The Bolshevik Union has been by far the most profuse of the three in its ’contributions’ and has fully exposed itself both in the pages of C.R. and in its own ’theoretical’ journal. In the Party-building position written by two members and put forward prior to the actual formation of the group, the Bolshevik Union was best characterized as ’Left’ Economist. The Bolshevik Union followed this article with one on the question of the national status of Native peoples, an article which is based on overt revision of the fundamental principles of Marxism-Leninism on the national question and whose core is an open attack on the revolutionary character of the proletariat. These two documents, as well as the B.U.’s participation on the C.R. Editorial Board, have exposed it as a neo-Trotskyite trend. It is quite clear that the B.U. has already placed itself well outside the communist movement.
For its part, the May 1st Collective has produced an article aimed quite correctly against the Right opportunism of the CCL(ML) and the Vancouver Study Group. This article, however, fails to pinpoint the class basis of opportunism, not only of the groups they criticize, but of the entire movement; defends the notion of ’relatively advanced’ leading centre, one ’better than the rest of the movement’ though not necessarily consistent in line, and thereby violates one of the most crucial and correct demands stated in the article itself: ”...stressing the correspondence of developed positions with the scientific and tested principles of Marxism-Leninism.” The May 1st Collective thus exhibits the same sort of vacillation and inconsistency that marked En Lutte!’s earlier period of development, and so leaves itself open to the same Centrist striving. Such inconsistency is understandable given the state of the movement, but it is also the stuff from which opportunist ’organizations of struggle for the Party’ are made.
The gravitation of these groups towards En Lutte!’s “unity of Marxist-Leninists” is the natural outcome of the intense confusion over all questions of substance within our movement. As with the Toronto Communist Group and May 1st Collective, initial attempts to deal with questions of principle cannot, unless those attempts are carried through to the end, survive in a movement which is preyed upon by several consolidated opportunist trends who are actively vying for leadership of the movement. En Lutte! has been able to attract such groups, not because it provides clear and definite answers to the questions facing us, but because it offers in lieu of those answers a ’relatively advanced’ formula for obscuring them altogether. Thus En Lutte! promises that the “large debate” will take place, the questions will be answered at some future date, the principles will be established, and so on, while in the meantime it encourages the various circles to ’unite’ organizationally under its own umbrella.
There are several other smaller groups in Toronto, only two of which to our knowledge have directed themselves to the national movement by way of published documents: Workers Unity (ML) and the Toronto Marxist-Leninist Collective. Relations between these two groups since the formation of the League and En Lutte!’s call for ’unity’ are unknown, but both were, prior to June 1976, tending toward the League as the leading centre of the movement. The Worker’s Unity was by far the more closely aligned of the two groups, putting forward a Party-building position virtually indistinguishable from the MREQ’s, and maintaining ’independence’ primarily through its participation in the Editorial Board of the C.R. By June a ’proper’ amount of time had elapsed for friendly discussion with the League, and WU(ML) fulfilled the obvious, fully consolidating its opportunism as the Toronto branch of the CCL(ML). The TMLC had a more reserved position on the League’s formation. It had opposed, not the idea of a pre-Party organization in the CCL(ML) stamp, but simply the fact that the CCL(ML) was formed without ’consulting’ its friends in the movement, and the fact that the League is continuing its Economist tendency. The TMLC tried to maintain independence and set itself the task of forming a new organization, a pre pre-Party organization, in the Toronto area with the purpose of developing “...the line necessary for the formation of the Marxist-Leninist organization of struggle for the Party...”, but has apparently failed and dissolved as a group.
Three other groupings can be identified in Western Canada, all of which have to one degree or another been developing under the influence of J. Scott. The most open adherent of Scott’s line on strategy for revolution in Canada is the Workers’ Unity (Edmonton) group. This group has directly stated its support for Scott’s petty bourgeois nationalist analysis of Canadian political economy, a line which objectively rejects the dictatorship of the proletariat and is fundamentally anti-communist. Further, it has elaborated and defended this line in the pages of C.R. Although other work by this group is presently unknown, by choosing the course of petty bourgeois nationalism even after this line has been at least partially exposed and certainly rejected by the vast majority of the Marxist-Leninist movement, the Workers’ Unity (Edmonton) has placed itself in the same ranks as Mr. Scott.
The Vancouver Study Group also claims adherence to the analysis of the principal contradiction being between the “Canadian people and U.S. imperialism”, but to the best of our knowledge, has yet to elaborate and consistently defend this line. The fact that the VSG still holds to some version of this line, even if only spontaneously, indicates the extent to which they constitute a Right deviation. This is even more clearly confirmed by their defence of the C.R., their long and thoroughly Economist work with the Western Voice and in the Canadian union movement, and in their recent Liaison Committee proposals for uniting Marxist-Leninists. Thus far the VSG has been unable to thoroughly criticize and rectify its errors and is thus proceeding steadily outside the movement.
The Third grouping of this sort is the Western Voice Collective. Since its inception the Western Voice has advocated nationalist and trade unionist politics instead of communism and has been a vital force of Right opportunism throughout the West. Prior to the suspension of publication last year, the line of the paper could be traced directly to Scott’s analysis of Canadian political economy and emphasis on Canadian trade unionism. Recently the Western Voice has published a work criticizing its Right line, but it is unclear whether this beginning step will develop into a thorough self-criticism and re-orientation of work towards Marxism-Leninism. Influences in this direction are still weak and vacillating. The extent of the VSG’s present involvement is unknown, but to our knowledge it has not been ousted from participation in WV, and must exert a strong retarding influence on any development toward the working class outlook. The elements pushing against the Right line thus far have been able to go only as far as En Lutte!’s weak and inconsistent opposition to opportunism, proposing to reprint several of its articles in up-coming issues. As with any other attempt at rectification of line and practice, the movement must determine the extent to which a reversal has actually been effected.
Another tendency that has appeared in at least one area of Canada and undoubtedly exists in many other regions in an extreme Right line. The clearest evidence of this comes from several ’independent Marxist-Leninists’ in Halifax. This tendency puts ’Left’ sectarianism as the major danger before the Marxist-Leninist movement. The position from which this analysis comes is precisely summarized in a letter to the C.R; in which the Halifax ’comrades’ point up the “reform leeway” in Canada and Quebec, a situation “...where revolutionaries must be engaged in years of patient reformist activities even to put the idea of revolutionary transformation on the historical agenda...” (C.R. #1 p.55). The practical application of this line can easily be seen in two instances. First, these ’comrades’ rabid and extraordinarily slanderous attack on the Guelph Workers’ Committee’s principled criticism of the C.R., putting the GWC on the same level as the fascism of the Western Guard and the thuggery of the CPC(ML). And secondly, these same ’comrades’ very friendly ’criticism’ of The Guardian’s (New York) failure to adequately cover its defence of Soviet social-imperialism. Rallying to what they call The Guardian’s “...otherwise courageous stand on Angola...” (i.e. support of the social-imperialist MPLA and the role of Cuban mercenaries, with a friendly slap on the hand to the Soviets), and decrying the “...high-handed and unprincipled” anti-Guardian opposition of “certain Leftists”, the Halifax ’comrades’ flail this apologist of social-imperialism and ally of Trotskyism with the burning question: “Why do you leave yourself open to charges of revisionism?” (Guardian 5-26-76 p.22). The ’comrades’ position could not be more succinctly put. Such an openly Right view can in no way be considered to have anything to do with Marxism-Leninism, no matter how much its proponents prattle about ’revolutionary transformation’ or choose to call themselves ’comrades’.
Of the other larger groups with some national presence, Mobilisation is worth mentioning, having recently put forward a self-criticism and revision of its previous line. Being still unfamiliar with the content of this self-criticism, we are not able to judge its thoroughness or correctness. However, the title of this text, “Liquidons Le Spontaneisme, L’Opportunisme, et L’Economisme”, and the content of its article on the history of the Canadian Communist Party published in C.R., clearly indicate that Mobilisation is coming primarily from the Right. That its opportunism was not ’restricted’ and lacking in ’creativity’ was indicated by its defense of continental revolution as the basic strategy for the Canadian and Quebec proletariat. The movement has the responsibility to determine the depth and fidelity to Marxist-Leninist principles of the Mobilisation’s self-criticism. It will be on the basis of this analysis that Mobilisation’s present relation to the communist movement will be determined.
As well, there are many other circles and groups of varying size, level of development and consolidation of Marxist-Leninist theory scattered across Canada and Quebec. Among these groups are those who are mere hangers-on, have no real interest in the life of the movement, and are fully invested in circle spirit. There are also many groups which are unformulated and extremely inexperienced, but constantly seek to develop as consistent communist cadres. Among this always developing section of the movement there are already indications of those who consistently attempt to put their local practice on a sound Marxist-Leninist footing through study and re-study of the classics, analysis and self-criticism of their work, and a willingness, an eagerness to correct mistakes. These same groups and individuals also keep pace with the development of the movement, follow the line struggles, attempt to establish contacts nationally, share their experiences, and contribute to laying the necessary foundation for a principled Marxist-Leninist Party.
Overall, the present movement in Canada and Quebec is at an extremely low level of development of Marxist-Leninist principle. The Marxist-Leninist movement is presently comprised of those groups and individuals who have not fully consolidated into one or another opportunist trend, who have shown no investment in maintaining errors, who conduct thorough self-criticism, and who fully participate in the life of the movement. Within this broad range of tendencies and levels of consolidation, there is only the grounds for the development of a consistent, principled Marxist-Leninist trend, but such a trend has not yet emerged. These grounds are shared by all those individuals and organizations of whatever size who oppose, differentiate, and disassociate themselves from the leading opportunist trends claiming to be anti-revisionist – the CPC(ML). the CCL(ML), the C.R., En Lutte!, and J. Scott – and who adhere in theory and practice to Marxism-Leninism.
From the above we conclude that the development of a principled Marxist-Leninist centre necessitates a much more resolute struggle to unite the principled elements of our movement on a clear and precise Marxist-Leninist basis, and to oppose and defeat any further consolidation of new shades of opportunism and revisionism. Let us proceed to that struggle.