It is apparent that sometime between the beginning of the ’second stage’ (October 1966) and the inauguration of a ’vigorous Marxist-Leninist Youth and Student Movement’ in May 1968, the Internationalists decided to change their basis of unity to formal acceptance of Marxism-Leninism. This is verified by the CPC(ML) in its first Political Report when they point to August 1967 as the time when they “reached the conclusion..,that the only basis for unity in our movement is Marxism-Leninism Mao Tsetung Thought, and... carried forward the struggle to build material conditions for it.” Mass Line April 5, 1970.
What had happened? How did the Internationalists reach this very important conclusion? For a straightforward and simple answer we need only turn to the Mass Line again:
The crucial question is: WHERE DO CORRECT IDEAS COME FROM? The Internationalists answered it by staunchly upholding social practice. In the course of solving various problems they understood that THEORY IS DERIVED FROM PRACTICE AND IN TURN SERVES PRACTICE. This is why they adopted Mao Tsetung Thought as a guide to action in August, 1967, because all their past experience had shown them they solved problems when they looked at the problem scientifically and that whenever Mao Tsetung Thought was used as a guide to action they succeeded and that it was necessary for future development to adopt Mao Tsetung Thought as theory and ’study the works of Chairman Mao when you have a problem in mind’ and in this way integrate theory with practice. PCDN March 13, 1971.
In order to fully grasp the phenomenon of the CPC(ML) and like groups, and to deal with one of the major points of theoretical confusion in our movement, we must deal with the content of this passage in detail.
Within this passage we find two fundamental errors, two fundamental misconceptions that in one way or another permeate our entire movement. First, we find a clear expression of the pragmatic view that if something ’works’, use it. Second, we find an equally clear expression of a superficial, piece-meal conception of the integration of theory and practice. According to the CPC(ML), the Internationalists gravitated to Mao Tsetung Thought on the basis of solving “various problems” the Internationalists had encountered. As we have seen, the Internationalists could only have been encountering ’problems’ peculiar to the petty bourgeoisie. It follows, likewise, that in “staunchly upholding social practice”, the Internationalists were in fact ’staunchly upholding’ their own social practice, the social practice of the petty bourgeoisie. Their ’use’ of Mao Tse-tung Thought was not at all the application of scientific socialism to concrete conditions, but the adaptation of the proletarian outlook to their own petty bourgeois class stand. By “integrating theory with practice” they were (and are) in fact ’integrating’ their own narrow conception of Marxism-Leninism with their equally narrow social practice. This is further shown by the CPC(ML)’s praising of Mao Tsetung Thought to the exclusion of the entire body of Marxism-Leninism. From the beginning the CPC(ML) took from the proletarian outlook only what suited it, and chucked the rest.
Having not taken up Marxism-Leninism wholly and completely, and being determined to ’use’ Mao Tsetung Thought to solve the ’burning questions’ before the petty bourgeoisie, the CPC(ML) lacked an understanding of the actual relationship between revolutionary theory and revolutionary practice. This failure, which is common to our entire movement, is not relegated to the field of philosophy or to discussions of the theory of knowledge. It manifests itself in the everyday work of our movement as the belittling of theory and bowing to spontaneity. It is important, then, to clarify this relation before going any further with the CPC(ML).
The first thing to grasp about the relation of theory and practice is the actual content of social practice, what it consists of. It is on this point that we find the failure to understand the two-fold nature of practice. The CPC(ML)’s conception – the grossest and therefore the clearest example – of social practice only encompasses their own narrow experience, their own direct practice. This conception distorts Mao’s statement that “All genuine knowledge originates in direct experience.” (On Practice). Our pragmatic ’Marxists’, narrow practical ’Marxists’, take this line, which is the starting point of Mao’s analysis, as the conclusion. They therefore completely miss the comprehensive materialist content of Mao’s statement. All knowledge originates in direct practice for someone, this is the indisputable stand of consistent materialism. Elementary one would think. But it is equally elementary that each individual cannot experience everything directly. Consequently, social practice is actually comprised of two elements, direct and indirect experience. All practice is direct for someone, but not for everyone. To gain knowledge we must not only rely on our own direct experience, but also on indirect experience we learn about second-hand. Such indirect practice can be either contemporary or historical. However elementary, our movement has yet to grasp these basic facts of life. As we see in investigating their initial ’philosophical’ foundations, their own ’creative development’ of Marxism-Leninism, the CPC(ML) has taken the one-sided view of their own social practice as the corner-stone of their entire outlook. The rest of the movement, and particularly the CCL(ML), has learned to say the ’right’ things on this question, but in practice views the movement, our state of development, our tasks, and so on through the same subjective narrowness.
A second facet of social practice is that it is cumulative. Over a period of time we build up a store of both direct and indirect experience to draw on. If we pay close attention to history, we learn from this storehouse. On the basis of this knowledge, we can analyse new phenomena, compare and contrast features and environment, and are able to differentiate and determine the correct nature of a thing or content and direction of any activity. The question that arises at this point is how does Marxism-Leninism fit into this scheme of things, how are we to view the relationship between theory and practice, and how are we to utilize Marxist-Leninist theory in our work.
All knowledge arises from three general sources: practice in the struggle for production, the class struggle and scientific experiment. From each sphere of practice we develop different areas of knowledge. From production we learn the basic laws of producing the material requirements of human life, of our material relation to nature; from class struggle we develop political knowledge, the objective laws of social relations rising from production; from scientific experiment we learn the objective laws of the world. Science, production and class struggle condition each other. The development of science depends upon the level of production and the consequences of the class struggle. Production, in turn, calls upon and is advanced by scientific experiment. The conduct and content of class struggle is conditioned by the mode of production and the sophistication of scientific experiment. The most fundamental or dominant aspect in this mutual relationship is material production, since it is the production of human life that gives rise to science and the class struggle. All three sources of knowledge are forms of practice, but the practical activity of producing human life is the most essential and necessary form of practice.
Prior to Marx, that is, prior to capitalism and modern productive relations, each source of knowledge was fairly isolated from the others. It was only with the development of modern production and science that it became possible to understand the essential material unity of the world, and thus the unity of knowledge. The establishment of this is precisely what Marx achieved in the development of dialectical materialism. Dialectical materialism, Marxism-Leninism, is the organic integration of all three spheres of social practice into one integral outlook. Marxism-Leninism is the scientific summation of man’s social practice in all three spheres. We call it scientific because it is a correct reflection of the movement of human society, because of its fidelity to reality, because it discloses the laws governing all social economic development by singling out production relations as primary, as determining all other relations. We call it revolutionary, for by disclosing the laws of development of society, it reveals the objective necessity of one form of society giving way to a higher form. When these basic laws were applied to an investigation of the concrete practice of capitalist production relations, Marx discovered the existing contradictions, traced their evolution, determined which class was rising and which was deteriorating, and placed in the hands of the rising class, the proletariat, knowledge of its historic role in ending all exploitation. Marx provided us with the basic laws of the development of human society in general, and capitalist society in particular. On this basis, Marxism provided the international working class movement with fundamental principles with which to guide it in the course of the class struggle. Lenin said that Marx and Engel’s “greatest service” was their creation of a revolutionary theory which explained the necessity for the fusion of socialism with the working class movement and “gave socialists the task of organizing the class struggle of the proletariat.” (CW Vol.4 p.257).
By the 1890’s, Marxism had, for all intents and purposes, triumphed in the world working class movement. The world proletarian movement based itself on the basic principles of Marxism and applied them to the specific practice of capitalism in each country and in its relation to the international forces of capitalism. Insofar as this was done consistently and in strict conformity with the essence, the spirit, the dynamic content of these guiding principles and not just their letter, Marxism was broadened, deepened and advanced. Of all the Marxists of that time, Lenin proved to be the most consistent, invincible and creative. Lenin advanced from the basic guiding principles laid out by Marx and Engels and provided us with the correct theoretical summation of the class struggle in the highest and final stage of capitalism, imperialism. Lenin’s work on imperialism is a summation of the practice of imperialism: its experience in production (the concentration and centralization of production), in class struggle (the monopolization of capital and the ensuing heightening of class contradictions), and in science (the sum total of facts relating to the development of imperialism). By studying the nature of imperialism in all its manifestations, Lenin was able to summarize its motive force, its direction, and its effects on the proletarian struggle. From these basic internal laws, he was further able to develop fundamental guiding principles for the communist movement, on the Party of a New Type, on the nature of the state and the dictatorship of the proletariat, on the right of nations to self-determination, on the revolutionary alliance between the revolutionary national movements in the East and the proletarian socialist movements in the West, on the nature of modern opportunism and its social base, and so on. Without these fundamental guiding lines, the proper leadership of the world working class movement would have been impossible.
Marxism-Leninism is the collective, accumulated practice of the world working class movement taken in its general aspect. That is, it is a scientific summation of the total experience of the class struggle, a statement of its basic laws. It is an assessment of that practice and a determination of what is most fundamental in shaping the course of the entire movement. It shows the interconnections between different forms, levels and areas of practice, raises that practice to the level of objective understanding, formulates the fundamental principles that give it conscious direction, and indicates the “line of march” for further practice. Our task, the task of each detachment of the international communist movement, is to fuse these fundamental guiding principles with our practice. Our direct practice of making revolution must be based on and guided by the indirect, accumulated historical practice of the world working class movement as formulated in the principles of Marxism-Leninism. Each country has its own historically developed peculiarities, its own particilar alignment of classes, and so the particular practice of making revolution will be, within limits, different in each country. It is the task of the political leadership of the proletariat, the communist movement in each country, to develop scientific revolutionary theory in strict conformity with the general principles of Marxism-Leninism as it is applied to the concrete conditons of the given society.
What makes our theory scientific is the fact that it is based on the scientific truths drawn from the accumulated practice of the world working class movement integrated with the objective conditons prevailing in one’s country. The integration of the principles of Marxism-Leninism with the given concrete conditions defines not only the boundaries within which we conduct our work, but what our work will be. Without broad and systematically developed knowledge of the fundamental truths of Marxism-Leninism, there can be no question of consistency in analysing, understanding and interpreting the prevailing conditions in a given situation, and of course, then there is no possibility for providing communist leadership. In studying What is to be Done? we learn that communists must bring political knowledge to the working c1ass and what that political knowledge should consist of. This provides us with a starting point and a guideline for what kind of practical activity we should be doing and how to conduct it. If we have not studied What is to be Done?, or have not firmly grasped its content, then we have no clear idea of our role as communists or what communist work consists in. We are then bound to reformism, irrespective of our good intentions. The same applies to the entire body of works of Marxism-Leninism; without this guiding light our work is nothing. If we lack a consistent understanding of Marxism-Leninism in all its aspects, if we lack revolutionary theory, then we lack the necessary precondition for revolutionary practice. Lacking that, we end up in empiricism. On the other hand, it is impossible to grasp the significance of Marxist-Leninist principles and use them to guide our work unless we bring them to bear on our own objective conditions. Without applying them in the concrete, without a comprehensive analysis of all aspects of a given condition, we can have no real understanding of the general principles or of the given situation. If, for example, we state that the principal contradiction in Canada is between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat on the grounds that this is the principal contradiction in any capitalist country, and that is all, then we have not advanced our understanding of Canadian conditions one inch. On such a superficial analysis we have gained no understanding of who comprises the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, what the actual relations of forces are, the role and identity of the petty bourgeoisie in this contradiction, the historical motion of all classes, how our struggle differs from the Japanese, the American, and so on. Without such concrete application we end up in dogmatism and phrase-mongering.
The relation between revolutionary theory and revolutionary practice should be clear. All thought originates in the real world; all scientific theory originates with practice. Every form of practical activity has before it earlier practice upon which it is built, and after it new forms of practice which build upon it. At the same time, every practice generates some form of theory, consciousness, however mundane; and every theory is based on some form of practice. There is no clear-cut dividing line between theory and practice since thinking, studying and research operate on and are forms of practice, and all practical activity {except the most automatic) necessarily involves some level of thought and consciousness throughout the process.
When we call one sort of activity theory, and another activity practice, we are only making a general distinction between two aspects of a unified and integral process. Theorizing is a form of practice, and practical activity simultaneously involves theory. Since the content of thinking is supplied by our physical exposure to the real world, we say that practice is primary to theory, that doing precedes and conditions knowing. But since practice relies upon and is advanced by theory, we say that theory is the vital link between different stages of practical activity as it develops from lower to higher forms.
At all stages, both theory and practice are modified by objective conditions which are discovered in the process of testing theory through practice. This testing of theory takes place through the basic movement of knowledge and activity, which is from practice to theory and from theory back into practice. When we speak of basing ourselves on Marxism-Leninism, of developing revolutionary theory for the Canadian communist movement and testing this theory in practice, it must mean much more than the simple ’testing’ of line on the basis of personal, direct experience. To base oneself on Marxism-Leninism means to base oneself on the accumulated indirect practice, the successes and failures of the world communist movement. To develop revolutionary theory for the Canadian working class movement means to assimilate and synthesize the accumulated wealth of experience of the international movement and the peculiarities of the Canadian situation and on this foundation develop theory and formulate programme, strategy, and tactics. This is the only scientific basis upon which to guide the revolutionary struggle, the only basis upon which we can be assured that it is scientifically correct and will be confirmed as correct in the crucible of revolutionary struggle.
All too often in our movement we see the development of ’revolutionary’ theory which not only contradicts our objective conditions, but contradicts the most elementary principles of Marxism-Leninism, is not only out of line with our national experience but completely out of line with the world-historical experience of the proletariat. It should not take too much racking of brains to see that if a particular line contradicts the fundamental principles of Marxism-Leninism, the only thing it can ’prove in practice’ is its bankruptcy. This is precisely the mode of operation of the CPC(ML), in particular. Truly revolutionary theory is in fact proven in practice, but it is proven not only by our own immediate practice but by the world-historical practice of the working class. Our theory, then, must stand two tests. It must be in complete conformity with the fundamental principles of Marxism-Leninism, with the principles that apply to every revolutionary movement, and it must conform to the demands of our own objective conditions.
Confusion of the integral relation between theory and practice, resulting in the mechanical separation of the two, the posing of one-sided theory against one-sided practice, or vice versa, is the basic theoretical error made by our movement on this question. The net result is the lowering of both theory and practice to the level of eclecticism and reformism, i.e. to theories and practices suited to the narrow interests of the petty bourgeoisie.
The combination of this distortion of the objective relation between theory and practice with the existentialist conception of the moral act of the individual produced CPC(ML)’s specific brand of adaptation of Marxism-Leninism to the interests of the petty bourgeoisie. The result was that “The Internationalists developed from confused ideas and through revolutionary social practice clarified many ideas and advanced from one level of another.” Mass Line March 13, 1971.
In other words, the Internationalists were forced to abandon their overt petty bourgeois apologies, their ’confused ideas’, and discovered through ’social practice’ that they could pretend to be Marxist-Leninists and, for the time being, get away with it, and thus ’advanced from one level’ of opportunism ’to another’.
We have seen what brilliant ’theoreticians’ the Internationalists were through August, 1967. We must now investigate one part of their application of their ’clear ideas’ and the resulting ’higher stage’ of development.
Before passing to the next section there is one more point that needs to be raised about the CPC(ML)’s method of historical accounting. One of the more interesting aspects to investigating the CPC(ML)’s development is the consistent revision in their rendition of their own history. This amusing opportunist habit is most blatant in their political economic analysis, where they have ’refined’ their line several times without bothering to explain or repudiate their former line. But this tendency also comes through in other areas. The history of the Internationalists is a good example.
As we have seen, the Internationalists did not ’adopt’ Marxism-Leninism until August 1967, and did not reorganize into a ’Marxist-Leninist Youth and Student Movement’ until May 1968. However, by the Second Congress, May 1973, the Internationalists had achieved an almost legendary status as a Marxist-Leninist centre. In its Political Report, the CPC(ML) portrayed the glorious history of the petty bourgeois Internationalists organization as follows:
The Internationalists were founded and built by those youth and students, who, on the basis of their own experience in the revolutionary mass movement, united around the basic task of 1} opposing revisionism, upholding Marxism-Leninism Mao Tse Tung Thought, and 2) building the Marxist-Leninist Party. Following from this need, the Internationalists developed in a step-wise manner from 1963-1973. Mass Line May 26, 1973.
Such ’confused ideas’! The Internationalists did not adopt Marxism-Leninism only in the ’second period’, as the CPC(ML) had previously stated. A slight oversight. Now it appears that the Internationalists had always (in a step-wise manner, mind you) upheld Marxism-Leninism. We do know that Professor Bains “...had a rank and file association with the Communist Party...” Mass Line March 13, 1973 before forming the Internationalists, in the capacity, we suppose, as an advisor. This must have been the reason why the Internationalists could have ’upheld Marxism-Leninism and opposed revisionism’ at such a tender age. Of course this ’history’ is ridiculous story-telling, but it is important to keep such conceptions of class lines, class backgrounds, and criticial attitude towards one’s past in mind. As we shall see, the CPC(ML) is not the only group afflicted with the ’problem’ of accounting for their petty bourgeois viewpoint in terms of ’confused ideas’, or moving from ’lower to higher levels’ when in fact the ideas are not merely confused, but petty bourgeois, and the only movement is from more blatant forms of opportunism to more ’sophisticated’, more ’revolutionary ’ forms.