The first analysis of the post-1967 period can be found in the April 1970 Mass Line the month after the party was formed. Here we have the first example of the CPC(ML) s ’application’ of Marxism-Leninism Mao Tsetung Thought to concrete conditions.
We pointed out during this period (1963-?) and afterwards that because of the temporary and transient economic expansion of U.S. imperialism and contradiction between the U.S. Imperialists and their lackies, the Canadian compradors, and the Canadian people was becoming most acute on the cultural level... An ideal imperialist man was presented as somebody who is:
1) Totally loyal to the U.S. Imperialists
2) Completely decadent and parasitic in ideology, life style, and thus promoting that in politics.
3) Completely against the broad masses of the people.
These qualities were reflected in most concentrated form amongst the urban petty bourgeoisie, who were feeling the oppression at a tremendous level. The petit-bourgeoisie being an intermediate class were worst affected.
A petit-bourgeois had the right to be a lackey, a parasite, and an anti-people force, and nothing else. We pointed out that because of the intensification of the contradiction between the U.S. Imperialists, their lackies, and the Canadian people on the cultural level, the economic contradiction was temporarily relegated to a secondary position. Because of this, the petit-bourgeoisie, especially the students in the universities, would be the first to rise. Within four years, we comprehensively developed this analysis to show how the masses of students are oppressed by imperialist culture, and that their revolt had its roots in the imperialist expansion. Our analysis had been proved completely correct and has been tested in practice. Mass Line April 1970.
Proven in practice! What more could we need? We might well wonder at this point: how, at a time when the spontaneous working class movement was developing with unprecedented speed, when no worker would have given a fig for the petty bourgeois’ existential crisis, could the Internationalists have arrived at the conclusion that the ’economic contradiction’ was secondary, and the ’cultural’ primary? How could the Internationalists arrive at the conclusion that the petty bourgeoisie, ’especially the students in the universities’ would be ’the first to rise’, when in fact the workers movement had already risen? And yet, by the CPC(ML)’s account of things, the Internationalists’ line“was ’tested in practice’ and ’proved completely correct’.
Evidently, the Internationalists, in ’applying’ Mao Tsetung Thought, knew that we ’develop through direct experience of phenomena’. And as petty bourgeois, the Internationalists could not have directly experienced the concrete conditions of the working class. Not being able to ’directly experience’ those conditions, they simply did not exist for our anguished intellectuals. All that fell within their line of sight were their own precious contradictions, their own ’cultural’ falling out with the ’U.S. Imperialists and their lackies’. The only ’rising’ they were aware of, through ’direct social practice’, was their own petty, piece-meal opposition to the realities of petty bourgeois existence under imperialism. All of this was ’proved in practice’ to be ’completely correct’, that is, the Internationalists proved by their own practice that the primary contradiction for them was the contradiction between the petty bourgeoisie and imperialism. They were the ’first to rise’, not objectively, but in their own eyes.
The Internationalists were not completely oblivious to the working class, as is shown in Professor Bains’ Necessity For Change analysis, but had their own peculiar view of what the workers movement is about:
The whole approach to material abundance in Anglo-American society can be clearly seen from the upsurge of trade-unionism, especially in North America, where the situation is different from Britain in the fact that in the latter the unions are still political. The job of these trade unions in North America is to get part of the loot distributed on an equitable basis; the policy of these trade unions is simply material abundance in terms of consumer goods. The correct Marxist approach to material abundance is unequivocal opposition to the consumer-good based society, and the concomitant struggle for the liberation of the individual, liberation in terms of seeking truth and serving people. Mass Line September 17, 1969.
The workers, you see, are merely chasing after the means of living, “simply material abundance(?) in terms of consumer goods”, whereas the Internationalists, the last hope of mankind, “seek truth to serve people”. Never mind this business about combining the economic and political struggles into a consistent class struggle for state power. No ’Marxist’ would stoop to such crass materialism. ’Marxists’ who have recently escaped from the ’historical crib’ know for a fact that the pivotal point of the revolution must be the ’liberation of the individual’, not the liberation of this motley mass of workers. And who is better prepared to take up this struggle for “liberation in terms of seeking truth to serve people” if not our radicalized petty bourgeois ex-students who have suffered so from ’cultural oppression’? Who else but our die-hard petty bourgeois intellectuals are in a position to pretend they have taken up the ideology of the working class, pretend to be ’Marxists’, have the “correct Marxist approach”, and so on, in order to express their own petty bourgeois hostility towards the working class?
Despite the massive evidence presented by the work of the CPC(ML), not all petty bourgeois intellectuals are incapable of coming to the side of the working class. On the contrary, revolutionary intellectuals are essential for organizing the revolutionary workers movement. Especially in the initial stages of development of a communist movement, as in our present situation, it is the intellectuals who have come over to the proletariat who first develop and apply the theory of Marxism-Leninism to concrete conditions. But in order to do this, in order to become truly revolutionary intellectuals, they must in fact abandon their old class outlook and fully adopt the outlook of the working class. Marx and Engels made this point very clearly in 1879:
It is an inevitable phenomenon, rooted in the course of development, that people from what have hitherto been the ruling classes should also join the militant proletariat and supply it with educative elements. We clearly stated this in the Manifesto. But here two points are to be noted:
First, in order to be of use to the proletarian movement these people must bring real educative elements into it. But with the great majority of the – bourgeois converts this is not the case....there is an absolute lack of real educative material, whether factual or theoretical. In its place there are attempts to bring superficially mastered socialist ideas into harmony with the exceedingly varied theoretical standpoints which these gentlemen have brought with them from the university or elsewhere... Instead of thoroughly studying the new science (scientific socialism) themselves to begin with, each of them preferred to trim it to fit the point of view he already brought along, made himself forthwith a private science of his own and at once came forward with the pretension of wanting to teach it. ... Educative elements whose first principle is to teach what they have not learnt can very well be dispensed with by the Party.
Secondly, if people of this kind from other classes join the proletarian movement, the first condition must be that they should not bring any remnants of bourgeois, petty bourgeois, etc. prejudices with them but should wholeheartedly adopt the proletarian outlook. But these gentlemen, as has been proved, are chock-full of bourgeois and petty bourgeois ideas. Marx-Engels Circular Letter SW Vol. 3 p. 92-93.
Intellectuals and petty bourgeois elements who wish to serve the proletarian movement must have something to offer, must have the ability to develop sound scientific knowledge to resolve the burning questions before the proletariat, must master the science of Marxism-Leninism, must completely reject all narrowness and petty bourgeois prejudice, must abandon all petty bourgeois preoccupations and subjective obsessions (’liberation of the individual’). It is clear that when the Internationalists turned to the working class, became ’Marxists’, they had no conception of or intention of fulfilling these two elementary requirements. What they in fact brought with them was not “real educative material” but their own ’hybrid’ interpretation of Marxism-Leninism, not objective scientific knowledge but their own subjective schemes for personal ’liberation’, not the desire to learn and master Marxism-Leninism but the desire to “teach what they have not learnt” and so propagate their petty bourgeois interests on the plea of “seeking truth to serve people”.
To say, as the CPC(ML) does, that the petty bourgeoisie were ’worst affected’ because of oppression on the ’cultural level’ completely obscures the class content of the petty bourgeois rebellion, as well as the objective revolutionary role of the working class. It is an ABC of Marxism that “consciousness must be explained from the contradictions of material life, from the conflict existing between the social forces of production and the relations of production” and that the ideological sphere only provides the “forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out” (Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy Preface). Despite its talk about ’seeking truth to serve people’, the CPC(ML) has chosen to reverse this particular truth of Marxism-Leninism and make it appear that the ’cultural oppression’ of the petty bourgeoisie was far more profound than any ’crass’ material conflict, particularly the conflict between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Being ’oppressed culturally’ is just a means to deflect attention from the actual ’oppression’ of the petty bourgeoisie, the subversion of its economic position by monopoly capitalism, its ouster from the ’good life’, its forced entrance into the proletariat. The precious ’culture’ of the Internationalists is in fact the culture of petty bourgeois self-interest, the culture of the petty bourgeois proprietor, of petty property and its ’liberation’ from the effects of monopoly capital. The CPC(ML) has stood everything on its head, has attempted to liquidate the class content of petty bourgeois culture, detach it from its material basis, and so pass off its reaction to the ’oppression of culture’ as a movement guided by the ’highest ideals’ having nothing at all to do with petty bourgeois economic interests. Strange reasoning for ’Marxists’ who wish only to ’seek truth to serve people’.
This kind of thinking became solidified with every step the CPC(ML) took “from one level to another”. The CPC(ML)’s ’summing-up’ only served to consolidate these ’gains’ in their opportunist formulation:
The first summing-up conference was held in August, 1968, in which it was pointed out that:
1) The most urgent tasks of all communists is to participate in the large-scale dissemination of Mao Tsetung Thought through LEARN FROM THE PEOPLE CAMPAIGNS and through mass work dealing with the actual problems facing the masses.
2) That the student movement is the most important area of work.
3) That the student movement in Canada and Quebec failed previously because it was not under the discipline of the working class party and working class ideology, and
4) That it is the urgent task of all communist revolutionaries to develop the instruments of working class propaganda; i.e., bookshop, printing press and revolutionary literature, etc. This summation of our movement provides us with the future guidelines for our work and all comrades went into their own localities to undertake rigorous mass work. Mass Line April 12, 1970
Such is the ’summing-up’ of the Internationalists, the Marxist-Leninist Youth and Student Movement, whose analysis had been “proved completely correct”, who
...pointed out that because there is no Marxist-Leninist Party to give guidance, we must build and come under the political and ideological leadership of the working class party, and, in concrete theory and practice, make the aspirations of the working class our own aspirations. Mass Line April 5, 1970.
At a time when the spontaneous workers movement was developing with unprecedented rapidity, when the task of communists, as now, was to focus their energies on the working class and develop the means to fuse communism with it, the Internationalists showed just how much they had made ’the aspirations of the working class’ their own by ’summing-up’ that the focus of communists should be, not the working class, but the student movement, i.e. the petty bourgeoisie. What sort of ’Marxism-Leninism’ is this, that concludes that to ’build the material conditions for the party’ it is necessary to focus attention on the petty bourgeoisie? The only conclusion is that the CPC(ML) had in fact no intention of creating a party of the working class nor of coming ’under the political and ideological leadership’ of a truly proletarian party. What the Internationalists set out to do, and accomplished, was the creation of a party of the ’left’ petty bourgeoisie, a party that would advance the interests of the petty bourgeoisie and attempt to rally sections of the working class behind those interests.
Having clarified the aim, it was then a matter of finding the proper means, the proper method of work. By method of work we do not mean the heavy-handedness, distortions of opponents positions or background history, manipulations, maneuvers, splitting tactics, or any of the other means the CPC(ML) notoriously employs to carry out its work. These are only the forms that the CPC(ML)’s mode of operation takes. What lies behind them is the CPC(ML)’s general approach to the tasks it has taken up. The first Political Report of the CPC(ML) gives the most straightforward exposition of this incredibly tailist, opportunist ’revolutionary’ method:
We present in summary form, a description of, and conclusions on, our method of work.
To begin, we started at places where we could get good results in a short period, and then used the strength we had developed to go further into more difficult areas, and prepare material conditions for mobilising the main force. The main force, as well as the leading force of the revolution in Canada is the Canadian working class. In May 1968, when there was no active Marxist-Leninist movement and no large-scale dissemination of Mao Tsetung Thought, and when the student movement had liquidated itself after years of betrayal by the revisionists and reformists, the best place for us to begin was in the university with the main aim of building a Communist Student Movement which could take responsibility to:
1) Disseminate Marxism-Leninism Mao Tsetung Thought.
2) Build the instruments of political and ideological propaganda for the working class.
3) Send study and investigation teams into the working class and begin low-level working class work.
A) Slowly and slowly, step by step, change the focus of struggle from the students to the working class, from the university to the factory, and,
5) Build a genuinely revolutionary Communist Party of Canada, based on Marxism-Leninism Mao Tsetung Thought.
In other words, one should decide first what is possible, and then take action to implement that decision. Mass Line April 5, 1970.
Begin, in other words, where all opportunists begin: on the line of least resistance, in ’areas’ (regardless of the class involved) that promise palpable results and success. “One should decide”, says the CPC(ML) “first what is possible”. And how do we determine what is possible? Why, “What is possible is desirable, and what we have at the given moment is possible”. It is, as Lenin said,
...as though a man setting out on a long and difficult road on which numerous obstacles and numerous enemies await him were told in answer to his question ’Where shall I go?’: ’It is desirable to go where it is possible to go, and it is possible to go where you are going at the given moment’! This is the sheerest nihilism, not revolutionary, however, but opportunist nihilism, manifested either by anarchists or bourgeois liberals! V.I. Lenin A Retrograde Trend in Russian Social-Democracy CW Vol. 4 p. 2l4.
“The best place for us to begin was in the university”. What force of logic! But in fact, the CPC(ML) is being entirely true to itself. If your aim is to organize the petty bourgeoisie, then in fact the university is your proper place. If your aim is not to fuse with the advanced workers, but with the most backward, then in fact it is fit and proper to begin with “low-level working class work”; the lower the level, the better. If your aim is to pull sections of the working class behind the interests of the petty bourgeoisie, then in fact it is “possible and desirable” to ’slowly and slowly, step by step, change the focus of struggle from the students to the working class, from the university to the factory’. “Slowly and slowly, step by step, change the focus”! The more slowly you go, the smaller your steps, the more likely you will attain your ’good results’, i.e. successfully bring a section of the petty bourgeoisie to the working class as its ’revolutionary’ leadership. It will then be a simple matter to create the ’party’ and in a ’step-wise manner’ go about fulfilling your petty bourgeois aspirations.
What have been the fruits of this method? In problem-solving it has amounted to:
Problem: the petty bourgeoisie is afflicted with nausea; the main area of oppression is cultural. Solution: develop conscious decision and the will to act.
Problem: the petty bourgeoisie, adequately represented by the Internationalists, are the first to rise; ’the workers are still dominated by the consumer society’. Solution: the main area of work must be among students
Problem: the petty bourgeoisie must come under the leadership of working class ideology. Solution: by conscious decision the petty bourgeoisie simply declares that it ’adopts’ Mao Tsetung Thought and begins to disseminate its rendition of working class ideology.
Problem: the petty bourgeoisie must come under the leadership of the proletarian party. Solution: the petty bourgeoisie simply creates the ’proletarian party’.
In organizational affairs it has amounted to:
In 1963 the level of political struggle was low, and so the method of work was diffuse and primitive and the ideological struggle confused. April 5, 1970.
During the first period (March 1963-October 1966) we defeated those who did not want to take things into our own hands... During the second period (October 1966-August 1967) we solved the problem of building the disciplined group and how to expand and build concrete foundations by opposing dogmatism, revisionism, etc. March 13, 1971.
By 1967 the political struggle had reached a new stage, with further progress in organizational and ideological work. April 5, 1970.
Ideological: the Necessity For Change Analysis Organizational: “...one should decide first what is possible, and then take action to implement that decision.” The Internationalists become the ’Marxist-Leninist’ centre in Canada.
By December 1968, a scant four months after the first ’summing-up’, the CPC(ML) had reviewed its ’objective’ conditions and went from ’lower to higher levels’:
The second summing-up of our movement...took place in Montreal...in which the guideline was developed that it was very necessary to move from the “student movement to the working class movement and that the first phase of the movement was completed in the main.” Mass Line April 12, 1970.
On what basis the ’first phase was completed in the main’ remains a mystery. Surely the CPC(ML) had not completely exhausted the ’rising’ of the petty bourgeoisie; surely there were still a few college sophomores the CPC(ML) could have reached. But the students, you see, were ’slowly and slowly’ inching towards the working class, and this profound movement + the newly discovered economic crisis resulted in a ’change of focus’:
...with the economic crisis looming, and with the students integrating with the working people the centre of struggle is shifting. Mass Line April 5, 1970.
Why, the working class itself had undergone a truly ’dialectical transformation’ with the ’looming’ (in 1970?) of the economic crisis: the harder the workers struggle to ’improve’ their conditions, the less they are dominated by their ’consumer oriented’ trade unions! Perfectly logical! But more than this: while the working class may be the main and leading force of the revolution, the real active ingredient, the yeast of the revolutionary dough, is the petty bourgeois students. The reason, you see, that the workers have begun their own transformation into ’revolutionist man’ is because the petty bourgeois students have begun to integrate with them. Proletarian revolution begins with graduation!
But of course we are giving the CPC(ML) more than its due. It is not graduation that sends our ’radicalized’ petty bourgeois out into the factory. It is, rather, the inability to graduate, the lack of secure, petty bourgeois professions, the ouster of the petty bourgeois students and their drive into the working class in search of livelihood, that is excused on the plea of moral, ever-so-conscious ’decision’ to ’seek truth to serve people’. All one must do is assume a new posture:
We have proved in practice that our analysis is correct. We have developed from a small discussion group in one city to a national organization based on Marxism-Leninism Mao Tsetung Thought, while the revisionists are rotting daily. Mass Line April 5, 1970.
That is, we have developed from penny-ante opportunists to full-blown opportunists. And all this has, in fact, been ’proved in practice’. But how did the Internationalists effect this ’development’? Once again by simply ’summing-up’:
The most important summation of our movement took place in Regina in May 1969 where the Political Report of the CPC(ML) was developed. The Regina conference provided further guidelines for our working class work. These were crystallized at the National Council Meeting in August 1969. Mass Line April 12, 1970.
Guidelines? Don’t be so shy ’comrade’ CPC(ML)ers. Dare to struggle and come right out with the significance of this ’summing-up’ conference.
In May 1968, with a correct analysis of the situation in Canada, we inaugurated a vigorous Marxist-Leninist Youth and Student Movement the main function of which was the large-scale dissemination of the works of Mao Tsetung as well as other Marxist-Leninist works, the development of vigorous anti-imperialist propaganda at the place of work, in the university, and in the community, and the development of the material conditions for the building of a Marxist-Leninist party. By May 1969 we had already achieved our goal and been proven correct in practice. We gathered together in Regina to completely integrate our movement with the concrete practice of the anti-imperialist struggles at the place of work.
We agreed that for all intents and purposes the CPC(ML) was born in the Regina Conference capable of steeling itself through revolutionary struggles, and able to lead the Canadian people to victory over U.S. Imperialism and its lackies in Canada. Mass Line April 5, 1970.
The CPC(ML) had officially shed its student skin, but could not yet pass itself off as a ’proletarian party’. After all, to be a proletarian party one needs at least a little ’low-level working class work’. As late as August 1968, when the ’most important area of work’ was the student movement, the “percentage involved in working class work ...was about nil...” (April 12, 1970). And it had been only five months since the Internationalists had decided to move into the working class. So, even though ’for all intents and purposes’ the party was ’born’ at the Regina Conference, it could not be declared. The CPC(ML) cadres had to develop a massive campaign of implantation in order to ’change material conditions’. And sure enough, in the ten months between the Regina Conference and the formation of the party, ’rigorous mass work’ resulted in the solidification of ’material conditions’ for the party. Out of a ’stormy’ National Council meeting in August 1969, the ’revolutionary proletarian line’ of ’putting politics in command’ of economics was forged, followed by the dissolution of the Internationalists and the creation of the Canadian Communist Movement (ML), “...which was the provisional Marxist-Leninist centre responsible for inaugurating the CPC(ML).” Mass Line March 13, 1971.
Thus, what would now be called the “pre-party organization of struggle to create the Party” was formed. By the time of the Vancouver Conference of December 1969, “...fifty percent of all members and supporters were involved in working class work.” Mass Line April 12, 1970 The stage was set.
In February 1970 the National Council of the CCM(ML) approved the Political Report, and on March 13, 1971 “declared the formation of CPC(ML)”. Thus, the entire scenario of the CPC(ML)’s development runs as follows:
53 months from the creation of the Internationalists to ’adoption’ of Marxism-Leninism 8 months of ’assimilation’ of Marxism-Leninism.
7 months before realizing that it was necessary to go into the working class 5 months after this realization until the formation of the party “for all intents and purposes”
3 months of moving into the working class before creating the organization to ’inaugurate’ the party 5 months after forming the CCM(ML) until the Political Report was adopted 1 month after adoption of the Political Report to the declaration of CPC(ML).
Quite a flurry of activity! But the CPC(ML) will surely respond, in the all-too-familiar fashion of our movement: Everyone knows that the Party must be created by...the revolutionaries, that is, ’from the top down’. And, of course, all and sundry know Marxist-Leninists can’t do anything without a Party. And if no one else was going to do it, and no one was, then what is there to complain about? We, the CPC(ML), have done the movement a great service in establishing this ’truly proletarian’ party. Besides, “the key point is that there was a general call given and the Marxist-Leninists responded to it.” Mass Line May 25, 1975.
Yes, ’comrade’ CPC(ML)ers, we hear your pleas of ’not guilty’ to the charge of sectarianism and lack of principled Marxist-Leninist unity. However, we urge you to recognize that indeed “historical analysis merits attention”. Let us go backward with the CPC(ML) and see about this ’call’ and this ’response’.
First, since we know that it was the National Council of the CCM(ML) that declared the party, and that the first Party Congress was not held until May 1971, we must assume that when the CPC(ML) talks of a ’call’, it must be referring to that ’historic’ moment when, ’for all intents and purposes’, the party was formed: the May 1969 Regina Conference. In order to grasp the significance of this ’anti-sectarian call’ at the Regina Conference, however, we must go back into history a little further.
Does the CPC(ML) recall that in August 1967, Professor Bains clearly stated the necessity of maintaining the Internationalists as a separate group? The Professor stated that:
We are neither a party nor an official anti-revisionist group: we are a movement for the defeat of U.S. Imperialism and its accomplice Modern Soviet Revisionism, and all kinds of reaction. We do not recognize that any ’anti-revisionist’ groups are closer to being Marxist-Leninist groups, and so we will not abandon our organization in the hope of guidance and direction from these groups. This is the only way we will have a contribution toward the formation of a genuine revolutionary and genuinely working class party. Mass Line September 17, 1969.
The CPC(ML) is here referring to the PWM, and in its subsequent analysis it singles out the PWM and the Internationalists as the only two groups that “came into being to smash this counter-revolutionary clique (the modern revisionists)”, i.e. the only two anti-revisionist ’centres’. In its Political Report of 1970, the CPC(ML) also quite clearly states that “In May 1968 there was no active Marxist-Leninist movement...” Mass Line April 5, 1970.
It is difficult for us to comprehend, being of small and unglorious consciousness, how, within the space of one year a Marxist-Leninist movement was created in Canada in order for the CPC(ML) to issue its ’call’. Who was there to answer this call? Which new-born Marxist-Leninists appeared on the scene at Regina? Leaving out the organizations from the U.S., we have the Canadian Internationalists, the Canadian Student Movement, the Afro-Asian Youth Movement, the Vancouver, Manitoba, Waterloo, McGill, Sir George Williams, University of Montreal, and Trent Student Movements, the Toronto and Ottawa units of the CSM, the Indian Progressive Study Group, Vers La Liberation Nationale du Quebec, Les Intellectuels et Ouvriers du Quebec, Two World Outlooks Study Group, Literature and Ideology Study Group, and last but not least, Progressive Books and Periodicals. Now, ’comrade’ CPC(ML)ers, we would all like to know the history of each of these ’groups’. Did they arise spontaneously as Marxist-Leninist circles, and then get won over by the force of your arguements, i.e. to the Necessity for Change Analysis? We think not. For example the major student group present, the Canadian Student Movement, in its “General Statement of the Historic Necessity For Change Conference Held by C.S.M.” clearly states that
...we welcome the presence in our ranks of the Marxist-Leninist Youth and Student Movement {i.e. the Internationalists), whose rich historical experience is an inspiration and a guide, and without whom this movement would not have been founded. September 17, 1969.
However, even if these organizations had sprouted independently of the Internationalists, by supporting the Necessity For Change Analysis they in fact proved beyond doubt their utter lack of Marxism-Leninism.
For the skeptics who question whether it was only the ’genuine’ Marxist-Leninists who had responded to the ’call’ for unity, the CPC(ML), after its creation, states:
The Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) will not form an ’alliance’ or ’merge’ with any other ’Marxist-Leninist’ group. There is one thinking, one centre, one line and one task. All those who support this are joining our ranks to build a strong revolutionary force. Mass Line April 12, 1970.
Of course, since that time, led by Professor Bains’ ’revolutionary proletarian line’, the CPC(ML) has recognized that even though they are the ’revolutionary Party of the proletariat’, the ’one line’ they have thus far provided to the movement has not had any theoretical basis. In a sudden fit for ’unity’, the CPC(ML) even went so far as to recognize that there are Marxist-Leninists outside the Party. But there is no question that in the two and a half years between the Internationalists ’adoption’ of Marxism-Leninism and the declaration of their Party, their conception of the movement was limited to the Internationalists and their cronies. It was then a simple matter to issue their ’call’ to the ’movement’, i.e. to themselves, to then ’respond’ to their own ’call’, and raise this new-found ’unity’ to the level of the Party.