The question of how to unite and consolidate the Marxist-Leninist movement and fuse with the advanced workers to create the Party is the key question facing Marxist-Leninists today. However, the question of principled unity never entered the minds of the founders of the CPC(ML) since they considered themselves as the only genuine Marxist-Leninists. Only recently has the CPC(ML) made the least effort to consider this question. The problem that faced the Internationalists was that of transforming their student organization of petty bourgeois radicals into a working class organization. This ’task’ was resolved through a change of form:
...the Internationalists, firmly grasping on the basis of their own revolutionary experience Lenin’s basic teaching that the formation of the Party is the pre-condition for the accomplishment of any task of the revolution. PCDN January 7, 1975.
The solution came ’naturally’ to our opportunists: go amongst the workers (’implant’ as it’s called today), combine ’tremendously weak’ Marxism-Leninism with your ’will-to-be’ and ’conscious decision’, and voila, the organization is ’transformed’ into a radical petty bourgeois ’party of the working class’. The official history of the CPC(ML) attributes the remoulding of the class outlook of the Internationalists to Professor Bains’ Necessity For Change Analysis. As we have seen, this ’transformation’ was not in fact to Marxism-Leninism, but to Camusism, Sartreism and H. Bains Thought, to the world outlook of the bewildered and rebellious de-classed petty bourgeois, a class outlook with which they were absolutely familiar. Even today, membership within the CPC(ML) does not require transformation of world outlook, but just recognition of the CPC(ML) as the communist Party, ’agreement to apply’ Marxism-Leninism, and stated opposition to revisionism, Trotskyism, opportunism and ’the main enemy’. Once the Internationalists had declared the ’Party’, the problem of establishing the Party, of having to work for the Party, of struggling for solid ideological unity of Marxist-Leninists simply evaporated. For the CPC(ML), the question of unity was somewhat simplified:
The Marxist-Leninists who are interested in unity first unite in one Party on the basis of agreeing to use Marxism-Leninism to solve the concrete problems of revolution, and then, within the context of the struggle to solve the concrete problems, work out their differences. PCDN January 7, 1975.
In 1975 and again in 1976 (PCDN January 14, 1976) the CPC(ML) restated their basic policy of ’struggling’ to build Marxist-Leninist ’unity’. The CPC(ML) judges the sincerity of the desire for unity on the basis of whether or not the Marxist-Leninists join the CPC(ML). The ’sincere’ are defined as those who join, while those who do not either really do not want unity or are just unable to make the necessary commitment. The CPC(ML) has issued its policy to all and sundry; it is therefore ’not at all’ sectarian. Who could possibly complain?
We are given the impression that since the CPC(ML) obviously has not solved the ’concrete problems of revolution’ itself, there is still room within the CPC(ML) to forge political line ’within the context of the struggle’. On this basis, there is really no reason for anyone to hold ’differences’ with the CPC(ML). We will simply gather together as CPC(ML) cadre, start from scratch and ’work out our differences’ as time goes on. Since no one is ’solving the concrete problems of revolution’, political line ceases to be a criteria for principled unity. All we must show is ’interest in unity first’ and then ’agree to use Marxism-Leninism’. It follows that those who remain outside the CPC(ML) obviously have little concern for unity, nor do they agree that Marxism-Leninism should be used to solve ’concrete problems of revolution’. Everyone remaining outside the CPC(ML), in short, must be utterly sectarian and suffering from one or another deviation. And from this it follows that any opposition to the CPC(ML) is merely unfounded, unprincipled, or based on some sort of personal grudge. Such are the logical conclusions of the CPC(ML)’s ’policy’ on Marxist-Leninist unity.
But in fact, despite the CPC(ML)’s ’modest’ denial, its entire political development has been guided by definite political lines that reflect a particular approach to ’solving the concrete problems of revolution’. It was in fact guided by the Necessity For Change Analysis, by Hardial Bains’ peculiar interpretation of Marxism-Leninism, by an opportunist approach to the working class movement, by Economism in practical work and sectarianism in relation to the communist movement. The political history of the CPC(ML) documents this peculiar ’adherence’ to Marxism-Leninism in embarrassing detail. Now that there is a growing movement outside the CPC(ML), it must attempt to liquidate its opportunist history and pass itself off as a viable centre. It is appealing not to the organized sections of the movement, not to those who are all too familiar with the CPC(ML)’s history and line, not to those who have formulated coherent criticism of the CPC(ML), but to the unformulated new arrivals to the communist movement. Once they have been won over, their lack of formulation becomes consolidated opportunism. The plea of settling differences ’within the context of the struggle’ within the CPC(ML) in fact amounts to glossing over differences in principle in favour of unprincipled ’unity’.
It should be clear that merely “agreeing to use Marxism-Leninism” cannot serve as basis for principled unity. Even the most hide-bound opportunists “agree” to use Marxism-Leninism, since if they did not agree they would have no entrance into the working class movement. Principled unity must be built on political line, on the application of Marxism-Leninism to concrete conditions. It is only upon this basis that we see whether a particular line represents the interests of the working class or the interests of the bourgeoisie; whether a group is using Marxism-Leninism to correctly ’solve the concrete problems of revolution’, or whether it is ’using Marxism-Leninism’ to better serve the bourgeoisie. To equate principled unity with “agreeing to use Marxism-Leninism” is to liquidate all principled unity and open the movement to opportunism. That is precisely what the CPC(ML) has accomplished.
The struggle for correct political line is the struggle between Marxism-Leninism and opportunism. It is only through open, principled ideological struggle against opportunism that all will be able to see what is in the interests of the working class and what is not, who stands by Marxism-Leninism and who stands by opportunism. It is only through such struggle that principled elements in the movement can be won to Marxist-Leninist lines and create the solid ideological unity necessary for the organization of Marxist-Leninists. The CPC(ML), however, begs to differ. For the sake of unity against the ’main enemy’, the CPC(ML) maintains that
It is altogether wrong to elevate the question of ’ideological struggle’ to the level of principle and use it to cause splits in the struggle against the main enemy. PCDN January 7, 1975.
Do not, in other words, elevate the struggle over principle “to the level of principle”. We are all, after all, opposed to the ’main enemy’. A small matter that some of ’us’ will, of course, suffer from one or another degree of bourgeois outlook and attempt to bring this to the working class. A small matter. We must accommodate this influx of bourgeois outlook so as to avoid ’splits’, and with our ranks thus ’fortified’, wage the ’struggle against the main enemy’. The CPC(ML) has in fact raised the accommodation of bourgeois ideology within the communist movement to the level of principle, and on the plea of ’unity’ has attempted to put this over on the movement. It thus insures that the actual struggle against the ’main enemy’ never gets off the ground.
The ’main enemy’, aside from the bourgeoisie and its direct social props, the trade union hacks and revisionists, also includes that section of the petty bourgeois new arrivals who attempt to exert petty bourgeois leadership over the working class under the name of ’Marxism-Leninism’. We cannot talk about splitting in general. We must ask, what is being split up? It is precisely because our movement is presently dominated by the ideology of ’the main enemy’ that ideological struggle is imperative. We need in fact to split up this opportunist domination, win the principled elements away from it, unite them around firm principles, and establish the ideological hegemony of the working class. It is only ’the main enemy’ and the social props who are happy with the present state of things, who enjoy the dominance of opportunism, and who cry ’splitters’ every time their opportunism is exposed. The CPC(ML) has no need for ’ideological struggle’, for the struggle it hangs in quotation marks. It has no need for unity built on such struggle. It is no wonder that in its efforts to create unprincipled unity around the lowest common demoninator, when it is attempting to reinforce and extend the dominance of opportunism, the CPC(ML) should cry ’splitters’ against those who are attempting to create real struggle and real unity.
Especially at a time when our movement is rife with opportunism, what is needed most is a consistent, comprehensive and uncompromising ideological struggle. It is precisely the ruthless, persistent, tenacious ideological struggle against all shades of opportunism that in fact upholds the class independence of the proletariat. It is through such struggle that a revolutionary course is maintained and the class consciousness of the working class developed.
We welcome the ’carrying of strife into the ranks of the workers’, for they and they alone will distinguish between ’strife’ and differences on principles; they will sort out these differences for themselves, form their own opinion and decide not ’with whom to go, but where to go’, i.e. their own definite and clear line, drawn up and tested by themselves. V.I. Lenin The Bourgeois Intelligentsia’s Methods of Struggle Against the Workers CW Vol. 20 p.473.
How ’foolish’ of Lenin to elevate the ideological struggle ’to the level of principle and use it to cause splits’. How ’unprincipled’ of Lenin to wage ideological struggle against the petty bourgeois opportunists who accused the Bolsheviks of ’over-rating the importance of ideology’, who attempted to limit the working class to the economic struggle, who tried to defend themselves from the open political exposure that was waged by the Iskraists. How ’uncomradely’ of Lenin to have uncompromisingly attacked and exposed the treachery and collaboration of Axelrod and Kautsky with the imperialist bourgeoisie, the social-chauvinists who revived the Economists’ plea about ’over-rating ideology’:
One must not be carried away by ’ideological’ attacks on opportunism but must carry on practical struggle against thousand-year-old nationalism... V.I. Lenin Kautsky, Axelrod, Martov – True Internationalists CW Vol. 2l pg 39
Lenin not only waged persistent ideological struggle, but split the RSDLP(B) from the Second International on that basis. Lenin worked actively in fomenting a split, complete and decisive, from the traitors to the working class in many other countries, not to ’split the struggle against the main enemy’, but in order to unite that struggle on the basis of principle. It is in fact the unity-freaks, opportunists, and those who cry against elevating the ideological struggle to the level of principle, who in fact split the struggle against the main enemy, who attempt to lay an inroad for the bourgeoisie into the workers movement. It is for this reason that the CPC(ML) has made itself, not the champion of the workers struggle, but the workers’ class enemy.
The CPC(ML) in fact has no conception of ideological struggle, or the relation of such struggle to the practical course of the movement. In its polemics with MREQ it stated:
...MREQ is for splitting, forming sects, and having debates between these sects for the purpose of ’unifying’ them, that is, building ’unity* away from struggle, away from practice, on the basis of agreement on a document. PCDN January 7, 1975.
The CPC(ML) is not merely arguing against the MREQ (especially considering that the MREQ shares the same conception of struggle, ’endless series of debates’, as the CPC(ML)), but against all ideological struggle in general, on the excuse of upholding the ’practical struggle’. But this contradiction between ’practical struggle’ and ’ideological struggle’ is the CPC(ML)’s own invention. Lenin also had the inglorious opportunity to argue against this alleged contradiction:
Knowing as they do that no good can come of ideological confusion, the Social-Democrats preferred ’first to draw a line of demarcation and then to unite’, thereby ensuring both durability and fruitfulness of the future unity. But the Socialist Revolutionaries, while interpreting their ’programme’ in different ways, each at his own sweet will, maintain the fiction of ’practical’ unity and superciliously say to us: it is only among you Social-Democrats that various ’groups’ exist; we have a – party! V.I. Lenin Vulgar Socialism and Narodism As Resurrected by the S-R’s CW Vol. 6 p. 269.
The CPC(ML) degrades Marxist-Leninist theory, balks at ideological struggle, cries against drawing lines of demarcation between the interests of the working class and the interests of all other classes, and chooses instead to engage in the Practical Struggle. This narrow conception of ideological struggle and the content of communist tasks, is delightfully complemented by its equally narrow conception of the political organization of the working class, which is clearly expressed in its own self-proclamation as The Party. This combination places the CPC(ML) in a peculiar predicament in the face of all ’these sects’. After having founded the ’party’ in 1970 on the basis of conscious ’decision to change’, agreement to apply Marxism-Leninism, and the premise that the ’party is the pre-condition for the accomplishment of any task’, the CPC(ML) realized in 1973 that it was important to study what it had agreed to apply; in 1975, formally realized that it had not laid the theoretical basis for the communist movement and, in the same year, realized that it was one of the embryonic circles and groups among many which had declared themselves to be based on Marxism-Leninism. But of course the CPC(ML) was not about to abandon its only claim to independence and self-expression, the title of The Party. The CPC(ML), in the manner of any aspiring petty bourgeois, has always demanded its ’right’ to an independent existence, over and above what is known as the objective needs and the state of the movement. Its sole concern has been the building of its own little faction above all else. And so the CPC(ML) very tenaciously clings to its own ’precious’ organization, maintains the absurd idea that it is in fact the Party, and carries on with business as usual.
However, it is still surrounded by a communist movement, by all ’these sects’, a strange state of affairs for The Party of the Proletariat, which sends the CPC(ML) in a dozen different directions at the same time. Firstly, it claims that
All individuals who call themselves Marxist-Leninists must be in one revolutionary Party of the proletariat based on Marxism-Leninism Mao Tsetung Thought. The CPC(ML) is such a Party and all Marxist-Leninists must join and build this Party. PCDN January 11, 1975.
It is absolutely true that all Marxist-Leninists should be in one party. However, the CPC(ML) uses the principle of one party to build, not the Party of the proletariat, but its own factional ’party’. How ludicrous it would be if every circle that emerged built an organization, and on the excuse that all Marxist-Leninists need a Party, simply declared themselves a Party. We have only to look to the American communist movement to see where this leads. On the one hand, the CPC(ML) appeals to all ’these sects’ of Marxist-Leninists to join up and adhere to the ’party’ principle. All that is required is sufficient opportunism to unite on the lowest common denominator. On the other hand, when the desired results are not achieved, the CPC(ML) lets ’these sects’ know what it really thinks:
Whether a Marxist-Leninist is satisfied with remaining in one group and cultivating his faction or the Marxist-Leninists are building the revolutionary Marxist-Leninist Party of the Canadian proletariat (CPCML) differentiates the sham Marxist-Leninists and the genuine ones. PCDN January 7, 1975.
At the same time, our Party stands for the unity of all Marxist-Leninists, is against circle mentality and stands for the building of one political party of the proletariat based on Marxism-Leninism Mao Tsetung Thought PCDN January 15, 1975.
All those outside the ’party’ are slandered as being every deviation under the sun: factionalist, anarchist, academics, localist, ’possessor of circle mentality’, anarcho-fascists (!) and so on. Since the CPC(ML) has named its faction. The Party it is apparently by definition free from factionalism, circle mentality, and of course staunchly upholds the ’party’ principle. What it has in fact raised to a principle is its sectarianism.
As a last ditch attempt to preserve itself, the CPC(ML) proposed a ’compromise’ with all ’these sects’: Unity in Action, practical unity of the Marxist-Leninists within the CPC(ML) and practical unity of Marxist-Leninist organizations outside the CPC(ML). This of course ’proved’ the CPC(ML)’s ’non-sectarian’ stand, since it recognized the ’right’ of organizations of Marxist-Leninists to exist autonomously alongside The Party. During the period of the ’united front of Marxist-Leninists’,
Each Marxist-Leninist organization should carry on its own activities all the time on issues which are not united front or broad front issues; that is, building their organizations, holding meetings, selling newspapers, implantation in the working class, etc. etc. PCDN January 11, 1975.
As for the actual ’united front of Marxist-Leninists’ issues, we will only draw the readers’ attention to one: “...the issues relating to the support of the Canadian and Quebec working class.” PCDN January 11, 1975. A united front of working class supporters! How convenient.
Further,
Each Marxist-Leninist group agrees to disseminate criticism of other Marxist-Leninist groups and about itself on an internal basis and agrees to answer such criticism or make comments about it in good time. Ibid.
The CPC(ML) wants, not principled Marxist-Leninist unity, but a truce. It will settle for Marxist-Leninist groups existing outside itself, so long as these ’sects’ do not challenge the CPC(ML)’s existence, so long as they refrain from open ideological struggle, so long as they refrain from building a true Marxist-Leninist Party, so long as they keep their exposures of the CPC(ML) behind closed doors. Is it not strange for a Party, which claims to be the sole representative of the proletariat, to advocate the autonomy of organizations, given that the true Party principle is hostile to factions, blocks, or organizational autonomism? Is it not strange for a Party, which claims to be the sole representative of the proletariat, to propose unity of Marxist-Leninists not on the basis of principle, not on the “basis of agreement on a document”, that is, not on a programme which defines and guides the political strivings and direction of the movement, but rather on the basis of a fictitious ’unity in practice’?
The first point of “The General Method of CPC(ML) for Building Unity of Marxist-Leninists in Canada and Quebec” is the building of the Communist Party, that is, of the CPC(ML). Points two and three advocate the building of a united front of Marxist-Leninists on practical issues, while each organization maintains its own autonomy. First the CPC(ML) champions a caricature of the principle of Party unity, and then it advocates autonomism. The CPC(ML) thus sits between two stools and wishes to curry favour with all. If you agree with the principle of one party, and ’agree to use Marxism-Leninism’, then join the CPC(ML). But if you do not agree with this, well that is fine also, work within the united front of Marxist-Leninists, and maintain your own circle. Only...recognize the CPC(ML) as a legitimate Marxist-Leninist organization. In either case, the CPC(ML) fosters unprincipled unity, circle mentality, a state of fragmentation in the movement, and is advocating the continued hegemony of opportunism. In short, it is defending the status quo in order to, above all, maintain its separate existence. It is advocating the maxim of all opportunists:
“What is possible is desirable, and what we have at the given moment is possible.”
We must carry this lesson of the CPC(ML) into our analysis of the other leading trends who have found themselves on the brink of the Party.