The Bolshevik Tendency has offered the movement a Party-building position which presents itself as a highly orthodox approach to Marxism-Leninism. There are plenty of quotations from the classics and assurances of the authors’ faithfulness to principle to try to keep us from questioning this appearance. But when we look beneath these ’guarantees’ and examine the substance of this work, we find something entirely different. What the Bolshevik Tendency draws from is not the living, world-historical experience of the proletariat, not Marxism-Leninism, but a caricature of it. It is based, not on a firm foundation of Marxist-Leninist principle, but on the complete rejection of all principle. This is an entirely hidebound and dogmatic approach, a perfect framework for the Bolshevik Tendency’s narrow, pedantic conception of Party-building.
The premise of the Bolshevik Tendency’s argument is that we are presently in a ’similar period’ as 1902 Russia. That period had two main features: the predominance of Economism, and the struggle for the establishment of the Party. From this premise the Bolshevik Tendency maintains that Economism is the main problem in the Canadian movement. The only proof offered, however, is numerous quotations from Lenin on the general nature of Economism, its threat to any working class movement, and in particular the Russian movement. These are very instructive passages indeed, but a string of quotations from Lenin tells us absolutely nothing about Canadian conditions, the Canadian movement, Canadian Economism, or the Canadian Party-building effort. And of course, we cannot expect Lenin to prove anything about Economism in our movement; that responsibility falls upon the authors. It is not enough simply to state that Economism is dominant in our movement, it must be shown. This can only be done by showing the particular manifestations of Economism in Canada and Quebec. The specific circumstances of its development and the forms it assumes will surely be different here than in 1902 Russia, even though the basic features remain the same. But it is only by studying all the particular instances that we are able to judge the existence or strength of any tendency in our movement and thus be able to accurately apply Lenin’s lessons to them. The Bolshevik Tendency fails to fulfill this elementary requirement, and instead gives us only its word, its assumption, that we are in a similar period as 1902 Russia. As we will see throughout, this is as close as the Bolshevik Tendency ever comes to orthodox Marxism-Leninism.
Having ’proven’ Economism in our movement on the basis of its existence in the turn of the century Russian movement, the Bolshevik Tendency extends its ’creative application’ to the other feature of that period: the struggle for the Party. Here too we find a series of excellent quotations from the founders of scientific socialism, presenting the Marxist-Leninist argument for the necessity of a Communist Party. And here too we find the Bolshevik Tendency at its ’orthodox’ best, boldly ’following’ Lenin, even to the point of advocating an all-Canada newspaper as the “organizational key” to building the Party. That may very well be the case, but we are given no concrete reasons why a newspaper is called forth as the “organizational key” by our movement at the present time, or how it will unite our movement. The Bolshevik Tendency does not concern itself with such paltry items as concrete conditions. In fact, the only reason given for this conclusion, and for its dogmatic approach in general is that “In view of the backward state of our movement at the present time, it seems wise to follow the guidelines which have passed the test of history in other countries.” (Perri & Stover Why Building the Party is the Principal Task Canadian Revolution #1 p.6.
That is to say, since our movement is so backward, and since we intend to bow to that backwardness, we will escape the responsibilities posed by our own conditions on the plea of it ’seeming wise’ to copy, word for word, the experience of some other country. It is indeed wise to base ourselves on the experience of the international proletarian movement. But it is not at all wise, and in fact it is brazen stupidity, to ’use’ that experience as a means to avoid concretely analyzing our own conditions. As Lenin says, “Imitating...must under no circumstances be simply copying” (Draft Programme Vol.A, p.235). The Bolshevik Tendency is claiming ’backward conditions’ in defense of its own refusal to take on the responsibility of analyzing our own movement, of exposing and repudiating opportunism, of eradicating those ’backward conditions’; i.e. of actually following the guidelines “which have passed the test of history”. In failing to assume those responsibilities, and yet presuming it has something to say after all, the Bolshevik Tendency in fact fosters backwardness.
The Bolshevik Tendency ’proves’ the Russianness and 1902ness of our movement by quoting a passage from What is to be Done? in which Lenin states that “The strength of the present-day movement lies in the awakening of the masses {principally the industrial proletariat), and its weakness lies in the lack of consciousness and initiative among the revolutionary leaders.” (Ibid. p.10).
But what Lenin concludes and the Bolshevik Tendency concludes from this are two entirely different things. For Lenin, the “lack of consciousness and initiative among the revolutionary leaders” meant that the movement should increase its efforts a hundredfold, should not copy word for word the experience of other movements, but should test that experience independently, apply what suits the concrete conditions in the particular nation, and above all raise the level of the movement to meet these tasks. For the Bolshevik Tendency, the backwardness of the movement becomes an excuse for failing to raise its level, failing to independently test the world-historical experience of the proletariat, and instead to ’copy word for word’ the experience of others regardless of our own conditions.
The fact that our movement is in a backward state does not provide us with an excuse for retreating, does not justify the mechanical copying of the experience of other countries. On the contrary, it demands that we intensify and extend all aspects of our work to raise the level of the movement to the level of our tasks. An integral aspect of this work is to correctly apply the guiding principles of Marxism-Leninism to the analysis of our own situation, to determine our tasks and the methods for carrying them out. But what do our ’theoreticians’ offer us? Instead of analyzing the various forms of Economism in Canada and Quebec, of naming names, and making direct criticism of the leading groups advancing Economist lines, the authors choose only to prate about Economism in general. This, to put it kindly, superficial, approach leaves the economist tendencies in our movement intact, tells us nothing of the specific forms Economism is taking in our movement, nor where we are to concentrate our attacks against it. This is not an amateurish oversight; it is precisely what the Bolshevik Tendency intended. What they intend in fact is not to defeat opportunism in our movement, but to create a new variety of it.
Our ’theoreticians’ are distorting the Russian experience in order to seek theoretical credentials for their argument that “it is clearly incorrect to maintain that building the class consciousness of the workers is a primary task to which the building of the Party can be subordinated.” (Ibid. p.12).
They deny, of course, that this is their own, original and quite opportunist argument. By interspersing their own prattle with quotations from Lenin, they attempt to convince us that it was Lenin who argued that
The economists have tested a theory in practice: the theory of spontaneity, of two-stage consciousness, of building class consciousness without a party. What was their method? Trying to organize fellow workers to class consciousness. What was the result of this scientific experiment? ’Trade union consciousness’, i.e. the complete failure of their theory. Ibid. p.15 (our emphasis)
The Bolshevik Tendency has somehow reached the very unorthodox conclusion that Economism is the result of trying to ’build class consciousness’ in the absence of the Party. Such a creative and independent conclusion, of course, could never stand on its own. Even though anyone who is in the least familiar with What is to be Done? knows full-well that Lenin never argued anything of the sort, our ’theoreticians are compelled to try to convince us of the contrary through their very ’learned’ quoting technique. The authors expect that “in light of all this evidence” we will be convinced that their argument and Lenin’s are one and the same. Not only are we to believe that 1976 Canada is identical to 1902 Russia, but that the Bolshevik Tendency is identical to Lenin! If the Bolshevik Tendency can get us to swallow this, then of course we will swallow anything.
Having thus ’used’ Lenin to ’prove’ the dominance of Economism in our movement, and having likewise ’proven’ that this Economism is the result of attempts to do workplace practice in the absence of the Party, the Bolshevik Tendency proceeds to ’prove’ that their version of Party-building is in fact the principal task facing the movement. And having exhausted the timeless truths of the Russian experience, our ’Bolsheviks’ turn to the Chinese:
We take the position that what’s good enough for the Chinese masses is good enough for us. Both during the liberation struggle and under the dictatorship of the proletariat, they formulated basic ideology and strategy always within the framework of a Party. Ibid, p. 49
If it worked for the Chinese masses, then, by God, let’s do it! But, strangely enough, this simple-minded enthusiasm never deals concretely with the content of “what’s good enough” nor precisely which aspects of the Chinese experience are “good enough for us”. The Chinese did formulate basic ideology and strategy within the framework of the Party, and in fact the Party as a whole has withstood the test of history. But history teaches harsh lessons, and our task is not simply to mimic them, but analyze and learn from them:
In order to make use of these experiences it is not enough merely to be acquainted with them, or simply copy out the latest resolutions. What is required is the ability to treat these experiences critically and to test them independently. V.I. Lenin What is to be Done? CW Vol. 5 p.370.
In the first place, our authors make it appear as if the CCP raised ’unite first and work out basic ideology and strategy’ to the level of principle. This is obviously not the case. In the second place, it is curious indeed that the Bolshevik Tendency uses the Chinese experience to justify their argument. If anything, the Chinese example would teach us the importance of developing our basic analysis and strategy, and of drawing clear lines of demarcation, prior to the formation of the Party. Do our ’historians’ forget that the defeat of the First Revolutionary Civil War was a direct result of an opportunist line, of the failure of the Party to correctly analyze Chinese society, and its subsequent inability to determine the main forces of the revolution? Until this had been done and had achieved dominance, the Party could only be united on the most general principles, so general, in fact, that the Party was wide-open to both Right and ’Left’ opportunism. And, as we know, the Party fell under just such opportunist leadership at various times during the first 12 years of its existence. It was only after many defeats and setbacks that a truly revolutionary course was set under the leadership of Mao Tse-Tung. It goes without saying that ideological struggle continues after the establishment of the Party, and the Party programme is refined and altered in light of changes in the objective conditions. The struggle against the Menshevik elements, liquidators, the revision of the Party programme in 1919, and the very timely ouster of Trotsky are excellent examples from the history of the C.P.S.U.(B). Likewise, the struggles within the CCP after Mao Tse-Tung was at the helm and after the Party had been put on a firm principled basis, should also serve as our guide. But to advocate, as the Bolshevik Tendency does, using the CCP as its example, that we should establish the Party first and then “formulate basic ideology and strategy...within the framework of a Party” is a shameful rejection of the true lesson of the CCP. We should in fact insist on and struggle for the highest degree of principled unity before and in order that the Party be established as a sound Marxist-Leninist Party. This is the lesson taught by Lenin and fought for by the principled elements in every Marxist-Leninist movement: organizational unity must always be based on firm ideological unity; clear lines of demarcation must be drawn, programme and strategy must be determined prior to the establishment of Party unity.
When we study the experience of other countries, we try to learn from their experience, their mistakes and successes, in order to avoid errors and difficulties ourselves. We are not learning from, but mocking, that experience if we begin on the premise that ’if its gcod enough for them, its good enough for us’. Surely the Chinese would not wish their defeat in the First Revolutionary War upon us. Surely they would not tell us that since they turned defeat into victory during the Long March, we too should purposely have a Long March. Nothing of the kind. They would tell us, and in fact tell us, to study their experience, analyze it critically, test it independently, learn from their mistakes and defeats, emulate their strengths, and so avoid unnecessary losses and setbacks. It is only with such a scientific approach that history can have any meaning for our movement.
Has the Bolshevik Tendency ’forgotten’ that it was precisely on the premise of “what’s good enough for the Chinese masses is good enough for us” that the CPC(ML) determined its theory of a two-stage revolution in Canada and a national war of liberation against the U.S.? This policy was in fact good enough for the Chinese simply because it adequately reflected the conditions of Chinese society, China’s relation to imperialism, and the particular stage of the Chinese revolution. But it was not at all good for Canada. The CPC(ML) was incapable of correctly applying Marxism-Leninism to our own concrete conditions and so turned to China’s particular solution. The Bolshevik Tendency reveals the same inability and adopts the same approach to ’solving’ problems: superimposing the historical experience of another country onto our own without giving the least thought to whether that experience in fact applies. This is dogmatism pure and simple. The Bolshevik Tendency has issued itself a well-deserved ’certificate of poverty’. Its endless prattle and quotations bring us not one inch closer to understanding the state of our movement, its particular features, or what is necessary to advance, and reveals a total lack of understanding of the true significance of the history of the international communist movement.
On the one hand, the Bolshevik Tendency relies on dogmatism, on the thoughtless application of the history of the world communist movement, as a means to avoid concretely analyzing our own, Canadian and Quebecois, conditions. On the other hand, our Trotskyite ’Bolsheviks’ are very ’creative’ in their dogmatism. Their peculiar quoting technique is highly selective, lifts passages from their context, and repeatedly breaks off a complete thought by conveniently dropping a period in mid-sentence. Apparently our ’theoreticians’ were anticipating some response on their extensive mis-use of quotations, for they say
As a matter of fact, if you continue to cite Lenin extensively in order to show that your position is not taken out of context and is in fact the essence of Leninism, you are likely to be criticized for relying too much on quotations! Perri & Stover, Why Building the Party is the Principal Task, Canadian Revolution #1 p. 11.
This gem is footnoted with: “Russian revisionism, too, opposes extensive quotation.” Ibid. p.11.
Mo Marxist-Leninist would be offended by an extensive use of quotation, providing, of course, that the passages relate directly and accurately to the point being made, provided they are quoted in full, provided, in short, that they are well-reasoned. But it is something else altogether when, as with the Bolshevik Tendency, their extensive misuse of quotation is simply intended to overwhelm the naive reader and convince him that there is some relation between the particular quotations and what the ’Bolsheviks’ are really saying. They show the greatest disdain for both Marxism-Leninism and their readers to think that we would never go back to the source to check, let alone study, the material. The arrogance of the Bolshevik Tendency is equalled only by its opportunism.
We now have a general idea of the Bolshevik Tendency’s method, and a glimpse of their view on Economism and the Party. We will now see that these views are not at all the “essence of Leninism” as our authors claim, but in fact,the essence of opportunism.