The formation of the CCL marks the fulfillment of the MREQ’s plan for the pre-Party organization. Having found in the Cellule Militante Ouvriere (CMO) and the Cellule Ouvriere Revolutionnaire (COR) sufficient numbers of “those who were ready to move forward”, the MREQ has succeeded in changing its form and thus, by its own designs, accomplished a giant leap towards ’party’ declaration. By making this move, the troika of the MREQ, COR and CMO have significantly affected the developing Marxist-Leninist movement. First, by maintaining, elevating and consolidating their opportunism into one organization, these three groups have removed themselves from the movement towards a truly Marxist-Leninist Party. Second, by this merging of forces, the CCL now has the organizational ability to develop nationally, which in turn has pushed En Lutte! to do the same. Prior to the CCL’s declaration, the movement was comprised of many small groups operating independently or only just beginning to line up behind various trends. With the ’two-line’ struggle that is emerging between the CCL and En Lutte!, however, the movement is beginning to split between these two forces, with small circles across the country relating exclusively to one or another ’centre’ and rallying their members behind them. This would be an excellent situation if in fact one centre represented a consistent Marxist-Leninist line and the other represented consolidated opportunism. The splitting of the movement would thus be on principle, and would rally the finest elements onto one side, and the worst to the other. But as we will see, the ’two-line’ struggle between En Lutte! and the CCL is not a struggle between Marxism-Leninism and opportunism, but rather a falling out between two opportunist shades. The splitting of the movement on the basis of this opportunist contention is therefore a major setback for our movement. The declaration of the CCL and the chain reaction it has set off has greatly accelerated the degeneration of large portions of the movement, threatens to channel the movement as a whole towards opportunism, and thus away from the real and pressing tasks before it.
The pamphlet The Struggle For the Creation of the CCL(ML) is the League’s contribution to tracing the development of the Marxist-Leninist movement in general and of the CCL’s three founding groups in particular. The League, in the tradition of the MREQ, attempts to show that it has given adequate due to all formalities in dealing with the movement. It is ’sensitive’ enough to realize that as it takes the Pre-Party plunge a little summing-up and self-criticism are necessary to create the ’proper’ atmosphere. The CCL wants to clean up its old business in order to forge ahead, so to speak, with a clean and credible slate. When speaking of self-criticism for other groups, the MREQ used to categorically demand:
...a serious, deep-going and public self-criticism which explains what the error is, why it is an error, what were the origins of the error and how to correct it. C.P.C. (ML) A Caricature of Communism p.27
Now, likewise, the League demands that other opportunist groups “...make a radical break with their present lines with their eclecticism and opportunism and conduct a serious and profound self-criticism of their errors.” (The Struggle for the CCL(ML) p.10).
But apparently the League has invented a double standard for self-criticism, one with which to measure others, and another to measure itself, since when the troika turn to their own errors the “serious, deep-going and public” simply disappear:
A brief self-criticism of the groups follow. These self-criticisms do not comprehensively analyze all our activities but rather attempt to evaluate the essence of the work we have done, highlighting the principal positive and negative aspects. Ibid. p.18.
A “brief self-criticism”, an “attempt to evaluate the essence”! And this is in fact all the ’self-criticism’ we get from the CCL. “Serious and profound” for others; brevity and “essence” for itself. But of course from the CCL(ML)’s standpoint, this double standard is completely legitimate. After all, the opportunist groups have committed errors which demand the “serious and deep-going” in order to overcome. The CCL(ML), on the other hand, is the ’Marxist-Leninist Organization to Create the Party’. With such a lofty title, we should not expect that the troika’s errors are so great, so “serious” or so “profound”. From the CCL(ML)’s standpoint, we should believe that it is quite sufficient to deal “briefly” with the “essence”, be satisfied with a token ’self-criticism’, and get on to business. As long as it has bared its “essence”, berated itself for its ’sins’, professed its good intentions, and asked forgiveness what more could we want?
We could want, in the first place, no greater demonstration of the CCL(ML)’s “serious” and “profound” ability to engage in the most brazen opportunism while putting itself forward as a leading centre. We could ask, secondly, for no more stark expression of the CCL’s utter disregard for the movement and its development. The fact that the League puts itself in the forefront of the movement and writes about itself in such grand terms does not exempt it from the demands of thorough self-criticism. On the contrary, we would expect that any group or organization that put itself into such a role would have to apply even more rigorous standards of excellence to itself, would have to insure that its history and line were analysed in the greatest detail, would have to demonstrate continuity in principle and prove in fact that it had the wherewith-all to provide coherent leadership to the movement as a whole. The CCL(ML), by ’briefly’ and ’essentially’ putting all this aside, by giving only the most superficial ’self-criticism’, by expecting us to accept its ’leadership’ on good faith alone, has shown that it has no intention of proving itself fit in terms of Marxism-Leninism. It is in such a hurry to consolidate its ’gains’ that it cannot spare the time to show the movement exactly what those ’gains’ were. This is not merely a slip on the CCL’s part. It is completely consistent with and a continuation of the MREQ’s indifference towards the Marxist-Leninist movement. If there are any sections of the movement who doubt this, who think perhaps that the League will make its ’more profound’ self-criticism at a later date, we need only look to Number 11, page 11, of the CCL’s official organ, The Forge. Here we find that the League has no intention of altering or elaborating its ’self-criticism’. Just the opposite. It has instead very ’dialectically’ transformed its “brief self-criticism” into a “full self-criticism” without one additional word. Thus the CCL has matured from ’brief’ opportunism to ’full’ opportunism, and from an organization of disenchanted students into an organization of disenchanted students disguised as Marxist-Leninists.
Such is the stage the CCL sets for its moment of ’profound’, ’sober’ introspection. The most significant feature of the CCL’s pamphlet and ’self-criticism’, a feature that permeates all of the CCL’s political work, is its comprehensive and consistent attempt to conceal, accommodate and defend the petty bourgeois class interests upon which the League was founded and now stands.
Knowledge of the totality of class relations can only be brought to the working class from outside its spontaneous struggle by those who have the training and leisure time necessary to develop a broad, scientific socialist view, namely the intelligentsia. The intelligentsia itself, however, is a stratum of the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie that is reared in opportunism and is specifically primed to apologize for and defend the existing system. For any member of the intelligentsia to actually throw in their lot with the working class and become a member of the communist intelligentsia means to wholly break with every aspect of their preparation as improvers of imperialism. Of all those that attempt to enter the working class movement, only a handful actually break with their former class interests and are able to bring to the working class truly scientific knowledge. The remainder bring in only their opportunism and in one or another way defend and adapt their petty bourgeois self-interest to the interests of the working class.
As explained throughout this work, virtually the entire new communist movement in Canada and Quebec has arisen from the petty bourgeois intelligentsia. Nearly all who have assumed leadership in the movement have entered political life through one or another section of the petty bourgeois movement of the 1960’s, principally through the student movement, the feminist movement, and the national movement in Quebec. Hence, one of the crucial factors in determining any group or individual’s relation to Marxism-Leninism, an indicator of whether or not they have broken with their petty bourgeois class roots, is their analysis of the 1960’s movement. Either it is identified as a petty bourgeois rebellion, a demonstration of the crisis of the petty bourgeoisie under imperialism and its attempts to maintain its class privileges at the expense of the working class, a movement that was in all essentials reactionary, narrow, and meant only to win concessions for the petty bourgeoisie. Or, it is idealized, apologized for as being revolutionary, or basically revolutionary, but merely ’lacking’ in working class leadership. Those who came into the current movement via the 1960’s and who have in fact broken with petty bourgeois outlook must likewise break with the 1960’s movement, its ’heritage’ and political purpose, and recognize the stark contradiction between that movement and Marxism-Leninism. Those who have not broken with their petty bourgeois interests, and who wish only to perpetuate those interests, find, on the other hand, one or another means to prettify the 1960’s and establish continuity between the 1960’s and the present communist movement.
In an attempt to establish a ’revolutionary’ heritage for itself, the CCL(ML) has taken the latter path. Its entire analysis of the 1960’s movement attempts to purge that movement, and thus the petty bourgeoisie, of its actual class content and instead lend it a revolutionary character.
A Marxist-Leninist seeks the roots of any social movement, political tendency, party, and so on, in the fundamental material interests of the various classes and the contradictions in material life from which these social phenomena spring. The CCL(ML), however, takes a different tack. It cannot advance its fantasies about the ’revolutionary’ nature of the “radicalized petty bourgeoisie” as expressed in the 1960’s movement, without openly contradicting what Marxism-Leninism has always taught about the petty bourgeoisie. So as to avoid yet another ’confrontation’ with Marxism-Leninism, so as to achieve its strategic objective, the CCL simply pretends that Marxism-Leninism has said nothing on the subject after all, and thus steps forward as the world’s foremost authority.
We are told that during the 1960’s there was “...an intensification of the economic crisis...” and that “ the premised capitalist ’boom’ of the 1960’s never materialized...” (Ibid p.3). Whereas this crisis attacked the “standard of living” of the working class and caused a “marked increase in the workers’ struggles... to defend their standard of living”, evidently, according to our ’scholars’, its effects upon the petty bourgeois “youth and students” was entirely different. According to the CCL’s pretty picture, the “youth and students” were not driven “to defend their standard of living”; in fact, they were not effected economically at all. Heaven’s no:
During this stage of imperialism, capitalism has lost any of the progressive and revolutionary characteristics it once possessed and bourgeois ideology assumes the most reactionary and corrupt forms. During the 1960’s many young people faced with the decadence of bourgeois society, began to question traditional values. Ibid p.30.
Not being compelled by anything so ’unrefined’ and ’crass’ as material conflicts which drive the working class to constantly defend itself, these petty bourgeois students were able to live on a diet of morality alone. The “decadence” and “corruption” of imperialism was just too much for the sensibilities of these ’value-conscious’ youths and thus they rose in protest. Class position? Material interests of the petty bourgeoisie? Class contradictions? Class? Not at all, not here, not us! ’We’, you see, were “faced with the decadence of bourgeois society” and became offended, and it was our bruised sensitivity that led us to the ’revolution’.
Such is the CCL’s flight of fancy over the 1960’s, a fit of imagination identical in its class basis and nearly identical in its content as the CPC(ML)’s view of the 1960’s movement. What the CCL(ML), CPC(ML), and all those who trace their heritage to the 1960’s found so ’offensive’ about the degeneration and “decadence of bourgeois society” is not its morality or its culture but simply this: that under imperialism the petty bourgeoisie has lost all historical validity and usefulness and thus cannot maintain its privileged class position. This simple fact was driven home to the petty bourgeois youth when the “promised capitalist ’boom’ of the 1960’s never materialized”, thus causing a sizeable overproduction in post secondary schools in virtually all fields. Because the ’boom’ never materialized, the perspective of their “promised” careers also never materialized and in fact evaporated before their very eyes. Such a large intelligentsia was simply not needed. The “youths and students” began “questioning traditional values”, not because of any profound moral integrity, but precisely because the “traditional” capital values, i.e. cold cash, accruing from petty proprietorship or a comfortable professional niche were no longer achievable. Had these students not been overproduced, had they been able to fulfill their ambitions, had their ’moral’ outrage met with some financial consolation, had imperialism not put the squeeze on the petty bourgeoisie, then there would have been no objective basis for their rebellion. But it is precisely because such economic extermination is the lot of the petty bourgeoisie under imperialism that contemporary history has witnessed repeated ’populist’ and petty bourgeois rebellions, has seen large sections of the petty bourgeoisie take an ’anti-imperialist’ stance in order to secure their class interests. It is classic that both the CCL(ML) and CPC(ML) should attempt to ignore the hard economic realities that drive the petty bourgeoisie towards one or another political ’solution’ and instead content themselves with inflated talk of ’moral indignation’ and a ’conscious, calculated choice’ to go against imperialism.
Having severed the 1960’s movement from its actual material basis, the CCL proceeds to show how this narrow and reformist movement was basically revolutionary after all:
This ’youth movement’ of the late 1960’s in fact represented the aspirations of the radicalized petty bourgeoisie, disillusioned with capitalist society and looking for an alternative. However, without a Marxist-Leninist party capable of offering clear direction the youth movement could have no perspectives. Most of its activists slipped into purely reformist politics (NDP, PQ, etc.) or abandoned political activity in favour of degenerate bourgeois ’alternate’ life styles (communes, etc.) and the ’drug culture’. Nevertheless out of this trend came many progressive individuals, some of whom later began to gravitate towards Marxism-Leninism. Ibid p.4
A movement that was something more than “purely reformist politics” but something less than fully revolutionary because
...on the whole the Canadian youth movement remained isolated from the working class and broad sections of the people. This is not surprising considering the erroneous and confused ideas which held sway within the youth movement (such as the theory that the working class in the advanced capitalist countries had been bought off, and that the intellectuals are the leading force in transforming society). Ibid p.3
Anyone familiar with the ABC’s of Marxism-Leninism knows that in fact the disillusionment of the petty bourgeoisie is not at all with “capitalist society” in general, but is only with the particular conditions of monopoly capitalism that deny the petty bourgeoisie a secure and profitable future. Anyone who takes an accurate view of the petty bourgeoisie under imperialism would also know that aside from its rebellion against the monopoly bourgeoisie, the petty bourgeoisie also rebels against the working class. What the petty bourgeoisie wants is to remould the world after its own image, apart from the two great classes of modern society. But this has no place in the CCL(ML)’s worldview. According to the CCL, the petty bourgeoisie reacts against imperialism, not out of material interests, but only out of moral indignation. According to the CCL, the petty bourgeoisie does not attack the working class, but merely suffers from “confused ideas” about workers. According to the CCL, the petty bourgeoisie has no wish to turn history back to laissez-faire capitalism, has no wish to stamp history with its own image, but only suffers from the “erroneous” conception that “the intellectuals are the leading force in transforming society”. It is all a matter of ideas, you see. Small matter what gives rise to those ideas.
It is elementary that the petty bourgeoisie in its ’struggles’ is not in fact “looking for an alternative to capitalist society” but is simply seeking a better deal under the status quo. So long as the petty bourgeisie advances its own narrow interests, it is not in any way revolutionary but on the contrary completely reactionary, for, in the words of the Manifesto, “they try to roll back the wheel of history”. It is only when and if elements from the petty bourgeoisie completely and absolutely “desert their own standpoint to place themselves at that of the proletariat”, that is, when they cease to be petty bourgeois, that they become revolutionary. This is what the CCL(ML) itself has failed to do and so wishes to obscure in its rendition of the movement it claims as its heritage.
The 1960’s movement did not represent “the aspirations of the radicalized petty bourgeoisie”, but rather was a showcase of the frustration and denial of those aspirations under imperialism. Lenin described the rise of the petty bourgeois opposition to imperialism as follows:
Since the specific political features of imperialism are reaction everywhere and increased national oppression due to the oppression of the financial oligarchy and the elimination of free competition, a petty-bourgeois-democratic opposition to imperialism arose at the beginning of the twentieth century in nearly all imperialist countries. Kautsky not only did not trouble to oppose, was not only unable to oppose this petty bourgeois reformist opposition, which is really reactionary in its economic basis, but became merged with it in practice, and this is precisely where Kautsky and the broad international Kautskian trend deserted Marxism. V.I. Lenin Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism CW Vol. 22 p. 287
The petty bourgeois rebellions of the 1960’s in nearly all advanced capitalist countries were direct expressions of reformist, petty bourgeois opposition to its plight under imperialism. To portray those movements as being anything more than a reactionary outbreak of petty bourgeois hostility to its conditions is to apologize for and advance those interests oneself. The ’activists’ of the 1960’s did not, contrary to what the CCL(ML) would have us believe, “slip into purely reformist politics (NDP, PQ, etc.)”. They did not “slip” into pure reformism, since pure reformism was precisely their starting point. One cannot “slip” into something one has never left. The only distinguishing feature of the ’radical’ movement was its militancy, a militancy due entirely to the instability and immaturity of the movement and which formed a ’left’ complement to the stable reformism of the NDP and PQ. When “most activists” gravitated towards the NDP, PQ, etc., they were simply seeking a more stable channel for the petty bourgeois-democratic ’anti-imperialism’ they had been manifesting all along. The only thing that has “slipped” here is the CCL’s grasp on reality. The 1960’s movement showed how the future intelligentsia and professionals-to-be, that is, principally the middle strata of the petty bourgeoisie, spontaneously tend towards the most frenzied, reactionary ’solutions’ to imperialism. A normally inert mass during ’boom’ periods, when all are fat and happy, large sections went into motion during the roaring 1960’s and so impressed themselves that they continue, ten years later, to marvel at the ’seeking for alternatives’ they underwent. The CCL(ML) has made itself an historian of and apologist for this reactionary ’anti-imperialism’ on the plea that the ’activists’ simply had “no perspectives”. But in fact there was no shortage of petty bourgeois “perspectives”, the perspective the CCL views its heritage from.
According to the League’s version, the 1960’s movement suffered from certain ’shortcomings1 and finally ’degenerated’, not as the inevitable consequence of its petty bourgeois class basis, but rather because, of all things, the working class did not rush to its rescue with the proper leadership. In the absence of the working class, the “students and youth” were ’forced’ to ’adopt’ some rather...how shall we say it... “confused and erroneous ideas” about the working class. According to the CCL, these “confused ideas” had no connection to the class composition of the movement, did not, somehow, clearly and correctly articulate petty bourgeois class interests. Not at all. Such “erroneous and confused ideas” were simply the product of ’youthful’ thinking. If only there had been a Marxist-Leninist party, why, things would have been different.
In reality, the movement “remained isolated from the working class”, was guided by reactionary ideas, lacked coherent direction and stability, and so on, not because there was no Party, but because the movement was entirely petty bourgeois in its class basis. It should be obvious that regardless of the existence of a Marxist-Leninist party, the various political tendencies that arose in the 1960’s would have been just as pronounced had there been a Marxist-Leninist Party these tendencies would have fought it tooth and nail in an attempt to exert petty bourgeois interests over those of the proletariat. At the same time, a Marxist-Leninist Party would not have directed and organized a petty bourgeois movement which sought to secure privileges at the expense of the working class.
We organize and lead the class struggle of the proletariat, not the petty bourgeoisie. The working class Party provides leadership to elements from other classes only when they “desert their own standpoint and place themselves at ours, and not vice versa.” As Lenin put it when arguing against Plekhanov’s attempt to render the petty bourgeoisie revolutionary: “...we do not desert our own standpoint, and we do not merge our class struggle with the struggle of all sorts of weathercocks.” (V.I. Lenin Notes on Plekhanov’s Second Draft Programme CW vol 6 p.53)
The CCL(ML), however, is bending over backwards in order to disclaim the material class interests that gave in the 1960’s and continues to give in the 1970’s the petty bourgeoisie its peculiar political motion, and instead attempts to portray the petty bourgeois movement as one simply lacking the proper ’perspectives’ and leadership. It is only in this way that the CCL(ML) can maintain a petty bourgeois perspective, and while calling it ’Marxism-Leninism’ attempt to make it a material force within the working class. This is outright deception of the workers and is an attempt to make the working class an appendage of the petty bourgeoisie.
It is precisely because the interests of the working class and those of the petty bourgeoisie are fundamentally different, because they are two separate and distinct classes, because they oppose imperialism in fundamentally different ways and for profoundly different reasons, because one is thoroughly revolutionary and the other thoroughly reformist, it is for these reasons that it is absolutely necessary to everywhere and on every issue distinguish between the two. To obscure these class interests, as the CCL(ML) does, to apologize for the petty bourgeoisie and ’attach’ it to the working class, means to leave the working class completely defenseless and to issue an invitation to “all sorts of weathercocks”. It is the bounden duty of communists to explain the political strivings of all the various classes and strata in society, to show how the concrete actions of each class and strata reflects a definite set of interests, what they are trying to achieve, why they put forth their interests in such and such a way, and so on. The working class is able to pursue an independent revolutionary course, to determine which struggles further their interests and which fight them, to determine what strata are allies and which must be opposed, only on the basis of the conscious recognition of the interests and motion of each participant in class struggle. By obscuring the role of one such participant, “students and youths”, the CCL means to disarm the working class and smuggle “students and youths” into the forefront. Hence its’Pre-Party Organization’, and shortly, its ’party’.
In summing up, the League has this to say:
These developments the ’youth’ and student movement of the 60’s, the struggles against the manifestations of national oppression in Quebec, and to a lesser extent, struggles such as those against US control of Canada, the women’s movement, and friendship with China introduced many people, particularly from the petty bourgeoisie, to progressive ideas. Some militants later began to turn towards Marxism-Leninism. It was principally from this basis that a Marxist-Leninist movement began to grow in our country. The Struggle for the Creation of the CCL(ML) p.4-5.
A ’penetrating’ analysis, except for the ’oversight’ that our movement is presently dominated by a wide range of opportunist tendencies precisely because it grew “principally from this (petty bourgeois) basis”. After the reformist storm blew over, “many people”, “particularly from the petty bourgeoisie”, began “looking for an alternative” political form in which to advance their narrow class interests. The working class and Marxism-Leninism have become that ’alternate form’. It is precisely because they ’turned’ to the working class after the fashion of the CCL(ML), with their petty bourgeois class outlooks intact and have remained so to this day, that the movement is so incredibly retarded. And it is precisely because of this that the class interests of the petty bourgeoisie must be stripped of their ’Marxist-Leninist’ disguise and exposed before the working class.
The League’s analysis uncritically presents the development of the new communist movement out of the petty bourgeois radicalism of the 1960’s as one continuous thread. But Marxism-Leninism, and the movement that advances it, does not grow out of, is not an extension or by-product of petty bourgeois radicalism. On the contrary, the development of a truly communist movement necessitates making a radical, fundamental and complete break with all forms of petty bourgeois radicalism. The rich diversity of petty bourgeois political forms that arose spontaneously during the 1960’s cannot be the object of ’communist’ apologetics, cannot be explained away simply as “erroneous and confused ideas”. All of these forms must be understood according to their class roots, according to the social contradictions that gave rise to them, according to the material interests they defend and advance. Without such knowledge the communist movement leaves itself, and the class it is supposed to lead, open to opportunism and the strivings of the petty bourgeoisie. That is precisely the path the CCL(ML) has chosen to take. Far from breaking with petty bourgeois outlook and interests, the CCL reveals that it hopes to create a channel for them within the working class.
Having established a foundation of accommodation towards the petty bourgeoisie through its view of the 1960’s movement, the League extends its position to a most crucial question for its designs for leadership in the working class movement: the composition of the Marxist-Leninist movement. On this question the League develops its theory of accommodation into a completely arbitrary system for determining ’genuine’ Marxism-Leninism, a system marked by a generous dose of liberalism towards itself and its cohorts, and the ’strictest orthodoxy’ towards its opponents.
The League dates the “birth of the Marxist-Leninist movement in Quebec” to the 1973-1974 period and pinpoints its beginnings in “...the gradual disintegration of the CAP’s and the creation of groups which sincerely tried to base themselves on Marxism-Leninism and apply it to the concrete situation.” (CCL Ibid p.8)
Because, according to the League, the ’genuine’ Quebec Marxist-Leninist movement grew in opposition to and by demarcating itself from the Comites d’Action Politique (CAP’s), it makes special reference to the work of these organizations. The League tells us that the CAP’s “...put forward the need to do political work at the point of production, made vague references to Marxism-Leninism and spoke of the need to create an ’Organisation Politique Autonome des Travailleurs’.” (CCL Ibid p.7) but that they “...never made a clear break with social-democracy and were heavily marked with spontaneist and bourgeois nationalist ideology.” (CCL Ibid p.7)
The League summarizes that “In general, the line of the CAP’s can be summed up as economist, revisionist, and right opportunist.” (CCL Ibid p.7)
In order to establish ’genuineness’ and date the ’genuine’ Marxist-Leninist movement such that it includes the League’s founders, the CCL must present a contradictory picture of the CAP’s. On the one hand, it indicates that the CAP’s never even attempted to base themselves on Marxism-Leninism, and only made “vague references”. This being the case, of course no one would expect the League to date the Marxist-Leninist movement from these groups. But on the other hand, the League must find grounds for its own ’genuineness’, and since since two of its founders either came directly out of the CAP’s or out of struggle against them, it apparently feels the necessity to raise the level of the CAP’s somewhat. Thus, by holding that the CAP’s were “economist” and “revisionist” terms generally associated with the Marxist-Leninist movement the League leads us to believe that the CAP’s did attempt to base themselves on Marxism-Leninism and failed. Through such ’hints’, the League attempts to create the impression that those groups and individuals who opposed and broke away from the CAP’s ’sham Marxism-Leninism’ would by definition be ’genuine’ and not simply formal adherents of Marxism-Leninism. And as it happens, both the CMO and COR grew in direct opposition to the CAP’s.
By presenting the CAP’s in this two-fold manner, the League ’assures’ us of its concern for more than formal acceptance of Marxism-Leninism and also establishes a tradition of ’genuineness’ for itself. However, when we examine the League’s examples of what it considers ’genuine’ Marxism-Leninism, we find little difference between the ’genuines’ and the CAP’s they were ’opposing’. In its analysis of the movement, the League states that among the after-the-CAP’s groups.
There was much confusion in understanding the contradictions in Canadian society. Most militants made the serious error of believing that the party would be built in Quebec and not throughout Canada. Further, the political lines and positions of the groups were very general and the differences between them imprecise. Ibid p.9.
Later on, in the individual self-criticisms of the founding groups, we find that the practice of these ’genuines’ was in fact a continuation of the trade-unionism and general reformism of the CAP’s. If there was in fact a break with the CAP’s, it was not a break with petty bourgeois reformism. This is proven by the history of the founding troika.
At best then, the League could have said that the movement was only in the formative stages, still overwhelmingly dominated by petty bourgeois outlook and spontaneous opportunism, and that such-and-such groups showed indications of motion towards the working class. But the League is not in the habit of making such objective analysis of the actual conditions of the time. Its prime concern is to secure the necessary credentials to declare itself the leading centre. It must therefore perform a miracle of sorts. Despite the fact that the various organizations it lists which, save for En Lutte!, presently comprise the CCL(ML), were all at the time suffering from a petty bourgeois national outlook, economism, and confusion over political line, they were nonetheless, according to the CCL, ’genuinely’ Marxist-Leninist. A neat trick. But how does the League arrive at this conclusion? How does the League answer the important question of how to “distinguish between true and false communists”? Listen:
Some groups...made only formal references to Marxism-Leninism. They called themselves Marxist-Leninist but in fact they did not undertake the tasks of communists. They opportunistically cloaked themselves with the name Marxist-Leninist without actually trying to base themselves on the principles, without breaking with opportunism and struggling towards the party.
The genuine Marxist-Leninist groups undertook the study of Marxist-Leninist theory and struggled to apply it to the concrete conditions in Canada. They combatted opportunism and took up the struggle for the unity of communists. The Marxist-Leninist groups began to undertake the task of rallying the most advanced workers to communism and preparing the conditions for the creation of a Marxist-Leninist communist party in Canada.
When they were first formed, the genuine Marxist-Leninist groups made many errors and were confused, however, they honestly struggled forward and tried to rectify these errors. Ibid p.9.
In short, a very nice and homey picture, all honesty and sincere effort. Certainly honesty and sincerety play a part in the development of a communist outlook, but such qualities are far from objective criteria, and in fact play at best a secondary role. Yet, in lieu of something truly objective, say perhaps political line and practical work, the League must make do with its morality. At best it can observe that the ’genuine’ Marxist-Leninists were, aside from being good fellows, “confused” and made “many errors”.
Thus we learn that being a ’genuine’ Marxist-Leninist is not so difficult after all, something well within the grasp of anyone who has reached the age of ’good intentions’. According to the League, one’s adherence to the working class cause is proven not by one’s line and actions, but precisely by these good intentions. We are in effect told that being a true Marxist-Leninist does not demand Marxism-Leninism in word and deed, but only ’engaging in struggle’, trying hard, and ’honestly struggling forward’. In the CCL’s view, the decisive measurement to distinguish “true and false communists” is not the objective product of all this undertaking, struggling and trying, but rather the very subjective acts of trying, undertaking and struggling themselves, and on the “honesty” and “sincerety” shown thereby.
The League has thus completely evaded the elementary truth that revolutionary sentiment alone does not make a Communist. It seeks to overlook the fact that
Of course we have no instrument for measuring sincerity... for testing a man’s conscience; we quite agree that the matter is not one of forming an opinion of people, but of appraising a situation. p.251
...we have not yet invented a sincerometer, meaning by this French neologism an instrument for measuring sincerity. No such instrument has been invented yet. We have no need of one. But we do have an instrument for defining trends. p.246 V.I. Lenin Speech on the Terms of Admission into the C.I. CW Vol.31.
The CCL(ML) attempts to hide the simple fact that irrespective of all the ’genuine desire’ in the world, our actions serve one class or another. In political life there is no neutral zone called ’intentions’. But this too exacting and constricting standard is precisely what the League wishes to liberate itself from. Once freed from any objective measures, the League can then pursue an open-door policy toward a wide range of petty bourgeois deviations, can attempt to justify, accommodate and prolong the domination of the movement by opportunism and thus by itself. So long as we judge Marxist-Leninists merely by ’good intentions’ and ’struggling’, the League can justify its claim to ’party’-building.
But ’good intentions’, of course, is a standard the League uses only for itself. It is entirely convinced of its own ’genuine’ status, even despite its earlier “confusion”, “many errors”, economism, and so on. Since from the standpoint of good intentions even the League’s opponents would qualify as ’genuine’, the League must raise its criteria for “true and false” when it comes to others. Of the Librairie Progressiste, for example, the League says:
Over the past two years their political line has been characterized by eclecticism, confusion, and right opportunism. They have not firmly based themselves on Marxist-Leninist theory and tried to bring this theory to the working class. They have constantly put questions of tactics before strategy and immediate problems before principles. Despite certain general references to Marxism-Leninism, their political line, and the practice based on it, is not Marxist-Leninist. The Struggle for the Creation of the CCL(ML) p.9
Our “false communists”, as it turns out, must stand the test of political line and practice, while our “true communists” must be considered such despite their political line and practice. A very convenient unit of measure. The League maintains a contradictory and arbitrary position for “strictly defining which are the authentic Marxist-Leninist groups and distinguishing them from those which are Marxist-Leninist in words only.” (Ibid p.19)
On the one hand, the League maintains a completely accommodating, bleeding-heart liberal criteria to assert its own ’genuineness’, that is, integrity, sincerity, and desire. On the other hand, it maintains ’Marxist-Leninist’ criteria for chosen opponents in order to show that sincerity, for the opponents at least, is not enough, Mao Tse Tung described this habit of the League’s as follows:
These people have their Marxism, but they have their liberalism as well – they talk Marxism but practice liberalism; they apply Marxism to others but liberalism to themselves. They keep both goods in stock and find a use for each. Mao Tse Tung Combat Liberalism SW Vol II, p 33.
The League has indeed found a use for its ’Marxism’ and its liberalism. When presenting itself to the working class movement, the League’s ’Marxism-Leninism’ encompasses confusion of principles, inconsistency, only the most superficial ’self-criticism’, repetition of errors, Economism, etc., in short, lowers Marxism-Leninism to the very accessible level of reformism. When presenting other groups to the working class, the League applies much more ’strict’ criteria. Since the League in fact measures neither itself nor others according to truly objective criteria, its distinction between “true and false communists” rests entirely on its own discretion. This allows the League to systematically liquidate whomever it wishes from the communist movement, maneuver and manipulate with the errors of its chosen opponents, and thereby clear a path for its own declaration as the ’genuine’ Marxist-Leninist party.
Such is the League’s ’objective’ view of the new communist movement. It is from this basis that the League moves into its uncritical ’self-criticism’.
As communists our task is to stand at the head of the working class, representing its highest interests and organizing it for revolution. In our work we must stand as examples of what the class should be striving for. But the path to lead the revolutionary class struggle of the proletariat is long and arduous. Along the way mistakes are bound to be made. For Marxist-Leninists, there are two aspects that must be considered in terms of such mistakes.
First of all, we must develop such a firm and consistent grasp of Marxism-Leninism that mistakes are few and of minor significance. Secondly, and what concerns us most at this point, we must develop an objective attitude toward mistakes and acquire the ability to root them out as thoroughly as possible. This means “Frankly admitting a mistake, ascertaining the reasons for it, analysing the conditions which led to it, and thoroughly discussing the means of correcting it...” (V.I, Lenin “Left-Wing” Communism, An Infantile Disorder Foreign Languages Press Peking p.51)
These two aspects are integrally related. If errors are the norm, with correct communist activity a rare ’festive’ occasion, then it is clear self-criticism is not achieving its purpose. In such cases it would only serve to mask a failure or unwillingness to grasp the source and correct resolution of errors. At the same time, in spite of any subjective intentions, even “a little mistake can always be turned into a monstrous one if it is persisted in, if profound justifications are sought for it, and if it is carried to its ’logical conclusions’.” (V.I. Lenin Ibid. p.31)
An incorrect approach to errors, whether by outright rejection of self-criticism or by trying to divert from, justify, gloss over or prolong the errors in any way, reflects an objective stake in maintaining a narrow class standpoint. A correct approach to errors is an affirmation that a group’s sole allegiance is to the objective interests of the working class. Overall then, “The attitude of a political party to its own mistakes is one of the most important and surest ways of judging how earnest the party is and how it in practice fulfills its obligations towards its class and the toiling masses.” (V.I. Lenin Ibid. p.51).
How does the CCL(ML)’s self-criticism stand in light of these principles? We must bear in mind that the League’s founders are not novices, just stepping out of isolated local work, newly organized as groups and simply trying to make a contribution to the advancement of the movement. Far from it. There groups are in fact young, but date back two to four years as functioning organizations. As well, they have placed themselves at the head of the movement, present themselves as “...a qualitative leap forward in the struggle to build the party...”, and are attempting to exert national leadership over the Marxist-Leninist movement. Given these facts, it is especially important that the movement not simply take the League’s self-criticisms for granted, pass them off as duty done. The League’s founders have always stressed the importance of self-criticism, have used it as a trump card to portray themselves as principled Marxist-Leninists. Here we must return the emphasis and hold the architects of the League fully accountable as the ’vanguard’ they claim to be. We can allow no leeway on account of amateurishness, youth or lack of formulation. When we measure the League by the high standards it claims to uphold, we will see that its ’self-criticism’ is in fact only a cover for maintaining its opportunism in more subtle forms, and as a springboard to further organizational advancement on the road to ’party’ declaration.
The CCL(ML) presents the self-criticisms of its founders as an example for the movement: a radical rupture, a complete break with Right opportunism. It states that “...in the course of the struggle for unity...” the three groups overcame the “mainly” Right errors each had displayed in their analysis of the national and international situation and in their practical Economism. Following from this, the League holds that “these errors are corrected in the political line of the Marxist-Leninist organization” i.e., in itself. As we will see, the ’self-criticisms’ of the troika did little more than aid in the consolidation of the League’s Rightism. The self-criticisms of the founding groups reveals, not a process of rectification, but one by which the Right tendency burrowed deeper and deeper, finally becoming a full-fledged trend. This resulted from each group’s consistent refusal to thoroughly analyze and concretely break with the class basis of their errors. Thus, these latest self-criticisms are merely the most well-developed attempt to excuse and justify this consolidation, replacing it with a picture of constant motion towards principled and consistent Marxism-Leninism. The fallacy of this picture is clearly evidenced on the one hand by the course of historical development of the three groups and their respective attitudes towards it, and on the other hand by the content of the analysis of their errors, particularly Economism.
a. The League Excuses Itself
The Cellule Militante Ouvriere (CMO)
Disclosure of the League’s ’genuine’ Marxist-Leninist development is begun by the CMO. The CMO’s self-criticism is a prime example of the League’s view of itself, for it is a precise expression of the common course of development and general attitude towards errors, unencumbered by any attempts at modesty. As such it lays the necessary groundwork for fully grasping the underlying intent of the CCL’s self-criticism as a whole.
The CMO announces itself as a group arising from “...a long and intense struggle., against the opportunism and revisionism of the Secteur Travail of the CAP St. Jacques. It claims a heritage of having
From its very beginnings... set itself the tasks of systematically criticising right opportunism and economism, seriously studying Marxism, Leninism and Mao Tsetung Thought and re-orienting on a non-economist basis the mass work of its militants... The Struggle for the Creation of the CCL(ML) p.19
The CMO emphasizes that it developed “...on the solid basis of studying Marxist-Leninist theory and struggling against right opportunism...” and that it “...insisted on the study and application of Marxism-Leninism, the criticism of modern revisionism and the struggle against ’left’ and right deviations in the Marxist-Leninist movement...”. Despite all appearances, the CMO is not simply talking for the purpose of saying nothing. It aims to convince us of its principled heritage and thus how it is quite deserving of the honour of founding the ’organization to create the Party’. With such a “systematic” and “intense” struggle to uphold Marxism-Leninism, we would expect to find the CMO elaborating political lines and practice that would stand head and shoulders above the rest of the communist movement. But we need not get too excited.
In the CMO’s ’Manifesto’, Pour 1’Unification des Marxistes-Leninistes written a short time after the formation of the group, “...contained some errors...” (p.20). The “main error” noted was, according to the CMO, on the principal contradiction in Canada. Despite its “efforts” and “solid basis” of Marxist-Leninist theory, the CMO admits to “...a poor understanding and mechanical application of the fundamental principles of dialectics...” (p.21). So poor an understanding, in fact, that the CMO was unable to correct its error on the principal contradiction until “...the process of struggling with our comrades from COR and MREQ...“ presumably for the creation of the League, and was able to ”rectify...(its) positions and arrive at a much more correct formulation...” In other words, from the time of its creation in early 1974 until its merging into the League, the CMO, a ’genuine’ Marxist-Leninist group steeled in the fight against opportunism, held an admittedly fundamentally incorrect position on one of the most vital questions before our movement, a position which “...did not allow us to rigorously specify the character of the Canadian revolution, introduced the possibility of sliding to the right, and singularly complicated the clear identification of the targets and tasks of the revolution.” (Ibid p.20)
Strange, is it not? The CMO claims to have been founded on the basis of breaking with Right opportunism, and yet its class analysis, its basic strategy for revolution in Canada, “...introduced the possibility of sliding to the right...”. What a pleasant way to put it: the “possibility of sliding to the right”! How, we may ask, is it possible for a formulation which does not “rigorously specify the character of the Canadian revolution” to only “introduce the possibility of sliding to the right”? If one advances oneself in the role of Marxist-Leninist leadership, claims to be fighting modern revisionism, and so on, and yet puts forward a confused line on the principal contradiction which ’singularly complicates’ identifying the “targets and tasks of the revolution” is this not already a Rightist position? Further, how is it possible for the CMO to demarcate itself against Right opportunism when its own grasp on Marxism-Leninism amounted to “...a poor understanding and mechanical application of the fundamental principles of dialectics...”, that is, amounted to a Rightist view? Such is the CMO’s ’break’ with Right opportunism. We find the same ’break’ in the CMO’s self-criticism of its practical work.
At the same time as the CMO was “rigorously” and “systematically criticizing right opportunism and economism, seriously studying MLMTT and re-orienting on a non-economist basis the mass work of its militants”; at the same time as it was presenting “...the basic principles and some tactical elements of communist work in the trade unions...” (p.20); and doing this grand work, moreover, with its “poor understanding and mechanical application of” Marxism-Leninism, the CMO, by its own account, “...committed the errors of an economist nature...” (p.22). Apparently, while ’understanding’ the “...fundamental importance of communist agitation and propaganda...”, the CMO “...committed the error of not considering this as the principal practical task at the present.” So, even though having ’broken’ with Economism and Right opportunism, the CMO somehow retained an economist understanding of its mass work. But this was only the beginning.
Being a fully ’genuine’ Marxist-Leninist group, the CMO naturally ’moved ahead’: “ – these errors were identified and rectified by a process of summing up and criticism...” (p.22). The CMO even produced a “brochure” in which it “...directed its militants in the transformation of their practices...” and achieved “...reorientation and clarification...” on the question. Well, almost. Somehow, again, there were still
...some economist left-overs, especially on the question of implantation. We considered implantation as the principal way of linking up with the masses. This was a confused position which objectively could lead to downgrading the role of agitation and propaganda. Ibid p.22
There is no question that the CMO, as in the CCL’s version of the movement, was the victim of “erroneous and confused ideas”. At one moment it attempts to escape through “the possibility of sliding”, and at the next through “objectively could lead to”. Again we must ask, why all this soft-shoe? Perhaps by adding “objectively” the CMO wishes to emphasize that, subjectively, it had no desire to downgrade agitation and propaganda. But intentions and desires are totally irrelevant here. If the CMO’s practice did not continue its previous “...economist error on the role of agitation and propaganda...” (p.22), then it should have nothing to self-criticise about. If, on the other hand, the economist error persisted, then the CMO should state this outright and criticize it. Instead we are treated to an off-hand reference to “left-overs” ’insufficient’ agitation and propaganda in “mass regroupments” and speculation on what could happen. Again, the CMO is attempting to distract us from the important question: just exactly when did the CMO ’break’ with Economism and Right opportunism?
First we are led to believe that after a long struggle the CMO was formed through a break with Economism. Then we find that “certain errors of an economist nature” remained. First self-criticism, another ’break’, but still some warm “economist leftovers”. Finally, “In deepening the process of criticism and self-criticism and through our debates with the COR and MREQ, we were able to rectify our mistakes and thus collectively formulate a correct position for the Marxist-Leninist organization. (Ibid p.23)
Thus alongside its ’poor understanding and mechanical application’ of Marxism-Leninism the CMO, throughout its entire existence, did not engage in anything approaching consistent Communist mass work, but rather engaged in the ’mistaken’ practice of reformism and Economism.
The CMO misses the irony of its own statement that “ – the principal danger for the young Canadian communist movement is right opportunism and especially economism.” (Ibid p.20)
They know “whereof they speak” but not of whom. In the midst of proudly listing its ’revolutionary’ credentials, it fails to notice that is own “very positive contributions” (p.24) verify and reflect the strength of Right opportunism and Economism in the movement. The sobering fact the CMO refuses to confront is that it did not break with opportunism and Economism, despite its “genuine desire to apply Marxism-Leninism” (p.9). We must insist that the CMO’s “...insistence, from the very beginning, of the importance of studying MLMTT...” was merely that – insistence. The fruit of all its ’study’, ’summing-up’ and ’self-criticism’, by its own description, was a consistent tendency to the Right, to maintaining the interests of the petty bourgeoisie under the mantle of proletarian revolution.
The CMO, however, draws a slightly different conclusion, one which shows the real extent of their ’self-criticism’:
Despite its incorrect positions on the principal contradiction and its economist mistakes, the CMO never sank into opportunism. Ibid p.23.
And so it is with the ’good intentions’ of the ’genuine’ Marxist-Leninists. ’Despite’ its consistent Right deviation and inability to even formally change, let alone correct, its line until the founding of the League; ’despite’ its failure to grasp and consistently apply the “fundamentals of dialectics”; ’despite’ its failure to pinpoint and thoroughly analyse the class basis of its errors; ’despite’ its objective defense of petty bourgeois interests under the guise of Marxism-Leninism despite all this we are to believe that the CMO “never sank into opportunism”! What stupid, petty arrogance What an accurate expression of the contempt and paternalism with which the League views the Marxist-Leninist movement. But do not attempt to project your own imbecility onto us, dear CMO ’comrades’. We have no truck with your ’good intentions’ or your snotty self-esteem. We are interested only in the facts of your development as the ’vanguard’ (and ’vanguard’ of what is becoming crystal clear). And these facts do not match your fine words of self-praise. But then, there is the matter of ’perspectives’ to consider. When you are already at the bottom, it would be difficult to sink.
The CMO shows a complete and utter disdain for the most elementary point in terms of Marxism-Leninism and opportunism: that both have a class basis. To the CMO, no matter what it did, no matter how much it diverted workers from communism with its petty bourgeois class analyses, propaganda and agitation, in spite of anything, it is not only ’not opportunist’, but on the contrary ’genuinely Marxist-Leninist’. To the CMO Marxism-Leninism is merely a matter of sincerity and good intentions while opportunism is simply something that happens to those who lack sufficient ’honesty’ and desire. The CMO ’forgets’ that we are engaged in a class struggle, basing ourselves on the most advanced science of our time. There is no room here for the CMO’s fairytale realm of sincere heroes and dishonest villains. It is only through such inventions that the CMO can, despite all the evidence to the contrary, attempt to convince us that it is ’genuine’ after all. We do not at all question the CMO’s honesty. But all its honesty and good intentions do not obscure the fact that its entire history is dominated by Right opportunism, and as Engels observed “...’honest’ opportunism is perhaps the most dangerous of all!”
The CMO is so blinded by its ’astounding achievements’ that throughout its self-criticism it forgets to self-criticize. Instead, it completely accommodates and excuses its opportunism. It is truly ’astounding’ to see the CMO so ’courageously’ attack the CAP St. Jacques for having “...developed a conciliatory attitude with respect to its opportunism...” (p.19), and yet not notice that it itself is doing exactly the same thing. The CMO concludes its ultra-’serious’ and strikingly profound self-criticism with the following summation:
...we conclude that on the whole, its contributions, despite its errors, were very positive and that it brings to the CCL{ML) militants who have been tempered in the struggle against deviations from Marxism-Leninism and who have a significant degree of experience of work in the ranks of the working class and popular masses. Ibid p.24
If this is ’genuine’ Marxism-Leninism, then what, may we ask, is opportunism?
The Cellule Ouvriere Revolutionnaire
Of’the three founders of the League, the COR presents itself in the least presumptuous and arrogant manner. However, this should not be taken as a great improvement over the other two groups. The COR evades the class content and consistency of its Right errors just as much as the CMO and the MREQ; it simply has a ’more pleasing’ and varied method. Instead of brazenly declaring that it never ’sank into opportunism’ as does the CMO, or that even though it was thoroughly opportunist it maintained ’integrity towards Marxist-Leninist principle’ as the MREQ claims, the COR maintains the same opportunist perspective by shifting attention away from itself. This is most evident in the fact that it directs nearly one-third of its entire self-criticism against En Lutte! for allegedly side-tracking its “greatest step”, i.e. the elementary point that it should direct its attention to the movement and the task of Party-building. According to the COR, it held a ’basically correct’ line on the unity of Marxist-Leninists, but was badly abused by En Lutte!. In the face of such maltreatment the COR’s “serious errors” of wanting “unity at any price” in order to break out of its isolation and lack of polemics against En Lutte!’s opportunism and consistent economism do not appear so “serious” after all. And that is precisely the COR’s aim. If our attention is focused on the ’intrigues’ of such a big and influential organization as En Lutte!, how can we possibly slight the little COR, a mere innocent victim, for its errors? After all, was it not struggling with all its might to establish a principled and consistent course? But as we have seen with the CMO, ’struggling’ and motion towards Marxism-Leninism are two different things. In spite of the COR’s subtle attempts at distraction, we must concentrate our analysis on the actual course of its development. In these terms, the COR’s limited humbleness account for nought.
As with the CMO, the COR was formed out of the ’heat of struggle’, as it were, against opportunism, specifically “...reformist and populist tendencies...” (p.25). And as we have come to expect from such a ’struggle’, the COR “...drew a clear line of demarcation between (itself) and the right opportunist current in the labour movement, represented mainly by the RCT...” (p.25). As well, in drawing this “clear line”, the COR “...always made a big effort in the work of Marxist-Leninist education of the most advanced workers...” (p.25). But, following the standard pattern of our ’genuine’ Marxist-Leninists, it did not quite make a clean break with the Right.
The COR tells us that “...in the beginning we did not have a clear political line and for a long time neglected theoretical work...” (Ibid p.25)
This ’unclear’ political line
...contained an incomplete and sometimes erroneous analysis of several aspects of the international situation. ...advanced no position on the women’s question – an integral component of proletarian revolution. ... but mentioned the principal contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat and there was (apparently the word ’no’ is missing from the text here) extensive analysis to back up our position. As well as that we had a confused and erroneous line On the tasks of Marxist-Leninists in Canada at the present stage. Ibid p.25.
It is obvious that the COR was merely an unformulated group in the earliest stages of development, so unformulated in fact that we cannot say at this point that they were in fact beginning to break from reformism, whether the majority of their militants were from “working class origin” (p.25) or not. But our ’genuine Marxist-Leninists’ cannot rest with that, with objective reality; they must elevate themselves to greater heights. Yet what ’great height’ is it to oppose one form of reformism with a slightly different variety? We must ask: With a “confused and erroneous line on the tasks of Marxist-Leninists” and an “incomplete and sometimes erroneous analysis of several aspects of the international situation”, and through it all neglecting theoretical work, just what kind of ’Marxist-Leninist education’ could the COR have been bringing to its ’the most advanced workers’? And on this basis, just how clear a line could it have drawn between itself and Right opportunism? The COR also apparently holds out for “good intentions”, for just as its compatriots in the League, it completely ’overlooks’ the fact that every position, analysis, line, and so on, reflects a particular class outlook and directs the working class in either one direction or another. There is no avoiding the fact that with an “incomplete” and “sometimes erroneous” line, the COR represented nothing more than bourgeois reformism within the working class. At the time it could be said, perhaps, that the COR was in embryonic motion towards Marxism-Leninism, but it had not yet made the kind of “clear break” it would have us believe. This becomes even more apparent as the COR traces its ’advancement’.
Somehow overcoming its neglect of theoretical work, the COR “pursued its theoretical task and produced a text on communist work in the trade unions.” (Ibid p.25).
Perhaps, then, the COR raised its ’Marxist-Leninist education’ out of the confines of reformism with this ’break’? Still not quite:
This text represented a development of our political line but maintained an unclear position on the principal objective of the first stage of the development of the party – to rally the working class vanguard to communism and did not situate agitation and propaganda as our principal task at this stage. Ibid p.25.
That is, the COR ’developed’ from “...a confused and erroneous line on the tasks of Marxist-Leninists...” to “...an unclear position on the principal objective of the first stage of the development of the party...”. And from a “big effort” of ’educating’ the working class on the basis of neglecting theoretical work, to producing a text on ’communist’ work which “...did not situate agitation and propaganda as our principal task...” , i.e. relegated this work “...to a secondary importance.” But if the COR was relegating communist propaganda and agitation to “a secondary importance”, then it must have been elevating bourgeois ideology to a primary importance. It could not possibly have been raising the working class to the level of class consciousness. This is admitted by the COR when it says it “...often limited ourselves to propagating, not a Marxist-Leninist, but an ’anti-capitalist’ or ’minimal’ line...” (p.27). Such a position is not at all “unclear”. On the contrary, it is very clearly Economist. Quite an ’advancement’! From Economism to Economism.
But the COR does not stop here. Amassing its ingenuity, it simultaneously upholds its peculiar method of ’fighting’ opportunism and excuses its errors:
The evolution of our political line also allowed us to identify the economist mistakes in our practice at all levels. Our group was young and lacked experience in the revolutionary struggle for socialism. In this way it reflected the state of the Canadian Marxist-Leninist movement in general. Ibid p.26.
It becomes increasingly evident why the League prefaced these ’self-criticisms’ by stating that “...identifying errors does not eliminate them. But it does provide a good basis for combatting them.” (p.18). The COR ’identified’ its Economist ’mistakes’, and being a ’genuine’ Marxist-Leninist group certainly ’combatted’ for all it was worth. But it did not eliminate its Economism. Instead, it sought and still seeks to justify it. It is “obvious that the COR was young and inexperienced. Nor is there any question that the rest of the movement was the same. And it is understandable that errors will be made due to immaturity, isolation and lack of experience. But there is more at work in the movement than such factors. The COR does not deal with the petty bourgeois class basis of the movement, the failure to break with that heritage, and the concomitant domination of the movement by opportunism. It does not recognize its mistakes as part of an entire trend reflecting this class basis, and instead attempts to use its youth and the immature state of the movement as an excuse for its errors. The COR speaks of Economism as if it were some inevitable epidemic that naturally plagued the movement, that naturally infected all the various groups in diverse forms, and therefore made its own Economism somehow justifiable. But the fact that the COR reflected the state of the movement in this way and failed to raise itself above this level is not at all to its credit, nor does it excuse its Economism. In fact, since the COR distinguishes itself right from its birth as a “true communist” group, then it should follow that it would not have been reflecting the state of the movement “in general”, that is, its worst aspects, but rather would have been a shining example of consistent Marxism-Leninism to the movement. This is clearly not the case, not only “in this way”, but in all ways.
The only remaining question is when did the COR make the ’radical break’ from reformism that qualified it for ’the vanguard organization of the working class’? The COR tells us that as late as July 1975, for the third time, it ’broke’ with Economism by trying to “...resituate ’implantation’ in its proper place as a secondary but important tactic for communists in Canada...” (p.26). But: “Even then the self-criticism in the Red Star was only partial.” (Ibid p.27).
For all its ’developing’ line, making “clear breaks”, fighting “right opportunism of all sorts”, etc., just as with the CMO, the COR never raised itself to the level of a full and complete break with opportunism. The COR admits this, though undoubtedly without even realizing that it has, when it throws up its arms and turns to the League for relief:
Today we go beyond the framework of our local and primitive work and we truly embark on the road to proletarian revolution in Canada. Only the Canadian Communist League (Marxist-Leninist) will be able to truly rectify our economist errors. Ibid p.30.
We can only thank the COR for finally being candid and concrete, even if unintentionally, and thereby clarifying for all and sundry what it has tried to obscure in its self-criticism. The COR did not “truly rectify” its Economism until it dissolved into the CCL(ML). That is, throughout its entire existence it in no way proved itself capable of leadership of the Marxist-Leninist and working class movements. Along with the CMO, it proved only that it was perfectly capable and more than willing to be one of those opportunist groups who were “ready to move forward” with the MREQ into the ’Marxist-Leninist’ organization to create the ’party’. Such is the aspect of “particular importance” (p.25) the COR brings to the Marxist-Leninist movement, not its claim to working class origins.
The Mouvement Revolutionnaire des Etudiants du Quebec
One of the main features of the destruction of the petty bourgeoisie under imperialism is the periodic overproduction of large sections of the intellegentsia. Such superfluous elements, the ’cultured’ dregs of capitalist society, can find expression only by attaching themselves to one or another ongoing social movement. As the only truly revolutionary class, the most powerful and creative force in modern society, the working class and thus Marxism-Leninism thus becomes a focal point for the ambitions of these declassed refugees from the ruins of the petty bourgeoisie. Both the CMO and COR were manifestations of this process, though in a raw state. The MREQ, on the other hand, was a much more polished example of the adaptation of Marxism-Leninism to the interests of the petty bourgeoisie. The MREQ had two years of opportunist existence before the other groups were even formed; it directed its opportunism throughout the national movement while the others remained localized; it even established international ties, one of the most notable and well-publicized being with its social-chauvinist and ’Left’ revisionist counterpart in the U.S., the October League. While all three groups must be held equally responsible for their actions, the MREQ has much more to account for. But as has become tiresomely apparent with our other ’genuines’, the MREQ’s ’self-criticism’ scrupulously obscures what is most important: the question of whose class interests they have actively served and benefited.
Although it does not state so directly, the MREQ places itself outside the camp of ’genuine’ Marxist-Leninists for the first 2 3/4 years of its existence. We must remember that the League dates the beginnings of the movement to 1973-1974 and draws a distinction between formal and actual adoption of Marxism-Leninism. For its part, the MREQ speaks of its errors showing “...just how formal our recognition of Marxism-Leninism was at MREQ’s creation and during its entire first period of existence...” (p.32) which ends in October 1974. This being the case, one would expect a “serious and profound self-criticism” and a radical transformation of outlook evidenced in both theory and practice. But as we have come to expect from the League founders, we get nothing of the sort.
For its first period the MREQ is only too anxious to reign scorn upon itself, to run down the long list of its errors. We find that the MREQ
...negated the necessity for revolutionaries to work for the construction of a Marxist-Leninist communist party where none exists. ...settled for ’advancing the consciousness of students to the positions of the working class’ while waiting for the party to be created. ...MREQ renounced communist agitation and propaganda directed towards the working class and limited itself to supporting the spontaneous workers’ movement. Ibid p.31.
Contrary to its ’self-criticism’ in Towards the Marxist-Leninist Organization, which only spoke of the possibility of ’workerism’”,’ here the MREQ fully admits that “...among the notable opportunist errors...in the first period when it did only student work... were workerism and economism...” (p.32). And, as the MREQ says, “to round out the list” it adopts an even more conciliatory approach to the petty bourgeois student movement of the 1960’s, putting it on the level of reform struggles that benefit the working class, and self-criticising for
...activism (intervention without investigation) as well as a ’leftist’ denunciation of struggles for reforms – above all concerning academic struggles – which failed to see that these can serve the revolutionary struggle if correctly used, especially when the struggle is for democratic rights. Ibid p. 32
Following from this, the MREQ draws the conclusion that
Though they (the MREQ founders) sought to base themselves on Marxism-Leninism they did not grasp the fundamental principles of Marxism-Leninism. In effect they ignored their responsibilities to the working class, the only truly revolutionary class.
In short, the MREQ’s practice was dominated by an anti-Marxist, non-dialectical conception of the relation between revolutionary theory and practice. This could lead only to opportunism.
MREQ’s work in the student milieu – its only work for almost two years – was strongly marked by right opportunism, which assumed a ’leftist’ cover. Ibid p.31.
On the surface, a “frank admitting” of errors. But the MREQ has always been a master of shell-game politics, and it immediately begins to back-track, to carefully undercut its oh-so critical ’self-criticism’. By using the phrase “strongly marked”, the MREQ attempts to imply that there was something more to the early MREQ, something not thoroughly Right opportunist. This is shown even more clearly when it says “MREQ was thus created on a spontaneist basis. This fundamental error condemned it to not defending the interests of the proletariat. In this sense, it was the expression of petty bourgeois revolutionary ideas within the youth movement, particularly within the student movement.” (Ibid p.31 (our emphasis)).
By its own description, the MREQ was fully permeated by opportunism, did not even attempt to advance the interests of the working class, was petty bourgeois from its inception. And yet, it turns out that it was only partially petty bourgeois, only “in this sense”! Apparently the MREQ thinks that even though it was “dominated” by a petty bourgeois outlook, was fully advancing and defending the interests of the petty bourgeoisie, in some ’other sense’ it was an expression of the working class outlook. But this can happen only in the realm of petty bourgeois “good intentions”, the MREQ’s imagination, an imagination so creative that it forgets the most elementary points of Marxist-Leninist principle.
Such ’forgetfulness’ is one of the MREQ’s primary defensive weapons. In order to fully understand the MREQ it is essential to deal as much with what is not said as with what is. Here the MREQ does not disclose the vacillation and inconsistency which marks the petty bourgeoisie, nor does it show the reactionary nature of the petty bourgeoisie’s opposition to imperialism. The MREQ pokes at itself for ’being petty bourgeois’, but completely glosses over the qualitatively different and conflicting interests between this class and the proletariat. It instead attempts to bridge the gap between the two. It wants to keep one foot in the petty bourgeoisie (“in this sense”) and try to kick open the door to the working class with the other (some other sense). While raking itself over the coals for errors it simply cannot avoid, it still attempts to lend itself a revolutionary character. According to the MREQ’s view of itself, it was simply a victim of “confused ideas”, was “dominated” and “condemned”. Somewhere beneath these “petty bourgeois revolutionary ideas” there must have been, as they say in America, a “proletarian kernel” waiting to sprout. Thus the MREQ cannot allow itself to get too carried away with its self-criticism, lest the movement draw the conclusion that the MREQ was not only “in this sense”, but completely petty bourgeois and reactionary.
Once it has ’established’ that it was decidedly “in this sense” petty bourgeois, the MREQ finds absolutely no difficulty in withdrawing in one breath the fast and easy ’self-criticism’ it had uttered the second before.
The underestimation of the role of revolutionary theory, and thus of ideological struggle, led MREQ to neglect if not liquidate its independent intervention as a revolutionary organization, greatly limiting its work of communist agitation and propaganda. Two exceptions to this rule include the publication of our paper, THE PARTISAN, with correct articles on the international situation and the problems of our revolution; and, above all, the teaching of Marxism-Leninism in study groups which was only undertaken systematically after two years of activity. Ibid p.32
Such profundity! First the MREQ “renounced” communist propaganda and agitation; now, however, we find that it was only “greatly limited”. Since being “greatly limited” presupposes the prior existence of agitation and propaganda, this can only mean that the MREQ simultaneously “renounced” and didn’t renounce it. How very dialectical. The perfect complement to its being petty bourgeois only “in the sense” of being dominated by the petty bourgeois outlook. Here the MREQ advances our understanding to an even more complex and intricate level: when one renounces communist agitation and propaganda, one will be “greatly limited” in the work of communist agitation and propaganda. But in reality the MREQ renounced nothing, since one cannot give up tasks one has never assumed; one cannot be ’greatly limited’ in work one has never shouldered.
The MREQ is attempting to work wonders with words. It admits that in its inception it did not grasp “the fundamental principles of Marxism-Leninism”, admits that it did not defend the interests of the proletariat, admits that it maintained “...a separation between scientific socialism and the workers’ movement rather than trying to fuse them...”, admits being “anti-Marxist, non-dialectical” and “right opportunist”, “workerist and economist”, and so on, in short, that it had nothing in common with Marxism-Leninism or the working class, and then finds the gall to state that it was only through the “underestimation of revolutionary theory” that the MREQ was “greatly limited” in performing “its”, the MREQ’s, communist agitation and propaganda! Where, we may ask, did the MREQ, given its petty bourgeois, anti-communist composition, acquire communist agitation and propaganda that could then be “greatly limited”?! Secondly, how is it possible on the one hand, to promote “an erroneous conception of the creation of the proletarian vanguard”, to negate “the necessity for revolutionaries to work for the construction of a Marxist-Leninist communist party”, and on the other hand, to maintain that this is dealing with “the problems of our revolution”? This is beyond everyone but the MREQ’s imagination. How to “above all” teach Marxism-Leninism in study groups, while completely failing to grasp even the most fundamental principles of Marxism-Leninism, while holding an “anti-Marxist, non-dialectical” view, is a mystery “above all” mysteries. But the demands of Marxist-Leninist principle and even simple logic hold no sway over the MREQ. After all, this is the MREQ’s “First Period” we are dealing with here, before it had brought forth the “determining condition” for its transformation into a component part of the “vanguard organization of the working class”.
To make this transformation, this ’dialectical leap’, from the camp of “anti-Marxist revolutionism” to that of the ’genuines’, and within one year pass into the forerunner of the ’Party’, will demand some fast talking from the MREQ. The MREQ informs us that “...the conditions for identifying and combatting the bourgeois line which dominated MREQ existed inside our movement. On the one hand, there was the integrity of its members towards Marxist-Leninist principles which necessitated the summing-up of work that is, confronting this practice with the principles of Marxism-Leninism.” (Ibid p.32)
Imagine. An organization which even by the MREQ’s accounting was nothing but a petty bourgeois opposition group, was not guided by Marxism-Leninism, did not defend the interests of the working class, did not engage in communist work, and instead served only to represent the interests of a fraction of the petty bourgeoisie, was, despite all that, composed of a membership which maintained ’integrity towards Marxist-Leninist principles’. How such a principled membership, could have been “dominated” by a bourgeois line for such a long time is truly remarkable. How such members, what with their ’integrity to Marxist-Leninist principles’, could nonetheless be led by the nose to engage in practical work that plainly ran counter to the interests of the working class and only after the fact ’sum-up’ that the MREQ’s practice was bourgeois after all – we must admit we have a little trouble believing such things are possible. For we have been taught by Marxism-Leninism that ’integrity to Marxist-Leninist principles’, if it is to be true integrity and not simply a catch-phrase to excuse one’s opportunism, is something demonstrated in practice, in the totality of political work. One does not prove one’s integrity, consistency and adherence to Marxist-Leninist principles only after the fact, while one ’sums-up’ and ’confronts’ one’s opportunist practice. Such post facto ’integrity’ is no integrity at all, but is rather an apology for total self-indulgence and unrestrained opportunism. There is no doubt that the practice of the MREQ contradicted Marxist-Leninist principles, just as the petty bourgeoisie contradicts the interests of the working class. Someone in MREQ may even have noticed such a stark contradiction and ’identified’ it. But this does not at all amount to ’integrity’. Such a recognition of Marxist-Leninist principles would be only formal, one-sided and petty bourgeois until it led to a complete and final break with petty bourgeois outlook, until it led to a complete restructuring of work and proven adherence to Marxism-Leninism.
But let us take the MREQ at its word, and suppose for a moment that it really did have integrity to Marxist-Leninist principle, that it actually did summarize and criticize its work in a Marxist-Leninist fashion. In this case we would expect to see a fundamental correction of previous errors, “...a radical break...with their eclecticism and opportunism...”. The MREQ’s “Second Period” would then be qualitatively distinct from the first, and would signify the establishment of the MREQ as a firmly grounded, consistent Marxist-Leninist group. The MREQ dates its ’break’ with opportunism as of October 1974, with the publication of Towards the Marxist-Leninist Organization. But this new, “correct line”, as it was billed at the time, only “...marked the beginning of MREQ’s rupture with the ’revolutionary’ petty bourgeois characteristics of spontanaeism and workerism.” (Ibid p.32)
And so the saga of the struggling petty bourgeois failure continues adnauseum into the MREQ’s Second Period. How intensely boring and despicable to attempt to give such a sordid, petty bourgeois past a working class texture, and then brag of this ’integrity’ to Marxism-Leninism. But why, may we ask, was this “only the beginning”?
Only the beginning, for the introduction to the text recognized spontaneism not as an error of principle concerning the role of revolutionary theory and as the ideological root of opportunism, but only as an insufficient assimilation of Marxism-Leninism. Ibid p.32
What can this mean? 1) That despite its ’collision’ with Marxist-Leninist principles, the MREQ did not make a clean break with its petty bourgeois class standpoint. And 2) its “...continued study of theory (including the study of the international communist movement)...” (p.32) meant only that it was able to pick up a few bits and pieces from Foto Cami and turn them into a catch-phrase to let itself off the hook. Whether or not “...the ideological source of opportunism resides in advocating spontaneity...” , this still says nothing about why the MREQ made these errors, why it bowed to spontaneity in the first place. The MREQ thinks it has made a tremendous advance when it recognizes, finally, that its errors were “errors of principle” and that advocacy of spontaneity is the “ideological root of opportunism”. But any child of ten could see this. What the MREQ does not want to recognize is that “only the beginning” of a break with opportunism is still itself opportunism, that failing to confront errors from the standpoint of principles is itself unprincipled, however much ’integrity’ the MREQ may claim. In the MREQ’s First Period it was admittedly opportunist; from the standpoint of Marxism-Leninism, the MREQ’s Second Period is every bit as opportunist as the First. This is what the MREQ wishes to gloss over.
Though the MREQ’s pamphlet was “only the beginning”,
It was nevertheless the beginning of a real rupture – for once we put forward the need to work for the creation of the party of the proletariat and we undertook a practice in the working class with the goal of spreading Marxist-Leninist ideas, the determining condition for the development of a proletarian line was present. Ibid p.32
The MREQ admits that it did not already have a “proletarian line”, and in fact had only achieved the “determining conditions” for one. But what are these “determining conditions”? Here the MREQ was putting forward the need to create a proletarian party and was going amongst the workers “spreading Marxist-Leninist ideas”, and still lacked a proletarian line. What do we call people who pretend to represent the interests of the working class, who talk about ’parties’ and ’Marxist-Leninist ideas’, and yet who advance, not the interests of the working class, but of the petty bourgeoisie? Does not every penny-ante Trotskyite sect share the very same “determining conditions” as the MREQ in its Second Period? What is being ’determined’ by such opportunist behavior is not the ’possibility’ that such opportunists may some day become ’proletarian’, but the fact that these opportunists already have the “determining conditions” typical of reactionary, petty bourgeois counter-revolution which strikes against the working class. Instead of admitting that the MREQ was in every respect reactionary at this point, the MREQ attempts to salvage some ’potential’ from this shoddy episode in its history. The fact that the MREQ was formally advancing the need for a working class party and formally recognized ’Marxist-Leninist ideas’ does not put it one step closer to the “development of a proletarian line” than if it had been formally anti-communist. The Trotskyites, too, talk of ’proletarian parties’ and ’Marxist-Leninist ideas’, but this does not give them any more “determining conditions” than, say, the Western Guard, to develop “a proletarian line”. The MREQ has ’forgotten’ that one of the distinguishing features of opportunism is that it willingly claims to be anything, even ’Marxist-Leninist’ and ’anti-revisionist’, will formally advance even the most ’principled’ positions, in order to establish itself in the working class. But we do not judge people according to what they say about themselves; we credit no one simply for the fact that they formally adhere to Marxism-Leninism. We do not share the MREQ’s fantasy that such formal adherence creates “determining conditions” to become truly working class. Not at all. We recognize what the entire history of the world communist movement has proven: that we must judge people according to what they do, according to whose class interests they advance, according to how they view the totality of class relations. We do not recognize the slightest validity in ’good intentions’, “determining conditions”, or ’possibilities’. Such wishful thinking is a fit subject only for opportunists, only for those who wish to continue masking their narrow interests, who wish to convince others that there was “integrity” and “determining conditions” towards Marxism-Leninism, when in fact there existed only filthy maneuvering and deceit.
According to the MREQ’s rendition, it did not develop a Marxist-Leninist line in either its First or Second Periods, and was only ’beginning to break’ in its Second Period. Is there any difference at all, then, between these two Periods? Did the MREQ in either Period cease to advance the interests of the petty bourgeoisie against those of the working class? We must ask, then, why the MREQ bothers with Periods at all. Clearly there is no marked difference between the two. All that changed was that in its First Period the MREQ made lesser pretensions towards the working class, whereas in its Second Period its pretensions were much more pronounced. But pretense, pretending to move towards the working class while in fact remaining thoroughly petty bourgeois, is all the MREQ has to boast about. In the best tradition of the CPC(ML), the MREQ took the earthshaking step of putting “forward the need to work for the party” (never mind that such a ’party’, conceived from a petty bourgeois standpoint, would be completely reactionary), and “undertook a practice in the working class” (never mind that ’a practice1 could only have meant Economism and petty reformism). This is the historic decision that warranted MREQ’s division of its ’glorious’ and ’heroic’ existence into “two periods”. The MREQ, with the inflated ego of a spoiled child, is so supremely proud of itself for having recognized something ’other’, something outside its own precious self. Never mind that it sees the working class only as a means to its own ends. When they take the baby step of formally declaring themselves ’Marxist-Leninists’, they demand, and give themselves, a standing ovation. When they force themselves to skim the classics and finally proclaim “the need to work for the creation of the party”, a childish claim to originality appears. When they actually take the ’bold’ step of going amonst the workers an utterly traumatic experience for the declassed intelligentsia they declare it an historic event. Such is the magnifying lens through which the MREQ views itself. But through the eyes of the working class, the MREQ does not appear so ’grand’.
The MREQ’s pretentiousness is developed to the fullest in its ’critical’ account of its line in the Second Period. Despite the ’sobering’ experience of having only made a break ’in embryo’, the MREQ now manages to find a few redeeming qualities about itself. Once it is into the camp of the ’genuines’, it has no compunction about praising itself to the skies. We learn that “It was certainly not the least of MREQ’s merits that it situated its intervention on a national scale.” (Ibid p.33)
In addition to its ’intervention’ (the MREQ does not wish to say for what purpose it ’intervened’) on a national scale, it established international ties as well, which, in the MREQ’s view, “...reflected an internationalist attitude in contrast to national narrowness...” (p.33). Never mind that even liberals, Trotskyites, reformists, fascists, and so on, also establish ties internationally; never mind that ’internationalism’ can be based on any class interests. What is important to the MREQ is not the class content of its national and international connections, but the simple (and simple-minded) fact that they were established. The content of the MREQ’s national ’situating’ was equally ’momentous’. According to the MREQ, it “...contributed to the unity of Canadian Marxist-Leninists by encouraging debate...”. It is a small matter to the MREQ that the ’debate’ was not conducted along the lines of Marxist-Leninist principles, and therefore incapable of contributing to genuine Marxist-Leninist unity. All that matters is that it “contributed” and “encouraged”. In addition, the MREQ credits itself with calling for ’The Marxist-Leninist Organization’. This ’valuable contribution1 is not diminished in the MREQ’s eyes by the ’minor’ fact that its call was given from the standpoint of opportunism. Further, the MREQ states that it ’combatted’ “...pseudo-communist opportunism...”, by which it means not itself or its cronies, but its most convenient target, the CPC(ML). And finally, having sufficiently disposed of any remaining pretense of modesty and objectivity in assessing itself, and fearing that its ’contributions’ are so...subtle, shall we say, that the rank and file Marxist-Leninists in the movement may miss them entirely, the MREQ informs us that “Above all, MREQ served the revolutionary cause of the proletariat and the Canadian Marxist-Leninist movement by the development of its political line. (Ibid p.34)
This of course means Towards the Marxist-Leninist Organization, part of which ’notable contribution’ we have analyzed’ earlier in this work. The MREQ informs us that “The line presented in Towards The Marxist-Leninist Organization contained correct elements, which were dominant, as well as errors or insufficiencies which we have corrected in struggle.” (Ibid p.34)
Even a brief comparison of these “correct elements” and “insufficiencies” reveals the ’dominance’, not of correct ’elements’, but of the MREQ’s consistent opportunism. The MREQ states that
Among the correct elements there was, first of all, the unequivocal affirmation of the primacy of the fundamental line of the communist party: MLMTT. Second, the analysis of the international situation was correct, if insufficient, while the analysis of Canada had a correct position on two fundamental aspects of strategic line: the principal contradiction in Canada today as that between the Canadian bourgeoisie and proletariat, in contrast to the widespread idea that it is between American imperialism and the Canadian people. This analysis of the principal contradiction was not, however, developed enough. Third, the October text put forward the fusion of scientific socialism and the workers’ movement, the penetration of the Marxist-Leninist Organization into the heart of the proletariat (and into its main mass organizations the trade unions) in order to win over the best, most devoted elements. It correctly insisted on the need for constant application of the mass line, for investigation, and for the greatest devotion during class confrontations, in order to implant the communist organization in the masses... Ibid p.34
And, “Finally, in regard to the trade unions, the positions presented in TMLO were correct.” (Ibid p.36)
Judging from this list of ’achievements’ it would appear that the MREQ’s Second Period was quite prolific after all. But this can be judged only after we see exactly what these “errors and insufficiencies” are, and how the MREQ’s ’great contributions’ stand after we subtract what was not grasped.
In terms of the international situation, the MREQ
...did not concretely establish the link between the situation in the world and in our country, mainly because of a lack of depth in the analysis of the second world. Consequently, we did not clearly situate the Canadian revolution in the world proletarian revolution or Canada’s role in the united front against the two superpowers. The analysis of the international scene also failed to underline the rapidly aggravating Soviet-American rivalry and the danger of a new world war. Ibid p.34
That is, acting on its already ’proven’ “internationalist attitude”, the MREQ did not “clearly” link proletarian revolution in Canada with the international class struggle. And then the MREQ is bold enough, after four years of existence as one of the larger groups, equipped with a newspaper and international ’fraternal ties’, to call this failure only an “insufficiency”. The MREQ does not point out that this “insufficiency” itself reflects a definite class standpoint. It has no wish to show that its incorrect position on a crucial question was not simply an ’oversight’, but was yet another expression of its petty bourgeois outlook and orientation. The fact that this outlook was expressed in a formal ’Marxist-Leninist’ disguise does not alter its class content. The only ’insufficiency’ here is the MREQ’s inability to adequately cover its tracks.
In terms of the principal contradiction in Canada, we find that after the MREQ did its homework internationally and ’situated’ Canada in the “united front against the two superpowers”, the principal contradiction that the MREQ found is now suddenly negated. Formerly the MREQ had found that the principal contradiction in Canada was between the bourgeoisie and proletariat, that Canada was an imperialist power, and so on. When the MREQ ’situates’ Canada in the “united front against the two superpowers”, however, it becomes openly social-chauvinist, loses its ’profound’ “internationalist attitude”, puts forth a ’change’ of the principal contradiction, and objectively calls for ’defense of the imperialist fatherland’. The principal contradiction is suddenly no longer between the Canadian bourgeoisie and proletariat, but between the ’peoples’ and the two superpowers. Thus, when the MREQ sets out to ’correct’ its “insufficiencies’ it compounds opportunism with ultra-opportunism. The MREQ in fact contributes, not to the proletarian class struggle, but to the new ’internationalist’ upsurge of social-chauvinism.
In terms of communist work within the class, at the same time as the MREQ had a “correct position” on the trade unions and “...recognized the need to bring about the fusion of scientific socialism with the workers’ movement ”, it also failed to “...make a break with the fundamental error of spontaneism and workerism...” and “...relegated communist education (agitation and propaganda) to a secondary position...” (p.35). Actually, the MREQ did much more than simply “not note” {p.36) the leading role of propaganda and agitation:
While dialectically linking communist education with the participation in daily struggles... we did not define communist education in terms of agitation-propaganda... Ibid p.36
We can only wonder at the power of such ’dialectics’. The MREQ pursued an Economist line, indulged in “spontaneism and workerism”, failed to correctly define, let alone implement, communist agitation and propaganda, and yet, yet the MREQ had a “correct position” on the trade unions! Only those who have completely lost touch with reality could imagine that we would be convinced, through such dimestore ’dialectics’, that opportunism is in fact the very same as Marxism-Leninism. While this may be the case for the MREQ, it is certainly not the case for the new communist movement. We know very well that these “correct positions” of the MREQ are nothing more than a means for the MREQ to convince itself and “those ready to move forward” that despite all its gross and revealing opportunism it is nonetheless fit material for the ’Party of the Proletariat’.
The MREQ supposes that its errors have no class basis whatsoever, but are rather the product of oversights and lack of clarity. For example, “Our overestimation of the spontaneist working class movement, and our still largely formal understanding of the tasks of communists, however, were reflected in the lack of clear definitions of militancy and communist activity in the unions.” (Ibid. p.36)
But here the MREQ only ’over-estimates’ its ability to provide a suitable cover for its Economism. Its ’definitions’ were not unclear at all. They were a stark and quite clear presentation of the MREQ’s Economist view of ’militancy’ and ’communist work’. They were tailist through and through.
In summation, the MREQ makes one final plea to the movement, one final attempt to subvert any opposition put against it:
To sum-up, MREQ has been a petty bourgeois revolutionary organization dominated for the greater part of its existence by a spontaneist, essentially right opportunist orientation, that is, by a bourgeois line (one which objectively serves the interests of the bourgeoisie). Ibid p.37
How touching! We, the MREQ, have been petty bourgeois, “dominated for the greater part” of our existence, that is, up to the present moment, by a bourgeois line. We, the MREQ, have been “essentially”, that is, in every respect, Right opportunist, and have served the bourgeoisie, even while posing as ’Marxist-Leninists’. But despite all this, we, the MREQ, make token self-criticism, convinced as we are that the movement will forgive these minor faults and accept us as the ’Marxist-Leninist Organization to Create the Party’. After all, even if we have absolutely nothing to offer the working class but our opportunism, we are still motivated by our ’good intentions’. Surely our intentions count for something!
No, they do not. The MREQ’s intentions are not the point of dispute. Intentions are of no interest or relevance unless there is concrete and strictly objective evidence that they are put into practice in a consistent Marxist-Leninist manner. This criterion the MREQ cannot fulfill. The MREQ’s berating of itself will not erase its political history, will not obscure the fact that its opportunism continues to this day. The truth of this is shown beyond doubt, even for those who cannot yet or do not want to see the extent of the MREQ’s opportunism, by its completely sectarian conclusion:
It is because a proletarian line could develop within our movement that MREQ can now pass on to the creation of the vanguard organization of the proletariat. This is its greatest contribution to the revolutionary movement. Ibid p.37
For all its opportunist dexterity, the MREQ cannot restrain its petty bourgeois swaggering. But in fact, the creation of the CCL(ML) is not in any way a “great contribution to the revolutionary movement. It is intended to be and is in practice a ”great contribution” only to the MREQ and its cronies. This is the only ’integrity’ the MREQ possesses: towards the accommodation and defense of the interests of the petty bourgeoisie.
b. The Content of the Error Goes Untouched
In its final summation the League tells us that
The political errors which the three groups committed were above all rightist errors, notably economism. This was manifested in our work in the working class by communist propaganda which was too restricted and by agitation which concentrated too much on the economic demands of the workers.
This economism also was reflected in the errors the three groups made on the question of implantation. Ibid p.40
And as each of the groups has promised many times before, so now in unison the League promises us that “We have learnt from our errors and are resolved to correct them.” (Ibid p.40).
Well and good. But the fact that none of the groups was able to make a break with opportunism, despite their ’study’, numerous sum-ups and self-criticisms, indicates that they did not at all understand the content of their errors nor what is involved in Communist work. The question remains: do they understand this now? We have already seen their refusal to objectively analyse their political dsvelopment and instead apologize for their opportunism. Further testing of their political tendency must deal with the analysis and criticism of their Economism and the content of their present work. Here we concern ourselves only with their ’analysis’ of their past errors.
The sum and substance of their understanding, the extent to which each of the League groups have comprehensively analysed, ruthlessly exposed and concretely repudiated their Economist past is vividly expressed in their views on implantation. In explaining the Economist “left-overs” of its second attempt to break with opportunism, the CMO states its understanding of implantation as follows:
We considered implantation as the principal way of linking up with the masses. This was a confused position which objectively could lead to downgrading the role of agitation and propaganda. Linking up with the masses is carried about when communists accomplish the totality of their tasks, and especially at the present stage, agitation and propaganda. Implantation is an important, but not sufficient means of bringing communist agitation and propaganda into the factories, recruiting the advanced elements of the working class and setting up factory cells. It is also an important but not the only means of giving struggle experience to militants of intellectual origin and thus contributing to their ideological re-education. In the present circumstances in Canada, given the small number of workers won over to communism and the petty bourgeois origin and lack df experience of the majority of Marxist-Leninist militants, implantation, or sending militants into factories, is still of some importance. Ibid p. 22.
The CMO does not deal with what the theory of implantation was in practice, does not show not only what it “objectively could lead to” but what it in fact objectively did lead to. If, as the CMO says, implantation was intended for “setting up factory cells” and conducting “communist agitation and propaganda”, then how could it “lead to downgrading the role of agitation and propaganda”? And since the CMO holds to implantation as still being of “some importance”, then it could not have been the theory of implantation itself that was Economist. The only possible conclusion to the CMO’s reasoning is that there was too much of it, i.e., implantation was viewed as “...the principal way of linking up with the masses ”. But then, how could there be too much of “setting up factory cells”, or too much of “communist agitation and propaganda” if that is really all that implantation involved? How could the mere act of “sending militants into factories” possibly lead to downgrading the role of propaganda and agitation, that is, bringing political knowledge to the workers? On the contrary, it would seem that such work would be greatly facilitated, especially since the CMO, for example, proudly claims to have never held implantation as the exclusive tactic and was producing “...a propaganda pamphlet and communist tracts...” (p.22). What would any of this have to do with Economism? To such questions the CMO has no answers, for its concerns are elsewhere.
From the very beginning, the CMO completely ignores the fact that the theory of implantation as understood and put forward by each group did not simply ’downgrade’ communist propaganda and agitation, but in fact liquidated it altogether. The CMO ignores the actual content of the implantation theory, that is, of posing the question of communist work in terms of being ’inside’ (implanted) versus being ’outside’ the factory gates, and yet it is precisely this juxtaposition that makes implantation Economist. The CMO gives no indication that it has grasped the one-sided, petty bourgeois perspective from which the entire ’problem’ is posed. It has been forced by criticism to admit that implantation is an error. But it still has no idea just why it is in fact an error. Instead, it holds to implantation, with minor apologies of course, and maintains it “is still of some importance’. Apparently a little bit of Economism, justified by ”present conditions“ and dressed up as “struggle experience”, is perfectly satisfactory to the CMO.
The COR follows suit by telling us that:
Economism was also reflected in our position on ’implantation’. In our first text we put forward implantation as an essential part of communist work, even a criteria to demark oneself from ’left’ opportunists. We confused the sending into factories of militants of petty bourgeois origin, with the necessity of establishing communist bases – factory cells. Even the self-criticism in the Red Star was only partial. We still maintained that implantation was the means to proletarianize the Marxist-Leninist movement in Canada, whereas the means to proletarianize a communist organization is not to send militants of petty bourgeois origin into factories, but rather to recruit more militants with a working class background. We ought to establish factory cells in the principal industrial centres in Canada. To establish these cells, the organization must rally the advanced workers to communism. This is done by agitation and propaganda and also by the organizational means necessary and by participating actively in working class struggles. The CCL(ML) can apply the tactic of sending militants regardless of their class origins, inside the factories, in order to do communist agitation and propaganda and rally the most advanced workers to communism. It also remains that implantation in a factory, in conjunction with theoretical study and criticism, self-criticism, can be an important element in re-educating militants from a petty bourgeois background. Ibid p.27
Nowhere does the COR say why implantation is Economism. Nowhere does the COR explain that it confused implantation with setting up factory cells because it posed communist work in a strictly formal way, as a question of one’s location. Nowhere does the COR explain that its use of implantation as a criterion to “demark” itself from “ ’left’ opportunists”, that is, those propagating Marxism-Leninism at the factory gates, was only an expression of this geographic, Right opportunist view of communist work. Nowhere does it explain that as long as the question of communist work was posed in terms of form, of location, thit its content was bound to be reformist. And so on. In other words, the COR never actually traces its ’confusion’ back to the real content of the implantation theory. And of course the COR does not recognize the origins of this theory, does not see it as a justification for the frustrated ambitions of declassed sections of the petty bourgeoisie who, already thrown down into the working class, ’implanted’ so to speak by the crush of imperialism, are attempting to acquire status and security through gaining control of the trade union movement.
The COR tries to avoid such harsh realities altogether. It speaks, not of the class basis and outcome of its errors, but of what we ought to do. It is well and good to speak of factory cells, propaganda and so on, but without a clear understanding of the reformism inherent in the basic conception of implantation, the factory cells and propaganda the COR speaks of will merely be a continuation of its past Economism. The COR fails to thoroughly analyze the content of this Economism. Instead, as with the CMO, it holds onto it and infuses it with a new content.
Formerly implantation was ’needed’ to fill the gap between those “ ’left’ opportunists” outside the factory gates and the mass of workers on the inside. These ’opportunists’ were only giving “mere support” and, worst of all, since they all called themselves ’revolutionary’, were simply spreading confusion among the workers. Something was needed to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt who were the real ’revolutionaries’. Something was needed to guarantee ’links’ with the workers. And the ’solution’, in the form of implantation, provided, not a means for the ’revolutionaries’ to transform the consciousness of the workers, but for the conditions of the workers to transform the consciousness of ’revolutionaries’. A very unique solution. Could the workers then have any doubt as to who the ’real revolutionaries’ were? Could they not but marvel at these ’revolutionaries’ who devoted so much energy to the economic struggle and to transforming their own precious consciousness?
The ’genuines’ invented something very ’practical’, very concrete which would put to shame all those newspapers at the factory gates, something which could certainly be used to “demark” themselves from the propagandizers: a ’new’ sort of activity called Going Amongst The Workers. The goal of this activity? To win the workers to militant trade unionism through actually leading the economic struggle, ’proving’ themselves to be the ’best defenders’ of the workers’ class interests. That is, producing cheap, palpable results. This is the wretched heart and soul of implantation, whatever new content may be ascribed to it. Our League ’genuines’ completely missed two points of common knowledge to Marxist-Leninists: one, that geographic location does not make one a Marxist-Leninist; and two, that communist propaganda and agitation are the means by which communists spread class consciousness both within and without the factory gates and win the advanced workers to communism. The need for ’implantation’ or ’calls to action’ or any other third category arises only when propaganda and agitation are viewed one-sidedly and ’need’ to be supplemented by some different sort of ’practical’ activity. The COR, and the League it has become a part of, fails to grasp that it was by juxtaposing propaganda and agitation to “participating actively in working class struggles” that they were led to the quagmire of Economism in the first place.
This same juxtaposition is maintained in the COR’s views on building factory cells through winning the advanced, or ’most advanced’, workers:
To establish these cells, the organization must rally the advanced workers to communism. This is done by agitation and propaganda and also by the organizational means necessary and by participating actively in working class struggles. (our emphasis) Ibid p.27
The COR formally recognizes the necessity for factory cells and the importance of communist agitation and propaganda, but it clings to the basic premise of implantation, clings to its narrowness, and guarantees the continuation of Economism in the work of the League.
For its part, the MREQ, a proven pioneer of r-r-revolutionary jibberish, puts the cap on all that has gone before. Like the others, the MREQ admits that because it “...did not make a break with the fundamental errors of spontaneism and workerism This led us in practice to make economist errors, that is, to neglect communist agitation and propaganda, doing economic agitation above all and concentrating our activity on shop papers.” (Ibid p.35)
Such penetrating, powerful logic! Because we did not break with economism...we remained economist! According to the MREQ, the problem was that “It accorded too much importance to growing links the organization should have with the masses in order to lead their struggles and relegated communist education (agitation and propaganda) to a secondary position.” (Ibid p.35)
Right on the mark! The MREQ did in fact relegate communist agitation and propaganda to a ’secondary position’, so much so in fact that it had ceased to exist. But we must ask, what has “growing links” with the masses to do with relegating “communist education to a secondary position”? Absolutely nothing. One cannot give “too much importance” to the necessity for fusion between communism and the working class. This is the focus of our entire work, and it is achieved precisely through communist propaganda and agitation. The MREQ, however, poses a contradiction between the two in order to avoid the actual substance of the matter. It ’relegated’ let us be frank, it liquidated communist propaganda and agitation, not because it accorded too much importance to the “growing links”, but rather because it proposed to establish Economist “links”, ties with the masses based only on the struggle for ’palpable results’. The theory of implantation denied the necessity of bringing true political knowledge to the working class, and did so through a false juxtaposition of ’outside’ and ’inside’ the factories. This is precisely the point the MREQ must avoid if it is to maintain the “dominant correct elements” of its political development, if it is to maintain its opportunism.
The MREQ explains its excesses on “growing links” as an overemphasis on “...the exemplary actions of communist militants – a necessary but in no way determining factor in making the proletariat aware of its fundamental interests and in leading it in the revolutionary struggle.” (Ibid p.35)
What is there in the least ’exemplary’ about the ’actions’ of Economists? Only the MREQ knows. With its delusions of grandeur, the MREQ still hopes to paint a pretty picture of its bowing and scraping before the economic struggle and pretend that this grovelling was something more than rank opportunism. We are not rank opportunists, declares the MREQ, we merely overemphasized “exemplary actions”. It is a small matter to the MREQ that its ’actions’ were exemplary only in terms of complete capitulation to petty reformism. Its “exemplary actions” consisted of being the best “practical defenders”, the ’true friend’ of the workers ’fundamental interests’ by producing the most ’exemplary’ concrete, petty palpable results from the economic struggle. Its “exemplary actions” consisted in ascribing its own utter disdain for political knowledge, its own inability to comprehend the science of Marxism-Leninism, onto the working class. Its “exemplary actions” consisted in its raising the theory that in the pre-Party stage the task of communists was to buy the workers with these trinkets, and then the ’Party’ would take over and put its “accent” on raising the workers to the level of class consciousness. Its “exemplary actions” consisted in denying the existence of the advanced workers, of lowering Lenin’s definition to fit their own reformist end, and thereby eliminating the advanced workers from the Party-building process. If these are “exemplary actions”, then what is petty bourgeois contempt? That the MREQ sees things differently is to be expected. From the standpoint of the working class, these “exemplary actions” are nothing more than gross opportunism. From the standpoint of the petty bourgeoisie, they are indeed “exemplary”.
Following from its apology for its ’over-emphasis’, the MREQ relates that
This led us, on a tactical level, to steadfastly privilege the implantation of communist militants in factories to the point of making it an exclusive tactic (’the tactical line’ as we put it), if not a question of principle.” Ibid p.35
The MREQ attempts in every way to present its case as a series of ’logical steps’, one error naturally flowing into another, then to another, finally culminating in making implantation “...an exclusive tactic...if not a question of principle.” But the truth of the matter is that implantation did not begin as one thing, and then over a period of time become “an exclusive tactic”, exaggerated and thus incorrect. Not at all. In reality, the theory of implantation was from the very first an exaggeration, a one-sided conception of communist work, and “exclusively” opportunist. Try as it may, the MREQ cannot separate the opportunism inherent in its theory from the theory itself. Since it is determined to maintain its opportunism, it must maintain its theory:
Implantation is a correct tactic in the concrete conditions of our country {a separation between the Marxist-Leninist and the workers movement, the absence of a strata of communist workers, etc.) when the Marxist-Leninist organization must win the most advanced workers to communism. It reflects an understanding of the fact that communists, who by their agitational and propaganda work are the educators of the proletariat, must themselves learn from the masses, applying the mass line to be good teachers. But implantation is not the only way to conduct communist agitation and propaganda – far from it. Suffice to say that intervention from outside factories is an equally indispensable means.Ibid. p.35-36
The MREQ attempts to narrow the conception of implantation to ’learning from the masses’, to the ’re-education’ of the petty bourgeois militants. It must attempt this narrowing in order to ’bring along’ the theory as a whole. But implantation does not consist simply of ’re-education’. Implantation was a ’reflection’ of the MREQ’s, CMO’s, and COR’s bowing to spontaneity. It was the theoretical justification for their common Economism. This the MREQ either cannot or refuses to confront. It has no wish to speak to its grovelling to ’palpable results’, to its stages theory in relation to Party-building, to its liquidation of advanced workers, and so on. It would rather that we forget these other aspects of implantation, and instead accept its own version about ’re-education’. Thus the defense of the theory of implantation becomes the MREQ’s vehicle for the defense of its Economism. There is indeed some ’re-education’ occurring here. The MREQ is attempting to ’re-educate’ its petty bourgeois militants in the spirit of a more refined and sophisticated opportunism. Forget, it says in effect, how we invested the theory of implantation with ’palpable results’, with ’inside’ versus ’outside’, how it became a means to liquidate communist agitation and propaganda, how we heaped contempt on the working class. Accept, it says in effect, the notion that implantation merely referred to ’re-education’, and that our error consisted only in ’over-emphasis’. Do this, it says in effect, and you will become fit stock for the ’Marxist-Leninist Organization’.
“Suffice to say” that our opportunists have learned alot since the days of their forefathers. Where the Russian Economists cried “It’s not me; it’s not my horse, I’m not the driver. We are not Economists...there is no Economism in Russia.” (V.I. Lenin What is to be Done? Foreign Languages Press Peking p.117) our modern Economists cry:
We admit it! We’ve admitted it for years, and will continue to apologize for our Economism in each and every instance it occurs. We were Economists! The main danger is Economism! What more do you want from us? To fully break? But that is too much to ask! We’ve fulfilled our self-critical duty; just let us get on with business as usual.
“Suffice to say” that that is precisely the voice of opportunism.M/p>
It is fine to quote Lenin on the importance of “frankly admitting a mistake”, on self-criticism as the “earmark of a serious party”, and so on’. But can it be said that Lenin was referring to constant repetition of the same error, of ’admitting’ to errors as a means to perpetuate them and on this basis proceed to form a “vanguard organization”? We think not. The simple fact is that the League founders could have “demarked” themselves from “all those opportunists” only if they themselves had actually done what they demand of the rest of the movement, that is, make a firm and definite break with opportunism. Their self-criticisms show that on the contrary the MREQ, COR, and CMO have no intention of breaking with opportunism, but have only sought, through the mechanism of the League, to create a more durable disguise.
Near the conclusion of its “great contribution”, the League is still not fully satisfied that we have been convinced of its ’genuine’ status as ’The Marxist-Leninist Organization’. After some thirty pages of pleading the case of the sincere, honest and genuine petty bourgeois who could never quite make the transition to Marxism-Leninism, but who constantly ’rectified’ and “honestly struggled forward”, the League puts us through a final test of endurance. With incredible irony it off-handedly.concludes:
Our three groups all made the error of waiting for the creation of the Marxist-Leninist organization before assuming certain tasks or rectifying mistakes of the past. We put off correcting some of our economist practice on the pretext that the organization would be created soon,.. This is incorrect since communists must always take up the tasks that need to be accomplished even if their forces are small or the conditions difficult. Failing to rectify an error makes it much harder to correct it later. The Struggle for the Creation of the CCL(ML) p.40
Having reached a ’qualitatively higher’ stage, the League gazes down onto the struggling movement from its lofty pedestal and proffers words of wisdom from its vast storehouse of “unsustained, unstable revolutionary activity ” (p.40). And with these words it once again verifies that in addition to all its ’self-criticism’, ’rectification’ and ’breaks with economism’, it simply has no idea what it is talking about. In unison, the three groups ’self-criticiza’ for their ’wait-and-see’ attitude, for refusing to correct recognized Right opportunist errors. But they show no sign whatsoever of understanding that this was perfectly consistent with their opportunist development and the theories they invented to justify it.
In reality the League did not “put off correcting some (!) of our economist practice” prior to the League’s creation. The League did not “put off” correcting “some” errors; it simply did no correcting at all. All it accomplished was to bury those errors behind 44 pages of tedious apology. But never mind. That dirty business is all behind them now, for these groups have made the “necessary progress in terms of political line and political consciousness to now proceed to the formation of a vanguard organization.” (Ibid. p.42)
We are simply ’overwhelmed by too much’. The League’s founders persistently ’flunk’ their attempts to pass themselves off as Marxist-Leninists, scold themselves tongue-in-cheek, issue themselves a certificate of poverty for their consistency and effort, and then promote themselves to ’learned’ professors of the working class as just reward. Such is the substance of the ’penetrating’ self-criticisms the League has rushed past the movement.
There are two consistent and striking features characteristic of each of the League’s founding groups. On the one hand, an inability to grasp and correct even the most obvious opportunist errors. On the other hand, the use of token self-criticism as a springboard to factional consolidation.
None of the groups were able to develop an objective view of their petty bourgeois development and consequently none could break from it. The political lines and practice of the League founders brands them as leading opportunist elements attempting to influence the developing Marxist-Leninist movement. Their self-criticisms are nothing more than an attempt to appease the movement and gain acceptance as authentic Marxist-Leninists. In so far as the League can maintain this ’legitimacy’, it will have a clear path to its ’Party’.
But the League must not only secure an open path; it must constantly ’move forward if it is to become the ’Party’. Thus, in initiating a ’new period’, the League wants to begin, not merely with a clean slate, but with a glorious history behind it. The truth of the matter, however, is that the groups comprising the League simply have no evidence whatsoever that there is anything in common between their ’heritage’ and Marxism-Leninism. Just the opposite. But ’merely’ being incapable of raising themselves to the level of Marxism-Leninism does not stop the League. The founding groups simply lower Marxism-Leninism to their own level, that is, to the level of petty reformism. To manage this, the only recourse is to judge ’genuine’ Marxism-Leninism solely on the basis of ’good intentions’. If the League groups admitted that they too had not yet broken with Economism, and that alongside the rest of the movement they were still amateurish, poorly formulated and far from a consistent Marxist-Leninist trend, then they would have absolutely no way of explaining their miraculous, overnight transformation into, as the MREQ generously calls it, “the vanguard organization of the proletariat”. In lieu of dealing with objective reality, the League creates its own. Suddenly we find that despite their overwhelming opportunism, these groups have only suffered from “certain insufficiencies” and of course have always carried the banner of ’Marxism-Leninism’.
This in itself marks an ’elevation’ of the League’s opportunism to a qualitatively ’higher’ level. What began as errors due to inexperience, immaturity, and petty bourgeois outlook have developed into a consolidated and consistent opportunist trend. What began as a tendency to bow to its spontaneous petty bourgeois standpoint has become a comprehensive and persistent refusal to transform this standpoint. What began as an “insufficient assimilation” of Marxism-Leninism, has become a systematic defense of that insufficiency in an organized and reactionary form. What began as a tendency towards a narrow view of the movement has become organized factionalism. What began as a tendency to compromise Marxist-Leninist principles has become a complete adaptation of Marxism-Leninism to petty bourgeois opportunism. In short, what began as a tendency towards Right opportunism has become fully-fledged, organized Right opportunism.
The ’self-criticisms’ of the League groups reveal that they have not made a break with the petty bourgeoisie, but actively defend its existence over the working class movement. That each of the groups accommodates the apologies of the others indicates that before amalgamation they represented fully compatible strains of a common petty bourgeois trend, peculiar enough to sst them apart from other trends. The liberal attitude towards their own opportunist errors is part and parcel of this trend, but is also an appeal to backward elements of both the communist and working class movements. In terms of the communist movement, it is a call to all those who have been in similar straits as the League founders, and who do not have the class consciousness, perseverance, discipline or backbone to raise themselves to the level of staunch and consistent Communist fighters worthy of the working class. The League is fostering opportunism and liberalism in the ranks of our movement, and is attempting to institutionalize it. In terms of the working class movement, the League is appealing to the most backward strata of workers, to the “base instincts” of petty bourgeois new arrivals in the working class, to those entirely enmeshed in the economic struggle. To this strata the League promises ’palpable results’ and offers the dull vision of petty reformists.
The League displays ar arrogant, sectarian attitude towards the communist movement This attitude permeates the entire ’self-criticism’, but finds its clearest and most graphic expression in this concluding remark:
...the forces cf revolution in Canada remain weak, poorly or little organized. Their work is still primitive and undeveloped and it lacks ideological and political clarity. Ibid p.42
Clearly the League is not referring to itself, since we have already been told that its own precious members have attained sufficient ’ideological and political clarity’ to declare themselves the “vanguard organization of the proletariat”. No, “Their work is still primitive” refers to the communist movement, to everyone outside the League. Such willingness to set oneself apart from and above the struggle to build a real Communist Party, to assign oneself the role of ’party-creator’ or, the basis of a thoroughly opportunist history is just another expression of the all-too-familiar posturing of the petty bourgeoisie. It is merely a ’refined’ version of what the CPC(ML) has already accomplished.
The ’self-criticisms’ of the troika are a classic expression of the tendency of opportunism to seek new and more subtle forms. Previously, each of the League founders were Economist, this being expressed most clearly in their views on implantation. Implantation comes under attack, and suddenly disappears from the vocabulary, save as a vague reference to ’re-education’. But it would be foolish to think that this alone indicates a break with opportunism. As the ’self-criticisms’ show, no such break ever occurred. The League’s founders, despite their bravado and ’good intentions’, despite all their talk about Marxism-Leninism and the working class, only continue to invent new ways to defend the interests of the petty bourgeoisie. They may succeed in convincing themselves this is not the case, but their history speaks for itself. Lenin described this phenomenon as follows:
It is said that history is fond of irony, of playing tricks with people, and mystifying them. In history this constantly happens to individuals, groups and trends that do not realise what they really stand for; i.e., fail to understand which class they really (and not in their imagination) gravitate towards”. Whether this lack of understanding is genuine or hypocritical is a question that might interest the biographer of a particular individual, but to the student of politics this question is of secondary importance, to say the least. The important thing is how history and politics expose groups and trends and reveal the bourgeois nature concealed behind their ’pseudo-socialist’ or ’pseudo-Marxist’ phraseology. V.I. Lenin, The Bourgeois Intelligentsia’s Methods of Struggle CW Vol.20 p.456
Such is the irony the League is demonstrating before the movement. But it is not an irony without its effects. The League’s formation as the ’Pre-Party’, soon to be followed by the declaration of its ’Party’, is a notable and very “significant” contribution to furthering the disunity of the Marxist-Leninist movement and to giving that disunity an organized form. Despite its pretensions, the League represents a vanguard, not of the proletariat, but of the “aspirations of the radicalized petty bourgeoisie” assuming a ’Marxist-Leninist’ form. The proof of the League’s opportunism is initiated in its ’self-criticisms’; it is fully demonstrated in the elaboration of the League’s “correct political line”.