The following pamphlet is presented as a contribution to the current debate on Party-building in our movement. Its purpose is twofold: first, to reassert the universal principles of Marxism-Leninism on the Party-building question; and second, to show the source, nature and effects of the main deviations on Party-building in our movement.
The Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) was the first example since our new Communist movement’s inception of a strata of the petty bourgeoisie, the intelligentsia, advancing its class interests by assuming the form of the political organization of the working class: the Communist Party. An exposure of CPC(ML)’s opportunism from the working class standpoint is, therefore, inseparably bound up with an analysis of the class position, interests and political tendencies of the petty bourgeoisie. All of the exposures of the CPC(ML) to date have been one-sided, and consequently opportunist, because they have detached the CPC(ML) from its actual class roots. Instead of being exposed as one particular expression of the general class standpoint of the petty bourgeoisie, the CPC(ML) has been taken out of its rightful class context and treated as a unique and monstrous aberration all its own. Through all the slander and cries against ’hegemonism’, the petty bourgeois class basis of the CPC(ML) has objectively been defended, since the nature of the petty bourgeoisie as a class is left unexplained. One particular, overt form of opportunism has been attacked, but the source which gives rise, not only to outrageous forms, but also to a wide spectrum of more subtle forms, has gone untouched. Rather than being led to wage a comprehensive struggle against all forms of opportunism, the movement has been encouraged, by those who wish to defend their own shade of opportunism, to wage a struggle only against the most ’offensive’ strain. All the ’principled’ criticism of the CPC(ML) has served to divert attention away from the other shades of opportunism in our movement and allow them to ’peacefully co-exist’. More subtle forms of opportunism, identical to the CPC(ML) in their class basis, have emerged, have set themselves up as the true defenders of Marxism-Leninism, have, through ’two-line’ struggle, attempted to create a stark contrast between themselves and the CPC(ML), and with this newly won prestige have then followed avidly in the CPC(ML)’s footsteps. This maneuver has, up to now, gone virtually unnoticed by the rest of the movement.
The Canadian Communist League (Marxist-Leninist) is a product of this state of affairs, an expression of the persistent dominance of opportunist tendencies in our movement. Here we have an organization that has won a prestigious position in the movement for its history of opposition to the CPC(ML)’s self-proclamation. The CCL(ML) poses itself in opposition to the CPC(ML)’s opportunism and sectarianism, and claims to be all that the CPC(ML) is not. But as we shall see, the CCL(ML) is proving itself in every respect the CPC(ML)’s equal. It is taking the same route towards ’Party’ declaration as the CPC(ML), thus far with either the open consent or only passive disapproval of the movement.
The CCL(ML) is attempting to consolidate the movement on the basis of its own opportunism and lack of principle. Its entire political line is an expression of classic petty bourgeois anti-imperialism which attempts to ’improve’ on imperialism, but not overthrow it. Its ’self-criticism’ in The Struggle for the Creation of the CCL(ML) attempts to write off the utterly opportunist histories of the three founding groups on the plea of good intentions. It conceals and defends the interests of the petty bourgeoisie at every turn. It consistently substitutes its own innovations for the principles of Marxism-Leninism, and on receiving criticism simply sluffs it off and proceeds to carry on with business as usual. It attempts to resurrect the militant trade unionism of the CP Canada of the 1920’s and 1930’s in lieu of the political class struggle for socialism. It has placed itself at the head of the openly social-chauvinist, defencist trend in Canada. And it has consistently sought the dissolution and reintegration of smaller circles not on the basis of principle, but simply to thus raise its nose-count to an acceptable level before declaring itself the ’Party’. It should be clear that any ’party’ built on such a basis is in essence no different from the CPC or the CPC(ML).
Overall the CCL(ML) poses the same danger as the CPC(ML), in that it serves as a leading centre of opportunism. However, in the immediate future it is far more threatening because its political tendency has not been fully revealed before the movement. As a result, it threatens to draw unformulated sections oŁ the movement into opportunism, and thus away from our real tasks. To the extent that the CCL(ML) continues to consolidate its petty bourgeois tendency, to the same extent, despite its ’good intentions’, it subordinates the interests of the proletariat to those of the bourgeoisie.
The Marxist-Leninist movement is faced with two choices. Either we accommodate certain shades of opportunism, and thereby willingly clear a path for the CCL(ML)’s smooth trans formation into the ’Party’. In this case we will simply have one more rallying point for petty bourgeois tendencies, tendencies whose destructive influence is strengthened a hundredfold by being given such an organized form. Or, we recognize and expose the CCL(ML) for what it is, and take up the struggle against this attempt to hinder and divert the development of the political organization of the working class. In this case we will have taken a qualitative step towards the establishment of consistent Marxist-Leninist principle, towards the fusion of the communist and workers movements.
In addition to the CCL(ML), our movement has also been faced with an ’oppositional’ ’party’-building effort by the En Lutte! organization. En Lutte! has, since the declaration of the CCL(ML), fully elaborated what can best be characterized as Centrism. However, lacking the necessary raw materials in our movement, i.e. the lack of a principled trend to compromise, En Lutte!’s Centrism has been unable to develop in a classic form. Whereas classic Centrism attempts to bridge the gap between Marxism-Leninism and opportunism, En Lutte!’s Centrism has had to settle for bridging the ’gap’ between all the various shades of opportunism claiming to be “ML” and uniting them all under the signboard of “unity of Marxist-Leninists”.
Although En Lutte!’s Centrism has been brought out in bolder relief through its exchanges with the League, it in fact only represents the maturation of a years-long process of development. From the beginning it has sought to accommodate various shades of opportunism and consolidate them in organizational form. But En Lutte!’s monotonous, empty-headed pleas for ’unity’ are every bit as sectarian as the League’s aggressive ’forging ahead’. While both try to rally the movement around essentially the same program of petty bourgeois opportunism, both persist in placing their own narrow, factional interests above those of the movement and thus necessarily exclude principled forces of the movement from their designs. En Lutte! must, if anything, narrow its scope, since it must content itself with the debris left behind by the League. In short, the pre-’party’ En Lutte! has in the offing will stand on exactly the same footing as the CPC(ML) and CCL(ML), and places yet another obstacle in our way.
As the grand ’arbiter’ of opportunism, the danger En Lutte! poses to the movement should likewise not be underestimated. Centrism invariably attempts to hide itself behind the merger of Marxism-Leninism and opportunism, acquiescing to principle in word, subordinating itself and compromising with opportunism in deeds. It is, therefore, much more difficult to root out, but such rooting is that much more necessary. The communist movement will not be able to set itself on an even course, will not be able to develop the consistent principle necessary to carry through its fusion with the workers’ movement until a broad and decisive attack is waged against this hidden opportunism and its principle exponent in our movement, En Lutte!
The pamphlet is divided into two broad sections. The first section lays the theoretical groundwork for understanding the guiding principles of Marxism-Leninism on the process of Party-building, situates our period and stage of development, shows the corresponding tasks and activity, and presents a rough sketch of the development and present composition of our movement.
The second section is a polemic against the major deviations on Party-building that have occurred in the brief lifetime of our movement. It is plain that the CPC(ML) is not the Party of the proletariat. The CPC(ML)’s own documented political history vividly exposes its hopeless inability to reject its petty bourgeois outlook, its consequent theoretical and political bankruptcy, and the counter-revolutionary position to which consolidated opportunism inevitably leads. As we have tried to show in this chapter, it is not enough to understand that the CPC(ML) is opportunist. What is necessary is to expose the class roots of opportunism, and how those roots are revealed through political line.
The chapter on Perri and Stover, now part of the Bolshevik Union, deals with their article, Why Party Building is the Principal Task, published in Canadian Revolution #1. Though their political influence is insignificant, their political line on Party-building is important as it is the clearest, most fully defined expression of ’Left’ Economism. Whereas the Right Economists identify the economic struggle with the struggle for socialism, split apart the economic and political struggle, and thus objectively deny the possibility of a revolutionary class struggle of the proletariat, their counterparts, the ’Left’ Economists, accomplish the same end through different means. They identify Economism with being ’amongst the workers’, and on this basis advance a plan for Party-building that liquidates the role of the working class in the political struggle in favour of the petty bourgeois intelligentsia. To avoid confusion due to name changes, we have retained the Bolshevik Union’s original name, the “Bolshevik Tendency”, throughout this section.
The chapter on the Mouvement Revolutionnaire des Etudiants du Quebec (MREQ) deals with its Party-building position in Towards the Marxist-Leninist Organization. The critique of MREQ was written before it became a part of the CCL(ML). However, true to its promise, MREQ did not “engage in an endless series of debates lasting a year or longer” and moved into the CCL(ML) while we were preparing to come into print. MREQ is the most succinct example of the petty bourgeois intelligentsia drifting towards the working class on the basis of ’good intentions’ alone. Though MREQ has been ’dialectically’ superseded by the CCL(ML), an understanding of its positions is essential for an understanding of its present-day form.
These earlier chapters were finished by the fall of 1975, but we felt it was important to delay publication until we could deal adequately with the new material generated by the CCL(ML)’s formation and its exchanges with En Lutte!. Since the CCL(ML) is presently advocating the predominant opportunist line on Party-building in our movement, the bulk of the polemic is dedicated to exposing the development of this trend. The points of principle raised re the League also apply to others who share essential aspects of the League’s position. While working up the material on the CCL(ML), it became apparent that En Lutte! was attempting to step into the breach wrought by the League’s formation. Thus the final part of the polemic deals briefly with the content and motivation of En Lutte!’s ’unification’ platform. At the time of turning the manuscript over to the printer, this was the main area in which En Lutte!’s own peculiar shade of opportunism was most fully elaborated.
The analyses of each of the groups is based only on published documents, readily available for examination by the movement. We urge the readers to familiarize themselves with this material in order to verify our representation of the arguments. We are presently unable to render a French translation for the present work, but will seek every means possible to effect one in the future.
Political struggle within the communist movement is the absolute precondition for its principled unity and organization. Our movement suffers most of all from a lack of consistent, principled struggle against opportunism. It has instead been its victim. Accommodation of opportunism has been fostered by those who assumed that anyone who states opposition to the CPC and CPC(ML) is by definition a ’genuine’ Marxist-Leninist. On this false assumption, the method of ’unity-criticism-unity’ has been used, on the one hand, as a vehicle to keep the contradictions within the anti-CPC(ML) camp from bursting wide-open, and, on the other hand, as a means to deflect thorough criticism on the grounds that such thorough exposure is not presented in the ’right’ spirit. Unity-criticism-unity is the correct method of struggle to resolve differences among those who consistently advance the interests of the working class. It should be obvious that our movement is presently dominated by opportunism and petty bourgeois outlook, and as a whole has yet to prove itself able to be the staunch representative of the proletariat. Those who make such a fuss about ’unity-criticism-unity’ in our present situation are those who in fact fear exposure, fear principled unity, and objectively wish to defend their own factionalism. The starting point of unity must always be principle. The struggle for principle has always been inseparably bound up with a ruthless struggle against all shades of opportunism. To those who may feel pinched by the following polemic, and who may cry about our ’uncomradely’ method of struggle, we reply with Lenin:
Yes, we recognize the duty of comradeship, the duty to support all comrades, to tolerate the opinions of comrades, but as far as we are concerned, the duty of comradeship derives from our duty to Russian and international (com-munism), and not vice versa. We recognize our comradely obligations to Rabochaya Mysl, not because its editors are our comrades; we consider the editors...our comrades only because and to the extent that they work within the ranks of Russian (and, consequently, of international)...(communism). Therefore, if we are certain that the ’comrades’ are moving backwards, away from the...(communist) programme, that the ’comrades’ are hemming-in and distorting the aims of the working class movement, we consider it our duty to give expression to our convictions with a complete certainty that leaves nothing unsaid! V.I. Lenin A Retrograde Trend in Russian Social-Democracy CW Vol.4 p.266
Only through vigilant struggle based on firm and unbreakable principle will we be able to root out opportunism in all sections of the movement. It is in this spirit that we “give expression to our convictions”. Our criticism is directed against deviations in line and the leadership responsible for them, not against the rank and file membership of any organization. Every rank and file Marxist-Leninist has the responsibility to take up this struggle and contribute to putting our movement on a solid, principled footing.
ORGANIZATION OF COMMUNIST WORKERS (MARXIST-LENINIST)