–From People’s Canada Daily News Release April 27, 1972 and April 28, 1972
A few days ago, a CPC(M-L) branch secretary went to hear “criticism” of the Party from a so-called labour leader and exchange views with him I in a friendly manner. As soon as the so-called labour leader met the secretary, he launched a vile attack on the Party, Comrade Bains, characterized the local secretary as an “errand boy”, threatened him and Party with all sorts of reprisals and blurted out in a huff: “Why don’t you read the article on Duhring in Peking Review and stop eulogising Bains” and several other pieces of so-called “advice”. The local secretary patiently listened, withstood this wild attack on the Party and Comrade Bains, humbly jotted down various hysterical outbursts of this so-called labour leader and departed.
The attack on the Party and Comrade Bains by this so-called labour leader shows the collapse of intellectualism and academism in the Marxist-Leninist circles and the beginning of emergence of a very definite proletarian revolutionary line on which the Party is being built. The study of this so-called labour leader, a revisionist professor and a rabid Afro-Asian chauvinist (he is the architect of the anti-Marxist-Leninist line that “negotiations and war form a dialectical unity of opposites”), a business woman of Chinese origin, a professor who wrote a book on China, a social chauvinist organisation and an imperialist agency with the sign-board “all nationalism is reactionary”, shows that they have replaced the old revisionist and trotskyist trend and are the main anti-Marxist-Leninist trend in Canada today. They oppose building the Party, consider China some sort of superpower, and behave like lordships in dealing with the problems facing the people. As the era of dazzling others and convincing them of one’s so-called Marxist-Leninist stance through intellectualisation and academism draws near its end, it is forcing those who painted themselves as great “Marxist-Leninists” to come out into the open and expose their real anti-Marxist-Leninist ugly features. It is this exposure, which is taking place independent of man’s will, which is causing the so-called labour leader to violently attack CPC(M-L). He wishfully hopes (like the others of his kind mentioned above) to hide the fact that he has reached the pinnacle of sophistry, has nothing to contribute towards the forward march of our society (except through negative example) and that he has degenerated to the level of opposing revolution.
Summing up of the actual analysis of the last four years has shown that one section of the so-called “New Left” which opposed Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought had their mentors in the individuals and organisations mentioned. Now that the followers have been routed, the mentors themselves are forced to come out and show their wretched opposition to Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought in Canada.
In order to advance the struggle on the ideological front, I have decided to take up the advice of this so-called labour leader and do a study of the article “How Engels Criticised Duhring’s Apriorism” – Notes on studying “Anti-Duhring” by Wang Che, printed in issue No. 10 of Peking Review, dated March 10, 1972, and reproduced in People’s Canada Daily News Release as Item No. 900, dated April 14,1972. I also remind this so-called labour leader to follow the advice himself and do a study which the PCDN staff will be all too happy to reproduce for him. It is a matter of great joy to know that this so-called labour leader does find something in Peking Review which is applicable to Canada. I am quite confident that as he studies the article on Duhring, and other articles previously printed, he will certainly see the reason why the Party asks all our friends to read Peking Review regularly.
The article by Wang Che is divided into the following four headings:
1. Duhring – “Genius” or Swindler?
2. Apriori Method is an Idealist Method
3. Historical Development is Not Decided by Men of Genius
4. Scientific Socialism Emerges and Develops on the Basis of Revolutionary Practice
We can also take up the above four headings and go ahead with our study.
Under this heading, Wang Che gave Engels’view on Duhring as to his method of operation, the reasons and outcome of his behaviour and the historical verdict declared on him.
Wang Che writes:
“As Engels had pointed out, Duhring and his little sect ’were using all the arts of advertisement and intrigue’. While he himself actually was a charlatan, Duhring berated others as ’charlatans’. Copying, stealing and talking nonsense, Duhring had the cheek to repudiate others time and again as ’idiots’and ’buffooneries’, as if he was the greatest genius. Using high-sounding adjectives, he pompously and shamelessly praised himself – a ’new mode of thought’, ’from the ground up original conclusions and views’, ’system-creating ideas’, ’an all-round penetrating work of thought’, ’in the grand style’, and so forth. Briefly, in his eyes, everyone else was no good, other people’s theories were all worthless and only his was the ’final and ultimate truth’. If that was the case, Engels said sarcastically, then ’we have before us the greatest genius of all time, the first super-human, because infallible’, and we common human beings could only ’sink to the ground in deepest reverence before the mightiest genius of all time’.” And Wang Che explains that this attitude of Duhring and “His theoretical attack on Marxism was prepared for his sham socialism and for splitting the party organisationally,” and “Not only did Bernstein become an active Duhringist, but a good comrade like Bebel was also deceived by him.”
Let us look into the social practice of this so-called labour leader to grasp what he meant when he “advised” us to study this article; or should we just follow his own example and label him a Modern Duhring without doing any study or investigation which is his grand style; or turn truth on its head, shake in fear of this so-called labour leader, kneel in front of him and sing in his glory “Thank ye, the saviour of mankind, for putting us on the right path! Next time, please enlighten us in advance so that we do not commit the sin of making mistakes in future!” No, we will do no such thing! We will neither call him a modern Duhring nor bow down to his ill temper, but the let the facts speak for themselves.
This so-called labour leader calls himself by that name and also by other names such as “foremost Marxist historian”. His followers revere him and sigh with relief “Here is a man, at last! He knows!” He has been an active revisionist for over forty years. And he called the Internationalists “sectarians”, “adventurists”, “those who don’t know”, etc. Once, in a rage, in November 1969, after a wild attack on the Internationalists, his followers contacted us to have a “debate” with him, in order to assess “who knows more”.
“Using all the arts of advertisement and intrigue” and we would add, “full of drama and suspense”, a student newspaper carried his photograph with Chairman Mao in order to attract the audience to where he vomited his cultivated nonsense. Another pamphlet put out by his friends showed him with Chairman Mao, with a caption that he is such a knowledgeable character that he even volunteered some wisdom to Chairman Mao, who did not listen. He prides himself as being the one who has “criticism” of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought, “criticism” of China and its policies and everyone else around.
For what reason is he pursuing this anti-Marxist course? To attack Marxism, propagandize his sham socialism and subvert the building of the Party. For no other reason. He has a de novo and mechanical theory of the emergence of the Party (when there is a mass movement, there will be a Party) and a de novo and mechanical theory of socialism (socialism will be ushered in one day through a declaration, the way God delivered light).
With such resemblance to Duhring, why is he asking us to read Duhring? For the same reason Duhring would call others “charlatans” when he himself was a charlatan. This so-called labour leader is suggesting that we are doing what followers of Duhring were doing: “You are sectarians. You have nothing in common with Marxism. You are putting people off socialism.”
When we look into our own social practice, we find that none of us have given any theories to oppose Marxism. None of us have opposed the building of the Party, none of us believe that the Party will be built spontaneously out of the mass movement and none of us have any illusions as to socialism falling from the skies one day. To accuse us of these crimes, which he is committing, is the only way a man like him will go. And when we analyse the social practice of this revisionist professor, this business woman of Chinese origin, the social fascist organisations, we find that all these individual “leaders” consider themselves some kind of “geniuses”. Until the time you convince them of the correct line, they will not permit their feifdoms to disband and join the Party. They are centrists and oppose democratic centralism. They all cherish books and have great collections. They tell stories from books. They have made no contribution to building the Party (except by negative example) and they are bourgeois individualists of the worst kind. They won’t unite with anyone to build the Party, nor will they struggle openly, and in a forthright manner. We have a majority of comrades who engaged several of them in discussions but their attitude and that of their followers is violent attacks on the Party and Comrade Bains and complete refusal to settle issues on a non-antagonistic basis and to unite. Their ideology of so-called Marxism-Leninism is a cover-up for their practice (that is, the practice of social fascism).
This habit of brandishing books at honest revolutionaries is an old revisionist trick. For some years now, the old revisionist party has been “advising” us to study ’Left-Wing Communism, an Infantile Disorder.’ They are doing so because it is precisely that work of Comrade Lenin which repudiates their revisionism and parliamentary cretinism and they are waving this book in order to tell their faithfuls how loyal they are to Lenin while, in practice, they have gone against all his teachings. This so-called labour leader and other “geniuses” have not given up their old habits of waving Marxist-Leninist classics to oppose the Marxist-Leninist practice.
We are living in Canada where the overwhelming majority of people belong to the modern proletariat. Over one third of this proletariat is industrial proletariat and over eighty percent of the people are workers of one sort or another. The bourgeoisie of Canada has been a sell-out bourgeoisie by birth. They have tried to modernize the means of production to fit their needs of plunder. Because of the utter uncertainty of the capitalist system and the lack of security, and because the entire labour force is either descendants of immigrants or immigrants themselves, the proletariat of Canada is a fighting proletariat. During the nineteeth and twentieth century and in this short history of its existence it has fought many many struggles and has gained much experience. It has struggled to build its own political party, the Communist Party based on Marxism, and it has constantly struggled to overthrow the rule of the sell-out capitalists and establish a genuinely independent, democratic and prosperous Canada under its dictatorship. During the 1860’s, a section of the International Workingmen’s Association was established. After the October Revolution of 1917, the working people of Canada established their own Party in 1921. But all their struggles came to naught as the question of seizure of political power by armed force has yet to be resolved. During the 1960’s, when the struggle against modern revisionism broke out in the open, hundreds and thousands of Marxist-Leninists participated in the struggle led by the Communist Party of China and the Albanian Party of Labour. Marxist-Leninists in Canada also participated in struggle but their “criticism” was based on pure abstract and theoretical grounds. It was merely a dogma and was, in no case, a guide to building the Party and solving various problems facing the working class. The organisation which came out of the revisionist party, in turn, divided into right opportunist and ultra-left trotskyist wings. The ultra-left trotskyist wing further split, giving rise to another social and national chauvinist organisation.
While all this was going on, the Canadian monopoly capitalist class, which was undermining the youth and students intellectually, spiritually and otherwise, faced these rebellious youth and students. A torrent of rebellious youth and students broke loose all over North America.
Canadian youth and students were in no way lagging behind. In the midst of all this turmoil arose the Internationalists. They began from practice: they dealt with problems facing the revolutionary student movement in the universities; they rebelled against the bourgeois decadent educational system; they took upon themselves to build their own organisation, sincerely hoping that all Marxist-Leninists would join to build the Party and worked hard to cooperate and unite with others in this endeavour. As the revolutionary youth and students began to march forward, they were attacked from all sides: (1) by comprador state machine on one side and (2) by the social fascists on the other. This so-called labour leader appeared onto the scene of history as a sage. He “knew” everything. He called the Internationalists “sectarians”, “adventurists”, “with the wrong method of work” etc.
He tried to divert as many young people from the revolutionary path as possible. He called the Canadian people “brain-dirtied”, slandered the Canadian working class and characterized his attacks on the working class of a person who is not “afraid”. He attacked the so-called language of Peking Review and. pushed his counter-revolutionary line on this front: “Peking Review is only good for China!” He dished out his stock phrase: “We should take a critical attitude towards everything.” He provided the youth and students with no guidelines of work, but introduced them to “self-cultivation”. His ideas were all cultivated ideas and were not derived from revolutionary practice. For this reason, they were of no use to the revolutionary people. He used his so-called “grasp of Marxism” and “forty years in the revisionist party” as the credentials to sell his wares. Our comrades in his area were also fooled. They called him a “veteran communist”, a man who helped the dissemination of Mao Tsetung Thought. During that period, only a trickster “who knows Marxism” could have fooled the revolutionary youth and students, as increasing numbers of youth were repudiating idealism and were thirsting for Marxism which could guide them. This so-called labour leader attacked any one who was serious while promoting all sorts of bad elements as “confused” but “honest” revolutionaries.
Before 1968, all across Canada, there used to be (and they are still around but seem to have lost their credence) so-called Marxist scholars. Their main purpose was to slander Marxism by calling themselves Marxists and dishing out all sorts of anti-Marxist theories. Their slogan was: “Follow anything but Marxism!” Revolutionary students thoroughly rejected them and espoused Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought. After 1968, there have been so-called labour leaders who have been coming along with the same slogan:
“Follow anything but Marxism!”
These so-called labour leaders have no audience in the working class, so they are swarming around the universities and they are bound to suffer the same fate as the so-called Marxist scholars in the universities. What do these facts prove? do these facts not prove that while masses of workers, youth and students are longing to be led by a definite Marxist-Leninist political line, there have been bourgeois academics from all classes who have been coming forward to mislead them and liquidate their struggles This is what it proves! But the revolutionary mass movement has already surpassed these bourgeois academic and left them behind in a safe place – the garbage can of history.
Are we bourgeois academics? Analysis of our social practice proves that we are far from being bourgeois academics. All the ideas we propagate are the ideas of class struggle, have come out of revolutionary practice and are useful to the people. If this is the case then why is this so-called labour leader asking us to read this article?
He is asking us to read this article for the same reason Duhring used to call others “charlatans”. To hide his charlatanism and to split the Party and to attack Marxism, Duhring called others by various names and accursed them of various crimes. This is exactly what this so-called labour leader is doing. To hide his own social practice, to mystify the social practice of others, to stop the building of the Party and to attack Marxism, he is straining to work out his anti-Marxist political and ideological lines.
If we had considered ourselves “geniuses” we would certainly have been friends with him because it seems that he is in league with all the “geniuses” who have “interpretations” on everything, have “their minds” and are not anywhere near the earth. They are not like those who “parrot phrases”, “blindly follow China” (this tune is in the process of being changed to “blindly not following China” but “following Comrade Bains”), etc. When everything is said and done, this “genius” puts his speeches on tapes and asks his fellow “geniuses” to listen to these when they are drowsy at night to soothe their disturbed souls.
This so-called labour leader is very arrogant and has the style of those “who know!” He wildly dismisses the opinions of others. When we approached him that we should strive to build the Party, his answer was “the time is not ripe” and that was the end of that argument! When we suggest that all groups should be approached (and we do so all the time) and should agree upon basic discipline and get on with the task of building the Party instead of small groups, he stands on the sidelines and accuses us: “You are just a sect!” When we invite him to join into build the Party, he flatters himself and spreads the rumour: “They are asking me to join them”. How nasty! And when we say that we should carry on struggle on our differences and at ieast agree to that formally, he brands us as “double-dealers”.
We suggest that this so-called labour leader is an anti-revisionist in words but a revisionist in deeds and is no “genius” but a political swindler. His main role is to stop the building of the Party, establish his own small sect and from there attack CPC(M-L), Canadian revolution, socialism and Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought. It is for promoting this line of his that he is calling upon us to read this article.
Wang Che writes:
“Duhring had a full basket. ...System of Philosophy, mental, moral, natural and historical; ...System of Political Economy and Socialism; and, finally, a Critical History of Political Economy – three big volumes in octavo. ...But there was a question: Where did these big volumes and articles come from?
“Engels pointed out:
“’This is only giving a new twist to the old favorite ideological method, also known as the ’A Priori’ method, which consists in ascertaining the properties of an object by logical deduction from the concept of the object, instead of from the object itself. ...The object is then to conform to the concept, not the concept to the object. ...The philosophy of reality... proves ... to be ... the deduction of reality not from itself but from a concept.’”
Wang Che further explains that “Apriorism is an idealist theory of knowledge. The materialist theory of reflection holds that ideas are the reflection of objective reality, that all true knowledge originates from experience. So there is no knowledge prior to experience. Yet apriorism holds that the rational includes some ’gifted concept’, ’self-understood reason’, ’born principles’or logical categories, that it does not arise from experience but is innate in the mind, and that starting from these principles or categories, one can get real knowledge through logical deduction. Apriorists do not admit the dependence of conceptual knowledge upon perceptual knowledge, but think that the former is independent; they oppose proceeding from practical experience, but stand for proceeding from the rational. They do not proceed from facts to concepts but vice versa.” Wang Che further dwells on this point and writes: “In criticizing apriorism, Engels incisively elaborated the principle of the materialist theory of reflection. He said that principle was not the starting point of research, but was its ultimate result, that it was not for the objective world to adapt to principle but a principle was correct only when it conformed to the objective world. But Duhring turned things upside down.” This is exactly what our so-called labour leader is doing in the same way Wang Che writes: “China’s Wang Ming, Liu Shao-chi and other swindlers tailed after Duhring. They denied practice, neglected investigation and study and advocated ’cultivation’behind closed doors. They regarded general truth as pure abstract formula out of the vacuum, and spread the fallacy that theory was the product of a genius’brain.”
Our so-called labour leader does not have three volumes in octavo as Duhring had, but he has all the aspirations to acquire those. Times have changed since the time of Duhring and the world has moved forward. Our so-called labour leader is pursuing the beaten road of Duhring. He has his apriori systems: anti-Marxist-Leninist theories on (1) United front, (2) workers’struggles, (3) struggles of the youth and students, (4) Party building, (5) the International Communist Movement, and (6) the present stage of struggle in Canada and how to advance it. Where did these anti-Marxist-Leninist theories fall from? From his long-time associations with modern revisionism and from nowhere else. These are modern revisionist concepts which he is attempting to saddle the world with. He has not written a single leaflet or pamphlet which deals with the revolutionary struggle in Canada, its present stage, its historical basis and how to advance it. What he has got are a set of pet phrases and generalizations which are absolutely revisionist in content and he peddles these to build his sect.
Do we have theories which oppose Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought and did we cook these up from books? No, we don’t have any such theories. It is for this reason that the entire so-called Marxist-Leninists had to admit that our general political line is correct and then add “but our method is wrong”, which is to say that because your general political line is correct and ours incorrect, let us not quibble on it but divert the struggle as to “method” where you are wrong. “See, now we know that you are wrong. Now, kneel here and confess, give up your political line and things will be just fine.” This is the beaten road of revisionism. Can method be divorced and detached from the general political line? No, it can’t be! The reason why we are opposed by this so-called labour leader (not because of our “incorrect method of work”) is that when those connected with him propagate their anti-Marxist-Leninist nonsense and we oppose them, then he has difficulty in gathering his sect so he attacks: “You are putting people off socialism”. As if socialism was some kind of a choice between socialism and capitalism, and not a historical stage and inevitability, which people could be turned off from!
We started from the real world, our paractice. Our political report is the summation of this practice. Our general political orientation coincides with the general laws governing the world. We participate in class struggle in the real world. Where is the summation of his practice? Did he explain to anyone how it was that with all his “ideas”, his organisation collapsed? Instead of having self-criticism and rectifying he blamed the working class and called the people “brain-dirties”. Here he is fully exposed. It is crystal clear that it is because of his “ideas” that his organisation collapsed. He is not willing to look into his social practice, learn from past mistakes to avoid future ones. Instead, he becomes pious and presents himself as the man “who knows”.
Has he tried to build the Party? Has he tried to unite with others? If so, what was the result of his efforts? To build the Party is consistent with the demand of the objective world. If he is a Marxist-Leninist then what happened when he tried to build the Party? What went wrong? If he answers this question, then he will be quite uncomfortable when he sends tapes of his recorded nonsense to mislead honest youth and students from the revolutionary path.
From where and how did the idea enter his brain that we were “sectarians” and that “our method of work was wrong”? Without lifting a finger himself this “genius” can tell us that we are “sectarians” and “putting people off from socialism”! Very well, sir, if you can do such things and have the divine right to do so, to say one thing and do the other, to concoct formulae to denounce others, then we have also the right to sum up the revolutionary practice and answer your attack. Our revolutionary practice shows that our organisation could withstand attacks from the bourgeois state machine, from employers and their goons, from internal subversion by police agents and social fascists, while your organisation couldn’t even handle some infiltration from petty bourgeois intellectuals and sunk like a little sand castle on the beach. History will call upon you to give explanation as to what logic you used that you could deduce that we are “putting people off socialism”. Those you “led” have long ago given up socialism, while our comrades have fought and are still fighting for socialism courageously. Wherever you participated in so-called advising a broad-based group, it came to no good end, while the organisations we have built and supported are flourishing.
This so-called labour leader has the arrogance to tell others how to organize the working class. Very good! But what leads him to take up this lofty task? His knowledge of the labour movement or his knowledge of the revisionist concepts in misleading the working class which is forcing him to divert the labour movement from the revolutionary path! Did he gain real knowledge by fighting for the proletarian revolutionary line after his long sojourn with the labour movement or his knowledge is purely bookish and he is whiling away his time by telling a few stories, learnt by rote, to bourgeois kids! The real world is a witness. This so-called labour leader did not build a mass movement, neither has he a history of fighting for the proletarian revolutionary line. He has no clue as to what the proletarian revolutionary line in the working class is. The only activity he participated in was the attempt to build a neo-revisionist workers’sect and that collapsed.
Then the only right he has is to try to talk about the reasons for the collapse of his organisation and no other rights. But this so-called labour leader had his photograph with Chairman Mao splashed on the front page of a student newspaper and the paper lauded him as the “labour leader” and participated in a debate with an academic hog as “labour experts” to show that he is a so-called defender of the working class. Where did the idea that he is a “labour leader” enter the heads of the student editors? It must have come from somewhere. It comes from his own classification of himself. The labour movement in Canada is yet to be built. For this reason, there can be no real labour leaders. The only real material object of a proletarian nature existing at this time is the working class propaganda centre, which has been established by us, whom this so-called labour leader calls “sectarians” and his student editor friends don’t think about analysing their work, reporting about it and learning from it.
This so-called labour leader has concocted a lie to cover up the role Comrade Bains has played in leading the development of the Internationalists and subsequent establishment of CPC(M-L). So he browbeats the local secretary: “Read the Anti-Duhring article in Peking Review and stop eulogising Bains.” What is the connection between reading this article and “eulogising Bains”? The connection is to mystify the revolutionary practice of Comrade Bains and the proletarian revolutionary line he followed to change the situation. To turn truth on its head and to save himself from total political extinction, he has been spreading the lie that Bains is being considered a “genius”. Otherwise why would any member of CPC(M-L) have such deep respect for Comrade Bains? Let us tell this so-called labour leader why members and supporters of CPC(M-L) have deep respect for Comrade Bains. The reason is (which is very hard for the so-called labour leader to grasp) that Comrade Bains is part of the their struggles, came out of the real struggles of the youth and students, knows one or two things as to how to establish the Party in the initial stages and shares weal and woe with them. He does not wave bookish learning and he did not use ideology to impress anyone or denounce them. Instead, he plunged into the mass movement, united with people, provided analysis and fought for its execution, changed things in the real world and won respect from his comrades and friends. Nobody considers him a “genius” nor thinks that he has some inherent characteristics which give him some ideas to lead the organisation.
This so-called labour leader because he considers himself some sort of a “genius” and his arrogance is such that he would not unite unless agreements have been reached on all issues prior to any social practice, he slanders Comrade Bains and the Party insinuating that the Party also considers Comrade Bains as some kind of “genius”. If this so-called labour leader had tried to organise the Party, he would have found out that the Party is not organised by men of “genius” but by the people who rise up against their class enemies. We came out of the people, make up the core of the revolutionary mass movement and are very much in the service of the people.
After concocting that Comrade Bains is being considered a “genius”, he dishes out this metaphysics that “everyone follows his interpretations.” For this man, reality is a matter of definition, interpretation and discussion and for this reason he is alluding that the genuine Marxist-Leninists also believe in that. His perniciousness and dogmatic anti-communism is thorough and deep. He thinks that there is one “genius” and the rest are his followers and that several hundred other comrades who are engaged in revolutionary work have no ability to analyse the real world, see the laws governing it and act accordingly. For him it is not class struggle and oppression which give rise to consciousness and motivation for revolution but some interpretation given by some “genius”.
Wang Che quotes Engels: “(to all these) socialism is the expression of absolute truth, reason and Justice and needs only to be discovered to conquer all the world by virtue of its own power. And as absolute truth is independent of time, space, and of the historical development of man, it is a mere accident when and where it is discovered.” “If pure reason and justice have not, hitherto, ruled the world, this has been the case only because men have not rightly understood them. What was wanted was the individual man of genius, who has now arisen and who understands the truth. That he has now arisen, that the truth has now been clearly understood, is not an inevitable event, following of necessity in the chain of historical development, but a mere happy accident. He might just as well have been born 500 years earlier, and might then have spared humanity 500 years of error, strife, and suffering.”
This clearly exposes the idealist conception of history and also all the friends and followers of this so-called labour leader who push the nonsense “theory first, and practice later, much later”, “disunity first and unity later, much later” and a concoction of a Utopian system first and changing the world later.
Wang Che writes: “A genius is no more than somewhat wiser and more talented than the others. But where do wisdom and talent come from?” They come from the real world, that is by summing up the revolutionary practice and rectifying oneself in the light of it and persisting in revolutionary practice. And this is our method of work which this so-called labour leader disagrees with. We are wiser than we were in 1963 and each year through many struggles we advanced our ability to deal with the world. But this “genius” went down hill, if one reads his publication from November 1964 to when it collapsed in 1969-70, there is a steady degeneration which goes to show that this man refused to have self-criticism on the basis of practice, believes in abstractions and dogmas and as the world moves forward his abstractions become increasingly useless (which they were in the first place).
Wang Che writes: “Man’s practice is a process of continuous development and will never be ended; so is man’s knowledge.” “Everyone’s knowledge is limited by subjective and objective conditions and therefore cannot be of unconditional and paramount significance.” “Liu Shao-chi and swindlers like him kept changing their tactics in opposing Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought. At first, they described Marxism-Leninism in absolute terms and negated the fact that Mao Tsetung Thought is a development of Marxism-Leninism. After this tactic had failed, they in turn tried to make Mao Tsetung Thought absolute and denied the fact that Mao Tsetung Thought can develop continuously.”
These three quotations from Wang Che totally expose this so-called labour leader.
“Man’s practice is a process of continuous development...” and if this is the case then what developments have taken place since March 1963? If he answers this then he will find that one decisive development which has taken place is that CPC(M-L) has emerged on the scene while his organisation has passed away and that this fact is indicative of the future trends in Canada.
“Everyone’s knowledge is limited...” which means that we have advanced through revolutionary practice our grasp of the real world and our knowledge of the world has increased. Gone are the days when this so-called labour leader could peddle his reactionary dogmas to starry-eyed youngsters who would sit around and listen to him about the world without any clue as to
1. The basis of change, development and motion in the society,
2. The role of consciousness in history and
3. The relationship of the superstructure to the economic base
and still less as to how to change the situation.
Our knowledge, though still limited, has moved to the extent that we recognise this revisionist hidden under the sign-board of “anti-revisionism” and could change the situation to the extent of having a working class propaganda centre.
The so-called labour leader is like Liu Shao-chi who first described Marxism-Leninism in absolute terms – this kept him going for a few years. Now he is describing Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought in absolute terms which may keep him going for a few more years. But the days of doing such things and getting away with it are rapidly passing away and the new era of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought is being ushered in all over the world. His design of setting Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought against revolution and making it a fetter instead of a tool of revolution will never work. If he thinks that the revolutionary practice of nine years of our work, the practice of literally hundreds and thousands of other fighters and the practice of millions upon millions of revolutionary people in the world can just be mystified through his concoctions then he is a bigger “genius” than we had surmised he is.
But revolutionary practice can never end. Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought will keep on developing. An era without revolution can never come. If he thinks that bourgeois individualism will have currency in the Marxist-Leninist circles, then we tell him once and for all: this will never happen!
We are glad that this so-called labour leader has asked us to study this article. We would like to tell him that Peking Review, the Red Book, five articles by Chairman Mao and our own literature is a most reliable guide to revolutionary practice and a very necessary ingredient. It may do him some good if he studies these works as a guide to the summation of his own work and test if it moves him from utter stagnation to revolutionary practice.
We would like to also let him know that our Party is run by those who consider the monopoly capitalist class as their enemy and that class negates them in practice. Those who do not feel negation of this kind can never know what it is to be a fighter and what does it mean to belong to the modern proletariat. By negating the negators we become proletarians and not by picking up the beaten road of their philosophers!
Long live Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought! Down with all political swindlers!