This pamphlet contains one main item, Learn from the Teachers by Negative Example by Charles Boylan, and various other documents and articles. The objective of producing all these items is:
1. To continue struggle against opportunism on the theoretical front and
2. To clarify various points of the history of the communist movement in Canada which are being mystified by the opportunists.
MREQ, in its yellow journalism, does not clarify why it came into being. In our letter to En Lutte!, we raised with them this important question of their origin. We wrote: “You have to deal with the fundamental questions regarding your founding, like why did you come into being and on what basis, etc. You do not explain! Our investigations and experience can explain why you came into being at that time, the reasons why you did not unite with us and why you formed your own group, etc. We have an explanation for these phenomena because we have undertaken analysis of the historical process and we have drawn definite conclusions from it. On the basis of this analysis, we came to a definite decision about your group. And we presented part of this analysis in a short article entitled, ’A Comment on the Pamphlet by Charles Gagnon’, printed in PCDN on December 15,1972. Gagnon’s pamphlet completely misses the entire history of Canada and Quebec as well as the history of the international communist movement. It has ’nothing whatsoever to say about the historical struggle the working class has waged to build such a Party. He shuns historical materialism and dialectical materialism like the plague. He neither discusses the present historical stage in Quebec nor does he go into the process which gave rise to such a stage. Reality, for him, is a matter of “debates” and not a matter of scientific analysis.’ (Mass Line No. 55) This comment is applicable to all the opportunists. We are reproducing some of the documents issued in the past in order to shed light on these groups and individuals as to their past and as to why they are engaging in opportunist activities at this time.
We must pay attention to the basic Marxist theory of knowledge and its fundamental law that theory lags behind practice. It is extremely important to grasp this fact. Certain opportunists used to accuse us that we always theorise after practice. They were wrong even on this question, By saying that we always theorise after practice, they belittle the significance of revolutionary theory and the necessity of revolutionary practice.
What do we mean when we say theory lags behind practice? By this we do not mean that there was no theory at the beginning of practice and that once theory is summed up from practice that it does not guide practice. On the contrary, the Marxist theory of reflection boldly points out that theory comes out of practice and in tarn serves practice. Chairman Mao Tsetung teaches: “This dialectical-materialist theory of the process of development of knowledge, basing itself on practice and proceeding from the shallower to the deeper, was never worked out by anybody before the rise of Marxism. Marxist materialism solved this problem, correctly for the first time, pointing out both materialistically and dialectically the deepening movement for cognition, the movement by which man in society progresses from perceptual knowledge to logical knowledge in his complex, constantly recurring practice of production and class struggle. Lenin said, “The abstraction of matter, of a law of nature, the abstraction of value, etc., in short, all scientific (correct, serious, not absurd) abstractions reflect nature more deeply, truly and completely” Marxism-Leninism hold’s that each of the two stages in the process of cognition has its own characteristics, with knowledge manifesting itself as perceptual at the lower stage and logical at the higher stage, but that both are stages in an integrated process of cognition. The perceptual and the rational are qualitatively different, but are not divorced from each other; they are unified on the basis of practice. Our practice proves that what is perceived cannot at once be comprehended and that only what is comprehended can be more deeply perceived. Perception only solves the problem of phenomena; theory alone can solve the problem of essence. The solving of both these problems is not separable in the slightest degree from practice. Whoever wants to know a thing has no way of doing so except by coming into contact with it, that is, by living (practicing) in its environment.... if you want to know a certain thing or a certain class of things directly, you must personally participate in the practical struggle to change reality, to change that thing or class of things, for only thus can you come into contact with them as phenomena; only through personal participation in the practical struggle to change reality can you uncover the essence of that thing or ’ class of things and comprehend them. This is the path to knowledge which every man travels, though some people, deliberately distorting matters, argue to the contrary. The most ridiculous person in the world is the ’know-all’ who picks up a smattering of hearsay knowledge, and proclaims himself ’the world’s Number One authority’; this merely shows that he has not taken a proper measure of himself. Knowledge is a matter of science, and no dishonesty or conceit whatsoever is permissible. What is required is definitely the reverse honesty and modesty... If you want to know the theory and methods of revolution, you must take part in revolution. All genuine knowledge originates in direct experience. But one cannot have direct experience of everything; as a matter of fact, most of our knowledge comes from indirect experience, for example, all knowledge from past times and foreign lands. To our ancestors and foreigners, such knowledge was – or is – a matter of direct experience, and this knowledge is reliable if in the course of direct experience the requirement of “scientific abstraction”, spoken of by Lenin, was – or is – fulfilled and objective reality scientifically reflected; otherwise it is not reliable. Hence a man’s knowledge consists only of two parts, that which comes from direct experience and that which comes from indirect experience. Moreover, what is indirect experience for me is direct experience for other people. Consequently, considered as a whole, knowledge of any kind is inseparable from direct experience, All knowledge originates in perception of the objective external world through man’s physical sense organs. Anyone who denies such perception, denies direct experience, or denies personal participation in the practice that changes reality, is not a materialist. That is why the “know-all” is ridiculous.” (On Practice, Selected Works, Vol. I)
This lengthy quotation from Chairman Mao amply explains that theory comes out of practice and in turn serves practice. MREQ and other opportunists first participated in splitting and wrecking activities. They have presently theorised from this splitting and wrecking and have come out with their theoretical base for this period.
The article by Comrade Charies describes the absolutely reactionary style of work of all the opportunists. Our comrades should learn from this article. Comrade Charles has written this article under the direction and supervision of the Workers’ College Committee of CPC(M-L) and it is a positive contribution to the growing struggle against opportunism. Our comrades must understand that when certain individuals and groups behave in a certain manner, there are always reasons behind it. The absolutely reactionary style of the opportunists has behind them imperialism and social-imperialism. Imperialist and social-imperialist scribblers infiltrate and organise the opportunist groups in order to split, divide and disintegrate the communist movement. Local areas should write similar articles explaining their experiences with the opportunist groups and how they divide, split and disintegrate the communist movement.
The outlook and method of chieftains of opportunism has the following content:
1. They deny the historical experience of the masses.
2. They deny the role of the masses in changing history.
3. They put detail in command of the over-all and
4. Use differences to divide, split and disintegrate the communist movement.
All the articles written against us by the opportunists reflect this outlook and method. Furthermore, the chieftains of opportunism do not clarify as to,
1. What is the basis of change, development and motion.
2. What is the role of consciousness in the historical process and
3. What is the relationship between superstructure and economic base.
All their articles are based on the DEVIL THEORY, like the imperialists and social-imperialists, who cannot explain the natural and social phenomena according to ”its own laws”. So, they give rise to some external force, some devil, the existence of which is supposed for the purposes of “proving” their metaphysics and mystify the basis, origin, development and maturing of the contradictions inherent in a social system.
Take for example all the articles written by opportunists attacking the Party. They do not clarify the basis, origin, developing and maturing of the struggle between Marxism-Leninism and opportunism. They neither go into the history of the two-line struggle nor explain how the two-line struggle is being waged at this time.
What are the contrary views? They appeal to the worst philistines on the basis of DEVIL THEORY.
CPC(M-L), one-sidely developed into what it is today and the opportunists, one-sidely organise to wipe it out. But we ask: what is the basis of change, development and motion? In other words, what are the two lines today in the communist movement of Canada? They do not explain.
More specifically, MREQ, in its attacks on CPC(M-L) totally obscures the fact that some of their founders used to be actually supporters of the Party. They further mystify the two-line struggle which erupted in the summer of 1971 that led to the opportunist elements splitting and causing splits within the mass organisations. They are not clarifiers. They are not clarifiers because they deviously wish to hide their splittist and wrecking activities. Theory lags behind practice. This is the law of Marxism. MREQ has its origins in the split engineered by various communalist and Nazi elements in Montreal in the summer of 1971. These elements first took over the Party bookstore on Amherst Street, then issued an illegal document in the name of the Party in Quebec, then established various organisations, split or took over various already existing organisations. MRO was one of the creatures of the split. MREQ was one of the creatures of this split. MREQ was taken over and later liquidated. AALAPSM was split. Indian and Iranian groups were split. MREQ does not explain its own basis, origin, development and maturing because it is extremely afraid of the truth. So it comes onto the scene in the most sophistic and frenzied manner hoping that their class brothers in the petty bourgeoisie and lumpen proletariat will assist them to escape extinction.
We are reproducing thirteen documents and articles to clarify the history. These are as follows:
1. Letter from Progressive Workers Movement to the Canadian Student Movement, dated December 17, 1968.
2. Statement issued by the Canadian Internationalists (Marxist-Leninist Youth and Student Movement) on February 2, 1969 in Vancouver. Concerning the Organisation of Marxist-Leninist Movement in British Columbia and the attitude towards building a genuinely Marxist-Leninist Party in Canada.
3. The following is the Progressive Workers Movement’s position on our relationship to the struggle to build a Marxist-Leninist Party in Canada.
4. PWM letter to North American Conference of Anti-Imperialist Youth.
These four documents are reproduced in this pamphlet to show that there existed a definite relationship between Canadian Internationalists and PWM and that Jack Scott in his remarks in the yellow journalism totally mystifies this. It should also be noticed that the documents are a definite proof that a principled relationship existed between the two organisations until the time PWM was faced with the task of leading the surging communist movement during this period. PWM, instead of leading this communist movement becomes a road block and takes up a position in the posterior of the communist movement and gets buried there.
5. Speech by Comrade Maley.
6. Text of a Talk by Brian Sproule.
7. Transcript of a Report given by D.J. O’Donnel.
These three speeches were given by Maley, Sproule and O’Donnel to the Third Consultative Conference of the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) held in Montreal during the month of May in 1974, clearly explain the role of PWM and Jack Scott during the period of 1968-1970, the preparatory period which led to the founding of CPC(M-L) and also the period which led to the liquidation of PWM. The three comrades have direct experience with PWM and Jack Scott and are an excellent resource to understanding the reasons for the liquidation of PWM and the role of Jack Scott in it. These comrades also elaborate on the unprincipled wrecking activities of Jack Scott and his hostility towards Stalin and Mao Tsetung Thought.
8. Uphold Revolutionary Principles, Build the Unity of the People. This document issued by the Quebec Communist Party (M-L), Quebec branch of CPC(M-L) clearly explains the disruption and split caused by the opportunists in Montreal as part of Operation Chaos of CSA in the summer of 1971. MREQ is the illegitimate child of this Operation Chaos. But MREQ falsifies history in order to cover its foot marks and mystifies the fact it came out of this split in 1971 and that because of this splitting and wrecking in 1971, its foundation in 1972 and its activities since then has been one of wrecking and splitting the progressive organisations and mass movement. This article clearly explains the struggle between the two lines which resulted in the formation of opportunist organisations like MREQ and the resolute opposition that resulted to these opportunist organisations from CPC(M-L) and other Marxist-Leninist organisations.
9. Down With The ’Left’-Sloganeering Front of Khruschevite Revisionism! This article clarifies the struggle which took place between the opportunists and Marxist-Leninists in 1971-72 and explains fully the historical origins of the sister organisation of MREQ called Afro-Asian Latin American People’s Solidarity Committee in Montreal.
10. From Montreal, Sunday, November 7, 1971. This is part of a letter sent by I. Behesti, an Iranian and an active member of Operation Chaos in Montreal in 1971 -72, sent to another Iranian in Vancouver explaining quite candidly the conspiracy which was hatched to split and wreck the Afro-Asian Latin American People’s Solidarity Movement. Abbreviation AA stands for Afro-Asians. This letter clearly reflects the style and method of these splitters. The readers will note that all the policies attributed to CPC(M-L) are something CPC(M-L) may do in the future and these are the “reasons” given for splitting and wrecking. As item 9 shows, behind this splitting and wrecking is revisionist political line and the opportunists can only advance through splitting and wrecking activities.
11. Decision of the Third Plenum Number 22. Decision of the Third Plenum Number 13. Decision Number 15. These decisions from the Third Plenum of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) held in Vancouver in March, 1972 clearly explain what relationship CPC(M-L) has with Jack Scott and what relationship the Presidium and Consultative Conference has with the Party. Decision 22 was handed over to Jack Scott right after the Plenum. What jack Scott says in yellow journalism of MREQ completely proves that he is a trickster and a double-dealer.
12. Lies, Slanders and Character Assassinations Won’t Change the Course of History. This is a commentary on a poison pen letter circulated by police to slander Hardial Bains, (the poison pen letter is reproduced on the same page) It has come to the knowledge of the Party since, that Jack Scott has been notorious for writing such letters. With what he says in MREQ yellow journalism, it is proven beyond doubt that Jack Scott has a lot to do with this nefarious activity. Readers will note that while the Party brings out principled differences, these splitters and wreckers enter into gutter politics.
13. A Study Of “How Engels Criticised Duhring’s Apriorism”. This article criticises and repudiates the lines of Jack Scott on various key questions in a principled manner.