First Published: Canadian Revolution No. 1, May 1975
Transcription, Editing and Markup: Malcolm, and Paul Saba
Copyright: This work is in the Public Domain under the Creative Commons Common Deed. You can freely copy, distribute and display this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit the Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line as your source, include the url to this work, and note any of the transcribers, editors & proofreaders above.
The Waffle in Ontario has had a long and fairly interesting history. First, as the opposition within the New Democratic Party, pushing the questions of foreign ownership and Canadian independence until thrown out by the ruling cliques of the N.D.P. in 1972. After which they continued as an independent force (officially Movement for an Independent and Socialist Canada) with some support for their policies and analysis from sections of the petty-bourgeoisie (students, professors, professionals) and a handful of trade unionists. Their practical work ranged from running Waffle members in elections, to strike support, producing books and publications, and, primarily, organizing meetings and debates on the subject of Canadian independence.
I do not intend to deal here with the general nature and content of the Waffle line and its obvious (and not so obvious) shortcomings ideologically and politically. Other articles within this issue contain some criticism and analysis of the Waffle’s general line and development. However, what does need some commenting on is the recent publication of Ontario Report, Vol. 1, No. 1, Jan-Feb. ’75. This is the successor to North Country, Waffle’s attempt at a monthly news magazine for Canadian workers. North Country and the Waffle itself, for those who missed it, dissolved over Nov-Dec. ’74 amidst many criticisms and controversies surrounding primarily the organization’s stress on the national question rather than the class nature of the struggle in Canada, the parliamentary and reformist nature of their general line and bureaucratic misleadership from the leading lights of the group (known to those intimately involved as the Family Compact).
It is this same grouping of people and their supporters who are involved in the production of Ontario Report. In the above mentioned issue there is an editorial, which is meant as an introduction to this new publication and as an explanation of the events which have given rise to its appearance. This editorial is, beyond all question, the most opportunist and superficial attempt to explain political divisions within the “left-wing” movement that has been put forward for some time. Rather than analysing the political questions and divisions within the Waffle, rather than presenting their own analysis of what went wrong, what went right, the Editorial offered no summation and no viewpoint on the conclusion of three or four years of activity as a political grouping and sought to pass the entire thing off, with apologies, as both “ sad and peculiar”. It begins:
Here we go again. The appearance of yet another left-wing magazine in Ontario, you may say. Ontario Report is a successor to North Country, the official publication of the Ontario Waffle. And you guessed it, a split took place. Sad, but that’s the nature of the Canadian left right now. That’s how it goes and we know it’s idiotic...We made a commitment to putting out a magazine and that commitment continues whatever the peculiarities of the left. So we’re off again with a new publication.
This is analysis? This is the way so called working class organizers, “socialists”, sum up their activity? As the stated policy of the magazine is to be “an informative and entertaining addition to the lives of working people in Ontario” is it fair to suppose that this is the only explanation that Laxer and Co. think working people are capable of understanding?
What lessons are being put forward in this editorial, both for those affected by Waffle’s practise over the years, who may be following new developments, or for the new readership of Ontario Report. The main issue or conclusion is that political splits are natural, inevitable, and a bad thing, about which nothing can be done.
“It’s just the way things are...We know it’s idiotic”. This approach promotes anti-communism in its efforts to point out how impossible it s to understand the left, and understand why differences exist. It promotes cynicism and demoralization about the possibilities of achieving and maintaining unity, and building a genuinely revolutionary momement in this country. If one is not optimistic the reasons must be stated, the problems must be outlined and the conclusions should be drawn as to what role conscious elements will play in transforming the situation. The Editorial attempts none of this, but instead bends over backward to point out the futility of the situation. Even within these remarks there is no explanation. If, sadly, it is the nature of the Canadian left to split – why? What are the reasons? The answer: “That’s how it goes. We know it’s idiotic”, (and unstated...“but what can you do, eh?”) Working people are looking for answers and especially those new to political activity are looking for explanations to differences which often appear to them to be minor and petty arguments. It is the responsibility of people who engage in political work to explain differences in tactics and strategy, and major questions of analysis, not to pretend they don’t exist or are unexplainable.
But if we’ve caused you a little confusion because of our penchant for indulging in left splits we’re sorry.
Perhaps all that the Editorial grouping of Ontario Report can offer is apologies. In their reasoning the best thing to do is simply write off past practice and struggles as at best unfortunate and at worst incomprehensible (as if they played no part in this practise, carried no line, but were only passive spectators in the unfolding mystery of “left peculiarities”).
It is particularly interesting to note that the reluctance to present political analysis and conclusions based on summation of past activity, and the arrogant rush to dissociate themselves from the ’idiocy’ of the left comes from the people most responsible for the political line and direction of the Waffle since its inception. Perhaps they are unwilling and/or unable to be scientific and objective about their own leadership in steering the Waffle on the course it took? This kind of opportunism and irresponsibility will simply not do and should be kept in mind by those who would attempt seriously to learn the lessons of the Waffle experience.
However, the attitude expressed within the Editorial is not exclusive only to that publication. It serves perhaps as the best (although extreme) example of one of the most fundamental weaknesses of the revolutionary movement in this country: that is the consistent lack of application of dialectical and historical materialism as a method for resolving and analysing contradictions and problems. With an idealist (’who knows what went wrong’) and ahistorical approach, such as the one represented in Ontario Report, it is only possible to come up with political conclusions which are empirical, highly subjective and that tail behind the spontaneous consciousness of the working class. This is an attitude which is predominant in the revolutionary movement in Canada. Without summation of past practise, without a materialist, historical and dialectical examination of the development of political movements it becomes impossible to proceed correctly, in a manner which consistently builds the revolutionary forces and advances the goals of socialism in Canada. Empiricism (basing your actions only on a superficial examination of the immediate situation) becomes the order of the day and results in bouncing from issue to issue as they arise, or spontanaeism. This is reflected further on in Ontario Report when, without the summation of errors made in previous work, directed at the working class (i.e. hospital workers, etc.) it is announced that the Committee of Auto and Aerospace Workers for an Independent Socialist Canada has been formed, with a monthly newsletter etc. This is simply blind practise and is reflective of the empirical methods of work a non-dialectical approach will lead to. Rushing from one area of work to another, initiating new work before summing up work already undertaken will not further the develpment of a socialist movement in Canada. The sooner we all recognize the extent of the problems represented so clearly in the O.R. Editorial’s approach, the more quickly we can begin to apply ourselves to scientifically advancing political practise.