First Published: Canadian Revolution No. 3, October-November 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.
Dear Canadian Revolution
In the letters section of your last issue you printed our announcement presenting the contents of the next issue of Solidaire. We were of course pleased that it appeared but were a bit upset by the form it was given, since we had intended it as a simple announcement or ad, and because of a series of confusions (mainly our responsibility) it was printed as a letter.
What disturbed us was the context, our announcement appearing among a number of letters from various groups and individuals welcoming CR and commenting on its content. By comparison our “letter” which had been written as an announcement of a specific event and didn’t even mention CR seemed, to say the least, a bit self-centred.
Thus, a little belatedly, we would like to welcome the appearance of Canadian Revolution. The establishment of such a magazine both as a means of developing the concrete application of Marxism-Leninism to Canada and-Quebec and of facilitating debate and discussion among Marxist-Leninists can be of great importance in building unity in the young M-L movement and developing some of the basic conditions necessary for the building of the revolutionary party. We can only greet such an initiative with enthusiasm. In the future we hope to participate in this process of debate and contribute comments and criticism of some of the articles appearing in CR. (as well, we hope we can all try to be a little more organized in our relations.)
Fraternally, Solidaire
P.S.: our correct address is:
Solidaire,
Box 461, Station N,
Montreal, Quebec
* * *
Dear Canadian Revolution,
My vote is still for the struggle against U.S. imperialism as the main struggle in Canada today. So I disagree with most of the contributors to your second issue which is the only one I’ve read. But the tone of the journal seems free for the most part from the small group mentality which afflicts most of us who are engaged in this sometimes bitter discussion. Canadian Revolution promises to make a good contribution at least to the clarification of the issue and perhaps to the founding of the party of the proletariat in Canada.
The question of whether Canada is a colony or imperialist power is the question dividing the Bolsheviks from the Mensheviks. This is because it is the question of whether or not to struggle against the main enemy of the proletariat at this stage. And this is why the discussion is so often so heated. Judging from history we can expect the opportunists of various sorts to be lined up, to a great extent, on the side favouring the secondary struggle. This does not mean that all who favour this side are opportunists. Some will be naive dupes. It would be too much to expect everyone who enters into the debate to have a truly scientific outlook, to be able to give and take criticism, and to find the truth; but everyone should resolve firmly to combat opportunism in themselves and others in order to minimize the casualties to the future party of the struggle to build it.
So, here’s a cheque. . . .
B.C. Toronto
* * *
Dear Editorial Board,
I just read the article “Imperialism and Canadian Political Economy, Part I.” I really found this article stimulating and read it with great interest. I am confused on one point however. I thought that Imperialism was a stage in the development of the capitalist mode of production, but the authors call Imperialism itself a mode of production. Perhaps the authors could clear up this confusion with an explanatory note. Keep up the good work!
Yours truly, J. S.
* * *
Dear Comrades:
The second issue was much superior to the first in terms of lay-out and presentation. This magazine is exceeding my wildest dreams for it seems finally to have generated the vital struggle at last on very critical issues. Dave Paterson’s article on C.P.C.(M.L.) was outstanding and solidly demonstrates the scientific thoroughness needed in dealing with the problems of this pretentious P-B trend in applied M-L. Jack Scott’s review was exhaustive as well as an excellant elaboration of a consistent political line. The conclusion of the article on Canadian Political Economy was well formulated with the excellent resume of current and past data relevent to the article at hand (that documentation was essential to the article–more should be done on the finance-mercantile link-up as well as documentation on all banks in Canada). The letters were an added bonus, which I enjoyed reading. I cannot express how much I am impressed with this issue. Keep up the exceptional work!
Yours in struggle, W.C., Winnipeg
* * *
Dear Canadian Revolution,
Having recieved your first issue of Canadian Revolution, I must congratulate all whom have participated in the making of it.
I was tremendously impressed by the obvious sincerity to really do a job which has been attempted in the past, but not always with the anticipated results. We always fell in to the trap of some “ism”, and by the time we discovered our shortcomings the damage had been done. We have in the past participated in many attempts to analyse the particular Canadian conditions and not totally with negative results. But the attempt you Comrades are making must be partly the results of analysing the mistakes we have made in the past, and deserves the support of all those who consider themselves Marxist Revolutionaries. Nationalism as a tool under certain conditions is alright. Nationalism as a Philosophy stinks. Enclosed find a check to cover my subscription. Keep up the good work.
With Comradely Greetings M. A., Lumby, B.C.
* * *
Dear Comrades and Friends,
Thank you for sending us a complimentary copy of Revolution. We are very much impressed by the genuine Marxist-Leninist political spirit and hard work that went into research and production of it. The Revolution deserves the support of all Marxist and Leninist thinkers. We shall support the Canadian Revolution both politically and financially. Please accept our contribution towards one year subscription and production.
Greetings. P.S.D., Sooke.B.C.
* * *
Dear Canadian Revolution,
We have read the first two issues of Canadian Revolution with great pleasure. The need for a forum to discuss and debate Marxist-Leninist ideas and activities in Canada is fully demonstrated by the wide interest and variety of contributions already generated by the first issues of your journal. More significantly, the articles presented have, in general, maintained the high standards of diligence, sobriety, optimism and hard-headed realism worthy of the great revolutionary tradition which Marxism-Leninism offers us.
Within this collection of generally first calibre presentations, Jack Scott’s review of the Moore and Wells pamphlet, Imperialism and the National Question in Canada, stands out as a beacon worthy of the highest commendation and emulation. We consider it of great importance that Marxist-Leninists recognize the significance of its style and method. Given the relative weakness of Marxist-Leninist tradition in Canada, the lack of a proletarian party, and the great variety and uneveness of experience in this vast country, disagreement is to be expected and if approached from the necessary perspective of unity-struggle-untiy is a sign of vitality in the revolutionary ranks. It is to Jack Scott’s credit that he has set down for us an instructive style from which we can all learn how to approach disagreements in order to separate real from sham Marxism-Leninism, leading to a more solid unity of Marxist-Leninist forces.
Scott treats the problem of the characterization of the Canadian state and bourgeoisie, and by implication the principal contradiction, with the profound respect which it deserves. Since the answer to this question will set the main contours to Canadian revolutionary strategy, it must be based on systematic analysis, documentation and the active testing of results in concrete conditions. What is striking in Scott’s presentation is his refusal to come to quick and easy answers, to settle this very difficult and complex question without diligent application to theory and detail. Moreover, since this avoidance of premature categorical conclusions is rooted in Marxist-Leninist principles and outlook it cannot be mistaken for the liberal tolerance of all views.
We think that there are important lessons to be learned from Scott’s systematic analysis of the Moore and Wells pamphlet. A most important one for us is the realization that Marxist-Leninists must avoid and conscientiously reject a priori thinking and must be harder-working and better researchers than their class enemies. It is often the case that honest comrades have so much contempt for the bourgeoisie that it is believed that this class and its state can be overthrown by fervour alone. Reference, however, to MarxistLeninist classics or mere denunciating stances cannot replace the serious analysis of concrete conditions; if this mistake is made the classics become icons to frighten the innocent into superficial agreement rather than theoretical underpinnings for intense engagement with concrete conditions. Scott proves conclusively how a reverence for a partial theoretical position may find justification by reference to out-of-context quotations from Marxist-Leninist literature. He demonstrates how the absence of honest analysis of the concrete is concomitant with shoddy work style and with superficical revolutionary posturing. Insofar as Moore and Wells may be honest, Scott patiently exposes this sloppiness and facile proclivity to jump to conclusions on the basis of contrived evidence. Insofar as Moore and Wells are dishonest and deliberate deceivers, and this is the ultimate conclusion to which Scott comes, he exposes the blatant manifestations of trotskyite opportunism at work in their pamphlet. The patient case he builds against them is without vituperation (although we are sure Scott is capable of this when necessary), and is all the stronger since the proclivity to name calling, as the Moore and Wells pamphlet itself proves, never serves as a substitute for critical analysis. Scott rejects this method in word and deed and agrees with Lenin that “In politics abusive language often serves as a screen for utter lack of principles and sterility, impotence, angry impotence on the part of those who use such language”.
Scott’s exposure of opportunist arguments and partial documentation provides a positive example for all readers of Canadian Revolution on how to approach the solution to weighty problems. The modesty on the part of Scott is the antithesis of the unfounded certainty of the Moore-Wells pamphlet and prepares the way for principled debate on the subject. By posing questions that Marxist-Leninists will have to answer, and by systematically marshalling evidence for the tentative conclusions he holds, Scott points the way toward real fruitful work.
Along with Scott, we are not convinced that U.S. imperialism can be eliminated from one aspect of the principal contradiction. The view that the principal contradiction in Canada is defined between the Candian proletariat and the Canadian bourgeoisie, based on an assessment which suggests that the Candian state and bourgeoisie are characteristically imperialist, is a relatively new thesis for us and one which seems to fly in the face of established facts with which we are familiar. Although we do not presume to have done the hard work necessary to come to a final conclusion on this matter, we do find ourselves in sympathy with the position taken in the letter from members of the Vancouver Study Group appearing in the last issue of Canadian Revolution which sees U.S. imperialism and the Canadian bourgeoisie as twin enemies on one side of the contradiction. Some comrades have argued that this position must lead to a strategy of two-stage revolution in Canada, but we again agree with the Vancouver letter that a one-stage revolution is indeed on the agenda.
The argument that the elevation of U.S. imperialism to the level of the main contradiction along with the Canadian bourgeoisie would necessarily lead to a theory of two-stage revolution seems to us to be extraneous to the real question at issue. We fail to see why in a country like Canada which, for certain definite historical reasons specific to it, at one and the same time happens to be as much a state of monopoly capitalism with its own bourgeoisie as it is a country suffocating under the overwhelming domination of U.S. imperialism, the question should be posed in so mechanical either or manner. The search for the principal contradiction, as we understand it at present, need not always lead to the forced divorce and isolation of one or more aspects which make up the poles of existing contradictions. In other words, the principal contradiction need not be simple, and in the case of Canada the facts seem to suggest that the main contradiction is in fact complex and composed of two dovetailing contradictions. It is no wonder that such approaches and conceptions which either attempt to ignore stubborn reality or force it to fit a given theory so often tend to become shackling formulae rather than useful tools for serious investigation. When this happens the outcome predictably becomes more sterile than fruitful Following the example of Jack Scott we would like to urge all readers of Canadian Revolution to guard against such tendencies as we try to address ourselves to the many demanding questions before us. For our part, in the meantime, we remain unable to see why a genuinue proletarian party which knows its Marxism-Leninism well and is thoroughly grounded in the soil and texture of the concrete political landscape within which it operates can not wage an anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist struggle as part and parcel of a single proletarian revolutionary strategy leading to socialism.
One reason we have taken this time to praise Jack Scott’s approach is that we see it as very relevant to numbers of questions facing Marxist-Leninists. We are in fundamental agree ment with Marxist-Leninists across the country that the building of a Marxist-Leninist party constitutes the principal task facet by revolutionaries in Canada. The main prerequisites for the successful fulfillment of this objective have already been out lined by MREQ and others, that is, the application of Marxist-Leninist analysis to the conditions of Canada, integration with the working class and other oppressed people and a successful practice and assessment of objective and subjective conditions developing from this integration, and the struggle for principled unity of Marxist-Leninists. The enthusiastic way in which Marxist-Leninists across Canada are now addressing these tasks is a welcome and positive sign, but the method and style used to fulfill these requirements will determine the success or failure of establishing one unified, proletarian party in Canada which brings together all dedicated and honest Marxist-Leninists. We think that the proletarian method and style offered us by Jack Scott will help set the stage for the successful resolution of this absolutely crucial task.
We look forward to the third issue of Canadian Revolution.
p.s. We thoroughly enjoyed reading Dave Paterson’s exposure of the counter-revolutionary nature of that outfit which calls itself Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist). Together with the MREQ pamphlet on the same subject which coincidentally reached us around the same time as the 2nd issue of Canadian Revolution, we consider this systematic exposure and repudiation of CPC-ML as a very timely and vital task. May we suggest that in the future Dave Paterson, the comrades at MREQ and all other Marxist-Leninists in Canada pull their resources togetherin what must be a continuing effort to expose CPC-ML.
P.B., K.C., H.G., L.K., H.Y., Halifax, Nova Scotia
* * *
Dear Canadian Revolution,
While I appreciate the level of criticism contain in your “REPLY TO THE CPC(ML) CALL FOR UNITY”, I would suggest that having reinforced, with several firm examples, your argument that this call for unity is neither genuine, politically valid nor worthy of anyone’s respect, would have been sufficient. To continue beyond that point is to fall prey to precisely what the MASS LINE is all about – promote interminable ’democratic’ discussions, initiate heated arguments when placards and leaflets should be prepared thereby ensuring that the material for an important action will not be ready, develop an atmosphere where the best people will drop out in disgust – in other words, immobilize work, and there you have the typical CPC(ML) mission accomplished. One hardly needs the police to break up a meeting when it can be sabotaged so simply from within.
This was all pin-pointed very well on the 9th page of your article when the question was asked: “Why doesn’t the CPC(ML) make any of this clear. Is it to their advantage that no one knows what they are talking about?” The answer obviously is “YES.” Unfortunately, another nine pages were filled with more examples which, in my view, were redundant since the case had been established.
To dismiss the possibility of whether Bains is, or is not, CIA, FBI or RCMP, while proving that his organization (and it is “his” organization) has deliberately harbored known police agents as merely “intolerable”, suggests a politically naive analysis which is itself intolerable.
Once one recognizes and identifies the divisive tactics used by infiltrators in the “left” one can draw clear cut conclusions. Whether they are being paid or are doing it for nothing is quite irrelevant. Without wasting time and energy getting paranoic about proving police connections, the person should be isolated.
The CPC(ML) openly admits using violence against those whom they decide are ’counter-revolutionaries’. No serious Marxist group accepts individual or group terrorism and violence as a method of persuasion. Obviously then, one is dealing here with an irresponsible and dangerous group of dimwits. I use the term advisedly. Any Canadian who, in 1975, can accept the concept of a “Chairman Bains”, the “leader” (complete with bodyguard) whose every word is law and cannot be questioned, who accepts violence in place of ideological struggle, is not about to have their brain-washed imprints changed by any logical argument.
In summary, then, I feel that once the behaviour of the CPC(ML) has been exposed as that of a potentially dangerous group, the best tactic is to isolate them in every way possible. My personal method is simply to ignore them whenever they cross my path, and to lock my door whenever, intent on wasting my time, they try to call on me with their Jehovah-Witness regularity. To participate in any discussion with them immediately reduces one to their level – and who needs that.
They advance a policy of violence against sections of the population; they knowingly harbor police agents in their ranks; the result of endless confrontation with them is further confusion and exhaustion, undermining real working class unity. Ca suffit!
Claire Culhane N. Burnaby, B.C.
* * *
Dear Canadian Revolution,
The Groupe D’Intervention Politique (GRIP) and the Mouvement Revolutionnaire des Etudiants du Quebec (MREQ) announce their political unity. This is a first step forward in the struggle for the unity of Marxist-Leninists in Canada.
Our two groups reached unity after intense discussions over political line, based on the principle that it is the correctness of political line which determines everything. Our discussions were carried out on the basis of unity-criticism-unity starting from Marxist-Leninist principles and a genuine desire for unity in order to struggle forward to build unity of views and overcome differences.
Organizationally, this political unity has led to the rallying of the GRIP to the MREQ. From now on the two groups form one, MREQ, and are firmly united around one political and ideological line.
The two groups went through different histories and evolution.
MREQ was formed in January, 1972, basing itself on the teachings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao. It defined three major fronts of work among students: the struggle against the capitalist school, the support of workers’ struggles, and the support of anti-imperialist struggles. Since its creation, MREQ has participated in many struggles and has published a newspaper, THE PARTISAN.
In its October 1974 text, Towards the Marxist-Leninist Organization, MREQ put forward the need for the unity of Marxist-Leninists and the creation of a Marxist-Leninist organization to undertake the task of building a genuine communist party in Canada. MREQ presently has militants working in factories and the schools.
The GRIP, founded in October, 1973, also fixed for itself the same three fronts of struggle in the student milieu. And in its September 1974 manifesto, it called for the unity of revolutionary forces to build the party.
The GRIP confirmed its participation in this process with the publication, in January 1975, of the political line document, For the Unity of Marxist-Leninists. Directly taking part in the uniting of Marxist-Leninists, the GRIP thus provided a refutation of the view that “only the most experienced and numerically significant groups should debate the essential questions concerning the future of the Marxist-Leninist movement.”
In the past, the two groups have had both agreements and differences on many questions. In practice, each group independently organized its own activities, while at the same time frequently collaborating in their mass work (holding conferences, exchanging views on workers’ support work, etc.)
The publication of their respective texts, Towards the Marxist-Leninist Organization and For the Unity of Marxist-Leninists, showed where each group stood on major issues, while simultaneously laying the basis for their final agreement and unity. If the points of agreement predominated over divergences, it was because of a common appreciation of the questions of the day.
Significantly, the GRIP and the MREQ are the only groups which emerged out of student movement in Quebec and went on to advance their positions on the struggle for unity of Marxist-Leninists and the need for a Marxist-Leninist organization.
The unity between our two groups will help raise the political level of the work of our members, enriched by a wider and more varied experience. Thus organizational fusion is not just a simple arithmetic growth of the number of members in one organization. Rather, it will have repercussions on the work of the entire Marxist-Leninist movement in Canada.
Of the many lessons to be learnt from our struggle for unity, we feel that one in particular stands out; the unity of Marxist-Leninists is possible. Provided Marxist-Leninists base themselves firmly on principles, remember it is political line which determines everything, adopt a correct attitude towards others and a willingness to rectify their own errors, we can resolve differences and build unity.
After this first success, MREQ will intensify its role in the building of unity of Marxist-Leninists in Canada, to extablish a Marxist-Leninist organziation and to move on to prepare the conditions for the creation of a genuine Marxist-Leninist communist party in Canada.
Long Live Marxism-Leninism Mao Tse Tung Thought! Long Live the unity of Marxist-Leninists!
The above is an adapted version of part of the declaration of unity between the GRIP and the MREQ. The complete document, entitled Un Premier Pas ver L’Unite des Maristes-Leninistes – which includes the points of agreement between the two groups and the lessons drawn from the struggle – is available from The PARTISAN, Box 422, Succursale C, Montreal, for 50 cents.
* * *
Dear Friends,
I received Canadian Revolution and the posters. Thanks. Yours analysis of Portugal was perhaps exact when it was written but things are a little different today.
At this moment the danger of Yanque imperialism is much greater than that of Russian imperialism. The C.I.A. has many agents here. An example is the Acores Islands where there is the American base Lajes – there the very strong liberation movement is controlled by the U.S.A. In the past months I worked in the theatre of political intervention with some friends from the Acores who are students at Lisboa. They had thought of going to the Acores during the vacation to do political work, but they are staying here because the physical security of leftists in the Acores is nul. At the same time the military governor has implicitly given support to the FLA (Liberation Front of the Acores), which is completely allied with the American interests.
Here on the continent the capitalist forces are in open struggle with the real forces of the left.
I am giving you a resume of the most important things:
1. The MFA (Armed Forces Movement) Assembly has approved the organizations of popular power (Workers’ Commissions and Residents’ Commissions).
2. The workers of the newspaper Republica, (Whose director was on the central committee of the Socialist Party and which controlled the news to the advantage of that party,) removed the director and some journalists and took control of the paper.
3. A radio station, “Radio Renascenca”, which had been owned by the Pratriarcat (Catholic Church) is now struggling against the boss – the priests – because they fired 11 workers for being Communists and said that they couldn’t work in a Catholic station (it is necessary to add that Radio Renascenca was also the most progressive radio station during fascism).
The workers occupied the station, the Pratriarcat threatened conflict between the Church and the state, and the government took a position in favour of giving the station to the Pratriciarc; Then the workers who had control of the station – and who we making very progressive broadcasts – said that the people should decide the destiny of the station. And the people came in the streets. They completely blocked the street where the studios were and the soldiers – who had received the order throw the workers out of the radio station – refused to do it.
The government gave in and the workers took over the station the service of the working class, the peasants and working people.
3. In order to build support for itself during these developmen the Socialist Party began a reactionary and anti-communist campaign both inside and outside the country.
Mario Soares started to turn towards the social-democrats Europe. The Socialist ministers who were in the coalition government left along with the ministers of the PPD (Right-wing party).
We are entering into a period of crisis of power in which the entire right hopes to profit from the road opened by the Socialist Party with its anti-communist campaign. Profiting also by the discontent of the northern peasants, the right has begun counter-revolutionary campaign in which they are saying that is necessary to kill all the communists. They are helping destroy all the left-wing political centers.
As a result a government has been constituted with many ministers of the preceeding government, lead by Vas Goncalves, who follows the line of the P.C.P. (Communist Party of Portugal).
A triumvirate was then formed by Casta Gomes (President of the Republic), Vasco Goncalves (Premier) and Otelo Saraiva Carvalho (Commander of COPCON) whose role is to give military support to the government.
Then a group of military sympathetic to the social democrats lead by Melo Antunes, distributed a document which was well received by all the right.
In response some military from COPCON (lead by Otelo Saraiva de Carvalho) developed a work project towards a political program. This document made an exact analysis of the political situation and is the only possible response in the face of the right-wing manoeuvers. The working people have given a good response supporting this project with the demonstration of 20th of August, in which more than 100,000 people demanded the immediate application of the COPCON project.
This led to an open conflict between the right-wing milita and the revolutionary military. The M.F.A. has finished pseudo-unity.
The moment had arrived when the contradictions could longer permit the M.F.A. to present itself as above class struggle.
As a revisionist party, the P.C.P advised that an accord worked out between the military in Melo Antunes group and the military in COPCON.
At this moment the right is opposing the government lead Vasco Goncalves on the grounds that he follows the P.C.P
The P.C.P is giving total support to the government of Vas Goncalves and now in an opportunist manoeuvre has given support to the demonstration, organized by the workers’ commissions, and which has the total support of the Marxist-Leninist movements. The secretariat of the demonstration replied to the P.C.P and I am sending you the response.
The last news I have is that the P.C.P is allying itself with the Trotskyist groups, as a united front, saying that the COPCON document is in agreement with the politics of the Vas Goncalves government, etc., in a clear manoeuver to profit fnom a document which isn’t favourable to it.
I am sending you the Melo Antunes document and that of COPCON, and the flyer for the demonstration of the 20th of August.
Forgive me if things are not very clear, but I am very tired. . . .
If you have some doubts about anything you can write and ask.
Your friend,
Maria,
Lisboa, Portugal
(Maria is a member of a Marxist-Leninist organization in Lisbon and a medical student.)
* * *
Dear Canadian Revolution,
Coming from several cities in the USA and Canada, several patriotic Indians held a three-day convention in Montreal in late June and founded a continent-wide association, called the Indian Peoples’ Association in North America (IPANA).
It was a significant coincidence that the convention in Montreal began on the morning of June 27, 1975 when newspapers around the world carried front-page headlines announcing Mrs. Gandhi’s declaration of “national emergency” in India, and large-scale arrests of people in opposition. While this act of the Gandhi government represented a major turning point in the political history of India, to the patriotic Indians who assembled in Montreal it did not come as a surprise. For many years they have been watching the gradual and steady erosion of democratic rights of the people of India, caused by the unresolved economic contradictions which were making it increasingly difficult for the rulers to rule in the consitiutional, democratic manner.
Many of the founding members of IPANA have been active, locally, in publicizing the repressive conditions in India and to lend support to genuine peoples’ struggles in the homeland. Increasingly, however, a need was felt to bring all these groups and individuals together under one organization on a North American basis. The formation of IPANA will fulfil this need.
A Political Resolution was adopted in Montreal which would guide the organizational work and other activities of the Association. According to this Resolution, the main tasks facing the people of India are three: 1) to defeat the domination of the country by imperialism, mainly that of USSR and USA, which acts in collaboration of the big landlords and big capitalists; 2) to win genuine democracy for the vast majority of people; and 3) to attain decent economic conditions. The members of IPANA recognized these struggles of Indian people as their own and in order to support these struggles, IPANA has undertaken the following tasks:
1. to win the support of the broadest section of the compatriots resident in North America, and of other people, for the just struggle of the Indian people for genuine independence, democracy, and decent living conditions;
2. to consistently and patiently expose the detrimental consequences of the continuing domination of India’s economy, politics, and culture by imperialist forces, namely USSR and USA;
3. to oppose and expose the growing repression of the Indian people by the state;
4. to oppose discrimination against Indians resident in North America; and
5. to support the struggles of the peoples and nations of the Third World against domination, exploitation and hegemony by the two superpowers.
IPANA will launch a news-and-analysis journal, called New India Bulletin. The first issue will appear in early August. As far as the proclamation of “national emergency” in India is concerned, IPANA held a news conference in Montreal soon after its convention, where a public statement was released. A copy of this statement, which reflects IPANA’s views on recent developments,is enclosed. It is hoped that you will publish it for the widest dissemination in North America.
IPANA is also launching a massive signature campaign on a petition, which will be handed over to Indian diplomatic offices in five major cities of North America on August 15 (anniversary of India’s independence).
Those interested in the new journal, New India Bulletin, or in the petition, or in anyway supporting the struggles of the people of India, should contact the central office of IPANA, Box 37, Westmount Post Office, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
H.P.S.
Simon Fraser University
Burnaby, B.C.
* * *
Dear Comrades,
I would like to express my support and enthusiasm for the Canadian Revolution journal. The first issue is being widely-read and discussed by Marxist-Leninists in the Vancouver area. Many of us feel that your articles on Canadian political economy, the national question, the question of party-building and upcoming discussions on existing “left” political formations will constitute a vital beginning to a national debate and struggle amongst M-Lers on these questions. Hopefully, I, along with the people I am associated with on the Western Voice and in the teaching movement here in B.C., will be able to make some concrete contributions to these discussions on the pages of Canadian Revolution.
Enclosed is a cheque. Looking forward to No. 2.
B.R.
Vancouver
* * *
Dear Friends
This letter deals with the statement of “Political Unity and Policy of the Journal” and the editorial in the first issue of the journal, Canadian Revolution. We do not concern ourselves with the contents of the journal here as the working collective does not directly stand by the articles published in the journal. A Marxist-Leninist theoretical journal and debate are vitally important to the development and life of the revolutionary movement. Our differences concern the basis of unity of the journal, the function of the editorial board, and the role of a Marxist -Leninist publication.
The premises concerning the Canadian revolutionary movement, from which the journal operates are:(l) “. . . there is no revolutionary party giving leadership to the struggles of the working class in Canada (2) nor is there a great deal of unity among Marxist-Leninists on how to proceed”. The goals of the journal are: (1)“. . . to facilitate ideological and political struggle and discussion (2) in order to lay the basis for Marxist-Leninists to achieve a common analysis, strategy and programme (3) to advance the goals of a socialist revolution in Canada.” This letter is restricted to one question. Is the journal, Canadian Revolution, based upon their premises and working to achieve these goals, in actual fact, proceeding in accordance with the principles of Marxism-Leninism?
The answer is no. The journal, Canadian Revolution, has chosen an opportunist course in three ways: first, the political unity upon which the journal is based is designed for accomodation and not on clear Marxist-Leninist principles; second, the journal recognizes the lack of unity in the movement but instead of providing Marxist-Leninist leadership, it only provides a forum for debate and exercises leadership not upon clear proletarian ideology but upon diffise and undefined petit-bourgeois ideology; and third, the journal explicitly denies any organizational leadership but in actual fact assumes that leadership. The crux of the matter seems to be confusion as to exactly what are the tasks of Marxist-Leninists and of the communist movement.
(?)ine general task of the communist movement at any stage of its development is to,
. . . organize the class struggle, to point out its essential ultimate aim and to analyse the conditions that determine the methods by which this struggle should be conducted. (Lenin, CW. Vol.4, p. 327)
Communists are the ideological leaders of the proletariat in the struggle of our class against all classes which resist and stand in the way of the economic and social transformation of society. It is impossible to be the ideological leadership without investigation and analysis. This theoretical work,
... must present an integral picture of our (Canadian) realities as a definite system of production relations, show that the exploitation and expropriation of the working people are essential under this system and show the way out of this system that is indicated by economic development. (Lenin, CW. Vol. 1, p. 296)
This theoretical work must be directed to meet the needs of the on-going class struggle, the economic and political struggle. Also it is absolutely necessary to advocate and propagate an understanding of this revolutionary theory, Marxism-Leninism, within the working class. Only when revolutionary theory is grasped by the masses of Canadian workers will it become a material force. Leadership must be provided in organizing the working class; organizing to transform the present sporadic outbursts of rebellion and the limited but continual economic struggle into an organized and conscious political struggle against the bourgeois state. The goal of this struggle being the abolition of the social system based upon the private ownership of the means of production and the passing of political power into the hands of the working class for the organization of a socialist society under the dictatorship of the proletariat.
The communist movement must advance on the three fronts: economic, political, and the theoretical, but
The creation and advocacy of revolutionary theory plays the principal and decisive role in those times of which Lenin said, “Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement.” When a task, no matter which, has to be performed, but there is as yet no guiding line, method, plan or policy, the principal and decisive thing is to decide on a guiding line, method, plan or policy. (Mao, Four Essays, On Philosophy, p. 58)
At this time, “creation and advocacy of revolutionary theory” is the principal front in our movement. Canadian Revolution has placed itself in the center of the theoretical front. However, the statement of “Political Unity and Policy” of the journal gives no clear, precise and concrete, ie. in reference to the Canadian situation, exposition of Marxist-Leninist principles. The statement of political unity is comprised of only the most general statements. These general statements lend themselves to any interpretation. For a journal of this type, or for any Marxist-Leninist literature, the general task is to broaden, deepen and guide our work. In order to fulfill this task, we must constantly and clearly explain the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism, the concrete situation, the resulting political strategy and tactics, and the tasks of Marxist-Leninists. On this basis, all deviations from and distortions of Marxism-Leninism, proletarian ideology, must be just as clearly explained and their class basis laid bare. This differentiation, this drawing of clear lines of demarcation, cannot be done by simply stating that we are opposed to this or that group or tendency. It must be done explicitly; for example, Canadian Revolution states that it is committed to combatting opportunism, but there is no explanation of what groups in the Canadian movement are opportunist and why. Another example, Canadian Revolution states that there is no revolutionary party leading the struggle of the working class in Canada. However we are not given an explanation of why such a party is necessary, its role in the revolutionary movement or the basic failings of the other groups that claim the title of the Marxist Leninist party. The statement of political unity “amounts to talking with the aim of saying nothing.” (Lenin, cw. Vol 5, p. 360) This reflects the actual political unity of the journal which is no upon Marxist-Leninist principles and clear lines but upon accomodation of ideological differences and the blurring of class lines. Unity of any Marxist-Leninist organization, be it local or national, or around a theoretical journal or paper, must be upon a sound ideological basis; “... without a common ideological basis there can be no question of unity.” (Lenin, cw. Vol 5, p, 227) What is this ideological basis?
Marxist-Leninist theory, proletarian ideology, provides us with a broad historical perspective and a wealth of accumulated experience to draw upon and learn from. This theory guides us in analysing the concrete situation in Canada and in charting a revolutionary course. But
... this theory provides only general guiding principles, which, in particular, are applied in England differently than in France, in France differently than Germany . . . (Lenin, CW. Vol. 4, p. 212)
and in Germany differently than Canada. The general principles of Marxism-Leninism must be applied to the concrete situation in Canada. “... the very gist, the living soul of Marxism – a concrete analysis of the concrete situation.” (Lenin, cw. Vol 31, p. 166.) Thus, the sound ideological unity of a Marxist-Leninist organization is not based upon general, abstracted principles but upon their application in the particular situation, the concrete analysis of the concrete situation. This development of principle, this creative application of the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism to the Canadian situation, this development of revolutionary theory, is the primary task in our movement at the present time. In this process it is necessary to go step by step, dealing with one question after another, continuously upholding the principles of Marxism-Leninism, and guarding against opportunism, the abandonment of principle. This is the process of establishing proletarian ideology in Canada. Canadian Revolution’s political unity is not even based upon a clear statement of the basic general principles of Marxism-Leninism let alone their application in the Canadian situation. Solid ideological unity is upon the application of the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism in the concrete Canadian situation.
Canadian Revolution disregards the principles of Marxism-Leninism, disregards the drawing of clear class lines, and disregards a clear proletarian class position, in order to facilitate unity. This is a desertion of Marxism-Leninism for opportunism.
Canadian Revolution states that its first aim is to facilitate debate toward a common political line. The premise for the debate is that there is no correct political line, nor that there is even “a great deal of unity among Marxist-Leninists on how to proceed with the historical tasks with which we are faced.” But, Canadian Revolution does not itself define clear and precise points of unity on principles from which to guide and elevate this debate. As such, Canadian Revolution can only serve as a “forum” for independent (that is, “unaffiliated” with any proclaimed party) Marxist-Leninist groups and individuals.
Other aims of the journal are to “promote concrete analysis of concrete conditions in Canada, aid in the scientific summation of practice to advance theory, and promote the study and application of Marxism-Leninism”. This, according to the journal, is the solid basis for the debate. In total, what do we have: a forum for debate is provided, “analyses” are promoted, systematic summing up of practice is promoted, and an organization is built in order to establish and maintaim regular contact with groups across Canada. The stated goal is to build an ideologically united revolutionary movement as the necessary prerequisite for the consolidation of the party. But may we add here, granted, with the possibility of crushing some peoples’ aspirations; first, that debate within the Canadian revolutionary movement has been going on since before the founding of the CPC in 1921; second, that subjective sociology does research and analyses; and third, that economism has, at certain times, very outstanding and tangible success, which, from the “summing-up” point of view, can look pretty good if there is no revolutionary perspective. Debate, research and analyses upon a subjective basis and economism can all be done while proclaiming to be studying and applying Marxism-Leninism.
WHAT MATTERS IS THE METHOD OF ANALYSIS, THE CONTENT AND DIRECTION OF THE DEBATE, AND THE NATURE, REVOLUTIONARY OR REFORMIST, OF THE PRACTICAL ACTIVITY.
The role of the main contributors and editorial board of a Marxist-Leninist publication is to set and maintain debate on a scientific level, to illuminate the debate with the consistent and firm principles of Marxism-Leninism. The editorial board of Canadian Revolution throws this responsibility overboard and claims not to be the leadership. This refusal to provide Marxist-Leninist leadership while claiming to be a Marxist-Leninist theoretical journal is Canadian Revolution’s second departure from Marxism-Leninism.
As we have seen, by its statement of political unity, Canadian Revolution defined its general purpose to be A) to provide a forum to foster debate; in order to B) lay the basis for Marxist -Leninists to “achieve a common analysis, strategy and programme. . .” . This is the first step for the journal in the process of party building. Canadian Revolution denies, any assumption of leadership in the process, “The journal is not the center or the leadership of this process.”
But in order to get at the heart of the matter, it is necessary to rely on the materialist method, as is necessary on every question. That is, it is not enough to look simply at what a person or group says, we must also look at what is being done, what the objective situation actually is. It is in practice that the truth of one’s proclamations and statements is determined. How does Canadian Revolution stand the test of practice on the question of leadership in the proclaimed process of party-building? Is Canadian Revolution’s claim objectively correct?
The fact is, Canadian Revolution does draw general boundaries around itself, thus separating and defining itself as a general tendency from various other consolidated groupings; does set priorities and guidelines for publication of material based on these boundaries; does choose articles based on these priorities and guidelines; does maintain the right to solicit articles in reply to articles it disagrees with; does work to build national distribution and thus national co-ordination. In spite of all this, we are expected to believe that Canadian Revolution is not actually providing leadership in the process of party-building.
What do we have here? Explicit denial and implicit assumption of leadership! But why this approach?
Canadian Revolution is fighting for the creation of the party; is trying to unite Marxist-Leninists through the necessary “pre-party debate”; and is building national organization through the production and distribution of the journal. This adds up to the fact that Canadian Revolution is a political organization, is a center; but, as we have shown above, a “Marxist-Leninist” center without principled Marxist-Leninist unity, without a principled ideological basis. Without this basis, Canadian Revolution must deny its leadership function; as anyone familiar with Marxism-Leninism knows ideological leadership cannot be provided without the concrete application of the guiding principles, and organizational unity cannot precede ideological unity.
Thus, the basis of unity of the journal is not upon a clear political line which sets aside this journal as a revolutionary journal, but upon a definite organizational, functional unity. Ideological and/or organizational unity based upon an undefined hazy conception or complete lack of the principles of Marxism -Leninism inhibits the growth and destroys the inner strength of any revolutionary movement. Within this haze you will find a smattering of Marxist-Leninist phrases covering an overall framework of bourgeois and petit-bourgeois ideology. The ruthless weeding out of the ideology of the proprietory classes is an absolutely necessary and continual process in order to establish the hegemony of proletarian ideology. Without ideological independence, firmly founded upon the principles of Marxism-Leninism, the political struggle to overthrow the bourgeoisie, to establish and maintain the dictatorship of the proletariat, can never be successful. Ideological independence is established and maintained by not making compromises upon principles, but rather by strict adherence to principle, by clear definitive explanation of their application and by continually drawing clear lines of demarcation.
This task will be accomplished only if consistent principles leadership is provided; leadership that combats every deviation from the principles of Marxism-Leninism; leadership that fosters the elaboration of Marxism-Leninism in every direction; and leadership that while defending and elaborating Marxism-Leninism does so in a manner that continuously raises the class consciousness of the working class. The responsibility to provide this leadership, falls upon the shoulders of all those who have taken or will take the initiative to circulate any public statement. The editorial board of Canadian Revolution very definitely has this responsibility!
Does Canadian Revolution assume this responsibility? NO! The journal is providing ideological leadership, but bourgeois ideological leadership, leadership denying and refusing to provide clear Marxist - Leninist ideological principles. The political unity of the journal is one based upon the acceptance of the hegemony of bourgeois and petit-bourgeois ideology as the only feasible unity, the only unity possible, at the present time. Canadian Revolution has abandoned the arduous socialist road of struggle for the road offering the least resistence, the bourgeois road. Instead of solidifying itself upon a principled basis and them providing consistent Marxist-Leninist leadership, Canadian Revolution bows down and accomodates the lack of ideological unity in the statement of political unity.
Political opportunism, as such means “precisely a lack of definite and firm principles.” (Lenin, CW. Vol. 5, p. 525) The most familiar manifestations of opportunism are those groups and individuals who constantly switch their political position or line in order to sway with the tide in the working class and/or communist movement. We are confronted with this type of opportunist at all stages of the development of the communist movement and the class struggle.
In the earliest stages of development of the communist movement, when there is little ideological clarity or unity, we are confronted with the most blatant form of opportunism – “ideological” unity on the lowest common denominator. This lowest common denominator is agreement on “Marxism -Leninism” minus any explanation of the basic principles in general or applied to our particular situation, Marxism-Leninism in name only. This unity is proposed as the only one feasible considering the level of the revolutionary movement. Tactical unity, unity with all those that can be united with to defeat a common foe, is used as a cover to sneak in unity without principles. This sham unity is substituted for principled unity in a whirl of hyperactivity, as the basis for a revolutionary organization. “Revolutionary” organization first and a struggle for unity within the organization later. Because of the general lack of experience and amateurishness at this stage, it is all too often the case that many comrades do not know how to combat even this most obvious form of opportunism, and fall into this trap themselves.
Canadian Revolution’s denial of ideological and organizational leadership is a despicable subterfuge in order to slip around the Marxist-Leninist principle of organizaitonal unity only upon a sound ideological basis. Remember – “without a common ideological basis there can be no question of unity.”
There are no clear Marxist-Leninist principles elaborated as the basis for the development of the process that is already unfolding. This is an opportunist error, pure and simple. The first part of the error is to the right, i .e., acceptance of the low ideological level of our movement, acutally perpetuating this low level by providing a forum for debate with no clear ideological leadership. This is right opportunism because it does not advance our movement in regard to what is demanded by the objective conditions. Our movement is in desperate need of a firm founding in the principles of Marxism-Leninism and the concrete analysis of the concrete conditions. But instead of pointing the way out of the morass by providing clear Marxist-Leninist ideological leadership, Canadian Revolution simply admits the weakness, points to the need, and says “go at it comrades, we’ll provide the paper”. The second part of the error is to the “left” i.e., providing organization leadership to a tendency with no ideological clarity or clearly stated principles of unity. This is left opportunism because on an organizational level it objectively moves ahead of the actual stage of development of our movement. National organization of Marxist-Leninist work within one united and real Marxist-Leninist party is always necessary, and has been on the agenda since the turn of the twentieth century. However, no formal aspects of the party, be it debate, theoretical journal, declaration of formation, official program, regular mass newspaper, etc., will automatically result in correct leadership and correct line. That will depend upon the content of these various aspects. Revolutionary content is possible only by strict adherence to the principles of Marxism-Leninism in our work. As we have noted, Canadian Revolution moves ahead toward national organization, but refuses to take responsibility for the nature of the content.
To sum up, Canadian Revolution makes the observation that there is little or no unity among Marxist-Leninists in the Canadian movement. Unity is a cherished goal for the revolutionary movement but unity of Marxist-Leninists is always on clearly defined principles. In order to achieve unity, the working collective publishing the journal must ignore the “paltry” principles of Marxism-Leninism and achieve “unity” under an umbrella of all encompassing declarations and statements in the negative. The editorial of volume 1 number 1 states “articles should be consistent with the stated editorial priorities and principles of the journal” but these stated principles are no where to be found. The statement of political unity is especially designed to accomodate any shade of opportunism, the only qualifying statement being non-affiliation to the presently consolidated political parties. On the basis of no position, no principles and no clear lines of demarcation, Canadian Revolution has taken the leadership in consolidating an organization in opposition to the existing parties.
It is high time to chart a new course: not petty-bourgeois ideology; not unity first, principles second but development of principle first, then unity; not unity of petty-bourgeois diffuse-ness; not accomodation and the blurring of differences but clear statement and principled struggle for resolution. The journal stands on petty - bourgeois ideology not proletarian ideology.
Does this mean that we think everyone working or associated with the journal is an “inherent opportunist”. Of course not! What it means is that objectively, as it is presently structured, Canadian Revolution has made opportunist errors. As a whole, the journal has not made a thorough enough study of Marxism-Leninism and our situation; in trying to proceed to a higher stage, through uniting for unity’s own sake. This error inhibits the further advance of our movement. Errors become opportunism in general only if they remain unanalyzed, and un-rectified. As we see it, the analysis, criticism, and rectification of these errors are the most immediate tasks before the journal.
Clearly defined unity based upon the main principles of Marxism-Leninism applied in the concrete historical situation in Canada must be struggled for and achieved by the editorial board as a prerequisite to the publication of a journal which claims to carry the banner of Marxism-Leninism. This analysis, and the political line arising from it, does not have to be fully elaborated in order to begin publication of a journal, but there must be some clearly defined unity around the main questions facing the Canadian movement. We consider that this basis of unity should include such important points as the nature and place of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-tung Thought in the development of modern history; the historic role of the working class; the role and function of the party of the proletariat; determination of and agreement on the principle contradiction in Canada; a general analysis of the state of the communist movement and the working-class movement at this time; and why the groups that call themselves communist parties are not in fact communist parties. This would be a minimum platform of unity from which a stronger basis could be accomplished.
Unity cannot be decreed; it must be struggled for. This applies to the revolutionary movement and the the working collective of the journal, Canadian Revolution. What must be upheld above all else is the conformity of the principles and platform of unity to the actual process of social and economic development. From this basis, the journal would be in a position to lead and guide the debate within the Canadian revolutionary movement in a Marxist-Leninist manner.
Guelph Workers Committee
P.O. Box 1844 Guelph, Ont.
(a small group of workers studying Marxism-Leninism)