First Published: Canadian Revolution No. 4, November/December 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 comrades:
This is our first letter to CR. We considered it to be necessary to clarify some of our views and present work, make some self-criticism of our practice of the last two years, criticize some right and “left” deviations in the movement, and finally, take a position on the formation, line and future of CR.
Some aspects of our line, in particular our line on the tasks of Marxist-Leninists in Canada, were criticized in Vol. 1, No. 1 of CR,in the article “Why Building the Party is the Principal Task”, as part of the criticism of dogmatism. We will make some response to this article in the next issue of CR. For now we wish to make available copies of positions quoted in the article (one major position paper and two short letters of self-criticism) to journal readers. Please contact CR and all requests will be forwarded to us.
We are working toward the formation of a M-L group in Toronto, a group with a definite ideological, and organizational line. This group will take party-building as the central task of the Marxist-Leninist movement and the formation of a country-wide organization as the immediate objective of this movement. The principal work of the group will be the development of the line necessary for the formation of the M-L organization of struggle for the party; its secondary tasks will be combatting the main opportunist dangers, and working to organize the two-line struggle to its correct resolution in the formation of the M-L organization. Although the group will be formed in Toronto, we believe its formation and tasks respond to the general situation in the movement across the country.
We concluded the necessity for this group through investigation of the situation in the Marxist-Leninist movement and analysis of the different lines, and on the basis of a self-criticism of our previous line and practice.
Our investigation and analysis led us to the position that although various groups and collectives have made major contributions in the elaboration of the revolutionary theory to guide our work, and have advanced correct positions on many ideological, political, organizational questions (without which we never could have arrived at our present position), there is no group which is advancing a correct line and carrying it out in practice, thus giving general leadership to the work of Marxist-Leninists in Canada. In addition, Marxist-Leninists in Toronto are presently in a few small collectives, and the struggle to form such a group will provide necessary unity, clarification, and lines of demarcation in Toronto. Thus, our conclusion of the necessity to struggle for a group which takes an independent position on the tasks of Marxist-Leninists and how to carry them out, and at the same time organizes maximum cooperation both here in Toronto, and across the country, to solve the problems of line and resolve the two-line struggle.
Our self-criticism started from determining that the decision we made in March of this year – to dissolve our group because of insufficient ideological and political unity – was liquidationist. We incorrectly argued that the only principled basis for unity of Marxist-Leninists was an ideological, political, and organizational line which was based on the analysis of concrete conditions, and which could provide leadership to the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat. We made no distinction between a M-L organization taking a line to the working class and a M-L group or collective with particular tasks. We saw the development of such a line separate from the two-line struggle in the Marxist-Leninist movement. We argued that there was no M-L movement until M-L was applied to the concrete situation to develop a correct political line.
This “left” position of “all struggle, no unity” could only lead us to liquidation and individual work. We did not call for the liquidation of the existing groups and collectives, but that was the logical conclusion of our line.
Within several months it became clear to us that our line could never give leadership to the tasks of Marxist-Leninists, and was fundamentally anti-party and anti- Leninist. It was necessary for us to do some historical analysis to determine why our line had led to this step backward, and shed some light on this “left” deviation.
About two years ago we began a criticism of the economism in our practice as a collective (one which included present Workers Unity members plus others). We drew the conclusion that economism and right opportunism were the main danger to the development of the revolutionary movement. We soon connected the economist theory with a petit-bourgeois reformist line on imperialism, and decided that the right opportunist line represented the “left” twin of modern revisionism among those who claimed to follow the Marxist-Leninist line and oppose modern revisionism. This “left” revisionism took the position that “ultra-leftism” was the main danger, held that the central task was “developing the class consciousness and fighting capacity of the proletariat”, and promoted the political line of “anti-imperialist agitation” and “united front against imperialism”.
Among those who saw right opportunism and economism as the main danger, (ourselves and several groups in Quebec, to our knowledge) a two line struggle emerged on the question of central task: party building as central task vs. “developing a correct ideological, political, and organizational line to guide the proletarian struggle” (our position). We must now draw the conclusion from the test of our line in practice that our position was wrong. We have changed our position, and studied the lines of those who held that party-building was the central task to learn from them.
From the position that party-building is the central task of the M- L movement, we could see the basis of our previous liquidationist line. The ideological foundation of this line was “bowing to the spontaneity of the working class movement” – obliterating the distinction between the scientific socialist movement (now the M-L movement)and the spontaneous working class movement; failing to distinguish the tasks of the M-L movement from the immediate leadership to the proletariat; failing to distinguish a period of party building from a period of direct leadership to the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat. This “left” form of bowing to spontaneity had the same effect on party building as economism (though not the same effect in the mass movement, where we tried to carry a Marxist-Leninist line on the situation of the working class under capitalism, the necessity for socialism, etc.). Although we began (with our previously mentioned position) to struggle against economism and petit-bourgeois anti-imperialism, we never determined explicitly our own ideological unity, nor did we define on what ideological and political basis the struggle against economism was to be carried out.
Taking what is correct in other positions, and correcting these mistakes, we concluded that we must determine the principled basis to unite in order to contribute to solving the problems of the struggle to form a country-wide organization of struggle for the party.
We will advance our position on the tactics of party-building in the next short while. With regard to immediate tactics, we see the movement in the first stage of – “the period of the formation of the vanguard (the Party) of the proletariat, the period of uniting the cadres of the Party” (see p. 13 of Vol. 1, No. 3 of CR). At present, Marxist-Leninists must concentrate on resolving the two-line struggle in the M-L movement with the objective of forming a country-wide organization with a correct line. That is, the resolution of the two-line struggle (the principal contradiction in the movement, the one which determines the development of the movement) will be the transformation of the M-L movement into a M-L organization with a line which is capable of carrying out the struggle to build the party, leaving clearly refuted bourgeois and petit-bourgeois opportunist trends behind.
In the resolution of this struggle, solving the problem of political line occupies a central place, though there are a number of principled questions on which a M-L organizaiton must be united. The formation of the organization must be “politically justified” in relation to the development of the communist movement and in relation to the class struggle in Canada and internationally.
To carry out our responsibilities to the international revolution and to the Canadian working class, we must handle the struggle in the M-L movement correctly, so that it clearly differentiates the M-L line from opportunism and revisionism. To do this, we require a scientific definition of what the Marxist-Leninist movement is, what the two-line struggle is, and what constitutes the basis for an organization. As Mao Tsetung points out:
The reason the dogmatist and empiricist comrades in China have made mistakes lies precisely in their subjectivist, one-sided and superficial way of looking at things. To be one-sided and superficial is at the same time to be subjective. For all objective things are actually interconnected and are governed by inner laws, but, instead of undertaking the task of reflecting things as they really are, some people only look at things one-sidedly or superficially and know neither their interconnections nor their inner laws, and so their method is subjectivist. (Mao Tsetung, On Contradiction, SELECTED READINGS, 1971, p. 101-2)
Among those who hold that there is a Marxist-Leninist movement and a two-line struggle, there is an overwhelming tendency to avoid defining the exact nature of this movement and struggle. The failure to solve this problem covers a dominant rightist tendency which considers the M-L movement to include all those with the subjective intentions or stated adherence to Marxist- Leninist principles and who do not belong to or support one of the existing parties. This is the “subjectivist method”. Every two-line struggle in the history of the communist movement has been fought out on an established theoretical and historical basis. The rightist tendency has failed to clearly distinguish Marxism-Leninism from opportunism and establish the theoretical and historical basis for the Marxist-Leninist movement. It is both possible and necessary to make this distinction, and the failure to make it keeps the movement in the backward state, having to take on all the various lines at the same time. The struggle is not clarified to center it on the main issues. This obstructs real M-L unity as a basis for solving the important differences.
We were unable to complete our position on these important questions, but we can give an example to show what we mean. We hold that there is in Canada a Marxist-Leninist movement of struggle for the party. That is, Marxist-Leninist must adhere to the line that party building is the central task and combat all forms of bowing to spontaneity, especially economism. The Marxist-Leninist theoretical line clearly refutes economism as class-collaborationist and revisionist. And a study of recent history in Canada shows that the economist line has neither built class-conscious revolutionary struggle nor directed us toward the construction of a party. Failure to draw lines on these questions allows the propagation of bourgeois reformist lines and gives them credibility in the movement, as part of the two-line struggle.
At the same time as criticizing the rightist definition, we must also combat the “left” line which we formerly held, which denies the existence of the M-L movement. This line cannot provide direction to the tasks of Marxist-Leninists or the organization of the two-line struggle, and proves to be liquidationist in practice.
Both right and “left” errors fail to organize the present tasks and struggles correctly, and have the essentially rightist effect of preserving the present state of the movement in localism and sectarianism. They both advance a “tactics-as-a-process” theory of party building, a vulgar materialist theory.
In opposition to this, we propose that a plan must be advanced which bases itself on a dialectical and historical materialist analysis of the movement and the relation between the M-L movement and the class struggle. This plan must outline the basis of the Marxist-Leninist movement, the issues of the two-line stFuggle, and the steps to resolve it. The CR collective has made a positive contribution by opening up the country-wide struggle in the M-L movement. But we believe its basis should be (and should have been at the start) the plan described above. Right opportunist errors have been made, but they can be corrected. If the CR takes a correct position on these matters, it can give leadership to the two-line struggle. If not, it will serve to blur the lines of demarcation between M-L and revisionism and hold back the struggle for the organization.
It is also necessary to oppose a “left” opportunist line on the CR. Although the letter from the Guelph Workers Committee in the last issue brought us to consider carefully the basis of CR and its future, and although it has raised some correct criticisms of the rightist errors made by the journal, it does not advance the content of the correct basis for the CR or the method for bringing about this change. Therefore it effectively says that no leadership can be given to the struggle for an organization at this time and calls for the liquidation of the journal. We cannot agree with this “left” line, which holds back the struggle for an organization and has the effect of strengthening localism, circle spirit, and sectarianism.
We will advance our position on the new basis of the journal in the next issue. We call on all Marxist-Leninists to define their positions on these questions, and we also call on the CR collective, which carries on an internal debate on these problems, to outline the various internal positions and give some leadership to this struggle.
Yours in struggle, J. K. (for the collective)
Toronto
* * *
Dear Comrades,
This letter is written in response to the Guelph Workers Committee’s attack on CANADIAN REVOLUTION. It is our position that the GWC have ignored the concrete conditions now confronting the Marxist-Leninist movement in Canada and so have failed to understand the nature of the tasks demanded by these conditions.
The professed basis for the GWC’s attack is their adherence to the struggle for principled Marxist-Leninist leadership of the revolutionary movement in the country. As we hope this letter makes clear, however, the GWC’s application of principles amounts to nothing more than dogmatism and opportunism. The effects of their proposals would be a severe setback to the development of Marxist-Leninist struggle at this time in Canada. This becomes clear as soon as we look behind the GWC’s proclamations of revolutionary fervour to the real content of their criticisms and the nature of their conclusions.
The GWC accuses CR of two fundamental errors: (1) “acceptance of the low ideological level of our movement, actually perpetuating this low level by providing a forum for debate with no clear ideological leadership”; and (2) “providing organizational leadership to a tendency with no ideological clarity or clearly stated principles of unity. The GWC characterizes these two errors as (1) right opportunism and (2) left opportunism.
What substance have these criticisms? Let us take the so-called “left-opportunist error” first. The content of this criticism is more clearly revealed earlier in the GWC letter, where it states: “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 thejournal.” In other words, CR has taken on a vanguard role in relation to the movement as a whole, is building a national organization that aims to become a party.
This is nothing but the most opportunistic juggling of CR’s real goals and positions. Because CR (along with all Marxist-Leninists) recognizes the need for a revolutionary party; because they also recognize the necessity for widespread struggle, debate and analysis as part of the process leading to this goal; and because they have taken steps to promote the resolution of this immediate need – they are accused of secretly plotting to take organizational leadership of the whole process. The GWC have been obliged to search frantically for some shred of evidence to back up this claim. And what have they found? That CR “works to build national distribution and thus national coordination.” Distribution network equals organization equals “leadership in the process of party-building”. Poppycock!
As for the rest of this criticism – that CR has “no ideological clarity or clearly stated principles of unity” – more poppycock. CR has ideological clarity on which questions the movement should be confronting now, and who should and should not be confronting them within the pages of a Marxist-Leninist journal. The collective has outlined as its basis of unity those principles necessary for the struggle to develop positions and a correct political line, a basis of unity which is both necessary and appropriate for the task they have taken on. The GWC rejects these because they are incorrect for a vanguard organization intent on party-building. But they can offer no proof that CR either is or should be such an organization.
Let us move on to the GWC’s other criticism of CR – that the Journal accepts “the low ideological level of our movement, actually perpetuating this low level by providing a forum for debate with no clear ideological leadership” (earlier referred to as “diffuse and undefined petit-bourgeois ideology” and “bourgeois ideological leadership”). This perpetuation of the low ideological level, according to the GWC, results because “the political unity of CR is designed for accomodation of ideological differences and the blurring of class lines”, for compromise and unprincipled unity rather than principled struggle.
This criticism is also based on the GWC’s insistence that meet the criteria of a vanguard organization, that anything less can only be “bourgeois” and/or “petit-bourgeois”. Our own analysis of conditions within the Canadian revolutionary movement leads us to a much different conclusion. First, however, let us lay bare two more examples of the GWC’s unprincipled method of debate.
At one point in their letter, the GWC include two quotations from Lenin in an attempt to back up their demand for a tightly-consolidated leadership of the Marxist-Leninist movement in Canada now. The first of these quotations, however, is taken wholly out of context. In the article from which it has been extracted (Draft of a Declaration of the Editorial Board of ISKRA and ZARYA, Lenin CW, Vol. 4, pp. 320-330), Lenin is, in fact, arguing a very different position from that implied by the GWC’s use of the quotation. Elsewhere in the same article he states,
We desire our publications to become organs for the discussion of all questions by all Russian Social Democrats of the most diverse shades of opinion . . . Open polemics conducted in full view of all Russian Social Democrats and class conscious workers are necessary and desirable in order to clarity the depths of existing differences.
The point here, let us make clear, is not that the article actually tends to support CR’s position in opposition to the claims of the GWC. It is rather that the GWC have ignored both the concrete conditions to which Lenin was responding in this article, and the actual conclusions which he drew from the concrete analysis of these conditions. The ignoring of concrete conditions is a failure which runs through the whole of the GWC letter. They rely instead on distortions of Lenin’s revolutionary theory and analysis in order to present a distorted view of the present tasks of Marxist-Leninists in Canada.
Despite this, the GWC proclaims in bold print “WHAT MATTERS IS THE METHOD OF ANALYSIS, THE CONTENT AND DIRECTION OF THE DEBATE, AND THE NATURE, REVOLUTIONARY OR REACTIONARY, OF THE PRACTICAL ACTIVITY.” It is to be expected after this statement that the GWC will surely base their charges against CR on analysis of the “content and direction” of the journal itself, which is, after all, CR’s major “practical activity”. Not so. Instead, the GWC most conveniently and most opportunistically sidestep any responsibility for concrete analysis of this “content and direction”. This blatant failure to match their practice to their words they excuse because “the working collective of CR does not directly stand by the articles published in the journal”. Later in their letter, however, they inform us that “CANADIAN REVOLUTION does draw boundaries around itself . . . does set priorities and guidelines for publication of material based on these boundaries; does choose articles based on these priorities and guidelines.” Indeed it does – and with the aim of advancing the level of ideological development, not of retarding it as the GWC claim the journal does.
While insisting that the “materialist method” be used in analysing the journal, the GWC have, in fact, abandoned this method entirely by incorrectly separating the content of the journal from its form (i.e., its statement of unity and policy). We challenge the GWC to show where its criticisms are substantiated by concrete analysis of the journal’s content.
In rejecting the GWC’s criticisms, we also wish to state our positive support for CANADIAN REVOLUTION. We regard the publication of the journal as a progressive and necessary step in resolving some of the weaknesses that have historically beset the Marxist-Leninist movement in Canada. Crucial among these has been the general low level of theoretical development among would-be Marxist-Leninists, manifested most strongly in the absence of correct political and ideological line and a concrete analysis of Canada and the world. This weakness has often resulted in incorrect forms of mass activity and is reflected in the widespread feebleness or absence of principled struggle. These weaknesses have been further reinforced by the geographical isolation of Marxist-Leninist groups and individuals.
From our own experience, and the view of Marxist-Leninists from other parts of the country, we believe that CR is correctly responding to these historical conditions at this time and is, in fact, advancing our struggle.
First, CR has most definitely promoted the expansion and deepening of debate among Marxist-Leninists around questions which critically affect the development of a genuinely revolutionary movement in Canada. This debate is a powerful weapon in overcoming the weaknesses – theoretical, ideological and analytical – which are currently impeding the progress of Marxism-Leninism in this country.
Second, the fostering of debate on the national level has already begun to crumble the walls of geographical isolation which have helped to perpetuate the theoretical underdevelopment of our movement. A glance through the letters section of the journal itself illustrates how eagerly in fact Marxist-Leninists from across Canada welcome the chance to end this isolation. For groups such as our own, the exchange of ideas and information with Marxist-Leninists elsewhere in Canada is helping to break down the regional narrowness of our own experience and understanding. Only through such a process will we gain effective insight into the conditions facing revolutionaries in all parts of the country, and achieve a correct understanding of the nature and complexity of revolutionary struggle for Canada as a whole.
Third, the publication of CR has had an indisputable effect on the political development of ourselves and other. We have much to learn from the contributions of other Marxist-Leninists to the pages of the journal, but we are also determined to participate actively in this struggle. To this end we have begun to deal with some of the questions and issues raised by CR that previously we had not confronted. We also consider the self-criticism by Workers’ Unity (Toronto) in their article in the third issue of CR as further proof of the development through struggle which the journal has promoted.
Fourth, we regard this development of principled struggle around major questions of the Marxist-Leninist movement in Canada as an important step in isolating and exposing the opportunist and reactionary policies of both the revisionists and the self-proclaimed vanguard organizations, which have too often held hegemony in both the workers’ and the communist movements. The article by Dave Paterson on CPC (M-L), Dance and Hull’s analysis of the Ontario Waffle and Jack Scott’s review of the Moore and Wells book have further provided some of the long-needed analysis and criticism of these reactionary tendencies and organizations.
We agree with and support the tasks which CR has undertaken. We believe that the journal has provided some much-needed leadership and direction to the Marxist-Leninist movement. We strongly reject the GWC’s assertion that this leadership is opportunist. The leadership position which CR has taken on is a partial one – it addresses only one of several key tasks facing the movement and does not itself attempt to provide leadership to the whole process. The journal’s leadership role is also temporary – the very process which CR is promoting will lead to the development of other and higher forms of struggle and organization which will eventually supplant it.
We believe CR’s statement of unity is correct at this time for the task it has undertaken. But even with a correct basis of unity, the potential for opportunism still exists. We wish to stress in particular the importance of the opposition stated in CR’s basis of unity to “all forms of opportunism and revisionism, including social-democracy, anarcho-syndicalism, social imperialism and trotskyism.” It is a crucial task of the journal collective, as well as Marxist-Leninists across the country, to analyse at every point whether a position falls within the framework of legitimate Marxist-Leninist debate or not. The struggle against opportunism must not be compromised.
The CR’s basis of unity is an adequate starting point, but it must not remain static and unchanging. As the debate within the Marxist-Leninist movement progresses and theoretical clarity increases, the CR collective itself will have to internalize and synthesize these developments, and reflect them in their basis of unity. This means that there must be constant struggle and debate within the collective. It is important that these struggles be made known to the journal’s readers and supporters.
We suggest that CR include in its next issue an article explaining how the journal came into being and the composition of its editorial board. Readers should also be made aware of differences within the editorial collective affecting the political line, strategical and tactical direction and basis of unity of the journal which arise in the course of present or future struggles within the collective. Only with this knowledge can Marxist-Leninists in other parts of the country properly help to guide the development of the journal.
We have dealt at some length with the nature and role of CR as we see it, in order to further clarify our rejection of the GWC criticisms.
What, then, does the GWC position entail? First and foremost it demands the liquidation of the CR journal and a halt to the process of struggle and debate which it has fostered. It follows that the groupings within the CR collective (or representatives of various groups on the editorial board) are to resolve any outstanding contradictions among them and then procede to hammer out a new basis of unity based on development of a Marxist-Leninist political line for Canada. Once this task is achieved, the collective (or new organization?) can then go on to publish a genuine Marxist-Leninist journal which will constitute the “leadership” and “centre” of the movement. And all in isolation from the rest of the movement.
We consider that in essence this proposal is a step backward and a reflection of a small-group mentality which sees a political and ideological line developing from small, consolidated groups rather than from frank and open struggle among Marxist-Leninists on the tasks facing our movement. This represents an attack, not only on CR, but upon the very process of developing and establishing Marxism-Leninism within the Canadian revolutionary movement. It is a line that all Marxist-Leninists must struggle against and eliminate from our movement.
Does the foregoing mean that we are only interested in open debate for debate’s sake? Not at all. We stand for the emergence of a “leading centre” that will rally comrades to it on the basis of a clear political and ideological line tested in practice. But again, this can only be done by open polemics between Marxist-Leninists on as wide a basis as possible. Already some initial lines are being presented and struggled for and against. It is to the credit of CR that its pages reflect this struggle. Keep up the good work.
J.B., A.L., M.L., A.S., J.V.B., and other comrades in Halifax
* * *
Hello, CANADIAN REVOLUTION
The second issue of CR was a big elevation – it seemed to have more of your writers’ thought than VI. Lenin’s. The poor guy was used to prove everything from “Canadian Imperialism” to why we in Canada need an advanced worker’s party. Scott’s review was very well done, but, because of the length, I would say it was more of a polemic than a book review. On the question of what is the principal characteristic of the Canadian system, I and a good number of the Ottawa left say: a country which has an extremely large foreign controled economy (like Canada) if that said country has a few “independent” companies that become strong enough to set up foreign subsidiaries, the companies would be working in the interest of the power that controls the said country (like Canada). If the above is the case, than to be a patriot here in Canada is not wrong. I have a criticism which I wasn’t going to mention but it’s been written in the second issue too – when reference is made to the Soviet Union it is called Russia. In the first issue it’s in a footnote on page 11: “Russian revisionism....” and in the second issue on page 54: “...the Russian sphere.”(Second column paragraph 2) and (in paragraph 4 same column) “...pursued by Russia....”. What ever happened to the other 14 republics like the Ukraine, Byelorussia – even little Georgia? Isn’t “Russia” used by the capitalist press, when refering to the U.S.S.R., to show their ignorance and their criticism from the right. It is a fact that the radio influences our speech but this negation of the other states in the Soviet Union has got to stop.
From a forever-learning scientific socialist,
I.O., Ottawa
* * *
Dear CANADIAN REVOLUTION,
In response to the Guelph Workers Committee’s letter, we would like to reaffirm our opinion that CANADIAN REVOLUTION has made a good start in the necessary task of promoting discussion of questions of importance to Canadian Marxist-Leninists, and to urge you to relegate any similar mail to the garbage can and carry on with your work.
The Guelph Workers Committee’s demand that unity on a developed line must precede the publication of a Marxist-Leninist journal displays a real ignorance of the current state oi Marxism-Leninism in Canada, and dismisses the importance of real struggle which is essential to actual political advance. If the debate on basic principles is carried on in the absence of a forum which provides for the widespread dissemination of positions – disagreements and agreements, conclusions, etc. – then it will be focussed within small groups like Guelph Workers Committee (apparently infertile ground), it will reach and involve fewer Canadian Marxist-Leninists, the logistics of exchange between existing groups will be made unnecessarily difficult (as has been the case in the past), and the results will be all the poorer.
It may matter little to the Guelph Workers Committee that sole access to many of the positions published so far has been through pages of CANADIAN REVOLUTION, but it is important to us and to others who are obviously in a similar situation, and should be to those who honestly want the best debate and principled resolution to the problems facing us. Any conception of the struggle for unity on basic principles among Canadian Marxist-Leninists which is limited to small groups operating in isolation – which is the only alternative possible if we accept Guelph’s call for the abolition of a national forum – is a conception leading to quick, easy, sham unity. It is just such fradulent unity which the Guelph group promotes in asking for agreement on a heretofore-nonexistent political programme first, and the publication of a journal second.
The Guelph Workers Committee did their position a tremendous favour by limiting their examination of CANADIAN REVOLUTION to the inside cover. Although writing that “it is necessary to rely on the materialist method”, and claiming to base their views on concrete analysis, they chose to ignore the real test of the policy of the CR collective, how it is carried out in the magazine itself. If there is evidence that the editors of CR have been guilty in their choice of articles of condoning opportunism, of confusing instead of clarifying issues, and of hindering rather than helping our understanding of matters of basic importance to Canadian Marxism-Leninism, then this should be demonstrated by concrete exposure. To simply conclude that CR’s general policy statement which, to our minds, forth-rightly reflects the primitive state of Marxism-Leninism in Canada exemplifies such condemnable errors, while ignoring the content inside the magazine is, to put it most charitably, empty-headed nonsense. Such immodesty and super-revolutionary posturing cannot be anything but obstacles to anyone’s enlightenment.
In actual fact, the CR articles published so far have generally been important, timely and instructive. In putting meat on the bones of the editorial policy, they have dealt concretely and in a principled way with many (considering there have only been three issues so far) of the most basic questions which still remain to be clarified and consolidated. The nature of the articles have more than justified the existence of the journal; they have proven its necessity. They show that these questions are often complex and difficult, and no solutions to them can be arrived at without real work and study, exposition and criticism. If the Guelph Workers Committee feels otherwise – and this is what they are saying when they tell the CR editorial collective that they can and ought by themselves to achieve unity on the basic questions facing Canadian Marxist-Leninists – then we must ask them: What are your conclusions on these vital questions, and why have you withheld your answers from us up to now? Further we would ask this group: What exactly is the axe you wish to grind?
The Guelph letter is itself proof of the need for a journal in which dogmatic ultra-leftism is exposed and fought. Whether or not the Guelph group is an official part of any self-proclaimed “party” is of little importance. While hiding behind a seeming ambivalence to CANADIAN REVOLUTION (who can fathom the logic of concluding that the journal is “bourgeois and petty bourgeois” and then instructing it on how to become Marxist-Leninist?) and to the Marxist-Leninist forces, they do the kind of wrecking job of CPC (M-L) and their like. We trust that genuine and honest revolutionaries will join in repudiating their attempt.
In our opinion, CR need not have printed the Guelph letter. It is not necessary to take seriously such bull-headed trivia from a group which apparently has nothing better to do than fulminate congratulations to its own inflated importance. It is a sheer waste of time and effort to open the pages of CR to so obviously malicious a piece as the one from Guelph. CR or any revolutionary journal would not, after all, allow itself to be drawn into publishing andor responding to similar outpourings by clearly reactionary outfits like CPC (M-L) or the Western Guard.
P.B., K.C., J.D., O.S.
Halifax
* * *
Dear Comrades:
This letter is to inform you that our brochure Contre l’economisme published in French recently is being translated into English. It should be ready about mid-November and can be ordered at Librairie L’Etincelle, 4933 rue De Grand-Pre, Montreal. The cost is $0.65 per copy. We would like to inform your readers about the existence of this booklet, as we are convinced it is important that comrades in Canada are informed of the various contributions to the debate animating the Marxist-Leninist movement in the country. We are waiting for your third issue with much interest!
Warmest Regards,
EN LUTTE!
Montreal
* * *
Dear CANADIAN REVOLUTION:
The letter in CANADIAN REVOLUTION NO. 3 by the Guelph Workers Committee argues by implication for the liquidation of the journal. While our group has supported CR from the start, we are not wed to its continued existence. However, given the positive effects it has had, strong arguments would have to be mustered to convince us that it is not a good development. The GWC in no way advances such arguments.
The GWC accuses the CR collective of both “left” and right opportunism, and says that CR bases itself on bourgeois ideology, blurs lines of demarcation and gives leadership without a clear political line. These are serious charges. Most of their letter is taken up with one basic point: that the struggle for the creation of a Marxist-Leninist party must proceed on the basis of principles – that unprincipled unity is bourgeois unity. Well and good – we agree.
We find ourselves nodding in agreement to most of the passages in their letter – for example the first several paragraphs on p. 58 down to and including the quote from Mao. And yet we disagree strongly with the conclusions the letter comes to. Why is this? It is because the GWC does what it accuses the CR collective of – “talking with the aim of saying nothing”. They get caught up in what amounts in the context to “Marxist-Leninist” platitudes (about the need for ideological struggle, about leadership based on M-L principles, etc.) without ever doing a concrete investigation of the situation to which they claim to be applying these principles. They speak of the need for principled unity and claim that CR manifests unprincipled unity.
But CR is not taking up the task of creating a “national organization of struggle for the party” nor even a local organization. It is trying to advance this process, and has helped advance the conditions for the creation of such an organization. It does not engage in a common practice, asiside from putting out the journal. It is simply a collective which has taken on the task of providing a means of principled debate among Marxist-Leninists. It is principled because it is within the framework of the communist movement historically – it recognizes the lessons of the movement guided by scientific socialism and developed by Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and others. Anyone who reads the Political Unity and Policy of the Journal and who is even vaguely acquainted with the Marxist-Leninist classics is aware of the political criteria for acceptance of material by the collective. It is not true that the CR collective has failed to state the “basic general principles of Marxism-Leninism”. What the GWC position amounts to is that since there is not agreement in the Canadian Marxist-Leninist movement on all basic points of political line, that we must restrict ourselves to the exchange of mimeographed position papers rather than accomplishing the same tasks through a regular journal. This position is plainly ridiculous.
The GWC letter claims that the CR collective in fact provides a leadership which it denies that it provides. The CR collective is committed in spirit and print to fostering debate, and to this end it tries to bring forward clear expositions of opposing views (e.g. Workers Unity on Political Economy; Scott on Moore and Wells); it also ensures that contributions to the journal are attempts to apply the science of Marxism-Leninism. The GWC claims that this leadership is non-existent in theory and opportunist in practice. Can the GWC come forward with one concrete example of where this leadership provided by the CR collective has led to the exposition of an opportunist line to the exclusion of a correct line? Don’t take this to mean that we are for equal time for opportunism – but the point is that CR creates an opportunity for a correct application of scientific socialism to expose and refute both straightforward and concealed forms of opportunism. Can the GWC show that the fact that opposing lines appear means that the CR collective is promoting liberalism, and shirks from a resolution of the questions? i.e. that the CR collective promotes confusion and opportunism by pretending that there is no correct application of Marxism-Leninism on each question? A rattling off of quotes from Lenin on general questions will not do as an answer to these questions.
The GWC criticises the CR collective for (basically) not being a political group or organization with a clear political line, for not applying Marxism-Leninism concretely to Canada. Well comrades, what is your political line? Not one crumb is offered to us in your rather long letter to help us understand your positions on all the key questions. We feel that it is not enough for a group claiming to adhere to Marxism-Leninism to repeat a few basic points of scientific socialism on the struggle against opportunism in order to show that they in fact do oppose opportunism. The attacks on CR are consistently off the mark – chasing phantoms rather than the positions actually put forward by the CR collective.
We feel that the misplaced criticisms from the GWC come from a wrong understanding of what it means to apply Marxism-Leninism. To the GWC, this fundamental and essential process (one which will be happening for many many decades) is a simple one of reading through the M-L classics and applying the points one by one. At the same time we are to “guard” against opportunism lest it should somehow creep in.
But Marxism-Leninism is (it keeps needing to be said!) a guide to action, not a dogma or formula. It is a method which can be applied to all situations, including ones on which Lenin made no comments. On the question of the principal contradiction in Canada, five comrades honestly attempting to apply the lessons of the world communist movement may arrive at five different answers. Yet to the GWC this is a question which can be easily resolved – as easy (or difficult) as determining the “nature and place of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-tung Thought in the development of modern history”. For them all distinctions between ideology and political line fade into obscurity.
Polemics based on concrete investigation will resolve the question of the principal contradiction to a sufficient degree to allow the creation of a new Communist Party. The position of our group may be shown to be incorrect. But in the end, the correctness of any line is tested by the application of that line in practice.
An ongoing ideological struggle is necessary to correctly apply Marxism-Leninism to Canada. CR provides a “forum” for the first stages of this struggle. It would be foolish to presume that, after seeing all the arguments in a journal, all those claiming to adhere to Marxism-Leninism would somehow magically agree – lines will definitely be drawn and sides taken. It is likely that CR will become at some point the organ of one or another tendency. Groups with a clear political line should be attempting to do what GWC asks of CR – to become a “leading centre” (in the sense used by En Lutte!) to which comrades all across Canada rally. If GWC has such a unity and development, then they should use the pages of CR to win us to their line.
If there is a positive aspect to the letter from the Guelph comrades, it is that it underlines the fact that CR is only a transitional form. It is not a political organization, not even a “leading centre”. But it is one means (others being conferences, pamphlets, live debates, etc.) to advance toward the creation of the new Communist Party. We feel that its value has already been amply demonstrated in catalysing the development all across the country, and in making comrades in cities separated by thousands of miles aware of each other. We hope that the Guelph Workers Committee can come to appreciate the necessity of forms such as CR and begin to contribute on substantive questions to the developing debate.
Vancouver Study Group