First Published: Canadian Revolution No. 5, April/May 1976
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.
In our last Editorial, we pointed out to readers that struggles were taking place in CR over its tasks in relation to the Marxist-Leninist movement and the unity required to meet these. We also promised a response to the position raised by the Guelph Workers’ Committee.
In reading the replies to GWC in CR No. 4 from Halifax, Vancouver and Toronto we find ourselves in much agreement with the major political points made. That is to say: the journal is playing a historically useful and necessary role in providing a forum for national debate amongst genuine Marxist-Leninists. As well, its basis of unity is a principled one, but one that will change as the struggle advances. CR is not the embryo of a national organization, but neither is it separate and ’above’ the Marxist-Leninist movement. Political guidance in promoting the two-line struggle is a form of leadership but not equatable with a leading centre. This would seem to be the contradiction that GWC does not understand correctly and therefore is unable to handle in practice. As other comrades have pointed out, the implications of GWCs line is for the liquidation of CR and the prioritizing of the development and consolidating, amongst ourselves (CR), of a political line. Many Marxist-Leninists are becoming frustrated and impatient with this kind of proposal that throws them back into the limitations they are already very familiar with, in their local situation. The country is large and the isolation great. French and English are spoken in our movement and until the emergence of the Journal many comrades had not been aware of positions from Quebec. Because of this, their proposal objectively promotes small-group mentality. It is also non-materialist. It is insisting there are no steps that are anything other than opportunist, in trying to raise the level of debate and struggle in Canada – short of a theoretical journal that propagates a consistent ideological, strategic and tactical line.
The Journal is not static; it must change as the struggle advances or become opportunist. We recognize this and therefore accept that we have political responsibilities in defining its role in the Marxist-Leninist movement. In the same vein, the Marxist-Leninist movement must take up the question of CR’s future. We define our responsibilities to include making continued assessments of the debate in our movement, the application (or lack thereof) of Marxist-Leninist principles in articles submitted. We stand accountable for the priorities made for publication.
One point that is very important behind GWCs letter is that it recognizes and raises objectively the need for a leading force. There is also clearly nothing wrong with wanting a theoretical journal of the kind described. The problem is that GWC has not been doing its homework and analyzing where the most advanced leadership is coming from at this time. Its assumption seems to be that all groups and individuals are ’equal’. That is, it fails to recognize uneven political development in our movement and varied experience in implementing coherent lines.
CR sees that we are presently faced with a changed situation from when we began. The initiating of a national practice by the Canadian Communist League-ML and En Lutte! means a sharpening in the two-line struggle. These two forces are objectively the most advanced in our movement and their lines and practice must be addressed by other comrades. CR has sympathizers of both the League and EL within it and intends in the future to play a role in helping the two-line struggle to be taken up firmly across Canada. Because of this, we see the priority for publication to be the debate on questions of principle in relation o to ideology, strategy, tactics and organization which divide genuine Marxist-Leninists from uniting to build the party.
As well, we recognize that our formal statement of unity has lagged, as a reflection of where we stand on certain issues that demarcate Marxism-Leninism from opportunism and non-proletarian ideology. We call your attention to the following changes in the Basis of Unity that CR has arrived at: “We are further agreed that the creation of one Marxist-Leninist political party throughout Canada is the central task at this time.” The implication of this task means we have removed from the second sentence of the last paragraph, that as a matter of principle in our relations to the Marxist-Leninist movement in Quebec, we uphold their right to their own national debate. We wish to be absolutely clear that the right of self-determination for Quebec is a principle we continue to defend and insist on. This is not to be equated with the question of building a party. For where common enemies and a common state power are faced, the struggle, of the proletariat for socialism is strengthened by forging a country-wide leadership (party).
Another change is: There is no genuine communist, party in Canada. The CPC is a revisionist party which promotes a. reformist strategy of parliamentary anti-monopoly coalitions as the road to socialism and which defends Soviet social-imperiasm. CPC(ML) is a counter-revolutionary organization which promotes reformist strategy, left and right opportunism in tactics and plays a splittmg and wrecking role toward the Marxist-Leninist movement.
This statement to the movement has long been overdue. Although we have had these items on our agenda for discussion and recognized the need to take an explicit position, since last summer, the continued obstruction on the part certain Journal members (who have recently left) over whetber CR should take positions, meant in practice that we didn’t.
We see these positions as necessary to take up, not, simply to clarify our assumptions to the Marxist-Leninist movement but because the two-line struggle is advancing beyond this to the ideological, strategic and tactical assumptions around: how to build the party; the political pre-requisites, or conditions for national organization, the main deviation in our movement, the nature of work with the masses presently, the nature of Canada and the principal contradictions – in other words the areas CR is prioritizing for publication. In defining the central task, CR is thus able to use its pages for the priorities indicated and to be accountable on an explicit basis for its role in the Marxist-Leninist movement.
Some of the comrades from Halifax asked in their letter (issue No. 4) that we be clear on political lines within CR and changes to the Basis of Unity which arise in the course of present and future struggles. We hope this editorial, along with the statement on the recent departure of certain CR members and the struggle that that came out of, have provided some answers.