The third plenum took a definite line ON THE QUESTION OF JACK SCOTT being admitted to the Party. The comrades concerned provided a detailed report on his activities since 1966 and our relations with him. It was clearly pointed out that this entire period of six years has been characterized by:
On our part – Extremely friendly attitude towards him but, at no time, did we hide our views on all political, ideological and organisational questions for the purposes of “unity” and, in fact, the entire history of our organisation is clear witness to our general line that we have remained above-board and developed our organisation while we have maintained friendly relations with others and tried to win them over. On his part – Extreme hostility and vilification of our comrades calling them “sectarians”, “adventurists” and culminating in a wild attack on us in November, 1969 and continuous propagation of gossip and slander against us without ever doing detailed and thorough-going analysis and quite blatantly pushing the nonsense that “it is methods of work which he disagrees with” while he “agrees with the general political line”.
It has been proven that it is the general political line and analysis of the situation in Canada and how to change it where we disagree and that this disagreement is not a mere matter of difference in “point of view” but a class question and class difference. The comrades pointed out that the Party was entirely correct to attempt to win over those individuals who are taking an incorrect position. It is slander to suggest that we have behaved in any under-handed manner.
Our organisation formally approached Jack Scott and his now defunct organisation, PWM, twice: 1. February 1969 and 2. January 1972. Both times we made our position clear. In the first instance, we agreed that there should be only one Marxist-Leninist centre in B.C. and that we considered his organisation to be Marxist-Leninist (our grave mistake but it was correct to be put on the right path by making mistakes) and that we will not organise in B.C. and that our members will join his organisation. This decision was converted into a bourgeois trick by these swindlers. The propaganda began immediately through their friends that the INTERNATIONALISTS considered them as “Marxist-Leninists” but they made no statement as to whether the INTERNATIONALISTS were Marxist-Leninists or not (as if their declaration will sprout Marxism-Leninism in our midst and we will transform into that at that moment) thus confusing and mystifying the very basis we sat with them which was: In each area of Canada, there should be only one Marxist-Leninist centre.
Firstly, if we were not Marxist-Leninists then why were they sitting with us and signing joint declarations. If we go beyond the words of Jack Scott and other members of his defunct organisation, then their sitting with us was a manoeuvre to liquidate the Marxist-Leninist centre in B.C. by stopping us from organising here.
But it backfired. Our organisation kept on gloriously marching forward.
Secondly, as far as we were concerned, we did not ask them whether we are Marxist-Leninists or not because: 1. One does not become Marxist-Leninist by the declarations of others (one becomes Marxist-Leninist by resolutely opposing the bourgeoisie in the real world and struggling against its influence in the Party) and 2. We were not discussing the formation of centres in Toronto or Montreal (where we were organising) and if they had tried to organise there we would certainly have demanded an explanation and their pants would have been down even sooner.
The agreement they had with us in February, 1969 was violated by them without any discussion with us whatsoever. The second time we approached him formally was in January 1972. The reason for this was explained to him in detail and even a written document was given to him so that he could study it and think about it. We made several proposals to him. The main ones were: If he would like to 1. Join the Presidium, 2. join the Central Committee and 3. Become a member of the Party.
Knowing that we disagreed on many issues then why did we invite him? This reason was explained to him during his visit to the east and again later in two meetings with the comrades concerned. The reasons were that we would like all those who claim themselves to be Marxist-Leninist to be in one Party and that by enlarging the Central Committee we would hear the views of all tendencies and struggle with them to adopt the correct view. We are also inviting others to do the same. By offering him a position on the Presidium, we wanted his views to be heard and then we could also give the views of the Party and real class struggle on various questions could take place. The Chairman of the Presidium is in no way the Chairman of the Party and all this we fully explained to him. As to membership in the Party, it was quite obvious that he was coming close to the Party in Vancouver and it was only just to invite him to join. His response to these three main proposals was 1. To accept membership in the Party (and we asked him several times whether we should make it public or not and he agreed that people from the left circles who ask should be told), 2. To think about joining the Central Committee of the Party and 3. To reject our proposal to be on the Presidium.
For our part, the formal working together began after these agreements in January, 1972. But as soon as we turned our backs, the same nonsense started again. Friends of Jack Scott began their chorus slandering and wildly attacking the CPC(M-L), maligning Comrade Bains calling him a “double-dealer” etc. (Many ex-PWMers are pretty good racists and used to call Comrade Bains by all sorts of names) and as soon as it came to our notice, one of our comrades went to see him and he dished out his attack. Another meeting was arranged and he did not keep the meeting and it was clear that Jack Scott had answered our friendly attitude with hostility in the same manner which his now defunct organisation had done before.
This particular break in our relationship led us to look into the matter even more closely. We looked into his own work. The overall conclusion is that the organisation he led collapsed. Then we looked into his contribution to the youth and students movement. We found that it is he who encouraged the “radicals” to remain in that position and take a “critical attitude towards Marxism”, “critical attitude towards China”, etc. We also found that the united front organisations like CNLF collapsed because of PWM and that they supported all sorts of reformism, etc.
We also looked into our own organisation, our relations with PWM and Jack Scott and through this examination we came to the conclusion that the reason for the collapse of PWM was Jack Scott who is anti-revisionist in words and revisionist in deeds. The comrades explained to the Central Committee members and this is our conclusion that all relations with Jack Scott should be broken, his wild attacks opposed publicly and certainly if he is willing to keep the contradiction non-antagonistic we should certainly keep it on that plane but with a difference that – whenever a friend of Jack Scott’s comes around to villify and malign us and praise him we should tell this friend what we think of him and go over the entire history of the last nine years of the INTERNATIONALISTS.
A large number of Central Committee members know Jack Scott and his now defunct organisation PWM quite well and especially Dave Danielson who was in PWM before. They all agreed that the report presented was just and that Jack Scott has shown himself in practice to be anti-revisionist in words and revisionist in deeds and that he should be immediately informed of our decision. Our comrade in charge of building relations pointed out that we always had the sentiment that Jack should lead the Canadian revolution. Now we know why he did not respond to our pleadings: He is ANTI-REVISIONIST IN WORDS AND REVISIONIST IN DEEDS.
After hearing the views of various comrades the third plenum of the twenty-first Central Committee of the CPC(M-L) decided to break all relations with Jack Scott and resolutely explain the decision to ail members and close supporters. It must be pointed out that if Jack Scott shows willingness to be friendly and would like to give his views we would certainly cooperate and print his views in the Internal Mass Line.
It was noted that this short history of Jack Scott and his now defunct organisation produced in Internal Mass Line is in no way detailed and that it would be a good idea sometime in the future to write down the entire history; particularly the list of fascist attacks on our comrades by the now defunct PWM and all their attacks on China, Mao Tsetung Thought, Peking Review, etc.
The third plenum established the Presidium as the permanent consultative body to the National Executive Committee or any other bodies of the Party and with no authority to speak in the name of any other body but itself and that any member of the Presidium can be replaced or new members added by the National Executive Committee.
The third plenum established the National Consultative Conference of CPC(M-L) as a permanent form where all candidate members, close supporters and full members will be invited to take part under the leadership of the Presidium but with no power over the NEC or any other bodies of the Party and with no authority to speak in the name of any other body nor itself and that the NEC has final say in all matters decided by this Conference and that the NEC has every right to replace or add new members to this body.