The following article is reprinted from PCDNR, January 11, 1972, and Mass Line Vol. 4, No. 54, May 6, 7973.
A commentary by a member of Afro-Asian Latin American People’s Solidarity Movement.
The Afro-Asian Latin American People’s Solidarity Movement was founded in March, 1969. Right from the start, the following tendencies arose in the organisation; 1. The ultra-left “DENOUNCE ALL”, 2. The rightist “COMPROMISE ALL”, and 3. The genuinely Marxist-Leninist “UNITE ALL THOSE WHO CAN BE UNITED AGAINST OUR PRINCIPAL ENEMY, U.S. IMPERIALISM”. Close to three years later, the three tendencies have matured.
Since June-July, 1971, certain “Afro-Asians” who were members of the October First Branch of the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) have been viciously slandering and attacking the Party in Canada and Quebec. Our Party Chairman tried every possible way of stopping these “Afro-Asians” from taking the anti-communist and racist road, but they considered our patient approach to be our “weakness” and steadily became more hysterical and wild in their attacks. Opposing reason and listening to nothing progressive, they attempted to use the Afro-Asian Latin American People’s Solidarity Movement as a platform to attack the Party. Then, when all their flimsy attempts to tarnish the sacred name of our Party failed, they decided to form their “own” “solidarity” organisation and attempted to split, dismember and liquidate the solidarity movement.
When we attacked the disruptive activities of these counterrevolutionaries, they attempted to put the blame of the disruptions on ourselves. “If you keep on opposing the anti-communists and racists, it will ’split’ the group”, they claimed. Have we not heard this fascist logic before? It is the same old fascist logic of confounding right and wrong, supporting the aggressor and vilifying the victim of aggression and espousing wrong-doing and opposing anyone who opposes the wrongdoers. When the Chairman of the Party, who is also the Chairman of the Solidarity Movement in Canada and Quebec, was vigorously attacked through slander, rumour-mongering and mud-slinging, the Local Secretary in Montreal, instead of supporting what is just and opposing what is unjust, attempted to cover-up for the lumpen elements initiating the attacks and conspired against the leadership. Instead of writing down their criticism of the leadership, causing principled discussions amongst the members and supporters and dealing with the contradiction on the democratic centralist basis, the Secretary took the road of arbitrariness and bourgeois dictatorship. Even when the lumpen elements and their overlord failed to get a majority vote for their misdeeds, they refused to criticise themselves and rectify. Instead, they kept on dividing and splitting, conspiring and rumour-mongering and then they declared that they will “build” a “new solidarity movement”.
They advocate abstract unity and concrete disunity when dealing with the communists, and concrete unity and abstract disunity when dealing with reactionaries. Between the aspects of unity and disunity, unity amongst the people is primary and disunity is secondary. Imperialists and their agents attempt to make the secondary aspect primary, in order to concretely divide the people and rally the people behind themselves. This is the same attitude taken up by these “Afro-Asians”. Instead of opposing disunity and opposing disruptive elements, and supporting what is just and opposing what is unjust, they do the opposite. It is for this reason that they use the counter-revolutionary slogans of ALL STRUGGLE AND NO UNITY with the communists, and ALL UNITY AND NO STRUGGLE with the liberals, communalists and nazis.
Since the time it was founded, this is the second major struggle against reaction and counter-revolution, and against the reactionary overlords, we have waged in the solidarity movement. This is also the second time that the revisionist and trotskyist alliance has made a flimsy attempt at floating its “own” organisation. (The first attempt was made during the winter-spring of 1970).
In both the major struggles which have taken place, the key question was what attitude do we take towards the building of the Solidarity Movement? On what basis should we build it? What is the role of the individual members and nationalities in the Solidarity Movement? It was agreed upon that 1. The Solidarity Movement will never be used as a platform against the communists, and 2. All contradictions will be sorted out, on the mass democratic basis. Three basic political lines were agreed upon: 1, Resolute support for the national liberation struggles in Asia, Africa and Latin America, 2. Resolute opposition to racist attacks on our people in Canada and Quebec, and 3. Full support to the anti-imperialist revolution in Canada and the national liberation struggle in Quebec. This was a just political programme and a just way of handling contradictions in executing the programme.
Right from the beginning, the ultra-leftists and rightists agreed with the programme in words, but opposed it in practice. They were led by individual overlords who put themselves over and above the discipline of the Solidarity Movement, over and above the genuine aspirations of their own national groups. So these reactionary overlords, with their hollow bluster, tried to use the Solidarity Movement for their own purposes. Instead of upholding principle, uniting with one another in the national groups and, through these groups, uniting in the Solidarity Movement, they attempted to build their own fiefdoms and tried to dismember and liquidate the Solidarity Movement. They deliberately spread the counter-revolutionary propaganda that the Solidarity Movement is only “anti-imperialist” and not “communist”, and through this technique they went ahead to 1. Impose revisionist and trotskyist politics on the Solidarity Movement, 2. Stifle discussion on general political and organisational orientation by using arbitrary methods, and 3. Split and dismember the Solidarity Movement.
In the second meeting of the Solidarity Movement, struggle was waged against those who, while they agreed with the political programme and the organisational method of carrying it out, arrogantly declared: “I don’t have to put it into practice.”
The two cliques which emerged since the foundation of the Solidarity Movement had their own overlords, both using the same rhetoric of being “anti-imperialist” and not “communist”, and both virulently opposed to discipline. They behaved in the same way when it came to dismembering the Solidarity Movement by attacking the leadership, creating gossips and slanders upholding no principle and confounding right and wrong, engaging in conspiracies, opposing mass democracy and opposing any principled unity. Ideologically, organisationally and politically, the ultra-leftists and rightists have gone bankrupt and have become hysterical in their opposition to Marxism-Leninism and in their promotion of racism (See Footnote 1) Just let’s look at the trash they have been peddling. They say that “Afro-Asians” are “more revolutionary” than North Americans; that “we only have a responsibility towards our own countries and we will not participate in revolutionary struggle here.” Is this not rabid chauvinism and racism? One would not call it proletarian internationalism! It does not matter how many absurd rationalisations they concoct, these ultra-leftists and rightists can only fool themselves. Proletarian internationalism is extremely well-known to all genuine communists, especially to Canadian and Quebec communists who gave birth to such a great proletarian internationalist as Norman Bethune in whose memory Chairman Mao wrote: “What kind of spirit is this that makes a foreigner selflessly adopt the cause of the Chinese people’s liberation as his own? It is the spirit of internationalism, from which every communist must learn.” These “Afro-Asians” are such “proletarian internationalists” that they can only “organise revolution” in their “own” countries!
Furthermore, in Montreal they refused to attend the Function ’In Memory of Norman Bethune’ while they find time to indulge in every lumpen, communal and liberal activity. While they have no time to sit with the communists by taking up the correct road of UNITY-STRUGGLE-TRANSFORMATION, in opposition to DISUNITY-NO STRUGGLE-STAGNATION, they do have time to abuse them. In fact, in Quebec some of these characters have become so arrogant and wild that they behave like imperialist lords and vilify the Quebecois Marxist-Leninists and other progressive people. They have joined the ranks of the U.S. imperialists and imperialists from other countries to attack the Quebecois Marxist-Leninists and other progressive people. Is it this attitude of vilification of the progressive people which makes them “more revolutionary” than North Americans?
The ultra-leftists and the rightists work hand in hand: while the rightists, through metaphysics and idealism, concoct all the possible “objections” the “people” will have to the correct line, the ultra-leftists, close brothers of the rightists, extend the correct line into as “pure left” a line as possible (that is, they make it as incorrect as possible), again through metaphysics and idealism, and they disrupt the organisation by fighting the genuine Marxist-Leninists on that basis. Instead of concretely changing the situation in a step-wise manner, the rightists and the ultra-left, attempt to liquidate the movement even before it starts growing. It is the history of over two and a half years that the ultra-left and the rightists attempted to liquidate the movement while the genuine Marxist-Leninists led by Comrade Bains helped the overall development against this degeneration and built the organisation amongst the people.
Comrade Bains was present in the founding meeting of the movement as well as in all its phases of development. Apart from having organisational objections (that is, agreeing in words but having the divine right not to put the programme into practice), the rightists also objected to China being considered the bastion of the world anti-imperialist revolution. Comrade Bains correctly pointed out that on this question we will maintain our view that “China is the base of world anti-imperialist revolution” while we will not call for a split on this question. He advocated that it was the duty of the genuine Marxist-Leninists to teach other comrades and not to browbeat them while, at the same time, they must never accede to the rightist demands that in our speeches we should make no mention of China. The ultra-left, seizing the opportunity of excellent revolutionary public opinion for China because of our work, pushed a resolution in May 1969, saying that China is the bastion of world anti-imperialist revolution. After the resolution was passed, the ultra-left left off there without doing the painstaking work of showing other comrades and friends the basis for this correct formulation. Soon after this the rightists regrouped and while they had no strength to pass their resolutions, they began conspiracies and intrigues.
When Kosygin visited Asia in August of 1969, the solidarity movement denounced his visit and the resolution was widely acclaimed. The rightists did not “like” this. Comrade Bains vigorously advocated that we should use this opportunity to have lengthy debates and discussions amongst the members and supporters on the question of social-imperialism and after these discussions take a stand on social-imperialism. The rightists ran into a panic. They opposed this just stand. They used their position on the editorial board of the Afro-Asian, the newspaper of the Solidarity Movement, to arbitrarily peddle the counter-revolutionary line that the Soviet Union is a “socialist state.” While doing this propaganda for social-imperialism, they further degenerated into usurping the organisation altogether, refusing to call an organisational meeting and forming all sorts of anti-communist alliances without the knowledge of the organisation and finally splitting from the organisation.
While the Solidarity Movement was being organised, the Communist Parties of Canada and Quebec (Marxist-Leninist) showed keen interest in it and considered it as the Solidarity Movement of the Canadian and Quebec working classes towards Asia, Africa and Latin America. In order to help its development, the Party established the October First Branch as the Marxist-Leninist Centre for Afro-Asians with two basic goals: 1. To provide leadership in the Solidarity Movement by doing painstaking work in it, and 2. To encourage Afro-Asians residents in Canada and Quebec to espouse Marxism-Leninism and join the Party.
The October First Branch under the leadership of the Party, did excellent work in guiding the Solidarity Movement. With the splitting of the rightists from the Solidarity Movement in March 1970, the October First Branch played a tremendous role and was warmly received by the members and supporters of the Solidarity Movement. Because the genuine Marxist-Leninists had no interest of their own, independent of the Solidarity Movement and its original political programme, they worked hard to lead the anti-imperialist revolution on this front.
“With the rightists temporarily defeated, the organisation’s growth and general development of revolution, gave the ultra-left a good opportunity to rise again. This time they used the October First Branch to attack the Solidarity Movement and later, the Solidarity Movement to attack the Party. They played fantastic tricks. They tried to substitute the October First Branch, which was a special committee under the leadership of the National Executive of the Party, for the basic unit in some areas and tried to use it to attack or take over the basic unit, whatever suited them best.
They literally ran wild in June and July of 1971 and later declared themselves “independent” of the Party. In the October First Branch meeting, they received three votes with one vacillation while seven people resolutely opposed them. Then they declared themselves “independent” of the October First Branch and tried to use the Solidarity Movement to attack the Party. In the Solidarity Movement they used the same tricks as the rightists did: 1. Refusal to call a national meeting, 2. Use of our publication to change the line, and 3. Splitting from the Solidarity Movement. (It is very interesting that they split from the Solidarity Movement supposedly because of their “differences” with the Party while, in fact, it is the Solidarity Movement they are opposing, as the Party fully agrees with and supports the original political programme of the Solidarity Movement.)
The ultra-left is more creative than the right and more dishonest. This is the only aspect that differentiates them from the rightists because in all basic policies ultra-leftists and the rightists are the same. The ultra-left, which arose in the summer of 1971, is constituted of 1. Nazis, 2. Communalists, and 3. Liberals. Their basic unity is based on opposing the Party and revolution. They are national chauvinists and anti-communists. They are doing everything to corrode the revolutionary movement amongst :the Afro-Asians from within. Ideologically, they indulge in ”left” phrasemongering and practice extreme rightist politics.
Organisationally, they are past masters in building fascist cliques. They despise three basic things the most: 1. Revolutionary principle, 2. Revolutionary struggle, and 3. The revolutionary Party. They are a wretched type of neo-trotskyist and neo-revisionist as they go from one position to the other with extreme love of shamelessness and hysterical espousal of idealism and metaphysics. With them gone, the Solidarity Movement is bound to make another leap forward.
Since their arbitrary take-over of our journal Solidarity, they produced one issue. They took extreme pains to make sure that only “their” politics and the politics of “their” allies should be reflected there. In order to hide their sordid face they made extensive use of sophistry and of quotations from Chairman Mao and writings of a revolutionary journal from India called Liberation. They carefully omitted any mention of activities from Toronto and the rest of Canada and refrained from talking about the revolutionary struggles right here in Canada and Quebec. In other words, they tailor-made reality to fit their stinking face and produced this issue lavishly financing it and arrogantly distributing it, abusing anyone who raised objections to it. They made special use of the lumpen elements in their clique to push this counter-revolutionary trash. They got tremendous support from the nazis, (the book shop run by the nazis carried it), and those who previously split from the Solidarity Movement. Why they distributed this publication so wildly and why the lumpen elements enjoyed it so much we will attempt to answer.
This publication has the following main features:
I. It peddled Khrushchevite revisionism, and
II. It confounds right and wrong.
I. Khrushchevite revisionism: In the editorial “commemorating” the twenty-second anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China, the ultra-left writes: “Because of the correct policy of China, a broad United Front of the world’s people against U.S. imperialism and its running dogs is steadily developing. China enters into various negotiations because the threat of war still exists. Negotiations and war form a dialectical unity of opposites. In accordance with the great strategic concept of Chairman Mao ’Be Prepared Against Natural Disasters, And Do Everything For The People’, the Chinese people have made tremendous advances. Because of the strength of the anti-imperialist front, and because of China’s own preparedness China is in a good position to enter into various negotiations and achieve strategic victory over imperialism and reaction”!
We would call this an excellent example of pushing Khrushchevite Politics under “left” phrase mongering. The ultra-left muddles everything up. It is an order of disorder in their heads which excites these reactionaries. Let us look at every sentence individually and then in relationship to other sentences and the overall quotation.
1. “Because of the correct policy of China, a broad United Front of the world’s people against U.S. imperialism and its running dogs is steadily developing.” This is a correct formulation as far as it goes but it only talks about China’s role, and treats the role of the world’s people very superficially. The question is: Can China, a country ravaged by colonialism, militarism and imperialism during a period of reconstruction and during a period of liberating all her territories and safeguarding her independence, do other than follow the foreign policies of the ’three resolutes and one more’? The ’three resolutes and one more’ is the policy of Chairman Mao, as opposed to the ’three capitulations and one less’ followed by the revisionists.
That is, resolute opposition to imperialism, resolute opposition to revisionism, resolute opposition to all reaction and more support to the revolutionary struggles of the people of the world, versus capitulation to imperialism, capitulation to revisionism, capitulation to all reaction and less support to the revolutionary struggles of the people of the world. China can never change this overall policy today or ever-after and the Chinese people will never prostrate themselves in front of imperialism, revisionism or reaction. Secondly, China’s policies are consistent with the deep aspirations of the people of the world. Countries want independence, nations want liberation and people want revolution. A broad united front is developing because of the second factor which is a decisive one. China’s foreign policy reflects the deep desires and aspirations of the people of China and the world and it is the deep desire of the Chinese people and the peoples of the world which control the foreign policy of the People’s Republic of China and not the other way around – that the deep desires of the peoples of China and the world are controlled by the foreign policy of the People’s Republic of China.
Talking superficially simply means that “China’s correct policy” is the basis of the “broad united front” and that when this policy changes there will be no broad united front. It is the same wishful thinking on which the imperialists pin their hopes – that once capitalism is restored in the Soviet Union, the revolutionary struggles will cease. Like the imperialists, our ultra-left also minimizes the significance and inevitability of the world’s people rising and overthrowing imperialism, revisionism and all reaction. The Chinese people, like the Russian people, have made tremendous contribution towards the liberation of mankind and we are certain that they will never deviate from this correct path. But this superficiality of analysis we could have ignored if the following sentence had clarified the situation. In fact, the following sentences put light on any ambiguity left over by the first sentence and “clarify” what these editors support and show the real reactionary nature of the writers, exposing their Khrushchevite revisionism.
2. “China enters various negotiations because the threat of war still exists.” This is real “Camp David” spirit. Here our revisionist theoreticians are caught. Dear sirs, China “enters various negotiations” not because of “threat of war” but because China always supported just negotiations – that is, negotiations which assist the basic aspirations of the people of the world, and China always opposes unjust negotiations. China has all along followed this policy. As far as the question of “threat of war” is concerned, China has ruled out any possibility of averting it through negotiations. Chairman Mao has clearly stated: “There are but two possibilities. One is that war will give rise to revolution and the other is that revolution will prevent war.” You can clearly see that China’s stand is on the side of revolution. Whether it comes with war or with the elimination of war, ultimately only revolution will eliminate war. Only Khrushchev peddled such muck that Russia enters various negotiations because the threat of war still exists.
3. The following sentence tries to take refuge in “dialectics” and provides the “material” basis of Khrushchevism and there the editors also fail miserably: “Negotiations and war form a dialectical unity of opposites.” Fantastic concoction! Is the opposite of war negotiations? In terms of the struggle of opposites, the opposite of war is peace and the opposite of negotiations is no negotiations. War has seeds of peace in it; that is, seeds of its opposite, and peace has seeds of war in it until the entire basis of disruption of peace, that is, exploitation of man by man, is eliminated – that is, until class society is abolished. Between the two contending aspects of war and peace, peace is primary while war is secondary. The more we oppose unjust wars through organising social revolutions all over the world, the more lasting peace will prosper. Concrete analysis of the real world shows that war gives rise to peace and peace gives rise to war and that this has been the feature of the class society and will remain so until class society is liquidated altogether.
Negotiations are only a form of struggle. Negotiations could be just, as well as unjust. They could take place in peacetime or wartime. They could give rise to war or peace – the only dialectical opposite of negotiations is no-negotiations and that is the only inherent quality and material inevitability. How did our “dialecticians” get things muddled up? The only way they could do so is if they follow the Khrushchevite revisionist Sine of not seeking truth from facts but of concocting “facts” to suit their counter-revolution. It was Khrushchev who believed that negotiations and war form a dialectical unity of opposites and vilified China and Chairman Mao as “war mongers”.
4. The use of the next quotation from Chairman Mao is “left” phrase-mongering in order to cover up their Khrushchevite revisionism: “In accordance with the great strategic concept of Chairman Mao “Be prepared against war, be prepared against natural disasters, and do everything for the people”, the Chinese people have made tremendous advances.” What does this quotation of Chairman Mao’s mean? One thing to the Chinese people who resolutely uphold that only revolution will eliminate war or war will give rise to revolution and thus to prepare for it at all times, while for Khrushchevite revisionists it means “preparing for negotiations.” For what other reason did they stick this quotation here? The quotation from Chairman Mao certainly does not support Khrushchevite revisionism, so why are they using it here? Merely to cover up their “left” phrase-mongering as they do in the editorial all round.
5. The last sentence sums up Khrushchevite revisionism firmly: “Because of the strength of the anti-imperialist front, and because of China’s own preparedness, China is in a good position to enter into various negotiations and achieve a strategic victory over imperialism and reaction.” Well done, you pious ultra-left! We heartily congratulate you for your self-exposure! So, the “strength of anti-imperialist front” and “China’s own preparedness” would lead to “strategic victory over imperialism” through “negotiations.” Is this what you call “China’s correct foreign policy”? When China was under foreign domination (part of China still is) and was “weak” (China still is) and the “anti- imperialist front” was weak (the anti-imperialist front is still weak) what did the Chinese do? Just engaged in revolutionary war and “no negotiations” and now with “China’s preparedness” and the “strength of the anti-imperialist front”, China has “changed” its strategy of “no negotiations and all war” to “no war and all negotiations”? If you do not mean this then what are you jabbering about? It is social- imperialism which is talking through you. It was Khrushchev who arrogantly boasted about the “Soviet Union’s preparedness”, the “strength of the anti-imperialist front”, to oppose all revolutionary national liberation struggles and advocate “winning strategic victory over imperialism” through negotiations! When you peddle this stuff you are also opposing the national liberation struggles and supporting imperialism.
In relationship, all the paragraph supports – 1. Khrushchevite revisionism, and 2. Uses Chairman Mao’s quotation to make it look “good” but the attempt to do so fails miserably. The overall political line is that of Khrushchevite revisionism and nothing else.
II. Confounding right from wrong: Part of the issue of Solidarity is tailor-made to applaud those who are and have been notorious in peddling anti-communism and racism, creating rumours and gossips about China, and to denounce those who have been engaged in upholding what is just and doing so persistently and in a thorough-going manner. This attitude is exemplified by an attack on the Indian Progressive Study Group and in praising “Iranian students”.
As the editors have used quotations from Chairman Mao to peddle Khrushchevite revisionism through their editorial, so they have used the journal of our fraternal Marxist-Leninist Party, the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) called Liberation to attack the Indian Progressive Study Group. In their wild attack on the IPSG, the editors write: “We produced an article in the May issue of Solidarity based on the statement of the Indian Progressive Study Group. That article, while in the main correct and was consistent with the article being reproduced below, contained errors in the analysis. While the call that the current counterrevolutionary civil war is bound to lead to a revolutionary civil war against feudalism and bureaucrat capitalism, it did not give a correct analysis of the present ruling class of Pakistan. It over-emphasised the progressive stands of President Yahya Kahn’s government and under-emphasized its reactionary nature. The article in Liberation which is reproduced below, should help people to see things clearly and combat both ultra-left and rightist errors on Pakistan –(ed. Solidarity).”
This is a willful distortion of the political line of IPSG as well as clever mystification as to the role of IPSG, class struggle in IPSG and criminal distortions of the editors of Solidarity who merely exonerate themselves by saying that “an article in the May issue of the Solidarity based on the statement of the Indian Progressive Study Group while in the main correct contained some errors in the analysis” and become pious saviours of people by saying that they want “people to see things clearly and combat both ultra-left and rightist errors on Pakistan”. Because the editors of Solidarity have utter contempt for scientific analysis and much love for guesswork and gossip, it is they who were the architects of the rightist position and ultra-left position on Pakistan. This much was conveyed to one of these reactionaries and to several other people and they were called upon to refrain from guesswork. It was not the Indian Progressive Study Group which made any errors in analysis but certain individuals who have utter contempt for scientific analysis and who love the liberal approach of dealing with questions of great importance to the people. Meanwhile, IPSG was in the forefront of 1. Opposing the intervention into the internal affairs of Pakistan, and 2. Supporting the armed agrarian revolution led by the Communist Party of East Pakistan (Marxist-Leninist). IPSG, together with Pakistan Progressive Study Group, worked extremely hard to defeat the champions of “Bangla Desh”, while these individuals who are making pious statements on “combatting rightist and ultra-left errors” were sitting conspiring as to how to undermine the activities of IPSG and PPSG. Their shamelessness shows itself when they claim that their article was “in the main correct”. If that is the case, then why is it necessary to write that it “contained errors in analysis”? We would suggest that the reasons for so doing are two-fold: 1. To cover up their role in not opposing “Bangla Desh” and, in fact of later making flimsy alliances with those who supported “Bangla Desh”, and 2. To cover up the role played by IPSG and PPSG in opposing “Bangla Desh” in Toronto and several other places. It was because of the work of these groups in Toronto and several other places that when Stanley Burke came to the University of Toronto to speak about “Bangla Desh” only 13 people turned up to listen. Is the practice of supporting the two-fold activity of 1. Doing nothing to oppose “Bangla Desh” counter-revolutionary propaganda (the only meeting opposing “Bangla Desh” in Montreal was organised by IPSG during the last week of March, 1971, and later in the Fall when the reactionaries in IPSG, who are also the architects of the attack on IPSG, were stopped from their liquidationist activities during October and November), and of 2. Covering up and distorting the role of IPSG and PPSG, combatting “ultra-leftist and rightist errors” on the question of Pakistan? We would suggest that this is not the case. This reactionary attitude, in fact, is what sanctifies the ultra-left and rightist errors.
These dogmatists are suggesting that an article from Liberation will combat “ultra-left and rightist errors” without they themselves having to lift a finger in the real world, while they have made no mention of those who have been actively engaged in combatting ultra-left and rightist errors in practice. This is called waving the “Red Flag” to oppose the Red Flag.
There is a lumpen element from Iran living in Montreal and they have friends in Vancouver, New York and other places. We have known some of these elements for over six years and most of them for over three years. They have continuously supported an organisation called “CONFEDERATION OF IRANIAN STUDENTS” which according to many sources is a CIA organisation, but the most important for us is that this organisation is essentially anti-communist, anti-democratic and at crucial times takes reactionary positions on all important questions. We oppose this organisation having any influence in Canada and Quebec and we call upon any of the people who come in contact with us to take a just stand and not support this organisation. When these lumpen elements from Iran were in contact with us they continuously supported this Confederation while we struggled with them that they should oppose it. In the heat of struggle and in the face of scientific analysis and facts they would agree in words but go against the just position in practice. Over the years they have been responsible for much disruption in Vancouver and Montreal and are one of the groups dedicated to sowing confusion in the progressive circles through rumour-mongering, etc. Last year, the Confederation denounced China, showing their real reactionary fangs. All CIA groups made good use of the statement. These lumpen elements did not denounce the statement nor the Confederation which showed up their real reactionary nature. Their stock argument was that “in private” “we oppose” the statement and the Confederation but, in public, we don’t because this ’may split our group’.
After months of nonsensical discussions, they hatched a good scheme of making a statement that neither denounced the Confederation nor supported China’a just position but sowed further confusion. That statement has now been issued and printed in Solidarity under the auspices of the “Iranian Students’ Association – Canada-Quebec”. The following paragraph totally exposes the counter-revolutionary line of these lumpen elements: “We are making this statement to expose the unrepresentative character of the so-called ’open-letter’ to Premier Chou En-Lai sent in the name of the ’Confederation of Iranian Students’. We urge upon all other anti-imperialist Iranian groups and organisations to denounce this practice of the ’Executive’ of the ’Confederation’.” While the main character of the Confederation is its reactionary politics which it has pursued over the years, these lumpen elements are telling us that the “open letter” was a departure from their usual policy, and that it “is the product of some bureaucrats in the Executive of the ’Confederation’.”
The two examples cited above clearly show the real nature of the editors of Solidarity of confounding right and wrong: Instead of clearly attacking the “Confederation of Iranian Students” and their lumpen friends in Montreal, it took refuge in saying that there is something “good” in the Confederation. At the same time, instead of praising and summing up the experience of vigorous struggles launched by IPSG and PPSG against “Bangla Desh” counter-revolutionary propaganda, these editors are saying there is something “bad” about them. This is Khrushchevite revisionism of confounding right and wrong. Khrushchev also found something “good” in the Indian National Congress, in Jawaral Lai Nehru and in U.S. imperialists, and praised them, while he found something “bad” about the People’s Republic of China, the People’s Republic of Albania, Chairman Mao and Enver Hoxha and denounced them. This is the way of the modern day wretched type of revisionists. The editors of Solidarity belong to this category. In their actual practical work, they have been following this line of finding something “good” in anti-Party and anti-Comrade Bains elements – that is, in anti-communist and racist elements; while they find something “bad” about the Party members and supporters, the followers of Comrade Bains – that is, about the Marxist-Leninist organisations in Canada and Quebec. This is called using a microscope to find faults in the genuine Marxist-Leninists and revolutionaries, and looking through a telescope to gloss over the activities of the anti-Marxist-Leninists and reactionaries. The editors of this issue of Solidarity are past masters in doing this.
The editors as well as the lumpen elements from Iran are trying to create the impression that they are the defenders of the People’s Republic of China against the attacks of the “Progressive Labour Party” and the “Canadian Party of Labour”. The editorial characterizes these organisations as “’left sloganeering’ front of U.S. imperialism.” We fully agree with that. But to what extent are the editors themselves different to these organisations? The answer comes easily if we deal with the question of the attitude of the two organisations and of the editors towards handling contradictions amongst the people. We would suggest that the two are the same. Both participate in rumour-mongering and mud-slinging as the method of covering up their counter-revolutionary ideas and both are afraid to bring their ideas to be tested amongst the masses, and both oppose democratic centralism and mass democracy. These common points have their origin in their counter-revolutionary ideology and political line. Our analysis concretely shows that while “Progressive Labour Party” and the “Canadian Party of Labour” are the “left-sloganeering” front of U.S. imperialism, the editors of the present issue of Solidarity are the “left-sloganeering” front of Khrushchevite revisionism. All our comrades and friends should look into these groups seriously. Innumerable facts show how the two groups have peddled open imperialist and social-imperialist attacks on national liberation and on the genuinely Marxist-Leninist movement in Canada and Quebec, and both have used the name of the People’s Republic of China and Chairman Mao to participate in their nefarious counter-revolutionary deeds. While “PLP” and “CPL” claim that “all negotiations are reactionary”, the editors of Solidarity push the Khrushchevite revisionist line of “all negotiations are revolutionary at this time”.
Both these groups have no support in Canada, Quebec or the U.S. and it for this reason that they have become hysterical in opposing communism and promoting racism. The great modern proletariat of North America has said No! to all these metaphysicians and idealist rogues and political swindlers. During the sixties all these tendencies came up and have been steadily put into a passive position by the rising genuinely Marxist-Leninist movement in Canada-Quebec and the United States. The peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America have also put these tendencies into passive position and genuinely Marxist-Leninist movements are surging forward there also. China stands as the bright red sun in the East and Albania is the compass for revolutionary movements in Europe. While these tendencies have been put into passive positions, our comrades and friends should remain extremely vigilant and guard against these tendencies becoming dominant or putting the genuinely Marxist-Leninist movement into a passive position.
The Great Lenin of our era, Chairman Mao, has issued a great call to all Marxist-Leninists: Practice Marxism, and not revisionism; unite and don’t split; be open and above-board, and don’t intrigue and conspire. For us Marxist-Leninists this is a great help and pathfinder in our work. Our enemies in the Solidarity Movement as well as in the Party have always tried to defeat us by 1. Practicing revisionism, 2. Splitting, and 3. Intriguing and conspiring. We will certainly oppose these three evils of social-imperialism by upholding the three revolutionary lines of 1. Practising Marxism, 2. Uniting, and 3. Remaining above-board. Under the leadership of Comrade Bains we have always practised these three revolutionary guidelines of Chairman Mao, and by doing so we have been able to defeat the ultra-leftists and the rightists. Following these guidelines now we will certainly win victory.
Elsewhere in the editorial, these “Afro-Asian” saints viciously attack the revolutionary struggle in North America. They write: “This sloganeering has little support in Asia, Africa and Latin America where national liberation struggle is very high and where accounts with imperialism are being settled on the battlefield. But it has some temporary currency in North America where the revolutionary mass movement has not yet defeated empirio-criticism, idealism and other bourgeois ideological trends.” This is rabid chauvinism and the theory of “Exceptionalism”. In their wild arrogance to oppose the revolutionary struggle in North America and to detach it from that of the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America, they have hatched this theory. Is it true that “empirio-criticism, idealism and other bourgeois ideological trends” are defeated in Asia, Africa and Latin America? If this is the case, then the very basis of “empirio-criticism, idealism and other bourgeois ideological trends” must have been wiped out in Asia, Africa and Latin America! That is, just by settling “accounts with imperialism... on the battlefield”, they are wiped out! What an empirio-critical, idealist and bourgeois analysis! Khrushchev raved for years that “class struggle had died out in the Soviet Union” and now we have our “fighters” from Asia, Africa and Latin America telling us that it is finished there! Would you not call this “sloganeering”? You anti-communists and racists, you should know that these trends are very much present in Asia, Africa and Latin America, and you are one of the representatives of these trends. In China where the “accounts with imperialism” have “been settled on the battlefield” and the Chinese people are determined to settle these accounts further and liberate Taiwan and safeguard all China, “empirio-criticism, idealism, and other bourgeois ideological’ trends” have not been eliminated but these trends attempt time and again to show up and defeat the gains made by the Chinese people on the battlefield against imperialism and reaction. India has long suffered from these empirio-critical, idealist and bourgeois ideological trends. Today, there are reactionaries like Nagi Reddy, Satya Narayan, etc. who are raising their heads to oppose Marxism-Leninism. There is not a single country in Asia, Africa or Latin America which has not suffered from these trends. Instead of denouncing these trends, the “Afro-Asians” denounce the “revolutionary mass movement” for not “completely” defeating “empirio-criticism, idealism and other bourgeois ideological trends”. It is a good justification for these chauvinists and racists to divide people against one another and peddle their counter-revolutionary nonsense that “Afro-Asians” are more ’revolutionary’ than North Americans.