First Published: People’s Canada Daily News/On the Line, Vol 5, Nos 215-220, September 8-13, 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.
This article is the first in a series of articles which will be printed in the coming issues on the same topic. This article itself should be considered as merely a draft. Comrades should study it seriously and engage in discussion on the questions of the era and Mao Tsetung Thought.
Despite the opportunist attempt towards organisational fragmentation of the communist movement in Canada today, this revolutionary trend in the Canadian working class constitutes a single unity of two opposite tendencies, the two lines, the two roads – communism and opportunism. Included within this whole communist trend in Canada is the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist), and a number of groups, circles and individuals. Within CPC(M-L), communism is the main trend and plays the leading role, while opportunism is the subordinate trend and plays a disruptive role in opposition to communism. Within various groups and circles, opportunism is the main trend and plays a disruptive role within the communist movement as a whole, while communism is a subordinate trend which strives to overcome opportunism, stop disruption and unite Marxist-Leninists.
This dialectical unity and struggle of opposites within the Canadian communist movement is an objective phenomenon and is independent of anyone’s will. It reflects the struggle in society between the two classes, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, and no one can wish away this two-line struggle between the positive and the negative lines. To assist the Canadian communist movement to move forward, and further split from opportunism, it is necessary to oppose the negative aspect of the contradiction.
A. The negative line opposed to proletarian internationalism
The communist movement is by its very nature international. The outlook of the modern proletariat is proletarian internationalism. The proletariat in each country is a contingent in the world proletarian army, is a fighting unit in the proletarian world revolution. Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels, the first two scientific organisers of the modern proletariat, inscribed on the banner of their class: “The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. WORKING MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES UNITE!” This was written for the Communist League, an international association of workingmen led by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, and was published in February, 1848. The insurrection of the Parisian proletariat in June, 1848 marked the first time that the proletariat fought under its own banner with its own demands. The bourgeoisie crushed this insurrection and excommunicated communism. “When the working loss of Europe had again gathered sufficient strength for a new onslaught upon the power of the ruling classes, the International Working Men’s Association came into being. Its aim was to weld together into one huge army the whole militant working class of Europe and America.” The First International was organised by Karl Marx on September 28, 1864 at St. Martin’s Hall at an international meeting of working men and progressives to support the revolutionary struggles of the Polish people against czarism. The International Working Men’s Association, led by Comrades Marx and Engels, came into being because of their preparatory activity in both practical and theoretical work done by these two teachers and organisers of the proletariat. “For ten years the International dominated one side of European history – the side on which the future lies.”  The unity achieved by the working class under the scientific, anti-factionalist leadership of Karl Marx led to great advances for the proletariat. The high tide of revolutionary activity in this period was the Paris Commune, the First successful uprising of the modern proletariat against the bourgeoisie.
By 1874 at the dissolution of the International, the working class was altogether different from that of 1864 at its foundation. Thus under the most advanced leadership of the modern proletariat, the teachings of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, and because of their practical organisation of the working class, the class was transformed. Scientific socialism as outlined in the Communist Manifesto became the most widely circulated, the most international product of all socialist literature, the common programme of many millions of workers of all countries, from Siberia to California.
The eternal union of the proletarians of all countries created by the First international persisted even after its formal dissolution, precipitated by the disruptive wrecking and splitting activities of the Bakhuninist anarchists, and by various bourgeois liberal trends in the United States. Both of these trends factionalised the unity of the international to promote their sectarian interests over the general interests of the international working class movement. By 1890, however, the working class in Europe and America had united their forces again, this time under the single banner of the eight hour day to be established by legal enactment, a demand proclaimed by the First International Geneva Congress in 1866. On July 14, 1889, one hundred years after the storming of the Bastille, Comrade Engels organised and led the Paris Workers’ Congress, which was actually the first congress of the Second International. This Congress proclaimed May 1st to be the international festival of the working class. Thus the spirit of the First International lived on, reflecting the objective reality of the international nature of the class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. The Second International came into being only as a consequence of protracted and sharp struggle against various opportunist trends; Frederick Engels personally led the Marxists against the opportunists, isolated them and defeated them. The working class movement is not only international, it has always been led by its most advanced representatives against the representatives of the bourgeoisie within the within the working class movement against the “alleged socialists”.
After Engels’ death, the Second International degenerated because of the opportunist leadership of the German Social Democratic Party which had been the most advanced Party and was looked to by the world communist movement for leadership. The opportunism which corrupted the German Social Democratic Party and the Second International reflected the transformation of capitalism from its competitive stage to its highest stage, the stage of monopoly capitalism. The leadership of the international proletariat in the era of imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism, and of proletarian revolution, was taken up by Comrade Lenin, organiser of the Bolshevik Party and the Great October Socialist Revolution in Russia. Lenin developed Marxism to a new stage. He scientifically analysed imperialism and he led the proletariat in organizing the peasantry to overthrow capitalism and landlordism in the Russian Empire, and established and consolidated the first dictatorship of the proletariat anywhere in the world. He rescued the revolutionary teachings of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels from their negation by the opportunists. He grasped the revolutionary significance of their teachings dealing with the necessity of the proletariat to organise and support oppressed classes and peoples, and the necessity of the proletariat to stand with the revolutionary struggles of oppressed nations and peoples against colonialism and big power domination. Opportunists around the world tried to negate the international, universal significance and truth, of great Lenin’s teachings, and described him as a Russian revolutionary, as an expert in peasant revolution.
One of two things: Either the peasant problem is the fundamental thing in Leninism, and in that case Leninism is not suitable, not mandatory for developed capitalist countries, for those which are not peasant countries. Or the fundamental thing in Leninism is the dictatorship of the proletariat, and in that case Leninism is the international doctrine of the proletarians of all lands, suitable and mandatory for all countries without exception, including the developed countries. Here one must choose.” 
Zinoviev, Trotsky, Bukharin and other opportunists chose the incorrect conclusion and they became agents of counter-revolution against Leninism.
The October Revolution was primarily a revolution of an international world order. It ushered in a new era of proletarian revolutions in the countries of imperialism. It liberated oppressed nations under the banner of proletarian internationalism, and united nations of peasants and workers on the basis of voluntariness and internationalism. It began the era of revolutions under the leadership of the proletariat for emancipation in the colonies and dependent countries. The October Revolution spread the seeds of revolution in both the imperialist and colonial countries, thereby jeopardizing the very existence of world capitalism as a whole. The October Revolution under Comrade Lenin created a powerful and open centre for the world revolutionary movement which it never possessed before, and around which it could rally and organise a united revolutionary front of the proletarians and oppressed peoples of all countries against imperialism. Soviet Russia and the Third International provided a world wide open forum for the oppressed classes. The era of the ’stability’ of capitalism and the legend of the indestructibility of the world bourgeois order was over. The era of the collapse of capitalism had begun. The October Revolution ushered in the triumph of Marxism over opportunism in the world working class movement. The banner of Leninism became Marxism of the era of imperialism and of proletarian revolutions. It marked the victory of the Third International over the Second International. It ended the domination of reformism, and began the era of the domination of Leninism and the Third International. 
The international character of the October Revolution was stressed many times by both Lenin and Stalin. The October Revolution, a centre and bulwark of world revolution, was itself made safe from imperialist aggression by the support it received from the international proletariat and oppressed peoples. During the time ofComrades Marx and Engels, the proletariat proved its international character and that the universal authority of the most advanced theory and practice of the world revolution is not “national”, but is applicable for the proletariat in all countries. After Comrade Lenin’s death, Comrade Stalin took up the responsibility of consolidating the victories of October, and the leadership of the international proletariat. Today the modern revisionists have joined with the Trotskyites and other opportunists in a chorus with imperialism to obliterate the great revolutionary role of Comrade Stalin as the leader of the world proletarian army. Comrade Stalin was the leader, the helmsman of the Bolshevik Communist Party after Lenin’s death. He led the whole glorious epoch of the establishment of the first socialist state, when various imperialist plots were defeated, and their agents, Trotsky, Bukharin and others were crushed, along with the kulaks as a class, an epoch when construction of heavy industry and collectivization of agriculture were successfully completed, and socialism built. He led the Soviet Union in its legendary heroic struggle against fascism, defeated it, liberated Eastern Europe, and led the establishment of the socialist camp, the peoples’ democracies against Anglo-American imperialist plots, and the plots of the imperialists agent, the modern revisionist, Tito. As a person and the leader of the Bolshevik Communist Party in the Soviet Union Comrade Stalin was at the same time the most prominent leader of the international communist movement helping in a very positive way and with great authority to consolidate and promote the victories of communism throughout the world. His theoretical works are a fiery testimony of his loyalty to his great teacher, to great Lenin and Leninism. Stalin fought for the rights of the working class and the working people in the whole world, and he fought to the end with great consistency for the freedom of the peoples of the countries of peoples’ democracy. Stalin, like Lenin, Marx and Engels, belongs to the entire communist movement; he belongs to all the workers of the world, not just to those in one country. Comrade Hoxha rightly denounced the modern revisionists: “We should all defend the good and immortal work of Stalin. He who does not defend it is an opportunist and a coward”
The International of the world revolutionary forces against imperialism led by the modern proletariat did not end with the formal dissolution of the Third International. The world authority of Comrade Stalin as the leading Marxist-Leninist in the communist movement remained until the time of his death in 1953. At the time of Stalin’s death, Chairman Mao wrote:
We Chinese Communists, like Communists of all the countries of the world, find in the great works of Comrade Stalin the way to our victory. After Lenin’s death Comrade Stalin was always the central figure in the world communist movement. Gathered closely around him we used to receive instructions from him and constantly derived ideological strength from his works. Comrade Stalin cherished the warmest feelings for the oppressed peoples of the East. ’Do not forget the East’ – that was the great slogan proclaimed by Stalin after the October Revolution...Today we have lost a great teacher and a most sincere friend – Comrade Stalin. It is a great misfortune...May the unfailing name of the great Stalin live through the centuries 
Here is a most profound expression of proletarian internationalism, of communist largeness of mind by one who recognized the objective leadership of the international communist movement, and with great warm heartedness expressed the profound grief of a student, comrade, friend and loyal ally in the common struggle against imperialism.
After Stalin’s death, various opportunists led by Khrushchev seized control of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Soviet state. These opportunists capitulated to U.S. imperialism, and undermined socialist relations of production in the Soviet Union. They betrayed the dictatorship of the proletariat at home as well as the international communist movement. Their betrayal, announced to the world in a vicious attack against Comrade Stalin, was not limited in significance to the Soviet Union, but to the whole revolutionary movement against imperialism, to the world proletariat and oppressed peoples. It was the Communist Party of China, under the leadership of Chairman Mao Tsetung, which led the struggle against these Khrushchevite revisionists who had seized control of the CPSU. History called upon Chairman Mao, as in the past it called upon Karl Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin to take up the leadership of the modern proletariat in the struggle against the bourgeoisie. He had led the great struggles of the peoples of all nationalities in China to accomplish the new democratic revolution against imperialism and feudalism. He led the great struggles for socialist revolution and socialist construction. He gloriously took up the leadership of the great struggle in the contemporary international communist movement against imperialism, modern revisionism and the reactionaries of various countries. He personally led the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, a revolution of over 600 million people against the modern revisionists attempts to restore capitalism in China and turn China into a colony of Soviet social imperialism. This event, like the October Revolution, was of world significance. As Chairman Mao himself pointed out, “The world revolution has entered a great new era.” Chairman Mao has integrated the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism with the concrete practice of revolution, inherited, defended and developed Marxism-Leninism in the political, military, economic, cultural and philosophical and other spheres, and has brought Marxism-Leninism to a higher and completely new stage. Mao Tsetung Thought is Marxism-Leninism in the present era. Once again the international proletariat and oppressed peoples have a centre for world revolution, a guiding thought, as they did under Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin. This reflects the inherently international character of the proletariat, and the international character of the world socialist revolution of proletarians and oppressed people around the world against imperialism, and the universal authority of the leaders of the modern proletariat.
Chairman Mao, like the four previous world leaders of revolution, is the great and respected leader, not just of one country, China, but is also the dear and respected leader of all the peoples and communists of the world. This infuriates the modern revisionists of Moscow, who collude and contend with U.S. imperialism to seek world hegemony, to dominate all nations and states. The greatest enemy of U.S. imperialism and Soviet social imperialism are the peoples of the world with great Mao Tsetung’s China at their head. All peoples of the world, including the Canadian people led by the proletariat, pin their hopes of liberation, independence and well-being on their own efforts and on Chairman Mao’s China. The world’s people who feel and suffer the oppression of the two superpowers, also see and feel that Mao Tsetung, the great Marxist-Leninist, is on their side, they see socialist China stand them in good stead with sincerity and fraternal love. The great revolutionary situation in China today as a result of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revoltuion; personally led by Chairman Mao and the non-stop development of the struggle against the reactionary ideas of Confucius and Lin Piao, together today with the present campaign to study the necessity to strengthen the dictatorship of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie and restrict bourgeois right has led to a situation where People’s China has been transformed into a powerful socialist state, with a great economic and military potential and a high international prestige and authority. All this is because of the leadership of the Communist Party of China and Chairman Mao Tsetung. He leads the common struggle of all workers and oppressed peoples against the common enemy in the spirit of proletarian internationalism. Mao Tsetung Thought is the leading thought not just of China, but of the international communist movement. The fundamental thing about Mao Tsetung Thought is not the peasant question, nor agrarian revolution. The fundamental thing of Mao Tsetung Thought is the dictatorship of the proletariat, and thus Mao Tsetung Thought is the international doctrine of the proletarians of all lands, suitable and mandatory for all countries without exception, including the developed countries.
So, again, one must choose. Either Mao Tsetung Thought is suitable and mandatory for China, or perhaps also countries of the Third World, which view is that the fundamental thing about Mao Tsetung Thought is the peasant question. Or Mao Tsetung Thought is suitable and mandatory for proletarians in all lands, including modern capitalist countries such as Canada. Today there are those in the communist movement who have made an incorrect choice. They are following the opportunist road, and are denying the inherently international nature of the proletariat and oppressed peoples struggle against imperialism, and the universal validity of the theory of Mao Tsetung Thought to the Canadian revolution. This negative line is reflected in a number of ways. But social chauvinism is the common root thought in every manifestation of denying that Chairman Mao is the leading communist in the Canadian revolution, in the same manner that Comrades Lenin and Stalin were the world communist authorities in the Third International, and Comrades Marx and Engels were during their lifetimes in the First and Second Internationals. Social chauvinism, or bourgeois nationalism, is a particularly malignant form of bourgeois ideology in advanced capitalist countries in the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution. It corrupts the proletariat and turns not inconsiderable numbers of the class into agents for the bourgeoisie. Inevitably social chauvinism reflects itself in the two-line struggle within the communist movement.
One expression of the negative line on this central question of proletarian internationalism is found in a pamphlet written by the Mouvement Revolutionnaire des Etudiants du Quebec. Several times in their subjectivist and abusive tirades against the CPC(M-L), MREQ exposes its negative line of opposing Mao Tsetung Thought as the leading theory of the Canadian revolution. They falsely accuse the Internationalists of being “ready to import China’s Cultural Revolution into Canada” and make a false issue out of “comparing student struggles in the capitalist countries today with those of the Cultural Revolution in China.”  The effect of this abusive attack on CPC(M-L) is to downplay, to minimize the world historic impact of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, and deny its impact as the motive force in advancing the revolutionary struggle of the youth and students around the world, struggles which set off a mighty wave of workers and national liberation struggles against modern revisionism and imperialism everywhere. MREQ denounces the glorious action of the youth and students in Canada under the leadership of the Internationalists and the Canadian Communist Movement (M-L) in disseminating Mao Tsetung Thought everywhere across the country. They say CCM(M-L) “acted as ’copy-cat-town-cryers’ in Canada, not as Canadian revolutionaries. Almost every article ended with the slogan ’Long Live Chairman Mao’ regardless of its relevance. They based their analysis on the ’Thought of Chairman Mao Tsetung-the Marxism-Leninism of our era.’ If they had studied Marxism-Leninism, they would know that we are still living in the same era as Lenin did, the era of imperialism.” Aside from the fact that MREQ is lying about CCM(M-L)’s articles ending with the slogan, “Long Live Chairman Mao!” (only four of the articles published by CCM(M-L) end in that slogan, all of them related to celebrating the Chinese revolution!) what is important to criticise is MREQ’s denial of Mao Tsetung Thought as the Marxism-Leninism of our era. Of course, Leninism is still the Marxism of our era, and of course Marxism is still the scientific outlook of the modern proletariat, dialectical and historical materialism. But to deny that Mao Tsetung Thought is the theory of revolution, is Marxism-Leninism in our era, is to open the door to eclecticism and modern revisionism. What modern revisionism hates most is that the world’s peoples and communists look to Chairman Mao as their own beloved and respected leader and teacher, in exactly the same way as the workers and oppressed peoples looked upon the “Russian” Lenin, and the “German” Marx as their leaders and teachers. MREQ proceeds to attack CPC(M-L) for reprinting articles from Peking Review and other Chinese publications and are particularly upset about printing the complete documents of the fourth National Peoples Congress of the People’s Republic of China. They abuse the Party for taking on itself as “their main task to disseminate Mao Tsetung Thought and the red book.” and attack the Party’s programme of organising Mao Tsetung Thought study groups. They denounce the slogan that China’s Chairman is our Chairman’ and elaborate their opportunist theory that the fundamental aspect of Chairman Mao’s thought is the agrarian or peasant question, and that Canada is a developed capitalist country, and through a subterfuge make their case that Chairman Mao’s theory is not the theory of the Canadian proletariat. “Of course revolutionaries in Canada have a lot to learn from the Chinese.” This smug paternalism covers their actual rejection of Mao Tsetung Thought which they express as follows:
With regard to the question of referring to ’China’s Chairman is our Chairman’, communists must recognize the important contributions made by Mao Tsetung to Marxist-Leninist theory and practice. However, it is especially important to realize that the Canadian proletariat will produce its own leaders, who will emerge and develop, step by step, in relation to the development of the revolutionary struggle in Canada. It is not Mao Tsetung who will lead the revolution in Canada, but rather Canadian revolutionaries applying Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought to the concrete conditions of the Canadian revolution. 
This line is incorrect because it detaches the Canadian proletariat from the world army of workers’ and oppressed peoples fighting to overthrow imperialism, especially the two superpowers. This international army has Chairman Mao at its head. Chairman Mao did not just make “some contributions”, he raised Marxism-Leninism to a new stage, and his teachings are the Marxism-Leninism of our era. The great dividing line between Marxism-Leninism and opportunism of all kinds is whether one grasps this central feature of the present era. To juxtapose the leadership of the Canadian revolution against Chairman Mao is social-chauvinism. The leaders of the Canadian revolution must of necessity come under the discipline of Mao Tsetung Thought, recognize Mao Tsetung Thought as the leading authority in the world communist movement. The line advocated by MREQ is based on a version of the “poly-centrist” line of certain European revisionists. Every country will produce its own Mao Tsetung! This is nothing but a variation of petty bourgeois nationalism and has no place in the international communist movement which has always recognised a single leading authority and come under the discipline of the teachings of the world authority in the international communist movement. All the alleged socialists who refused to do so, regardless of what period in the history of the international communist movement inevitably ended up taking an opportunist path. Proletarian internationalism is a spirit which recognises no ego, no self-centredness, and of neccessity quite voluntarily comes under the discipline of the most advanced theory.
The truly reactionary nature of MREQ’s thinking on this central question to the world communist movement is expressed as follows:
In the past the CPC(M-L) had practically a religious attitude towards China. While Marxist-Leninists around the world must recognize the importance of the People’s Republic of China, they should not in their policies mechanically follow CPC. The CPC(M-L)’s erroneous-attitude was revealed in Hardial Bains’ New Year message for 1975: ’Every revolutionary must orient his policies according to the policies of the socialist People’s Republic of China.’
At present there is no Communist International. There is no uniform ’discipline’ in the International communist movement. Revolutionaries in each country must orient their policies on the basis of Marxism-Leninism and Mao Tsetung Thought and their analysis of the concrete conditions... it is up to the revolutionaries in each country to decide things for themselves. The Chinese comrades bend over backward not to give directives to Marxist-Leninists in other countries.
This statement further reveals a thoroughly revisionist attitude toward communist authority. If there were some bureaucratic structure which issued a “directive”, then MREQ says it would come under its “uniform discipline”. But under present conditions everyone has the ’right’ to ’interpret’ Mao Tsetung Thought (which they distinguish from Marxism-Leninism with the conjunction “and”, that is to say, grammatically, one quality “and” another quality, as opposed to the authoritative expression, “Marxism-Leninism-MaoTsetung Thought”, i.e., the quality of Marxism-Leninism summed up at a higher level in Mao Tsetung Thought, the Marxism-Leninism of this era.) Thus when the Communist Party of China under the leadership of Chairman Mao says that the contention and collusion of the two nuclear superpowers for world hegemony is the cause of intranquility in the world today, and that the danger of a new world war still exists and the people of all countries must get prepared, this, for MREQ, is not an instruction or “directive”. When Chairman Mao teaches the international proletariat that this “greatest class in the history of mankind” “can and must unite the overwhelming majority of people around itself so as to isolate the handful of enemies to the maximum and attack them”, this also is not considered to be a “directive”. Thus MREQ has the “freedom to criticise” Mao Tsetung Thought, to “interpret” the authority of the international communist movement, and voila!, they end up with their “own applied Marxist-Leninist line” which is opposite to that of the international communist movement. Instead of organising the broadest possible united front to isolate and defeat the two superpowers, MREQ is proceeding to organise its one stage “proletarian revolution” and establish the “dictatorship of the proletariat” in splendid isolation from the politics of the two superpowers and the politics of the international workers and oppressed peoples struggle to overthrow imperialism, especially the two superpowers. Once the door is opened on the question of Mao Tsetung Thought, Marxism-Leninism flies out. Why? Because Mao Tsetung Thought is Marxism-Leninism of our era. This is the simple objective fact reflecting the actual alignment of class forces in the world today, and every proletarian and national liberation revolutionary fighter enthusiastically sees himself as a soldier in the international with Chairman Mao at its head.
Virtually an identical negative line on the question of proletarian internationalism is pursued by Dave Paterson in an article in Canadian Revolution Independent journal of Marxism-Leninism, more correctly known as an “independent journal from Marxism-Leninism.” Paterson condemns CPC(M-L) for always having viewed “China directly and Mao Tsetung individually as the leaders of the international revolution.”  Paterson quotes the same sentence from Comrade Bains’ speech made New Years Day, 1975 that MREQ quotes, but adds the sentence following it which is: “People’s China is the strongest base area against imperialism and social imperialism.” He proceeds to make the following series of “charges” against CPC(M-L) based on this analysis by Comrade Bains:
1. “The revolutionary movement for communism is a directly international movement,” Yes, that is correct.
2. “The struggle will be waged on a battlefied of the world and will pay no heed to national boundaries or conditions.“ No, incorrect, simply an extrapolation of a line straight ahead into the marsh. Comrade Bains said in the paragraph immediately following: “Canada is a country with its own history and its own problems and we should apply the theory, of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought to these conditions in order to deal with the various problems.”
3. “The main contradiction in the world is necessarily the main contradiction in each part of the world.” Who says there is “the main contradiction”; the Chinese Communist Party correctly teaches the international communist movement that “there are four major contradictions in the world today: the contradictions between the oppressed nations on the one hand and imperialism and social-imperialism on the other; the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie in the capitalist and revisionist countries; the contradiction between imperialist and social-imperialist countries and among the imperialist countries; and the contradiction between socialist countries on the one hand and imperialism and social-imperialism on the other. The existence and development of these contradictions are bound to give rise to revolution.”  Thus, those who give themselves “freedom of criticism” of Mao Tsetung Thought, also give themselves freedom to distort Mao Tsetung Thought!
4. “The most advanced force of Marxist-Leninists, therefore, must be the leading force,in the international revolution against the common enemy of the people of the world.” Yes, precisely. But Dave Paterson has an opposite view from the communists as to what “leading” means. He assumes leadership means hegemony; whereas communist leadership is the opposite. To come under the discipline of the international leadership of the communist movement means to apply their teachings, to take up the historic task of organising revolution and actually do so.
5. “ Since that territory held by the People’s Republic of China is the liberated territory of the proletariat and oppressed peoples of the world, just as the Soviet Union under great Lenin and Stalin was the liberated territory of the workers and oppressed peoples of the world. Imperialism and social imperialism know this also and that is why they tried to wipe out the Soviet Union in a world war, and when that failed, captured the fortress from inside, through traitors of the Krushchov-Brezhnev type. They have the same schemes and ambitions for People’s China, but the Communist Party of China and Chairman Mao continue the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat from one stage to the next in an uninterrupted process thus thwarting these schemes.
6. “The government of China, it follows, must be the world proletarian vanguard.” Why has Paterson made a separate issue about the Chinese government except to emphasise his own national chauvinism. In other words, how, dare a foreign government lead the Canadian revolution! But Mr. Paterson errs. The new constitution of the People’s Republic of China adopted at the Fourth National People’s Congress strengthens the Communist Party’s centralized leadership organizationally. The Constitution states that the government “must adhere to the basic line and policies of the Communist Party of China for the entire historical period of socialism.” The Constitution clearly lays down that “the Communist Party of China is the core of leadership of the whole Chinese people”, “the National People’s Congress is the highest organ of state power under the leadership of the Communist Party of China” and “the Chairman of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China commands the country’s armed forces.” So why does Dave Paterson try to make a contradiction between the Chinese Communist Party and the government of People’s China? Because he wants to raise the tattered bourgeois flag of nationalism to oppose the brilliant red banner of proletarian internationalism. This is an old Trotskyite trick.
7. “National communist parties must follow unabashedly the direction of that vanguard.” Here Patersons national chauvinism is clearly expressed. The proletariat is an international class; part of a world army. But it follows of necessity that the proletariat must dispatch the bourgeoisie in its own country, just as it follows that no contingent of the proletariat wil be successful in so doing without the assistance of the whole international movement of workers and oppressed peoples. Each communist party must of necessity come under the discipline of the authority of the leading communist party, and the leading comrade in the international communist movement. But a bourgeois never takes “directives unabashedly” unless they come from a bourgeois authority.
8. “CPC(ML) has made the mistake of considering the Communist Party of China as the direct leadership of the international communist movement. They have extended this role to the Chinese state.” Paterson again emphasises a contradiction between the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese state. Why is that? Because an opportunist can not conceive of a state under the dictatorship of the proletariat as being truly internationalist in word and deed. Paterson does not believe the Chinese Communist Party when it says: “We firmly pledge that we the Communist Party of China and the Chinese people are determined to fulfil our proletarian internationalist duty and, together with them, carry through to the end the great struggle against imperialism, modern revisionism and the reactionaries of various countries.”.,Paterson does not believe: “Chairman Mao led our Party in resolutely criticising Liu Shao-Chi’s revisionist line of Capitulation to imperialism, revisionism and reaction and of suppression of revolutionary movements in various countries and in destroying Liu Shao-chi’s counter-revolutionary revisionist line.” And that “all this has been done in the tultilment of our Party’s proletarian internationalist Duty” Paterson is apparently sceptical that the Chinese Communist Party will not keep its word solemnly pledged in the Tenth National Congress that China will never be a superpower, and will never seek hegemony. Otherwise why all the fret over following the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party and the People’s Republic of China! He must be transferring his own thinking on to others, and thus repeats the Trotskyite, modern revisionist and imperialist lies that Comrade Mao Tsetung is essentially a “national leader”, in the same way they slandered Comrade Stalin and Lenin. All three of these great leaders are proletarian internationalists, and have no thoughts whatsoever of putting the interests of “their” country above the general interests and needs of the world working class and oppressed peoples in the world revolutionary struggle to wipe out imperialism for all time. They have indeed taken upon their shoulders as proletarian internationalists extra duties, extra hard work and self-sacrifice in order to assist the world’s peoples.
9. Paterson then degenerates from this implied slander of the Chinese Communist Party, Chairman Mao Tsetung and the Chinese people to an open attack upon them. “What CPC(ML) offers us is a’left’ form of the discredited Soviet “socialist camp vs. imperialist is the main contradiction” line, substituting ’China’ for the ’Soviet Union’ as the leading force.” This is Trotskyite logic, not Marxism-Leninism. What determines whether a country is proletarian internationalist is whether the proletariat has state power and exercises dictatorship over the bourgeoisie. The proletariat is by its very nature internationalist, and each contingent of the world’s proletariat regards itself but a contingent in the world proletarian army at the service of the world’s peoples against imperialism. To make a “switch” between the Soviet Union and China is a monstrous slander. China is a socialist country ruled by the dictatorship of the proletariat under the leadership of the Communist Party and Chairman Mao. The Soviet Union is a social-imperialist superpower under the fascist dictatorship of a bureaucrat state monopoly capitalist class, one of the two main enemies of the world’s peoples, which seeks world hegemony. The two countries are opposites, ruled by diametrically opposite classes with diametrically opposite motivations and interests, and diametrically opposite means and methods of implementing its interests and motivations. Paterson indicates once again he believes in “nations” but not in classes. The motive force for change, development and motion is class struggle and not some competing nationalisms, as bourgeois ideologists teach. As to the question of CP (M-L) advocating the “socialist camp versus imperialist camp” line, Dave Paterson has merely to grow up from these childish tricks. Our Party has advocated that there are four major contradictions on the world scale. All our statements printed in our press verify that fact.
10. “Unquestionably, the Communist Party of China is leading the ideological struggle against Soviet revisionism in the world communist movement. That party is one of the most advanced in the world, after more than fifty years of struggling to apply Marxism-Leninism to their own particular national conditions.” Once the door is opened on Mao Tsetung, Marxism-Leninism flies out. The Communist Party of China not only leads in the ideological struggle, it leads in the military struggle, in the political struggle, in the economic struggle, in the cultural struggle, and in the struggle on every front against modern revisionism, imperialism and reaction. Revisionism is an international bourgeois trend in the working class movement. The Communist Party of China has not “struggled to apply Marxism-Leninism”; under the leadership of Chairman Mao Tsetung they have successfully applied Marxism-Leninism. Not just “to their own particular national conditions”, but in the world communist movement. They led the world’s peoples in the struggle against modern revisionism, and today lead the world’s peoples against the two superpowers, one of which is a revisionist social-imperialist power, deceptively calling itself “socialist”, “communist”, “Marxist-Leninist”. These questions are not a matter of interpretation or of regional significance; they are profound questions at the very centre of the international struggle of the world’s peoples against imperialism. It was precisely on questions of international significance, for example, the question of the role of Comrade Stalin’s leadership, the nature of the alignment of class forces in the world, the question of the class content of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the Communist Party, the nature of imperialism and so on which Chairman Mao Tsetung lead the fight against the Krushchovite revisionists. It was the Soviet Union’s capitulation to imperialism in the world revolutionary movement which aroused the opposition of all the genuine Marxist-Leninists. For by their external policies the modern revisonists told the Marxist-Leninists what internal policies they followed, which class had state power. The bourgeoisie must by its very nature either seek to dominate someone else, or capitulate to the domination of a stronger external force. The proletariat alone is capable of leading a country oh the path of genuine proletarian internationalism, neither seeking hegemony over others nor capitulating an inch to the bullying of the superpowers.
11. “What we must learn from the Chinese is a policy of self-reliance, taking the initiative, and applying Marxist-Leninist theory (including the contributions of Mao Tsetung) to the particular conditions of Canada.” Paterson sets the Canadian working class outside the International, and relegates Mao Tsetung Thought, the Marxism-Leninism of the present era, to “the contributions of Mao Tsetung”. This is sophistry to cover up Paterson’s assertion of “freedom of criticism”, of an assertion of his bourgeois rights, his “national” rights to “interpret” the world as he wishes without having to recognise the authority of the international communist movement. Central to his thinking is that leadership implies some privilege, some power of hegemony over others. The opposite is the case for the communists. The leading position of the Chinese Communist Party in the international communist movement means they have an honourable and strategic place in the battle ranks of the world’s peoples in their unrelenting war against imperialism and all reaction. In 1975 Paterson uses this line of being “Canadian communists” to oppose the unity of Marxist-Leninists in Canada, and building the Party. In May-June 1969 this identical line was used to oppose founding a party. An article “Towards the Party” which appears in Progressive Worker, and reflecting the flurry some “genuine Marxist-Leninists” were in, in those days, because of the organisation of the Canadian Communist Movement (M-L) says:
We must become self-reliant, not Russian, Chinese, Cuban, or American stereotypes. We must have a strictly Canadian application of what is useful from the successful struggles of other nations, as well as many more tactics peculiar to the Canadian battle.
As conditions (necessity and freedom) force people to realize that there is no political party in Canada capable of leading the Canadian people to a true self-determination... the demand for a party will grow. From the people will come the party, and all our efforts to put the cart before the horse will be a grave error.
Today the existence of CPC(M-L) has ended the twattle of Canadian exceptionalism as an excuse for not founding a Party. Today therefore the opportunists use the argument of Canadian exceptionalism in order to bloc the unity of the Marxist-Leninists, and prevent the building of the Party. This line will be no more successful today than it was in 1969.
Another variation of ’Paterson’s theme that Mao Tsetung Thought is a “contribution” to Marxism-Leninism is presented by a Quebec journal En Lutte! They present a deliberately “loose” history of the Communist movement, grossly simplify the nature of the two-line struggle in the communist movement, and thus vulgarise the historical role and importance of Mao Tsetung Thought. Here is the full passage from En Lutte’s June 19,1975 supplement:
After the second world war, a new crisis arose within the international communist movement when the leaders of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) definitively broke from the principles of Marxism-Leninism. by advancing theories which were clearly bourgeois such as ’the peaceful road to socialism’ and ’the government of all the people.’ These ’theories’ constituted in fact a revision, or in other words the total abandonment of the fundamental Marxist-Leninist principles of’proletarian revolution’ and ’the dictatorship of the proletariat.’
Spurred by the Albanian and Chinese Communist Parties (sic, reference to Albanian Party of Labor), a new phase in the struggle against revisionism was begun at the end of the 1950’s and beginning of the 60’s. The obstinacy of the leaders of the CPSU and of the majority of the Communist Parties of eastern Europe and the western countries in maintaining their erroneous positions led to the breaking up of the international communist movement. It was from this moment on, that the role of Mao Tsetung was recognized by all authentic Marxist-Leninists as the principal interpreter and continuer of Marxism-Leninism in our era and from this moment on, also the study of what is properly called ’Mao Tsetung Thought’ has become for them the necessary extension of the study of Marxism and of Leninism 
The sloppiness of this statement opens the door to an attack on Comrade Stalin (“After the second world war, a new crisis arose within the international communist movement” – yes, Titoite revisionism, roundly exposed and crushed in the world communist movement under the leadership of Comrade Stalin!) It blurs and confuses everything. If only En Lutte! recognized the authority of the world communist movement, and the leading role of the Chinese Communist Party and Chairman Mao, they could sort everything out quite clearly. What event in history signaled the great advance in Marxist-Leninist theory made by Chairman Mao Tsetung? Under the personal guidance of Chairman Mao Tsetung a great historic document was drawn upon May 16, 1966, the Circular of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party. It is a great Marxist-Leninist document. It put forward the theory, line, principles and policies of the proletarian cultural revolution, thus crushing the schemes of a counter revolutionary revisionist clique to undermine this revolution in a futile effort to restore capitalism. The May 16,1966 Circular of the Central Committee sounded the clarion call for the advance of the proletarian cultural revolution.
This great historic document creatively developed Marxism-Leninism and solved the question of revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat. Marx and Engels founded the theory of scientific socialism. Lenin and Stalin developed Marxism, solved a series of questions of the proletarian revolution in the era of imperialism and solved the theoretical and practical questions of establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat in one country. Chairman Mao Tsetung developed Marxism-Leninism, solved a series of questions of the proletarian revolution in the present era and solved the theoretical and practical questions of carrying on the revolution and preventing a restoration of capitalism under the dictatorship of the proletariat. These are three monumental milestones in the history of the development of Marxism.
The questions which Chairman Mao Tsetung solved were: Are there still classes and class struggle in a socialist society, particularly after the socialist transformation of the means of production has in the main been accomplished? Do all the class struggles in society still centre around the question of the fight over political power? Under the conditions of the dictatorship of the proletariat, does the proletariat still have to make revolution? Marx and Engels could not possibly solve this series of major theoretical problems at their time. Lenin saw that after the proletariat seized power, the defeated bourgeoisie remained stronger than the proletariat and was always trying to stage a comeback. At the same time, small production continuously engendered capitalism and the bourgeoisie anew, thus posing a threat to the dictatorship of the proletariat. In order to cope with this counter-revolutionary threat and overcome it, it was therefore necessary to strengthen the dictatorship of the proletariat over a longer period of time. There was no other way. However, Lenin died before he could solve these problems in practice. Stalin was a great Marxist-Leninist who actually did clear out a large number of counter-revolutionary representatives of the bourgeoisie who had sneaked into the Party, including Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Radek, Bukharin, Rykov, and their like. But where he failed was in not recognizing, on the level of theory, that classes and class struggle exist in society throughout the historical period of the dictatorship of the proletariat and that the question of who will win in the revolution has yet to be finally settled; in other words, if all is not handled properly there is still the possibility of a comeback by the bourgeoisie. The year before he died, Stalin became aware of this point and stated in his book Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR that contradictions do exist in socialist society and if not properly handled might turn into antagonistic ones. Comrade Mao Tsetung gave full attention to the whole historical experience of the Soviet Union. He correctly solved this series of problems in a whole number of important writings and instructions, in the historic May 16,1966 Circular, and in the social practice of the proletarian cultural revolution personally initiated and led by him.
This is a most important sign indicating that Marxism has developed to an entirely new stage. In the early years of the twentieth century, Marxism developed into the stage of Leninism. In the present era, it has developed further into the stage of Mao Tsetung thought.
This explains how Mao Tsetung Thought came to be the Marxism-Leninism of our era. En Lutte!’s fuzzy, and ahistorical gibberish about fighting some “obstinant” revisionist leaders of the CPSU and other parties “at the end of the 1950’s and of the 60’s”, and it “was from this moment (sic) on that the role of Mao Tsetung was recognized by all authentic Marxist-Leninists as the principal interpretor and continuer of Marxism-Leninism” is an intellectualist concoction of En Lutte! It has nothing to do with the history of the international communist movement, does not analyse the historical problems which needed to be solved in order that the proletariat could advance to the next stage in its epochal war against the bourgeoisie, nor does it recognize the specific historic advance made by Mao Tsetung Thought to the world communist movement. All of En Lutte’s anarchistic intellectualism, though it glitters like tinsel, is deceptive and sham. The reason for it being advanced as “genuine Marxism-Leninism” is because En Lutte! places itself outside the international communist movement, refuses to recognize the authority of the leading communist Party and the leading Marxist-Leninist, Chairman Mao, and refuses to pay attention to historical experience. Situated in this ideological stance, En Luttel therefore does not bother to study and investigate the history of the two line struggle in the Communist movement and ends up “spontaneously” spouting the “authority” of various imperialist agents.
We can see than that En Lutte! has the same “reservation” about Mao Tsetung Thought that MREQ and Dave Paterson do. En Lutte! says that Mao Tsetung is “the principal interpretor and continuer of Marxism-Leninism”. Why do they not simply come under the authority of the leading Communist Party and say simply and clearly to the Canadian masses: “Comrade Mao Tsetung has inherited, defended and developed Marxism-Leninism with genius, creatively and in an all-rounded way, and has raised it to a completely new stage.” Mao Tsetung Thought is Marxism-Leninism in our present era. An opportunist can not say this because for an opportunist this means surrender of his “authority”, his “freedom of criticism”, his bourgeois right to “differ”, and to “creatively apply Marxism-Leninism” to “his” country’s particular, i.e. exceptional circumstances. This is why the opportunist or negative line in the Canadian communist movement does not recognize the authority of Chairman Mao’s leadership of the international communist movement. These groups and individuals do not have any modesty or humility about themselves, and that is why they are arrogant and social-chauvinist. All great communist revolutionary, Comrade Enver Hoxha, who actually organised his small courageious nation in a bloody war for national liberation against German and Italian fascism, who bravely stood up to the Anglo-American imperialist intrigues and the Trotskyite, revisionist, social chauvinist Tito and overcame his treacherous plots to throttle Albania and turn it into a slave of US imperialism, who stood up in front of the representatives of 80 other workers and communist parties, many of them, including the CPSU, headed by Krushchovite revisionists, and told the whole sordid truth about the Krushchovite revisionist betrayal of Marxism-Leninism and gloriously defended Comrade Stalin and the dictatorship of the proletariat, who led his small nation against the imperialist-revisionist blockade, who never for a minute faltered in his loyalty to People’s China, to the Communist Party of China and Comrade Mao Tsetung, who alone of all the heads of ruling parties in Europe dared to stand up with the masses of Europe and America to defy the superpowers and boycott the fraudulent gabfest at Helsinki – this great communist fighter can say without reservation, with great love and warmth from his heart: “The Albanian people and all the peoples of the world nurture an ardent love and place deep trust in great socialist China, in her glorious party and in Mao Tsetung, the great and beloved leader not only of the Chinese people and communists, but also the dear and respected leader of all the peoples and communists, of the world. 
Why and how is it that this great communist fighter, Comrade Hoxha, leader of a small but glorious fighting communist party, and small but invincible fighting nation, can recognize the historical truth that Chairman Mao Tsetung is the “dear and respected leader of all the peoples and communists of the world”, but various so-called “genuine Marxist-Leninists”, who, if you will excuse me for my denigration, have not even yet formed an “organization to struggle for building a genuine Marxist-Leninist Party” here in Canada, a country still under the jackboot of US imperialism and its lackeys, how is it these “leaders”, do not have the communist, proletarian internationalist largeness of mind to salute Chairman Mao Tsetung as their dear and respected leader? The answer is because these various leaders of MREQ, En Lutte!, Dave Paterson and others are not proletarian internationalists, they do not come under the discipline and authority of the world communist movement; they stand outside it, as bourgeois individualists, with their “own” countries, their “own proletarian leaders”,and their “own creative application of Marxism-Leninism.” This line is altogether incorrect, and all serious Canadian revolutionaries should pay close attention to the line which these “leaders” present on the question of Mao Tsetung Thought.
What is the history of this line in the Canadian communist movement? From where do these present ideas come from? We can not look to the writings of the present authors in the “ancient” period of 1966-68, the years of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. If we did look at these writings we would find a curious pot pourri of Liberal Party, Castroite-Guevarrist terrorist, New Left Marcusist propaganda. No, the origin of the negative line on Mao Tsetung Thought can not be traced back through the development of these new “genuine Marxist-Leninists.” To find the origins of this line we have to read through the back issues of Progressive Worker, official organ of the Progressive Workers Movement led by Jack Scott. In an article entitled “Anniversary of CP of China”, illustrated with two large portraits, one of Chairman Mao and the other of Liu Shao-chi, we find the following formulations:
The victorious march of the Chinese revolution... is irrefutable proof of the all-consuming power of Marxism-Leninism, and its correct interpretation and application to conditions in China by the great Communist Party of China under the leadership of Mao Tsetung, whose guiding hand on the helm has assured the tremendous victory of the Chinese people.
Steeled in battle, and rich in the experience of the most protracted struggle ever before known in the history of revolution, the Communist Party of China, and its chairman, Mao Tsetung, has made outstanding contributions to Marxist-Leninist theory and tested them in practical work. Those contributions have universal meaning and application. 
Here are the basic lines being repeated today, nine years later. Chairman Mao made “contributions” to Marxism-Leninism, “interpreting” and “applying” them to conditions in China. Now one can say that PWM did not then have the August, 1966 communique from the 11th Plenary session of the Eighth Central Committee of the Communist Party of China at the time the August 1966 Progressive Worker went to press. But there is not a word about the historic communique of the Eleventh Plenary Session in the September 1966 issue of PW. Not until the October issue is the full statement reprinted. The statement says clearly “The Eleventh Plenary Session was presided over by Comrade Mao Tsetung,” yet the photograph in PW shows the traitor, renegade, and scab, China’s Krushchov, Liu Shao-chi, presiding at a meeting, clearly a fraudulent photograph. Be that as it may, the Progressive Worker has no comment to make on the Eleventh Plenary Session Communique; it does not greet it, support it, or amend the position of the August, 1966 article. Then in March 1967 in an article entitled “People of China Support the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution” we read:
Learning the lessons from their own rich experience in revolutionary struggle; forewarned by the disastrous consequences of revisionist betrayal in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe; and armed with the all important theoretical contribution with which Chairman Mao Tsetung has enriched Marxist-Leninist science in the era of proletarian state power and the transition from capitalism to socialism, the revolutionary masses, in China have risen in rebellion against those in authority who are taking the capitalist road and trying to overthrow the proletarian state.
This formulation does not accord with the line of the August 1966 Communique published in the October 1966 issue of PW. We are back to the line of “contribution”, and “enriched”. Chairman Mao is still seen as the leader of the Chinese revolution, but not the world authority in the international communist movement.
By 1967 there is some indication of a two-line struggle over the question of the significance of Mao Tsetung Thought in the international communist movement. In June 1967 there is an essentially anti-communist article called “China’s Mass Democracy”, in which Isreal Epstein, formerly of New York, writes: “China, to her great honour, has expressed herself against revisionism ever since it manifested itself in the international communist movement and in a number of Socialist countries. But I think it is a measure of Chairman Mao’s greatness that he is not content to criticise revisionism elsewhere. That could even be a form of national selfishness. Chairman Mao is resolved to dig up the roots of revisionism, to abolish all ground for it in China itself, in Chinese society, and show the people of the world the way in which this can be done.” Right next to this subjectivist, and essentially anti-communist line, is an article by Jack Scott called “The Proletarian Cultural Revolution.” The article is about the role of the People’s Liberation Army in the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. The whole article is very defensive, as if he had to “justify” the allegiance of the People’s Liberation Army to Chairman Mao and the Communist Party, as during the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. There is nothing in the article to inspire the Canadian people as to the world historic significance of the cultural revolution, and the new historic stage of world revolution and Marxism-Leninism, that is, Mao Tsetung Thought, The documents from the Circular of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party were released in mid-May 1967. In August 1967, an article, “Communist Party of China – 46 years” reflects for the first time a correct appraisal of Mao Tsetung Thought:
In the guidance of the Proletarian Cultural Revolution the writings and directives of Mao Tsetung constitute a milestone in the development of Marxism-Leninism and indicate that a new era of Marxism has been reached – the era of the thought of Mao Tsetung.”
An important fact to note here, however, is that the class struggle very much sharpened in Vancouver, B.C., in the summer of 1967. Comrade Bains was in Vancouver at that time waging a very sharp struggle against a number of splitters in the Internationalists who were under the guidance of Jack Scott behind the scenes. When these people split from the Internationalists they later organized their own group. What role this sharp two-line struggle in Vancouver had on the line of the Progressive Workers publishing this correct estimation of Mao Tsetung Thought needs to be investigated. The next article on the international communist movement is found in the July 1967 issue when the representatives of PW visiting China returned and presented the line as follows:
The outcome of the struggle now taking place will determine the future destiny of China and will exercise a decisive influence on the whole world because, as far as the present era is concerned, it is China that plays the decisive role in the world. It is China that is the decisive factor so far as revolution, not only in China but in the world, is concerned. We can say with confidence there will be hope in the world so long as China does not fall and does not change its colour. The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution is an event of vast importance which has a vital bearing on the destiny of the whole of mankind. 
This is a very deceptive formulation, and is quite incorrect. The issue is not “China” any more than the issue was “the Soviet Union.” The issue is what lass shall rule China, and decisive to that question is Mao Tsetung Thought, that is the new stage of Marxism-Leninism. How can Scott make a mystery of the question regarding the “outcome of the struggle now taking place” in July 1967. The Chinese Communist Party had already published the May 18, 1967 editorials and the May 16, 1966 Circular of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party. The Red Flag and People’s Daily editorial says of this circular: “This great historic document, drawn up under the personal guidance of Comrade Mao Tsetung, has creatively developed Marxism-Leninism and solved the question of revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat.”  Scott presents the issue without examining the class basis of struggle, that the seizure of power by the revisionists is the restoration of the bourgeoisie over the proletariat. What is at stake is the fate of the proletariat in its world struggle against the bourgeoisie, the fate of the people as opposed to the imperialists and all reactionaries. Essential to the victory of the Proletariat everywhere in the world is to grasp revolution, which in the present era means to grasp Mao Tsetung Thought. Scott makes the central issue “China” when in fact the central issue is Mao Tsetung Thought, i.e., the outlook and political line of the proletariat versus the outlook and political line of the bourgeoisie. Scott develops his wrong line to an extreme in his book Two Roads written in 1974, when he makes his case that the Bolshevik Revolution was a coup d’etat of a handful of communists, and that the Soviet government under comrades Lenin and Stalin was social chauvinist, and always practised great power hegemonism. In short Scott slanders the October Revolution, denies its international impact on world revolution, and the universality of Leninism. He makes a whole thesis that because China is a peasant country, and Mao Tsetung led a protracted agrarian revolution, that this is why China is socialist and able to organise a Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, while Russia was always bureaucratic and great power chauvinist. In short, classes and class struggle more or less dissappear, and the International of the world’s working and oppressed peoples disappears also. (See their article on page 34.)
In March 1968 Progressive Worker has an article, “On the Question of Liu Shao-chi”, that defends the correct stand regarding the class character of the struggle against modern revisionism, and clearly states:
Liu Shao-chi represents the counter-revolutionary line of the bourgeois while Mao Tsetung represents the proletarian revolutionary line. One must choose between these two. The Central Committee and the vast majority of cadres and Party members, together with the Chinese masses, guided by the thought of Chairman Mao, are criticising and repudiating the reactionary line of Liu Shao-chi who is the top party person in authority taking the capitalist road We take our stand now, as always, on the side of Chairman Mao Tsetung and China’s Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution.
But Jack Scott is not a consistent man. In the main Scott has promoted a line that the origin of Soviet social-imperialism was the nature of the October Revolution itself. The Two Roads Jack Scott writes about are not the two roads of class struggle between Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought and revisionism. No, the “two roads” are the Great October Revolution led by Lenin and Stalin, and the new democratic revolution led by Chairman Mao Tsetung. In other words, the fundamental thing in Mao Tsetung Thought is agrarian revolution, not the dictatorship of the proletariat. When analying the opposite class character of the CPSU today, and the CPC led by Chairman Mao he says:
These divergent experiences and profound differences in background and historical development of the two parties, the differences in strategy by which power was conquered and the methods afterwards employed, have produced different ideological climates, different forms of inner-party life and different styles of work. These differences are now reflected in wide, even totally separate, views on intra-party relations, and on all other forms of international relations as well.
Thus we can see that the recognition expressed by Progressive Worker on one occasion only, in the March 1968 edition, of the two line struggle in both the CPSU and the Communist Party of China, is a subordinate trend to the opportunist stand that there is something inherent in each party which made one revisionist and the other Marxist-Leninist. In other words the teaching of Mao Tsetung about the class nature of the two line struggle in each communist Party is negated by a social chauvinist theory of exceptionalism. Scott has always held that the central question with respect to the capitalist restoration in the Soviet Union was due to some Russian “national characteristics”, while socialism in China, was also due to some Chinese “national characteristics.” In this way he obscures the class character of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and he denies the objective fact of the communist and workers’ internationale which exists objectively, and independent of the will of anyone because of the inherent internationalism of the modern proletariat, and its recognition of a single leading authority at each stage of its history of struggle against the bourgeoisie. In short then, the attitude one takes towards Mao Tsetung Thought reflects one’s whole attitude to the international communist movement, and the dictatorship of the proletariat. if one takes the line that Mao Tsetung has “made some contributions of Marxism-Leninism”, and that Chairman Mao’s leadership is valid only for the Chinese revolution, then one inevitably is going to have “criticisms” of Comrade Stalin, and the whole revisionist-Trotskyite door is wide open. Central to all of this is whether or not a revolutionary is prepared to come under the central leadership of the most advanced practice and theory and unequivocably recognize that leading authority. Comrade Hoxha tells us clearly that “The greatest enemy of U.S. imperialism and of Soviet social imperialism are the peoples of the world, with great Mao Tsetung’s China at the head.” This succinctly and correctly capsulizes the world alignment of class forces: the greatest enemy of the two superpowers are the people of the world with Chairman Mao’s China leading. The dialectical relationship between the revolutionary vanguard and the masses is also clearly expressed. “All the peoples of the world have pinned their hopes of liberation, independence and well-being, on their efforts and on Mao’s China.”  Both things, one’s own efforts and Mao Tsetung Thought. The world revolutionary forces are one combined force with one central universally recognized leadership. Any other formulation which deviates from this basic content is not Marxism-Leninism, but rather an opportunist line within the Marxist-Leninist movement. This incorrect opportunist deviation is summed up in the last article published in Progressive Worker on the international communist movement in January-February 1969; it is on the history of the International:
The International may be temporarily extinct but the revolutionary spirit which gave it birth is now more widespread than ever before. The revolutionary movement has learned a great deal since the day the International was founded. That knowledge and experience is being put to excellent use in a thousand battles and struggles around the world. We look forward to the day when the International of the working people once again occupies its rightful role as the General Staff of the Revolution. 
The International never became extinct. In 1966 the Chinese Communist Party correctly assessed the situation internationally as “a new era of world revolution.” Jack Scott keeps wistfully looking backwards. The new International arose in struggle against modern revisionism. It is objective, and independent of anyone’s will. Communists know who the leading authority in our movement is and willingly grasp the thought of that authority to organise revolution wherever they are. Only those who neither want to come under central discipline nor throw away their bourgeois “critical selves”, and who are unwilling or unable to organise revolution will sigh such a “distant hope” which beats eternal in their breast about some future “General Staff of the Revolution.” That “General Staff” has clearly existed since the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution and all that remained was for the proletarian soldiers to pick up the instructions and put them into practice in their own battle zone. As for the “General Staff”, it has already proved, and continues to prove and recommits itself to the pledge that it is a proletarian internationalist “staff”, and will never practice hegemonism, and will always seek unity with the communists, with the masses of the people, to fight the common enemies of all.
The Communist Party of China upholds proletarian internationalism and opposes great-power chauvinism; it firmly unites with the genuine Marxist-Leninist Parties and organisations the world over, unites with the proletariat, the oppressed people and nations of the whole world and fights together with them to oppose the hegemonism of the two superpowers – the United States and the Soviet Union, to overthrow imperialism, modern revisionism and all reaction, and to abolish the system of exploitation of man by man over the globe, so that all mankind will be emancipated. 
To illustrate how once an individual or group which considers itself “Marxist-Leninist” but refuses to recognize the international authority of the leading comrade, and the leading Party, and follow the general line laid out by them for the international movement inevitably opens the door to revisionism and trotskyism, let us look at an essay written by Workers Unity, “a small collective of Marxist-Leninists in Toronto.” The essay, “Imperialism and Canadian Political Economy” is itself a complete rejection of the central thesis cf Chairman Mao and the Communist Party of China with respect to the two superpowers being the main enemy of the world’s peoples. But aside from their completely wrong line on the question of the Canadian political economy, and their enthusiasm for the vicious anti-China, anti-Mao Tsetung arch-revisionist, Tim Buck, let us see how their “free lance Marxism-Leninism” ends them up in the camp of the trotskyite, Titoists and Krushchevite revisionists on the question of the international communist movement. They say:
The Soviet Union, which was the world’s first socialist state, is now a country which has experienced a restoration of a bureaucrat-capitalist class. It has deserted all principles of proletarian internationalism, and has consistently since the end of the second World War followed a course of ’socialism in words, and Imperialism in deeds.’ Both through the ’cold’ war, period and the more recent period of detente, the Soviet Union has consistently vied with U.S. imperialism in carving out territories for markets, and raw materials, in expansion of arms production and in subjecting one country after another to its influence and policies. (Mass Line’s emphasis) 
Marxists-Leninists across Canada should ask this Toronto Workers’ Unity what is the source of your ideas? What is your authority for this statement that the Soviet Union “consistently since the end of the Second World War followed a course of ’socialism in words, and imperialism in deeds?” Where did you get this idea that “Both through the’cold war’ period and the more recent period of detente, the Soviet Union has consistently vied with U.S. imperialism in carving out territories for markets, etc?” The Cold War was declared by Anglo-American imperialism by Winston Churchill at Fulton Missouri in 1946, when he formally passed the mantle of world empire from the failing hands of British imperialism, to the rising “star”, U.S. imperialism. Who declared the era of “detente”? The traitors to communism and the dictatorship of the proletariat did. Krushchev declared the doctrine of “peaceful competition” with U.S. Imperialism; Brezshnev declared the era of “detente.” Why does the Toronto Workers’ Unity mix up these two periods of Soviet history, of the history of our international communist movement?
How did matters really stand at the end of World War II? The world was split up into two camps: the anti-imperialist democratic camp and the anti-democratic imperialist camp, with aims and objectives diametrically opposed.
The democratic camp was made up of the Soviet Union and the countries of people’s democracy. At its head stood the Soviet Union. It was supported by the entire international democratic and workers’ movement, by all progressive-minded persons fighting in defense of democracy, freedom and the independence of peoples. The aim of this camp was to secure world peace, the independence of the peoples, democracy and progress toward socialism. This could be attained only in struggle against imperialism.
The imperialist camp had the U.S.A. as its leading force. It relied on the reactionary classes and on all the anti-democratic forces in the capitalist countries. The aim of this camp was to save the old capitalist order, to suppress the workers’ revolutionary and national-liberation movements, to re-establish the capitalist regime in the countries of people’s democracy. By making use of their great economic and and military potential, the U.S. imperialists sought to establish their domination over the world. To achieve this aim, the imperialists headed by the USA launched a frenzied hostile campaign against the Soviet Union and against all the socialist, freedom and peace-loving forces.
Does Workers’ Unity recognize the authority of our statement on the alignment of forces at the end of the Second World War until 1953 when Comrade Stalin died? Clearly they do not. The Canadian Marxist-Leninists should ponder over this seriously. Why? Because our analysis is word for word taken from the History of the Party of Labor of Albania  published under the authority of the Institute of Marxist-Leninist Studies at the Central Committee of the Party of Labor of Albania. We recognise this authority, not because the Party of Labor of Albania said it, but because it is correct. Furthermore, we know it is correct not because of some “creative application of Marxism-Leninism”, but because the social practise of the Albanian Party of Labor as a leader in fighting imperialism, social imperialism, modern revisionism, Titoism, and every other reactionary trend in or out of the world communist movement, has been consistently Marxist-Leninist, consistently correct. Marxist-Leninists in Canada demand to know why the Workers Unity collective in Toronto set themselves apart from the authority of the Albanian Party of Labor!
Furthermore the Marxist-Leninists in Canada tell the Toronto Workers’ Unity clearly and in no uncertain terms just who called Comrade Stalin an imperialist warmonger. Harry Truman called the Soviet Union an imperialist power at the end of the Second World War. Winston Churchill said the same thing. Tito said it. Trotskyists and Social Democrats joined the chorus. The deposed kings, queens, junkers, landlords, capitalists, nazi collaborators fleeing people’s justice in the people’s democracies and who pinned their hopes on Anglo-American imperialism to restore their lost paradise, added their croaking voices.
After 1956 Kruschev and the modern revisionists also said similar things. Marxist-Leninists in Canada can not shirk their international responsibility on these historical problems in the international communist movement. Marxist-Leninists regardless of how young or old they may be, must take a stand on this matter. The ’veteran’ communists had and still have a particularly important and responsible role to educate the young revolutionary forces as to the glorious and immortal contribution of Comrade Stalin as the world leader and authority in the international communist movement before he died. But one “veteran” communist has only mislead and miseducated the new revolutionary forces on this vital question. Jack Scott’s line in Two Roads repeats all the reactionary slanders of the imperialists, revisionists and trotskyists about Comrade Stalin, and opens the door of ecclecticism to such groups as Workers Unity. As far back as November 1967 Scott was obscuring the immortal contribution of Comrade Stalin. In Progressive Worker a story on the 50th anniversay celebration of the October Revolution reporting on the line Jack Scott gave at the meeting says not one single word about Comrade Stalin. Only the Krushchevite revisionists try to deny that Comrade Stalin was the great student of Lenin, and the leading Marxist-Leninist who gloriously took up the historic mission of building socialism, defeating fascism, and opposing U.S. imperialism after World War II. On what authority does Jack Scott present the history of the Soviet Union without mentioning Comrade Stalin’s name? Does lack Scott recognize the correctness of Comrade Enver Hoxha’s verdict that he who does not defend Stalin is a coward and an opportunist? Who is the authority for our movement? The Albanian Party of Labor led by Enver Hoxha, the Communist Party of China led by Mao Tsetung, or Churchill, Dulles, Tito and Krushchev? Did the Workers Collective not investigate and study the documents of the Chinese Communist Party under Chairman Mao’s supervision to find out what this leading authority had to say about the Soviet Union under the leadership of Comrade Stalin? They said empahtically on March 23,1966 in a letter fully endorsed by the 11th Plenary Session of the Eighth Central Committee that:
...at the 20th Congress of the CPSU you (modern revisionists) suddenly lashed out at Stalin. Stalin was a great Marxist-Leninist. In attacking Stalin you were attacking Marxism Leninism, the Soviet Union, Communist parties, China, the people, and all Marxist-Leninists of the world...Russia is the native land of Leninism and used to be the centre of the international working class movement. After Stalin’s death the leaders of the CPSU, headed by Krushchev, gradually revealed their true features as betrayers of Lenin and Leninism 
Is it possible that a “great Marxist-Leninist” could lead the Soviet Union and engage in “imperialism in deeds.” What is Workers’ Unity trying to smuggle into the Canadian communist movement? What is En Lutte! trying to smuggle into the Canadian communist movement with their assertion that “After the second World war, a new crisis arose within the international communist movement when the leaders of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union definitively broke from the principles of Marxism-Leninsim...” When after the Second World War the Marxist-Leninists of Canada demand of En Lutte!? Not until eight years after the Second World War. The Report to the Tenth National Congress of the Communist Party of China clearly says that, “over the last two decades, the Soviet revisionist ruling clique, from Krushchev to Brezhnev, has made a socialist country degenerate into a social imperialist country.”  Two decades from the date of the report (1973) is the year 1953, the date of Comrade Stalin’s death. If the Communist Party of China led by Chairman Mao Tsetung can be so precise, why is En Lutte! so evasive, inaccurate? Why use the Second World War as the dividing line; why promote the same line of Red Imperialism as promoted by Churchill, Dulles, Tito and their nazi allies? From where do these “genuine Marxist-Leninists’ get their ideas? What does En Lutte! mean by speaking of “Marxism-Leninism and Mao Tsetung thought” in its important policy statement of December 12, 1974?  Was this just a slip? If so why is En Lutte!’s greeting to Canadian Revolution magazine dated June 1975 signed with the slogan, “Long live Marxism-Leninism and Mao Tsetung thought”?  The reason is clear to us. En Lutte! looks on Mao Tsetung thought as a “contribution”, as a “development” of Marxism-Leninism, but rejects the authority of Mao Tsetung Thought as the Marxism-Leninism of our era, as the universal theory of the international communist movement at this stage of history, as a completely new, and higher stage of development of Marxism-Leninism.
In this they are like various opportunists after the Great October Revolution who called themselves “Marxists”, and who “recognized” a “contribution” made by Lenin, but refused to accept Leninism as the leading, most advanced theory of The international communist movement mandatory for advanced capitalist countries as well as backward agrarian countries. In short our study of the facts show us that En Lutte! and others like Workers Unity and Dave Paterson have set themselves outside of the authority of the international communist movement, and reject the necessity of the Canadian proletariat taking up as mandatory the most advanced theory of class struggle, Mao Tsetung thought. If they reject the authority of the international communist movement what authority is left to them? Only the authority of U.S. imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism! What side do they choose? There is no third road in this world; there is no “middle-way” in the communist movement. This “middle way”, this route of “freedom of criticism”, “no world centre”, “the Canadian road to socialism” is a well-trod road. Trotsky, Zinoviev, Bukharin, Liu-shao chi, Lin Piao, Macdonald; Spector, Tim Buck, Phil Taylor they all followed this route. And where did they end up? They ended up as agents for either one imperialist superpoweror another. To defy the authority of the international communist movement established through social practice and guided by the most advanced theory means of necessity to come under the authority of the imperialists. Any Marxist-Leninist with a spirit to participate in revolution can grasp this fact.
The issue of proletarian internationalism, of the unity, integrity and authority of the world communist movement and its central leadership on an international scale, is fundamental for Canadian Marxist-Leninists. We are obligated by historical necessity to wage a most thorough, consistent, and protracted struggle in our country against the pernicious and poisionous ideology of social chauvinism among the masses in order that the Canadian proletariat assume its historic mission of uniting the over-whelming majority of the Canadian people to isolate the enemy to the maximumand attack them. The Marxist-Leninists can only be fighters in this great battle ahead if they are clear and firm on the principle of proletarian internationalism, and are loyal friends, close friends and comrades, faithful allies of the Peoples Republic of China, of the fraternal Chinese people, and of the glorious Communist Party, of Mao Tsetung’s China. This means we should proclaim our ardent love for and deep trust in great socialist China, in her glorious Party and in Mao Tsetung, the dear and respected leader of all peoples and communists in the world, including the Canadian people and the Canadian Communists, the heirs of Comrade Norman Bethune, a great proletarian internationalist. There is not and cannot be any middle course in matters of principle. Proletarian internationalism is a principle of the workers and oppressed peoples movement, and a principle of its advanced guard, the international communist movement. Marxist-Leninists should seriously consider this principle, and should firmly reject the theses being promoted by the negative line, by various opportunists in the Canadian Communist movement who reject the authority of the international communist movement, or who recognize it with honeyed words, but reject it in practise. If genuine Marxist-Leninists take up proletarian internationalism as the only correct stance, this will go a long way in isolating and opposing the bourgeois trends of revisionism, trotskyism and social democracy in the Canadian working class and peoples’ movements.
If the Marxist-Leninists do not oppose this negative line, then the same future will befall those who follow the wrong line as befell those who travelled this road before. The road of Canadian exceptionalism, of not coming under the discipline in practise of the authority of the international communist movement means to go the route of trotskyism, or the route of modern revisionism. In 1969 a split off from the Progressive Workers Movement organised the Canadian Party of Labour. They too were “genuine Marxist-Leninists”; they too took it upon themselves to ’creatively apply Marxism-Leninism’ ” to Canada, and they too took up the line of “critical support” for Chairman Mao. Where did they end up? One branch split and took up the rightist position of national chauvinism and formed the Canadian Liberation Movement. The other group under the leadership of a former U.S. Marine, Phil Taylor, took up the line that all nationalism is reactionary. Before long the quest for “pure principles” outside of the realm of historical necessity, and in isolation from the international communist movement, CPL soon degenerated in attacking People’s China and Chairman Mao, and became part of the Trotskyite movement. Meanwhile CLM has taken up the old revisionist line of every country must produce its own Marx, Lenin, Chairman Mao. Both these groups have set themselves outside of the international communist movement and reject the authority of Mao Tsetung thought as the Marxism-Leninism of our era. As a consequence these organisations play a disruptive role, engage in splitting and wrecking the mass democratic struggles of the people, and spread as much confusion as possible in order that the state can continue their conscious plan “operation chaos” to divide the Canadian revolutionary forces, and thus help the U.S. imperialists and their lackeys, the Canadian monopoly capitalists, tighten their stranglehold over the Canadian people, and postpone the day of their extinction. Marxist-Leninists should study the history of the international communist movement carefully, and come under the discipline of the authoritative line of the Communist Party of China and Albanian Party of Labor regarding the two line struggle in the international communist movement. Genuine Marxist-Leninists will oppose the negative line, strengthen their unity, and will be executing their proletarian internationalist duty to the workers and oppressed people of the world.
CPC(M-L) for its part pledges to uphold proletarian internationalism, and to continue to uphold and cherish Mao Tsetung thought as the leading theory for the Canadian communist movement. We shall continue to follow this correct line charted out for the Party by its own Chairman, Comrade Bains, who has since May 1968 consistently fought that the advanced anti-imperialist revolutionary forces in Canada should take up Mao Tsetung thought, come under the discipline of the international communist movement, widely disseminate this Mao Tsetung thought and organise the Canadian masses against U.S. imperialism, the Canadian monopoly capitalists, the Soviet social imperialists and all reactionaries. Our Party is pledged to uphold this line, and to wage struggle against all brands of opportunism in the communist movement through to the end.
One of Chairman Mao’s teachings is that there is no construction without destruction. Destruction means criticism and repudiation, it means revolution. It involves reasoning things out, which is construction. Put destruction first, and in the process you have construction. The Canadian Marxist-Leninists should put this teaching into practise with respect to the opportunist line on proletarian internationalism, that is criticise and repudiate all forms of social-chauvinism and expressions of Canadian “exceptionalism” in the realm of theory and practise of revolution in“our present era.
DOWN WITH OPPORTUNISM!
DOWN WITH CANADIAN EXCEPTIONALISM!
LONG LIVE PROLETARIAN INTERNATIONALISM!
LONG LIVE MAO TSETUNG THOUGHT!
 F. Engels, “Preface to the German Edition of 1890”, Manifesto of the Communist Party, Foreign Languages Press, Peking, 1972, P. 20.
 F. Engels, cited in “Preface”, The General Council of the First International 1864-1866 (The London Conference 1865 Minutes), Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1962, p. 11.
 J.V. Stalin, “On the Problems of Leninism”, Problems of Leninism, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1953, p. 153.
 J.V.Stalin, “Thg International Character of the October Revolution”, Problems of Leninism, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1953, pp. 237-246.
 Enver Hoxha, “Reject the Revisionist Theses of the XX. Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and Anti-Marxist Stand of Khrushchev’s Group! Uphold Marxism-Leninism!” (Speech delivered at the Meeting of 81 Communist and Workers’ Parties in Moscow on November 16, 1960), The Party of Labour of Albania in Battle with Modern Revisionism, The Nairn Frasheri Publishing House, Tirana, 1972, p. 95.
 Mao Tsetung, “The Greatest Friendship”, Pravda, March 10, 1953.
 MREQ, “Impotent Shrills of an Organisation Called MREQ”, Mass Line, Vol. 6 & 7, No. 56, Section 2, p. 3.
 MREQ, “Impotent Shrills of an Organisation Called MREQ”, Mass Line, Vol. 6 & 7, No. 56, Section 2, p. 4.
 MREQ, “Impotent Shrills of an Organisation Called MREQ”, Mass Line, Vol. 6 & 7, No. 56, Section 2, p. 5.
 MREQ, “Impotent Shrills of an Organisation Called MREQ”, Mass Line, Vol. 6 & 7, No. 56, Section 2, p. 5.
 MREQ, “Impotent Shrills of an Organisation Called MREQ”, Mass Line, Vol. 6 & 7, No. 56, Section 2, pp. 7-8.
 Dave Paterson, “Ravings of a Man Named Dave Paterson”, Mass Line, Vol. 6 & 7, No. 56, Section 2, p. 18.
 Hardial Bains, Usher in the First Year of the Last Quarter of the Glorious Twentieth Century, Norman Bethune Institute, 1975, p. 28.
 The Ninth National Congress of the Communist Party.of China (Documents), Foreign Languages Press, Peking, 1969, pp. 83-84.
 The Ninth National Congress of the Communist Party of China (Documents), Foreign Languages Press, Peking, 1969, p. 80.
 The Ninth National Congress of the Communist Party of China (Documents), Foreign Languages Press, Peking, 1969, pp. 88:
 “Towards the Party”, Progressive Worker, Vol.5, No. 7-8, p.21.
 “Opportunist Machinations of a Newspaper Named En Lutte!”, Mass Line, Vol. 6 & 7, No. 56, Section 2, p. 1.
 Editorial Departments of Hongqi (Red Flag and Renmin Ribao (People’s Daily), “A Great Historic Document”, Circular of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party (May 16, 1966), Foreign Languages Press, Peking, 1967, pp. 17-18.
 Enver Hoxha, Speech Delivered on October 3,1974, at the Meeting of Electors of the No. 209 Precinct in Tirana, Norman Bethune Institute, 1974, p. 18.
 “Anniversary of C.P. of China”, Progressive Worker, Vol. 2, No. 10, August 1966, p. 11.
 “People of ’ China Support the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution”, Progressive Worker, Vol. 3, No.5, March 1967, p. 18.
 Israel Epstein, “China’s Mass Democracy”, Progressive Worker, Vol. 3, No. 8, June 1967, p. 16.
 “Communist Party of China 46 Years”, Progressive Worker, Vol. 3, No. 10, August 1967, p. 22.
 Progressive Worker, Vol. 3, No. 9, July 1967.
 Editorial Departments of Honggi (Red Flag) and Renmin Ribao (People’s Daily), “A Great Historic Document”, Circular of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (May 16, 1966), Foreign Languages Press; Peking, 1967, p. 15.
 “On the Question of Liu Shao-chi”, Progressive Worker, Vol. 4. No. 5, March 1968, pp. 21-22.
 Jack Scott, Two Roads: The origins of the Sino-Soviet dispute, New Star Press, Vancouver, 1974, p. 22.
 Enver Hoxha, Speech Delivered on October 3,1974, at the Meeting of Electors of the No. 209 Precinct in Tirana, Norman Bethune Institute, 1974, p. 18.
 “The International”, Progressive Worker, Vol.5, No. 3-4, January-February 1969, p. 15.
 “Constitution of the Communist Party of China”, The Tenth National Congress of the Communist Party of China (Documents), Foreign Languages Press, Peking, 1973, p. 63.
 Workers Unity, “Imperialism and Canadian Political Economy, part 2”, Canadian Revolution, Vol. 1, No. 2, August-September 1975, p. 32.
 The History of the Party of Labor of Albania, The Naim Frasheri Publishing House, Tirana, 1971, pp. 245-246.
 “50 Years After”, Progressive Worker, Vol.4, No.3, January 1968, pp. 6-7.
 Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, Letter of Reply dated March 22, 1966 of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Foreign Languages Press, Peking, 1966, p. 2.
 Chou En-lai,“Report to the Tenth National Congress of the Communist Party of China”, The Tenth National Congress of the Communist Party of China (Documents), Foreign Languages Press, Peking, 1973, p. 25.
 En Lutte!, Vol. 1, No. 29, December 12, 1974.
 En Lutte!,“Letter”(June 1975, Canadian Revolution, Vol. 1, No. 2, August-September 1975, p. 57.