Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line

Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist)

On Unity of Marxist-Leninists

On Revolutionary Style

PCDN/OTL Editorial Part One

PCDN/OTL received a letter from a student of UQAM who did not identify himself/herself and did not present any information as to how the person can be contacted. This letter (see the text produced on this page) accuses us of all sorts of things that everyone knows that MREQ and other such organisations are guilty of. At the end of the letter is written: “There was an attempt made to dissuade me from writing you on the basis that you would not be more open to a letter like this one than you are to the criticisms of no matter who else. I hope this is not the case. Too bad!”.

Now who was trying to “dissuade” the student “from writing... on the basis that” we “would not be more open to a letter like this one than ... are to the criticisms of no matter who else”? We already know who is attempting to dissuade the student. It is not important to identify an individual or an organisation at this time but it is important to expose the style which is responsible for this. We have ample experience of this style.

First of all, it is the style of petty bourgeois revolutionaries who accuse others of doing things for which they themselves are responsible. For example, it is the petty bourgeois revolutionaries who are most underhanded, petty-minded, rumour mongering and incapable of waging struggle on a principled basis. It is this petty bourgeois revolutionism which is attempting to dissuade the student from writing to us. As is well-known to everyone, our Party does not have the style of cliques and communal formations but, on the contrary, we have a revolutionary style of work. In terms of dealing with other Marxist-Leninists and revolutionaries, the revolutionary style has to be based on what Chairman Mao concentrated into one sentence: “PRACTICE MARXISM, AND NOT REVISIONISM; UNITE, AND DON’T SPLIT; BE OPEN AND ABOVEBOARD, AND DON’T INTRIGUE AND CONSPIRE.”

This quotation of Chairman Mao came to our attention when vicious intrigues and conspiracies were being hatched against the Party in December, 1971 and our Party was engaged in opposing these tooth and nail. It is important to analyse the events, which took place between July and December of 1971. During this period, a disruption of Party work was engineered by various individuals who were on the fringes of the Party with active support from an individual whom we characterized as the chieftain of the “Left”-sloganeering front of Khruschevite revisionism. These disruptors seized control of the Party bookshop on Amherst Street through a legal manoeuvre, launched a gutter-campaign amongst the backward elements of the revolutionary movement and attempted to cause splits and divisions in all the left-wing groups in Montreal.

What attitude did the Party take towards these disruptors? Our attitude was two-fold: 1. Open opposition and contempt for this attitude of the disruptors and 2. A patient attitude to persuade as many individuals who could be persuaded to refrain from this reckless path. In this attitude of our Party, the disruptors found extreme justness and were incapable of refuting it and labelling it anti-Marxist-Leninist or non-Marxist-Leninist. But, at the same time, the ring-leaders had already made up their minds to carry on with their disruption of the revolutionary movement in Montreal. We persisted in persuasion on the basis of total opposition to intrigues and conspiracies etc. to which these individuals responded that the Party is “begging” and considered our just position as a sign of our “weakness”. The Party upheld the correct line of unity of all Marxist-Leninists but at the same time did not capitulate to opportunism, whilst those who opposed the Party, upheld the unity of all opportunists and waved the tattered flag of disunity and disruption of the Marxist-Leninists. But history has its own verdict: those who attempt to ruin others end up ruining themselves!

The quotation of Chairman Mao mentioned above was published in Peking Review, December, 1971 and our comrades took this quotation to the disruptors and hoped that they would at least listen to the international authority on this question. But to no avail! These individuals had already established cliques to split, divide and dismember the revolutionary movement and the Marxist-Leninists. For the information of our young student, these individuals were extremely underhanded, peddled a revisionist line and gave birth to several splittist organisations. To be precise, they split the Afro-Asian Latin American People’s Solidarity Movement and established the Afro-Asian Latin American People’s Solidarity Committee on January 11, 1972 (in public) having already established its core group in the month of November, 1971 (in private, and as a conspiracy of a group of intriguers). Secondly, they split the Mouvement Etudiente Quebecoise by appealing to the individuals on the fringes of this organisation and gave birth to Mouvement Revolutionaire Etudiente Quebecoise. Furthermore, they picked up some individuals from the fringes of CPC(M-L) in Montreal and declared the formation of Mouvement Revolutionaire Ouvrier. Finally, they split the organisations of Indians, Iranians and Africans, just to name a few. They blocked the work in the Italian community by seizing control of MPIQ. A number of these organisations became defunct shortly after their founding, a number became defunct later, one or two existed in name only for some time, and there are one or two in existence at this time which are falsely giving the appearance of “moving forward”, “expanding” etc.

Did any of these organisations wage a principled campaign on the basis of theoretical, political and organisational lines within the existing organisations before they split or outside the organisations after they split? None of them did so! They all participated in gutter politics and put their lot in rumour, gossip and slander. Why did they not carry on a principled campaign on the important theoretical, political and organisational questions facing the movement? The reason they dared not do so is because they were opportunists and there was as much communism and Marxism-Leninism in them as you may find in Richard Nixon or Mr. Caouette.

What attitude did the Party take towards this? Consolidation of theoretical, political and organisational positions of the Party, overcoming the weak points and strengthening the strong points and repeatedly launching campaigns amongst the masses in order to establish the Party in the masses. The weakness or negative aspect of the Party’s work was well isolated by Comrade Bains who pointed out that certain of our errors in theoretical and political lines lie in lack of scientific analysis or on account of guess work and that we should overcome this. Furthermore, he launched repeated campaigns to, investigate the actual conditions in Canada and study the Marxist-Leninist classics from fall of 1971 onwards. The central Committee of the Party decided to launch a nation-wide campaign of study and investigation in August, 1973 which created ample material conditions for the theoretical work which the Party is undertaking vigorously at this time.

What attitude did the Party take towards the splitters and disruptors? It opposed their erroneous lines publicly (wherever they expressed these in public) and privately (wherever they kept them in private). For example, Afro-Asian comrades from the Afro-Asian Latin American People’s Solidarity Movement launched a campaign against the revisionist theory that “War and negotiations form the dialectical unity of opposites” pushed by those who later split and founded the Afro-Asian Latin American People’s Solidarity Committee. There were several other points on which the struggle was launched, for example, the line of “broadening the base” as a device for capitulating to opportunism and then adopting opportunism or pursuing the line of “federalism” in party building or the theories of “human relations”, “freedom of criticism”, “critical approach to Marxism” etc. etc. In all these struggles, the Party followed the line of opposing opportunism, at the same time, launched campaigns to unite all those who can be united, including those who made serious mistakes in the past. This correct policy of the Party gave birth to the tremendous trend of unity amongst the Marxist-Leninists. We feel quite strongly that the events of July to December, 1971 must be analysed and understood in order to know what was going on in Montreal at that time. Only then will the readers find out who is dissuading the student from writing to the Party. It has been and it still is the practice of opportunists of all hues that they forbid their members and supporters to have discussions with Party members, forbid them to read Party literature and then float rumours and gossips as a substitute to the Party’s analysis. An example can be cited here. On February 14, 1975 in Toronto one individual asked Comrade Bains in a public meeting on the general topic CHINA, THE SUPERPOWERS AND THE THREAT OF WAR, why the Party considers students to be the “vanguard” of revolution. Now nowhere in the documents of the Party is it written that the students are the vanguard of revolution. Where did this individual dish up such nonsense from? Many other similar slanders are spread against the Party by the opportunists.

The Party’s attitude towards criticism is not one of hostility and violent denunciation but one of listening to it and making changes in accordance with the material conditions. For example, for a long time the Party has been criticized for not having many workers in it. The Party has always paid attention to that criticism in this manner: First, we do consider the weakness of :he Party in terms of its influence in opposition to opportunism in the trade union and workers’ movement. But we have always opposed the tendency to convert the question of opposing opportunism into one of whether or not there are “workers in the Party” or what is commonly known of these days as “implantation”. We hold that this sort of criticism is erroneous and that of course we do not have workers in the Party because our Party is a COMMUNIST PARTY, which has communists in it, that is those workers (and people from other class backgrounds) who have taken up the cause of communism and have ceased to be workers, students, etc. They have become communists! So you see our attitude towards criticism is one of accepting the correct criticism, rectifying ourselves on that basis and rejecting the incorrect criticism. Another example can be given whereby we used a wrong style in criticising an individual outside our organisation. The Party comrades responsible for this criticised themselves inside the Party and rectified themselves while waiting for the material conditions to mature when this self-criticism was offered to the individual concerned. Our Party is not afraid of criticism. We welcome it. We examine its negative and positive aspects and we adopt the positive aspects while we discard the negative aspects. It is a struggle and it is ongoing. We follow the line unity-criticism-self-criticism-transformation. This has been our style since we reorganised The Internationalists in Montreal in 1968 and this remains our style.

Now those individuals who were dissuading the student from writing are the ones who are afraid of criticism and are the ones who do not respond to positive criticism. At this time, when the influence of Marxism-Leninism and the Party is broadening and deepening, there are individuals who have become desperate and panic-stricken and again they have raised their tattered banner of splittism. We are convinced that they will be defeated again and rejected by the mass movement. Whether it takes six months or six years, this sort of line which they are pushing is moribund and will never have any currency in the mass movement. They are always going to end up in a blind alley as long as they follow that line.

There are two negative lines these individuals are spreading, opportunism on the organisational front and opportunism on the theoretical and political front. Opportunism on the organisational front leads them to oppose the building of the Party on a democratic centralist basis while permitting every student, “striker” and professor to sneak into the organisation. On the questions of theory and political line, they, on one hand use differences to split the mass movement while, on the other hand, compromise and capitulate to every revision and distortion of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought and the Marxist-Leninist political line.

Now let us take up some of the points the student raised in the letter. The student writes: “Today I have been reading your newspaper dated January 76, 1975 and I find many ambiguous things in in it.” The January 16th issue of PCDN (number 14) contains an article entitled MREQ’s Attitude Towards Nationalisation. The student is referring to this article and has found “many ambiguous things in it”. But the student never mentioned what these “ambiguous things” are. It would have been good if the student had enumerated some, or at least one, of these. In our struggle against opportunism, we have always come up against this sort of line. Those who are pursuing an opportunist line use this method as a diversionary device so that they do not have to give their views on the central question – was the criticism correct or not, in the main, and what other improvements can be made to make it more correct. The student is also suffering from the same malaise. Instead of dealing with the content of the article and giving judgement on whether or not the line is correct or incorrect, the assertion is made that there are “many ambiguous things in it”. This sort of criticism is not constructive or positive and has to be rejected. PCDN/OTL rejects this criticism as there is nothing one can learn from it.

The student further writes: “You thoroughly criticise MREQ!” This assertion is also untrue and cannot be accepted. We are replying to the criticism by MREQ and are defending ourselves against their erroneous and unwarranted attack on us, which appeared in the November-December issue of their newspaper. The student goes on: “But it seems to me that you are exaggerating.” Again the student fails to give examples of what we have exaggerated and instead hurls an extremely uninvestigated and unjust charge at us: “In reading your newspaper (as well as preceding ones) one is led to believe that you alone are following the correct line, you alone are well-intentioned; you alone really take care of worker’s interests...; and all other groups (except MEQ) are in the service of capitalism and want the disorganisation of the workers, treacherously attack the real militants (that is, yourselves) with the express aim of seizing control of the working class,... and more.” This entire moralistic and platitudinous remark is merely a diversion and a subterfuge. We are quite sure that MEQ comrades must be quite puzzled as to what gave this student the impression that the Party considers MEQ as the only correct organisation. The issue is not whether or not we are correct or somebody else is correct on the basis of moral judgements and eternal principles. Instead, the issue is what is the correct line on Nationalisation (the issue raised in PCDN No. 14) and how do we apply it to the concrete conditions prevailing in the agitation at United Aircraft. This is the central issue! MREQ should have done investigation on this question (which should have also included what CPC(M-L)’s line is on the question) and then denounced us as “social democrats” and “revisionists” etc. Furthermore, our Party does not pursue the line that first we have to be correct on all issues and then unite. Our Party’s line is this: Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought is the correct theoretical foundation for a Communist Party and it must be always applied as a guide to action in building such a Party. We have always opposed the Neo-Kantian Agnostic line of “clear and unambiguous principles” as there is no such thing as “clear and unambiguous principles”. Instead there is a class line on every issue and one has to scientifically investigate what should be the correct tactical and strategic positions on definite alignments of class forces at a particular time and how to apply these in order to change the situation. We are not dogmatists nor are we sectarians even though there have been certain individuals within the organisation in the past, as there still are, who are dogmatic and sectarian and do follow incorrect lines on these questions. They also believe that reality is unknowable, alignment of class forces on important questions is confusing and that what they need to have is “clear and unambiguous” lines. These’ individuals have done damage to the Party in the past (and are doing so at this time) but their line is consistent with the opportunists outside and not with Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought which is the theoretical foundation of the Party.

To restate, the issue is to have understanding of the class alignment of forces (tactically and in the strategic sense) and to take a postion on that basis. The world goes through change, development and motion all the time and class struggle is the motive force of this. Even though an era (like our era which is the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution) maintains its basic features and characteristics and no changes take place on that front until that era is ended through revolutionary transformation, it is erroneous to suggest that tactically, on a short range basis, this era does not reflect very definite features to which everyone must respond. If this is the case then the entire theory of “clear and unambiguous” lines is wrong. What has to be taken into consideration is that all Marxist-Leninists must keep their feet on the ground, look downwards, carry forth actual investigations in the light of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought and carry forth the line which serves the struggle against U.S. imperialism and the Canadian monopoly capitalist system itself. This is the way the Party operates. We do not ask, as a precondition for unity, an agreement on a document or the self-cultivation of various individuals so that their line becomes the same as ours. Instead, we base our unity on the material conditions, the needs and demands of the revolutionary movement and then unite on certain issues while keeping our differences on the others.

In the 1960’s when The Internationalists first organised themselves (1963 on and then re-organised themselves – 1968 on), there were various intellectual windbags who tried to push the erroneous lines that revolutionary organisations can be established by just having a line from the air, in the air and needing no revolutionary organisation. They wanted to have their Marxism in the abstract while they fought to maintain their liberalism in practice. They abhored revolutionary discipline and opposed coming under the discipline of the organisation. They hated the mass democratic method of dealing with problems in the organisation and they would neither take up the task of participating in arriving at the correct line for the organisation nor would they participate in implementing it. We waged an irreconcilable struggle against them. We still wage irreconcilable struggle against this opportunist line on the question of organisation inside the Party. We still demand that the communists must be organisers of revolution and soldiers of the Party and not bourgeois individualists and intellectual windbags. We wage struggle all the time to build the Party on the basis of the democratic centralist organisational principle and revolutionary style.

We believe that just as the world undergoes change, development and motion, in the same way individuals undergo change, development and motion. Those who were opposed to us yesterday and could not grasp our line are our comrades and friends today because their own experience has led them to believe that the Party’s style of work, its political line and organisational principle are, in the main, correct. While others who were most ultra-left in terms of the Party and were the greatest “patriots” of the Party and most “loyal” yesterday, are the worst enemies of the Party today. So what does this all prove? It proves that,the Party has an historical materialist approach and dialectical method and is opposed to the idealist approach and the metaphysical, a priori method. Certain individuals accuse us of learning from revolutionary experience and also reproach us for having faith in the Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy. We tell them that we will never deviate from this correct line. We have resolute faith in the correctness of our own political line and in the solidity of our own organisation. But this does not mean that we are all puffed up with our own correctness and that we are opposed to learning trom others. On the contrary, we wage systematic and regular campaigns to learn from others and unite with others to advance the cause of the social revolution of the proletariat. This student must be aware that it is MREQ which is all puffed up about being “most correct” and it is they who issued calls to divide the mass movement on the basis of “ideological struggle”. We did no such thing! It is MREQ which is the splitter and is opposed to the Marxist-Leninists sitting together and dealing with their differences. We have always maintained that the line of being “most correct” is actually a confession that the organisation or individual has become moribund and incapable of further change, development and motion. In short, the pursuit of “clear and unambiguous principles” and the pursuit of wanting to be “most correct” is the pursuit of saints and divine characters and is the pursuit of eternal principles. We are merely humble mortals. Our line is the line of waging concrete class struggle against our common enemies and not one of seeking idle fame or Utopian systems.

The student goes onto another tangent (instead of presenting a view on the content of the political line) and writes “It is very deceiving, and depressing for all those who read your newspaper (expecting to find something positive) to find nothing but disparaging remarks, play on words and large scale attacks on the work of other groups, which, I am certain, do not have bad intentions, nor a desire for power, nor....” We ask the student why is it “very deceiving, and depressing for all those who read (our) newspaper (expecting to find something positive) to find nothing but disparaging remarks, play(s) on words and large scale attacks on the work of other groups, which I am certain, do not have bad intentions, nor a desire for power, nor....”? First of all, it “is very deceiving, and depressing” only to those people who read our newspaper to find some linguistic errors in it or some secondary and tertiary mistakes in our political line. It is “very deceiving” indeed, because these individuals have been telling lies for a long time that the “Party has no political line” etc. When the line comes up in black and white, then of course it is “very deceiving” These individuals are past masters in trickery and when their tricks are caught then they run around crying thief!! Further, it is also “depressing” for these individuals to find that the Party does base itself on Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought and does attempt to apply this to the concrete conditions of Canada. As far as the vast majority of our readers are concerned, they are highly elated at our principled position on nationalisation and various other questions. They highly applaud the work of the Party on this front. As far as the ignorant assertion that “those who read your newspaper (expecting to find something positive) to find nothing”, you should read certain issues of En Lutte! (which has no formal connection with the Party what-so-ever). They changed their line on the student movement after we responded to their criticism of us (even though they have not acknowledged it) and they carry a similiar line to ours on the question of nationalisation. This fact shows that the student is pursuing the erroneous line of being blind to the Party’s work as well as committed to an erroneous position of “other groups” with the same blind faith. He uses a microscope to find faults in us and a telescope to view the positive points (either way the student has only found darkness) while using a telescope to overlook the negative lines of the other groups and a microscope to exaggerate some positive points which are extremely hard to find. The student says that he “is certain” that the “work of other groups... do not have bad intentions”. How does he know that this is the case? The only way he can be sure is if he ignores the social practice of other groups altogether. For example, when the Party advanced the call for unity of Marxists-Leninists all over again in the Spring of 1974, these “other groups” ran hither and thither advancing the call for disunity of the Marxist-Leninists. In their enthusiasm to divide the Marxists-Leninists, they dished out some unwarranted attacks on the Party in order to develop a “theoretical basis” for splitting. Is this what you call “the work of other groups” which do not “have bad intentions”? You claim that these groups have no “desire for power” but everywhere they go whoever does not submit to their arbitrary baton, they turf them out of that alliance to the extent that they have openly called for the split of the revolutionary movement in Montreal and other places and are actually working hard to bring it about. Is this the proof that they have no “desire for power”? Finally these groups are running wild seeking “revenge” from the Party because the Party defended itself from their spurious attacks. Is this a sign of the good “intention” of their work? PCDN/OTL sincerely proposes to this student that all the assertions being made in the letter we received should be based on analysis of social practice and that if the student is seriously trying to find out what is really going on then the student has the responsibility to undertake concrete investigation.

The student further makes these erroneous and unfounded assertions:
– “It is surely a loss of time”
– “It must have a negative effect on the occasional readers”
– “or on those who are beginning to become interested in politics”.

We can assure the student that, on the contrary, as a result of our presentation of our views on various important questions, a significant number of “the occasional readers” are turning into regular readers and a lot of “those who are beginning to become interested in politics” have already started appredating the content of the PCDN/OTL. Far from considering it “loss of time”, we know that all across Canada PCDN/OTL is much sought after and a significant number of individuals on the general left read our newspaper as well. It “surely” is “loss of time” for opportunist elements to read their own self-exposure and it is they who hope that “occasional readers” and “those who are beginning to become interested in politics” should get a “negative effect”.

The student further asserts his erroneous view that our pursuit is to “make it look as if everyone is bad, except oneself....” which is a further distortion of the real world. An attempt is being made to slander the Party as “social democrat” and “revisionist” and it is against this slander that the Party defended itself by writing the articles. While it is the pursuit of other groups to paint us all black, CPC(M-L) does not adopt this attitude to other groups, but rather, makes distinctions on the basis of social practice.

The student says: “Criticism is, to be sure, good in itself if it is positive, if it genuinely brings about an exchange of ideas, and if one accepts to see the two sides of the coin.” We agree with the student on the first portion of this statement. So we ask the student: Was the criticism by MREQ of the Party positive? The student should read their criticism of the Party and their wild distortions. After reading this if the student really believes in what is written in the letter, then he will find that the criticism by MREQ is negative and has a sinister motive behind it. MREQ has the mission of opposing the Party by hook or by crook and for this reason they go out of their way to concoct lies in order, to slander the Party. On the contrary, the Party did provide positive criticism of their erroneous lines and the student will do himself a favour by reading all the parts (not just the one he claims to have read) of the article including our articles repudiating the MREQ line on students and MREQ’s erroneous analysis of the contradictions in Canada.

We do not agree with the second portion of the statement, which is that one should “accept to see the two sides of the coin”. We do not agree with this because the issue is whether or not MREQ launched an erroneous attack on the Party and whether or not they have a sinister motive to slander the Party. To suggest that slander has a “positive” side to it is altogether wrong. We believe in looking into the problem in an all-sided way and we do so. Our articles on MREQ are concrete proof of this method.

The student wrongly asserts that our concrete opposition to MREQ’s line “ play(s) on words” etc. And this is altogether wrong. The student should pay attention to the line of the Party and of MREQ on nationalisation and then make a decision as to which line is correct and will serve the United Aircraft workers’ struggle and which line is wrong.

Further the student accuses us of being what MREQ is. It is MREQ which looks at everything from the point of view of “rivalry”. This organisation came into being as a result of rivalry. Its entire politics is one of rivalry and it maintains the stand of rivalry as a device to split the Marxist-Leninists, divide the revolutionary movement and liquidate revolution. The line of rivalry is MREQ’s body and soul and it is for this reason that MREQ is jumping like ants on a hot pan ever since the Party defended itself against their vicious attack.

The student writes: “These last days, the newspaper has criticised a lot, but has hardly at all spoken of the working class struggles taking place in Quebec; nor of the possible unification that the various groups are trying to bring about.” With total commitment to find fault with the Party and not with MREQ, the student concocts the criteria for deciding whether someone is “good” or “bad”! Here is the equation: “good” equals those who speak “of the working class struggles” and “bad” equals those who do not; “good” equals those who speak of “the possible unification that the various progressive groups are trying to bring about” and “bad” equals those who do not. Great matters of principle!!! The readers can see how desperate this student is and how much the student wishes to defend MREQ and attack the Party. But it does not work! The Party considers theoretical questions of paramount importance at this time and is raising those. At the same time, the Party is in the thick of many struggles. Furthermore, the “possible unification” of Marxist-Leninists, which the student is talking about, is a desperate attempt to split the Marxist-Leninists. PCDN/OTL has carried several articles on this question of “unification” and our articles are designed ,to,create conditions against the splitting and for real unity. The student has released this balloon about the Party carrying out these nasty things but the balloon contains foul air and it keeps coming back down despite innumerable efforts to keep it afloat.

In the last paragraph, the student simply goes beserk with subjective idealist rage. Incapable of dealing with the facts of life, the student cries out in pain: “Really, if I am writing you, it is because I find that shocking, stupid.” Is the student also finding “shocking” and “stupid” the activities of MREQ for being splittist, for unjustly attacking CPC(M-L) and for its utter petti-mindedness? No! The student is finding it “shocking” and “stupid” for the Party to oppose the splitting activities of MREQ! We offer the friendly advice to this student that it will be a contribution to the revolutionary movement in Quebec if the student forces MREQ to give up its splittism, rank opportunism and divisive activity in the revolutionary movement. Our Party never attacks these people but once it is attacked it counter-attacks. MREQ has given itself the right to issue slanders and launch attacks against us and then throw a temper-tantrum, when their flimsy attempt is countered with a vigorous rebuff. It is extremely important for all Marxist-Leninists to understand that MREQ came out of a split and has always engaged in splittist activities. Some of those individuals and organisations which came out of the July-December 1971 intrigue and conspiracy are the very ones (plus some others) who have taken up the infamous task of splitting the Marxist-Leninists and dividing the revolutionary movement at this time.

In the course of building the Provisional United Front, we have come across comments from groups outside the Party that there is a sinister move on the part of certain individuals and organisations to split the Marxist-Leninists and divide the mass movement. Many individuals and groups are pondering what is the reason behind this? Some have already come to the conclusion that it is individuals like Joe Burton who must have infiltrated certain groups and whose mission is to liquidate the growing unity of the Marxist-Leninists.

PCDN/OTL makes an open appeal to all organisations and groups who call themselves revolutionary and Marxist-Leninists to become vigilant (if you have not already) about the counter-revolutionary activities of the agencies like the CIA and sow confusion and disunity, but he tailed as far as Canada is concerned. The U.S. imperialists, however, have not given up. As the economic crises worsens, imperialism becomes increasingly desperate and raises fascism against the people. Destruction of Marxist-Leninist organisations is one of the aspects of preparing conditions for unleashing fascism on the people. We propose to all organisations and groups that they should undertake talks with one another and find out which line is responsible for causing splits and divisions in the revolutionary mass movement and who is promoting this line. They should isolate the splittists to the maximum and oppose their counterrevolutionary activities. It is very important to understand that without opposing the forces which cause disunity, there can be no unity. And those who are enflaming the young enthusiasts with the ideas of “revenge seeking” or launching attacks in order to discredit other organisations must be opposed. If all revolutionary organisations and individuals do not take action in time, then when the enemy launches open fascist attacks the people will have no organisations to fight fascism with and it will be no one else but ourselves who will have to take the blame for this disaster.

To those who split the organisations in July-Dec, 1971, PCDN/OTL issues a timely warning: do not underestimate the strength of the revolutionary forces and do not entertain the false ideas for a moment that you will succeed in your nefarious activities once again. The times have changed! In July-December, 1971, we were not conscious ot the extent of your conspiracy and intrigue and you had a temporary “victory“. But, at this time, it is you who are not aware of the extent of the influence of the Party and its allies while we have eyes and ears right in your midst. Watch out because if you desire a trial of strength, we will give it to you! We are not for splits and we do not support revolutionary groups fighting with one another. But, if you impose this fight on us and attempt to make revolutionary groups fight with one another, we will certainly take up this challenge and wipe out this bankrupt line of yours once and for all!

As far as honest revolutionaries and ordinary people in various organisations are concerned, we reiterate our stand once again: the Party does not seek hegemony over any one of you. The Party fights for unity of the Marxist-Leninists and of the revolutionary forces in order to wage a determined struggle against the common enemy. No revolutionary group big or small, has anything to fear from us. We will never seek hegemony or take-over and we will never harm your interests in anyway. We will always be your allies and we will always stretch out our hand of fraternal cooperation and friendship.

(This article first appeared in People’s Canada Daily News/On The Line Vol. 5, No. 42. February 18, 1975)