Comrades and friends,
We welcome the convening of this Second Conference of Marxist-Leninists. This Conference represents another step forward for the Marxist-Leninist movement. Here, the whole of the movement from across Canada can present their political line on the strategy for revolution.
Like the First Conference on unity, this Conference promotes the intensification and concentration of the line struggle in our movement. Here, ambiguities and confusions can he challenged and cleared-up. Here, criticism, self-criticism, and sharp demarcation will occur before the masses and the whole movement, pushing forward the two-line struggle on the path of the revolution.
We have basic agreement with, the views of the comrade from May First Collective concerning the League’s boycott. Once again we call on the League to join the struggle with the Marxist-Leninist movement, not against it. Demarcate from opportunism but demarcate in order that we may unite.
Comrades and friends, we have before us the most fundamental question the Marxist Leninist movement must answer – what is the path of the revolution in our country?
While fully recognising the seriousness of this question and the need for full line debate, our group does not have a developed position. We are still engaged in studying, debating, and testing our views. We have come to the conference to put forward the view that we have developed, and to have it criticised. Further, on the basis of our investigation, we have certain criticisms to male of other positions.
Comrades, as Marxist-Leninists our analysis of history and concrete conditions is undertaken with only one question in mind – how do we make proletarian revolution?
Politics is the crystalized expression of the determinate economic relations and forces of production. In monopoly capitalist society, the proletariat is oppressed and exploited by the bourgeoisie organized in the state. To male revolution, and free all humanity m the process, the proletariat must seize this state power from the hands of the ruling class.
Our position is that Canada is an advanced monopoly capitalist and imperialist country. The fundamental contradiction in our country opposes the proletariat to the bourgeoisie. State power is held and exercised by the Canadian monopoly bourgeoisie. As well, investigation of the concrete economic and political conditions shows that US imperialism is an obstacle of the proletarian revolution; it stands as the main secondary enemy of the Canadian revolution.
US imperialism plays an important role within Canada. It has massive investments here, depends on free access to our raw materials to keep its industrial and military machine running, and is a major exploiter of the Canadian proletariat. US imperialism will certainly aid the Canadian bourgeoisie in their attempt to crush proletarian revolution, even up to armed intervention in defense of the counter-revolution. Further, this imperialist contradiction with the aspirations of the Canadian masses can only be reinforced as super-power contention increases, and the contradictions of capitalism intensify.
The exact relationship between these two forces has not yet been determined by the movement. In fact, this relationship is at the center of our debate.
We do not have a line to put forward on this question. We do consider that In Struggle! in Proletarian Unity No. 3 has given leadership in the struggle to determine our strategic line. Though the analysis is primitive, and contains weaknesses, In Struggle! has applied in a generally correct manner Marxist-Leninist political and economic scientific theory to the historical development of the concrete conditions of our country. Basing themselves on class struggle, they have put forward their analysis for debate in the movement. From this correct approach to demarcation struggle, the correct path of the revolution can develop.
The League does not give correct leadership. It has collected the general history teachings of Marxism-Leninism and reproduced them. From this they state that if a class analysis was done, these conclusions would he reached. This is to stand the process on its head. We must apply the scientific theory to the concrete conditions to determine the correct path of the revolution. In the year and half since their first statement, they have failed completely to take up this task.
The RSC, while making a contribution with their extensive economic analysis, have failed to analyze the political expression of class struggle and contradictions. They present a one-sided analysis. Without this essential element, they cannot correctly chart the path of revolution.
A correct analysis of the concrete conditions in Canada must take into account the unique and contorted development of Canadian monopoly capitalism and the state as determined by the historical nexus of the North Atlantic triangle of Canada, Britain and the US. A triangle which is certainly not equilateral. This is a central aspect of our investigation. We require further study and debate to determine the effects of this on the contradictions in Canada and the path of revolution.
We must state our disagreement with the method IS! followed in its rectification of its confused characterization of the path of the revolution that they held from 1974 to Dec. 1976. Mere notification, without analysis, was presented on the Second Congress report. Immediate explication, amplification and self-criticism were required. Yet the Marxist-Leninist movement and the masses had to wait two and half months. This goes against their own correct method of struggle. The whole movement benefits from the exposure of the struggle against errors.
Comrades and friends, we believe that two erroneous positions are currently held in the ML movement of the path of the revolution. These positions are what we feel to be an economist and right opportunist line on the path to revolution by the RSC and others, and the dogmatic line of the League on the character of the enemies of the Canadian revolution and on the threat of the superpowers to Canada.
The error of the League is more understandable. It emerged as part of a generally correct demarcation against the over-estimation of US imperialism in Canada, in both the ML and progressive movements.
This “national liberation” line essentially liquidated proletarian revolution. However, a dogmatic application of the science of Marxist-Leninism is no adequate demarcation from right opportunism.
US and Soviet social imperialism form the two main enemies of the peoples of the world. These two superpowers are locked in a life and death struggle for domination over the world. Their rivalry has today brought forth the danger of a new world war. Both superpowers must be opposed. But within Canada, US imperialism is by far the dominant superpower.
The RSC line is the opposite. They over-emphasize the role of US imperialism in our revolutionary struggle. We feel that, in effect, they continue to hold the view that US imperialism is the main obstacle, and therefore the main enemy, of the proletarian revolution.
The RSC gives a bow in the direction of the correct demarcation from the ’nationalist’ line by the League and IS! by saying ’of course we all agree that it is a one-stage revolution’. They even give a one-line self-criticism, saving ’we used to hold the Canadian bourgeoisie was comprador’. They then go on to do 75 pages of essentially economic not political analysis, and arrive at the conclusion that the principal contradiction opposes the proletariat to the Canadian bourgeoisie which hold state power and US imperialism which holds essential economic power.
Comrades and friend, Marxism develops against what is anti-Marxist. The League and In Struggle! demarcated against the ’nationalist’ deviation and the right opportunism of the Progressive Workers Movement in their struggle to develop a correct analysis of the principal contradiction.
But the RSC, which has a direct line of history back to the PWM, which regroups a number of militants who continue to promote the PWM line on the strategy and tactics of the trade union struggle, does no demarcation. In the end, it only replicates in new form the old errors.
Their argument is based on some major distortions. While paying lip service to the independence of the Canadian bourgeoisie, they seek to deny it at every turn and promote the fact of over whelming US imperialist power. They seek to ignore the question of the state, and Canadian bourgeois control of it.
They deny the fundamental political demarcation of the Canadian bourgeoisie against the US through the act of Confederation.
They deny that the integration of bank and the large sector of industrial capital under Canadian control decisively constitutes Finance Capital.
They deny the importance of the political control this finance capital exercises over the state, and their use of the state to further their interests. They consciously underestimate the real strength of the Canadian bourgeoisie and state.
They deny Canadian imperialism. All they manage to prove is that Canada is not a superpower, or likely to become one. But the facts prove that Canada is imperialist. But in understanding this imperialist character, we must reference it to the contorted way the Canadian economy and state developed under first British and then US hegemonism.
Finally, let us look at the RSC line in practice. The PWM based on its “nationalism” proposed the strategic priority of struggle for Canadian trade unions; the struggle to break the deniable hold of US unions on organized Canadian workers. This line was put into practice in the promotion of the Confederation of Canadian Unions.
The vast majority of RSC cadres work in the CCU unions. In meetings and discussions with the Western Voice Collective in Sept. 1975, the CCU-based Marxist-Leninists put forward the view of principal contradiction they still hold today and said that for them it indicated the strategic nature of the task of building the CCU. Again, in the recent polemic with us around the Kitimat intervention and struggle, they stated that before the Party could fuse with the key organized sector of the working-class it would first be necessary for the CLC unions to be won over to Canadian unionism. This alone, they said, would prepare the necessary battleground on which the Party could fight for the proletarian 1ine among the workers.
To sum up: the RSC seeks to deny the strength of the Canadian monopoly capitalist and imperialist class and its existence as the main enemy of the Canadian proletariat. They spend most of their time proving US imperialist economic power.
We are unclear on the political line that comes from this analysis but we feel that it tends to elevate US imperialism to be the main obstacle, and thus the main enemy of the Canadian revolution. This is a wrong position.
Comrades and friends, we have begun the long march of the proletarian revolution. Correctly applying the Marxist-Leninist method, we will determine the path of the revolution. It is in the struggle against what is opportunist that the correct line will be demarcated. With this strategy for revolution, we are assured of victory, just as much as the wrong line assures defeat.
The dictatorship of the bourgeoisie seeks to ride forward into history on the backs of the great mass of the people, the working class; but the march of history shows that they will he trampled underfoot, as the proletariat rises up.