We came here today in a spirit of unity – unity around the only correct line of the international communist movement. An international leadership exists in the world today, a Marxist-Leninist leadership which all authentic Marxist-Leninists must follow in order to establish the only correct line (Marxist-Leninist) which can orient the struggle for socialism in our own country. We came here with great optimism concerning IN STRUGGLE! because IN STRUGGLE! seemed closer to the correct line on the international situation. IN STRUGGLE! had not rejected the three worlds theory totally, but it had rejected it as a strategic concept, and it had constantly criticized the Red Star Collective and the League for their social-chauvinism.
Moreover, IN STRUGGLE! had published in its paper, documents which are of a great importance in the international communist movement i.e. the editorial of Zeri i Popullit, the document of the KPD(ML) which points out that the three worlds theory was not put forward by President Mao, and the document of the Communist Party of Spain (ML) which defends the principle of the equality of Communist Parties. We knew that IN STRUGGLE!’s position was not completely identical to the correct line, that there was still a lot of confusion and inconsistencies in their position, but we were careful to point out every time we spoke that IN STRUGGLE! could correct its mistakes and put an end to the confusion which continues to exist in its ranks. We were confident that the cadres within the ranks of IN STRUGGLE! would support the line re-corroborated by Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin and faithfully and consistently applied by the comrade Mao and by the comrade Hoxha. We were confident that the cadres with in the ranks of IN STRUGGLE! would recognize the correctness of the position of the PLA and force the leadership of IN STRUGGLE! to put an end to its confusion and firmly support the correct line on the international situation. Even in the prepared speeches, IN STRUGGLE! had mainly criticized the anti-Marxist positions of the RSC and of the League which it proved to be social-chauvinist. In fact, we were more confident concerning IN STRUGGLE! than we had ever been since the time that IN STRUGGLE! put an end to our debates on unity, one and a half year ago. At this conference, precisely the opposite happened. In each workshop, IN STRUGGLE! had nothing good to say concerning Bolshevik Union. In each workshop, IN STRUGGLE! painted a completely black picture of us without leaving us any possibility of salvation. There were no constructive remarks concerning the frank and open rectification of our past errors, they had nothing good to say concerning our support of the general line of the international communist movement which opposes all forms of social-chauvinism. There was not much support for the general line of the PLA nor for the international leadership which the PLA is giving the international communist movement at the present time. The remarks on this question were very vague and very brief. Even in their prepared declaration, (and even in today’s speech) IN STRUGGLE! gave the impression that it was the criticism of several comrades of their group which brought about the change of position and not the great international leadership.
The League attacked IN STRUGGLE! in its newspaper for having attacked socialist China. We defended IN STRUGGLE! in our speech. But at this conference the cadres of IN STRUGGLE! continued to throw out accusations and slander concerning the Bolshevik Union. This diversionary action can only lead to a split in the international movement and to camouflaging the truly burning questions which face us. In relation to this we would like to point out that we firmly and unconditionally support socialist China.
Bolshevik Union has never attacked a socialist country. We are here at this conference to discuss the general line of the international communist movement and its application to Canada. Contrary to what several speakers have said, we have not dogmatically copied the general line. On the contrary, Bolshevik Union has done a lot of concrete analysis on the proletarian revolution in Canada, including the principal contradiction and the Native peoples question. In the workshop on Canada we intervened at length and liked the two (that is, the general line and the principal contradiction). In fact, it is completely ridiculous to say that the Bolshevik Union does not apply the general line to the concrete conditions in Canada.
There is an historic place for the role IN STRUGGLE! has played at this conference. The Second-and-a-Half International the yellow international, which Kautsky belonged to, accused the real communists of being lackies of Moscow. The social-chauvinists wanted to maintain not their equality but their independence vis-a-vis the only correct line for the international communist movement. This wasn’t communism but petty-bourgeois nationalism. Historically, Lenin and Stalin exposed the centrism on the Second-and-a-Half Yellow International as a cover to serve the right, and sap the proletarian revolution. It is because IN STRUGGLE! does not understand the necessity of uniting around the one sole correct line that it is attacking us as splittist. It is because IN STRUGGLE! wants to build a social-democratic party with several lines that it attacks us for having demarcated from the three worlds theory. This is the second conference where a cadre from IN STRUGGLE! suggests at the plenary that we shouldn’t be invited to these conferences. So who indeed is being splittist at this conference? Who is demarcating from a group by practicing splittism, when Bolshevik Union has always demarcated on the basis of political line, and demarcates from an erroneous line. It’s clear that IN STRUGGLE! sees in us a more serious enemy than RSC which has completely social-chauvinist positions in addition to an anti-communist history. I am referring to Jack Scott’s open attack against the Bolshevik Revolution in his book “Two Roads”, their open attacks against Stalin and the Comintern in their positions, their open and gratuitous attacks against socialist Albania, the type of thing that Bolshevik Union has never done. Many people have attacked us yesterday and today for dividing the movement and attacking socialist China. This is false. But nobody in all the workshops has attacked the RSC nor the Vancouver Red Collective for their open attacks against the PLA. What does this mean in terms of the political priorities of those who claim to favour the unity of the international communist movement? It shows the essential nature of centrism. Comrades, it isn’t centrism which can defeat social-chauvinism. We can only break with social-chauvinism through a resolute struggle against the revisionist three worlds theory and by unreservedly grasping the general line of the international communist movement as elaborated by Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin and faithfully and consistently defended and applied by the comrade Mao and the comrade Hoxha. I would like to finish with a “boring” quotation.
Every Bolshevik, if he is a true Bolshevik, knows that Lenin, long before the war, approximately from 1903 to 1904, when the Bolshevik groups were formed in Russia, and when the leftist appeared in German social-democracy pursued the line of splitting with and separating from the opportunists. Even in our country in the social democratic party of Russia as well as over there at the Second International particularly in the German social-democracy. Every Bolshevik knows that it was for this reason that the Bolsheviks gained amongst the ranks of the opportunists of the Second International the glorious fame as splitters and disorganizes as early as 1903 to 1905. (Stalin)