(The following letter to the Editorial Board of Canadian Revolution was written in response to a brief ’exchange’ between the EB + its supporters and the Guelph Workers Committee. The latter has since become part of the OCW(ML). The GWC had initially-sent a criticism to the EB, which was published in CR #3, stating that the editorial policy of the journal, since it lacked firm and definite principles, was based on an opportunist ’unity’ and therefore would only retard the movement’s development. Substantiation for this position was given in the content of the GWC’s letter. In the following issue, CR #4, the Editorial Board made no direct reply, but reprinted a series of letters from various ’comrades’ which supported the EB’s policy and made various levels of attacks against the GWC’s line. Then in CR #5, it was evident that the GWC’s criticism had struck home since the EB had ’absorbed’ the main point in the GWC’s letter and attempted to ’raise’ its basis of unity. This was done, however, under the cover of criticism aimed against the GWC for ’failing to understand’ the ’importance’ of the CR regardless of its basis of unity. We, it turned out, had failed to appreciate the journal as a “historically useful and necessary” phenomenon in our movement. But just as the ex-GWC, fresh from its permanent ’regroupement’ with the OCW(ML), began to rally for a response, it became evident that the journal, despite the assertions of its EB, might rapidly become so ’historically useless and unnecessary’ that the CR might simply disappear before our reply could be printed. For the benefit of those who had been keeping track of the polemic, and for further exposure of the CR’s role in our movement’s development, we are therefore reprinting our latest letter to the EB here.)
August 30, 1976
For Publication:
The responses to the Guelph Workers Committee’s letter from the CR Editorial Board and its supporters show that they did not understand, or refused to understand, the elementary point of principle raised. The CWG’s position was this: The movement is fragmented and backward not simply because of its youth, inexperience and dispersion but because of its general failure thus far to completely break with petty bourgeois class outlook. In order to raise the level of the movement as a whole, the starting point of all our work must be a firm grasp and concrete application of Marxist-Leninist principle. Those who put themselves into the forefront of the movement by any means have the definite responsibility of answering the questions confronting us, of drawing lines of demarcation between Marxism-Leninism and all forms of opportunism, in short, of meeting the highest standards of consistent, comprehensive Marxist-Leninist leadership. It should be self-evident that such a task presupposes and necessitates “an independent and quite definite tendency” (Lenin), that is, a scientific political line.
The Editorial Board sought to “unite genuine Marxist-Leninists throughout Canada” through a theoretical journal. However, its statement of political unity indicated that it had united, not around firm and definite Marxist-Leninist principles, but around the lowest common denominator, around a set of statements specifically designed to accommodate and rally a wide spectrum of petty bourgeois tendencies which formally ’accepted’ Marxism-Leninism. Thus the Editorial Board had no basis nor intention of testing, analysing and criticising the various opportunist lines within the movement from a strictly defined Marxist-Leninist perspective. Instead, it promised to open its pages to all and sundry and thus provided a platform for such tendencies. Having united on an opportunist basis and having created a forum for opportunist elements claiming to be Marxist-Leninist, the Editorial Board has reneged on its duties as Marxist-Leninists. The GWC encouraged the Editorial Board to recognize and rectify its opportunism, raise its basis of unity to the level of principle, formulate principled positions to guide its work, concretely stand on Marxism-Leninism, struggle against opportunism of all shades, and thus begin its contribution to advancing and truly uniting the movement.
In its response, the Editorial Board makes it quite clear that as far as it is concerned it is sufficiently principled and its journal is “historically useful and necessary”. According to the Editorial Board, the problem lies not at all with its basis of unity, but rather with the GWC’s failure to accept that unity as legitimate. The Editors say that they are merely “providing a forum for national debate amongst genuine Marxist-Leninists”. Their “political guidance in promoting the two-line struggle is a form of leadership but not equatable with a leading centre. This would seem to be the contradiction that GWC does not understand correctly and therefore is unable to handle in practice.”
It is true that the CR is not becoming a national organization, and so much better for the movement. It is also true that the Editors are providing a forum for debate. However, our observant Editors only restate the obvious in order to avoid the substance of the GWC’s criticism. Regardless of how the Editorial Board fancies itself or how many times it insists it is not a leading centre, the simple fact remains that it has put itself into the national movement in a leadership capacity and has done so on a vague and opportunist basis of unity. It has thus become a means for fostering and legitimizing a wide spectrum of opportunist trends. This is shown not only by the Editorial Board’s unity statement, but by the contents of the journal and the political composition of the Board itself (which until recently included such ’genuine’ Marxist-Leninists as the Bolshevik Tendency). The GWC letter of criticism focused on the ’key link’ of the CR – its Political Unity and Policy, the link the Editors have grasped in order to pull all the movement’s opportunists backward with it, since the Editorial Board’s unity statement fully expresses and facilitates the opportunism of the journal and its supporters. The GWC letter proves in principle that such a basis of unity cannot, as the Editorial Board proposes, unite genuine Marxist-Leninists. The struggle for a “common analysis, strategy and programme” cannot be achieved if under the heading of “genuine” you group together those who only claim to be Marxist-Leninist and base your “ideological and political struggle” on the lowest common denominator. This holds true for everyone in our movement, regardless of whether they claim to be a leading centre, or, as with the Editors, assign themselves a ’modest’ role of “political guidance in promoting the two-line struggle”. Our Editors cannot disprove the GWC’s criticisms in principle, and so resort to maneuvers. When the GWC confronts the Editors with their opportunist enterprise, points out that they are in glaring contradiction to Marxist-Leninist principle, our Editors boldly accuse the GWC of not “understanding correctly”, of being “unable to handle” this ’delicate’ contradiction “in practice”. That is, our Editors appeal from principles, which expose the journal’s opportunism, to practice, where our Editors expect more latitude. It is understandable that an Editorial Board whose practice is unprincipled would appeal for more of the same.
It is not the task of Marxist-Leninists to initiate publications that merely reflect and tail after the various line struggles occurring in the movement, that ’oppose’ opportunism simply by declaration, that give expression to any self-proclaimed ’Marxist-Leninist’ view, that appeal not to firm and definite principles, but to opportunist practice. It is our task to create publications that consistently assert the hegemony of Marxism-Leninism in opposition to all shades of opportunism, that provide a wealth of material for the movement’s practical workers, that consistently raise the level of the movement, and that by virtue of their consistency in principle and real political guidance draw the advanced workers into the life of the movement. A publication either advances the movement or hinders it; either stands at the head of the movement, or at its tail. However much this simple point smacks of “non-materialism” to our Editors, however much they would like to pass their opportunist journal off as a “historically necessary” step in ’raising’ the movement, there is in fact no middle ground, just as there is no middle ground between Marxism-Leninism and opportunism.
The Editors state that “one point that is very important behind GWC’s letter is that it recognizes and raises objectively the need for a leading force. There is also clearly nothing wrong with wanting a theoretical journal of the kind described. The problem is that GWC has not been doing its homework and analyzing where the most advanced leadership is coming from at this time...” “...it fails to recognize uneven political development in our movement and varied experience in implementing coherent lines.” Principles, our Editors state in effect, are all very well and good, but what are principles in light of the “uneven political development of our movement”? We must be realistic, after all. There is “clearly nothing wrong” for the GWC to ’want’ a principled theoretical journal. But it is going a bit overboard, isn’t it, to criticize us, the Editorial Board, for creating an unprincipled one. The GWC, you see has not been doing its ’homework’, and so does not understand that if the movement lacks a principled leadership, an unprincipled one will do just as well. What is important is not so much principled leadership, but “the most advanced leadership...at this time”.
It is undeniable that the movement is incredibly backward, that there is “uneven development”, ’great isolation’, two languages spoken, and so on. However, the question is: what approach do we take to these conditions? A Marxist-Leninist understands that in order to eradicate the present conditions, in order to raise the movement to the level of our tasks, each and every Marxist-Leninist must strictly adhere to clear and definite Marxist-Leninist principle, not to what is desirable but to what is absolutely necessary, must increase his efforts a hundredfold, and must fight those who defend or tail after the status quo. An opportunist, on the other hand, ’recognizes’ the ’unfortunate’ state of affairs and uses them as an excuse for bowing down to them, for lowering our tasks to the level of opportunism, for legitimizing opportunist endeavors, in short, for taking the line of least resistance. Our Editors, not being advanced leaders themselves, simply had ’no other choice’ but to embark on the latter path. However, they need not bemoan this state of “uneven development” for they are rapidly closing the gap, not by raising the movement, but by levelling it.
Admitting that a “journal of the kind described” by GWC is ’desirable’ but ’unrealistic’ given the “uneven political development” in our movement is as close as the Editors come to confirming that there is, after all, something valid in the GWC’s remarks. But while formally rejecting the GWC’s criticisms, our Editors have shown that in fact they know very well what the GWC is talking about and how it relates not to a ’desirable’ journal, but to the one they themselves produce. This they show by suddenly ’raising’ and revising their former unity statement and by attempting to pass this ’adjustment’ of their line off as a step forward. But this silent incorporation of part of the GWC’s criticism does not at all raise the journal’s basis of unity, but rather makes cosmetic changes in order to save face after having been exposed. However much they may excuse their revisions on the plea of ’concrete conditions’, the fact remains that the only ’conditions’ the Editors have responded to are the conditions of being exposed, and that all they have ’raised’ is a screen for their opportunism.
The GWC’s position was met with equally ’warm’ response from the Editorial Board’s supporters. The Editorial Board gave a free hand to its direct reserves to deliver the main blow at GWC, while it safely held up the rear, as is its way:
1) The Editorial Board and its cronies among the readership argue that the GWC criticism amounts to liquidation of national debate, open polemics, forums, theoretical journals and the CR. Had they read the very first paragraph of the GWC’s letter they would have made the amazing discovery that GWC never advocated the liquidation of ideological struggle or Marxist-Leninist theoretical journals, and in fact stated the vital importance of both. What the GWC did advocate was the liquidation of the CR’s opportunism, the liquidation of its unity around the lowest common denominator, the liquidation of the CR’s role as a rallying point for opportunist elements. The GWC advocated the liquidation of the Editor’s opportunism, and urged the Editors to unite instead on the basis of firm and definite principles. We must ask why it is that the idea of raising the journal to the level of principle, of basing it on the “hegemony of a unified political position”, of submitting every view to the test of a “strictly defined tendency” (Lenin), raises only the spectre of complete liquidation for our opportunists? Precisely because a truly Marxist-Leninist journal “of the kind described” by GWC would mean an end to the free play the opportunists presently enjoy in the pages of CR and would liquidate their credibility as ’Marxist-Leninists’. It is no small wonder that while the Editorial Board generously extends its hospitality to practically any self-proclaimed ’Marxist-Leninist’ trend and provides them a vehicle for opportunism, its staunch defenders cry ’liquidators’ against those who demand an end to accommodation of opportunism in our ranks.
2) Another argument put against the GWC is that prior to the CR the various circles had no regular means of national exchange. Now, with the journal,“they have been pulled out of isolation, and the movement greatly advanced. ’Given’ that GWC calls for the ’liquidation of national exchange’, it ’naturally’ follows that GWC stands only for isolated activity of small Marxist-Leninist circles. The verdict against the GWC is therefore: circle mentality.
It is true that the CR has resolved the ’burning’ question of the “logistics of exchange between existing groups”, and has broken through ’insurmountable’ geographical barriers. But then these astounding feats of the Editorial Board, as it turns out, have nothing to do with the journal’s contents or basis of unity. Any mail-order catalogue manufacturer could have resolved these ’logistics’ that the Editors’ supporters find such a tremendous achievement. In fact, the question is not at all the necessity for national communication and means of exchanging points of view. This purely technical aspect is elementary, and from the GWC’s standpoint, taken for granted. It is entirely a question of the content of national communication, of what points of view are given a national platform, and of how those views are considered. The Editorial Board has created a forum for ’national debate’, has drawn in various circles across Canada and Quebec into its pages, and provided a means for expressing points of view that otherwise might not have been given such wide exposure. But – and this is precisely the substance of the CWG’s criticism of CR – since the Editorial Board does not distinguish between these various points of view, since it lumps them all under the heading of ’Marxism-Leninism’, since it does not consider each from the standpoint of a definite political tendency based on precise Marxist-Leninist principles, it has in fact created not a ’debate’ but a storehouse for a wide spectrum of opportunist lines. The network it has created is therefore not a network that would consolidate and unify the movement on the basis of principle, but on the contrary, a network that will consolidate opportunism and lack of principle. The GWC did not call for the abolition of national exchange or polemic within the movement. It did state that a journal which takes upon itself the responsibility to provide “political guidance in promoting the two-line strug gle” should in fact provide principled guidance, should be based on a very definite Marxist-Leninist unity, and so on. It is only through such principled leadership that the movement can be consolidated around a truly communist line, demarcate against opportunism, and put an end to the circle existence of the movement. It should be clear that circle mentality has more to do with political orientation than geography, and that the association of a number of circles around a common journal in no way insures that circle outlook is thereby overcome. There are circles and circles; some, as the CPC(ML), even nationwide in scope. It is in fact not the GWC but the Editorial Board and its supporters who perpetuate the circle spirit since they have not taken the elementary steps to lay the basis for principled unity, i.e. have not themselves united around principle.
3) We are told that the GWC criticizes the Editorial Board for “not applying Marxism-Leninism concretely to Canada. Well comrades, what is your political line?” Where does the GWC “show that they in fact do oppose opportunism”? So asks the VSG and Halifax ’comrades’ in harmony.
Very boldly put! But evidently our apologists for the Editorial Board have ’missed what is right in front of their noses. The GWC’s entire letter was a demonstration of one aspect of its political line, of its “concrete” opposition to opportunism, in this case, the Editorial Board of the CR. And yet those who on the one hand find something sufficiently ’concrete’ in the GWC’s line to rouse a response, profoundly ask on the other hand ’where is GWC’s line?’. True enough, the GWC letter did not fully elaborate its principles of unity, its stand on the principal contradiction, political economy, party-building, and so on. The GWC did not give a detailed polemic of the articles run in the CR, did not show how each deviated from Marxist-Leninist principles. But then, the purpose of the GWC letter was not to elaborate every aspect of its political line. The format for such elaboration is not the Letters to the Editors column, but a full polemic and statement of positions. The purpose of the GWC letter was to express the views of GWC on one specific aspect of our movement, i.e. the effect of the CR’s basis of unity. The GWC took a concrete stand against one form of opportunism, The CR’s Centrism, and criticized the Editorial Board for the discrepancy between its words and deeds, for its utter servility to opportunism, and for its reneging on its duties. If the apologists for CR were truly concerned about the GWC’s political line, they had only to seriously study the points raised in its letter. If, in addition, they wished to know the GWC’s views on other questions before the movement, they had only to inquire of the GWC. But it is absurd to pretend, as our apologists do, that the GWC’s letter revealed nothing of its political line or was not a concrete exposure of opportunism. One can only shake one’s head in disbelief to see the VSG come forth in total seriousness to defend the Editorial Board and oppose the GWC on the grounds that: “We feel that it is not enough for a group claiming to adhere to Marxism-Leninism to repeat a few basic points of scientific socialism on the struggle against opportunism in order to show that they in fact do oppose opportunism.” That is precisely the substance of our criticism of the Editorial Board. The Editorial Board in fact only repeats “a few basic points” in order to show it ’opposes’ opportunism, and yet does not state its views on definite opportunist trends in the movement. The GWC did in fact oppose opportunism, not through repeating “a few basic points” on generalities, but by showing how a definite grouping which claims to be Marxist-Leninist, i.e. the Editorial Board, is reneging on Marxism-Leninism and has created a forum for retrograde trends. By refusing to see this elementary point of principle, by refusing to confront this very concrete demonstration of the GWC’s line, the CR’s apologists are forced to resort to diversions. When the GWC’s line is not three inches from their noses, they ask with profundity: “Well comrades, what is your political line?” Incredible, but true.
4) The Halifax crew states that the GWC “most conveniently and most opportunistically sidestep any responsibility for concrete analysis of this ’content and direction’ ”. The GWC avoids doing “concrete analysis of the journals content” and “incorrectly separates the content from its form (i.e. its statement of unity and policy).”
Again, right on the mark! It is amusing to see the Editorial Board’s supporters admit that the statement of political unity lacks “content” and bears more resemblance to a “form”. However, it is not wholly without content as they would like us to believe. The Editorial Board’s statement of unity is in fact not only part of, but the ’guiding line’ for the journal’s contents. It is the most decisive, most obvious expression of the journal’s contents, since it sets the political parameters for what lines qualify as “genuine” Marxism-Leninism. The GWC’s concrete analysis and equally concrete criticism of the Editorial Board’s policy is precisely an analysis of the “content of the journal”. This should be clear for anyone capable of thought. It is in fact the CR’s apologists who attempt to separate the statement of unity from the ’content’ of the journal, since by so doing they hope to avoid dealing with the content of the GWC’s criticism and make it appear that GWC has missed the mark. They can then draw the profound conclusion that the GWC is “chasing phantoms rather than the positions actually put forward by the CR collective”. Are we to believe, then, that the Editorial Board’s statement of unity is not in fact a position “actually put forward by the CR collective”? Can this business of “chasing phantoms” be anything more than talking for the purpose of saying nothing? And is it not clear that the CR’s supporters are forced into such double-talk since in fact they can ’say nothing’ to disprove the points of principle the GWC has raised? As to criticism of other ’content’ of the CR and further discussion of the CR’s role, we refer the readers to our forthcoming polemic on Party-building in our movement.
The GWC’s criticisms were fully confirmed by the responses it received from the Editorial Board and CR supporters. That the Editors were rabidly defended by such overt Social-Democrats as Paul Burgwin et. al., shows the extent to which the CR has become a rallying point for opportunism. The fact that the Editorial Board relies upon, promotes and allies with such elements, and uses their attacks on the GWC in lieu of a consistent and thorough response of its own, graphically testifies to the depths the Editors have sunk to. It is no surprise that the Editors “find ourselves in much agreement with the major political points made” in its apologists’ replies to the GWC. The Editcial Board is known by the company it keeps.
Organization of Communist Workers (ML) (GWC has since become part of OCW)