In a supplement to its newspaper, for the purpose of preparing the debate at the third conference of the Canadian Marxist-Leninist movement on the international situation, In Struggle boldly proclaimed that “an important struggle concerning the international situation is being waged at the present time. . .It’s a struggle between the bourgeois line and the proletarian Marxist-Leninist line concerning the analysis of the current international situation. ..” (Supplement, September 1st, 1977, p. 1) This is certainly true, and one would logically assume that, since In Struggle aspires to leadership in the Marxist-Leninist movement and in the workers movement, it would provide leadership as to which is the bourgeois line and which is the proletarian line. But by the time it published its supplement, In Struggle had not yet figured this out.
Although In Struggle had some reservations about the “theory of three worlds” as a “strategic concept”, these were reservations and criticisms In Struggle did not have at the CAPT conference on the third world. In Struggle stated in its newspaper of August 4, 1977 that “the League tried, without success, to show that IN STRUGGLE was against the three world theory“. In fact, we read that the “IN STRUGGLE representative pointed out that those who read our publications with the minimum of honesty have seen that IN STRUGGLE has always defended the unity of the peoples and COUNTRIES of the Third World.” In Struggle went so far as to say that “we have agreed that the peoples and COUNTRIES that make up the Third World are the main force in the world united front.” Furthermore, “IN STRUGGLE representatives put forward conditional support to the countries of the Third World” and this means “that IN STRUGGLE gives its support to the struggles of the COUNTRIES of the Third World when they act, as they often do in such a way as to contribute to the weakening of the world imperialist system and in particular the two superpowers.” In Struggle goes on to express this “conditional support” for the “Shah of Iran” because he “opposes the superpowers”. This apparently qualifies the Shah to be part of “the main force in the world united front”. There is no doubt that the Shah is part of the world “united front” of the imperialist camp but In Struggle wants to include him in the world revolutionary front. In Struggle only criticises the League and others who “mechanically apply the three worlds theory” by not talking about “the fascist repression which victimizes the Iranian people”.
In Struggle, for its part, only wants to give the Shah “conditional support”: that is, he can be part of the “main force in the world united front” but we “should never.. .close our eyes to bloody fascists”. We should unite with them but continue to make empty declarations about their repressive regimes. This is the “proletarian internationalism” that In Struggle is so found of counterposing to the League’s social-chauvinism. In Struggle shows its great “proletarian internationalism” by offering “conditional support” to other “Third World” countries that are part of the “main force in the world united front”, In Struggle tells us of “the unity of Third World countries that are in fact opposed to colonialism, imperialism and hegemonism .. . like Pinochet in Chile, the Shah of Iran, Suharto in Indonesia, Duvalier in Haiti, Marcos in the Philippines, etc.” We would certainly have to agree that ”the League tried, without success, to show that IN STRUGGLE was against the three world theory”!!! (all these quotes from In Struggle, no. 94, p. 8)
In its supplement one month later In Struggle now rejected the “theory of three worlds as a strategic concept”. Apparently, however, by continuing to support ”the theory of three worlds” as a tactical concept!!, presumably they could continue to give “tactical” and “conditional” support to “Pinochet in Chile, the Shah of Iran, Suharto In Indonesia, Duvalier in Haiti, Marcos in the Philippines, etc.”.
In Struggle tells us that there is “a struggle between the bourgeois line and the proletarian Marxist-Leninist line”, but not only is In Struggle unable to tell us which is the bourgeois line and which is the proletarian line, it tells us that there are in fact three lines! In Struggle tells us that there are “the arguments of those who speak of the three world theory as a strategic concept, of those who consider that this theory does not replace the four fundamental contradictions in the analysis of the world-wide situation and finally, of those who completely reject this theory”, (p. 2 in Bibliography) In Struggle places itself in the “centre camp” but cannot decide which sides the “two-line struggle” represents.
In Struggle, however, assures us that “before the Third Conference, IN STRUGGLE will publish a communique that will make known our position in the current debate within the Canadian and international Marxist-Leninist movement.” (Supplement, no. 96, p. 2) Six days later In Struggle published Proletarian Unity no. 6, which contained In Struggle’s CAPT Conference speech supporting the “theory of three worlds” and its statement “Against Right Opportunism on International Questions” which criticized the “three worlds theory – strategic concept”. (At the Conference In Struggle made false and slanderous accusations against the Bolshevik Union, that we had changed our line overnight. This is no doubt to cover the fact that In Struggle changed its line in less than a day!)
In Struggle, however, still could not tell us which line was the bourgeois line and which was the proletarian line! Instead, In Struggle mounted a “two-line” struggle between those who took a line, either for or against the “theory of three worlds”, and those who maintained their “independence” from both the international communist movement and the “theoreticians of three worlds”. The seeds of In Struggle’s line are put forward in the supplement and further developed in the Declaration and subsequent publications. In the supplement In Struggle attacks the League for tailing the international leadership of the “theoreticians of three worlds” and the Bainsites for “courting the PLA”. To In Struggle it doesn’t matter that the League’s line is wrong because it is an anti-Leninist, social-chauvinist line, nor does it matter to In Struggle that the Bainsites are a known band of counter-revolutionaries whose political line as a whole is totally inconsistent with the political line of the international communist movement. No, for In Struggle it is the sheer act of “tailing” that leads to revisionism and it doesn’t matter what the political line is. In Struggle states that “TAILING AFTER has nothing to do with Marxism-Leninism, for it INEVITABLY LEADS TO OPPORTUNISM and REVISIONISM. Our duty towards the Canadian proletariat and the whole international communist movement is to express our opinions in the present debate clearly, firmly and INDEPENDENTLY.” This is, of course, nothing but the line of Kautsky who did not “tail” after Bernstein and who bitterly denounced those who ”tailed” after Lenin and the Communist International!
While it is very true that a Marxist-Leninist party or organization must maintain its independence from the bourgeoisie, from revisionism and for Parties that have degenerated or are degenerating into revisionism (which is why the Bolshevik Union has always maintained its independence from the League and In Struggle), for In Struggle “independence” is independence from Marxism-Leninism, from the general line of the international communist movement and from the unity of the international communist movement around the correct line on the international situation. In Struggle says in its Declaration that “WE ATTACH GREATEST IMPORTANCE TO OUR POLITICAL INDEPENDENCE” (p. 2) – not to Marxism-Leninism, not to the correct political line, not to the unity of the international communist movement, but to the ”right” to be independent of Marxism-Leninism and the international Communist movement. This is nothing but the “freedom of criticism” attacked by Lenin in What Is To Be Done?, the “freedom” of the vacillating petty-bourgeoisie which is terrified of the consistency and discipline of the revolutionary proletariat.
“The development of fraternal links between the Parties and organizations of different countries is of great importance for us, and we have too long neglected it in the past. But at the same time we attach the greatest importance to our political independence.” (p. 2) So all In Struggle wants is “fraternal links” with any party or group no matter what its political line is, but In Struggle wants to hear nothing of the unity of the international communist movement. In fact, In Struggle maintains that unity is impossible. According to In Struggle “there are no longer recognized formal means by which the general line of the movement can be elaborated nor are there Parties or organizations which can be recognized as such”. (p. 2)
We have known for some time, and this should confirm for all who wish to see, that In Struggle rejects Marxism-Leninism as a science, a science that can determine what the correct line is and who is upholding it in theory and in practice. In Struggle’s position is that there is no scientific way to determine the correct line, there is only “independence”, which means for In Struggle, of course, that its “independent“ political line is just as good as the line of any other party or organisation. And if groups do not follow this course of “independence” they will be “tailing after”, and this “inevitably leads to opportunism and revisionism”!!
This position on the part of In Struggle leads it to a furious attack on the growing unity of the international communist movement. In Struggle states that “the international communist movement is not and should not become a sort of ’red UN’, that is, a meeting of diplomats who get together here and there around the world so as to afterwards send out ’communiques’ informing the universe that their meetings were fraternal, warm, positive, and promising for the future.. .” (Declaration, p. 1) This is nothing out a naked attack on the numerous meetings and conferences of Marxist-Leninist parties throughout the world. One such “communique” In Struggle is referring to is the Joint Statement of the Delegations of the Marxist-Leninist Parties of Latin American to the Seventh Congress of the Party of Labour of Albania. This statement, with which the Bolshevik Union expresses its solidarity, stated that ”the unity of the revolutionary forces of the whole world with the true socialist countries is a prerequisite for the triumph of the struggle for national independence, people’s democracy and socialism”. (Albania Today, no. 2, 1977, p. 26) In Struggle, however, denounces a “mad rush on the part of some who seek a ’father Party’ to get into the good graces of the Parties which led the struggle against revisionism in the ’60’s, the Communist Party of China and the Party of Labour of Albania and to have these Parties grant them recognition”. (Declaration, p. 2) The joint statement of the Latin American parties paid its respects to the great contributions of Mao Tsetung to the international communist movement and praised the report to the Seventh Congress of the Party of Labour of Albania ”presented by the great and tested Marxist-Leninist, the outstanding leader of the Albanian people and of all the peoples of the world, comrade Enver Hoxha”. (Albania Today, no. 2, 1977, p. 28) Among other things the Latin American parties praised this report for “the fiery appeal it makes for the strengthening of the unity of the international Marxist-Leninist movement”. (Ibid) The Statement also says that ”the fact that we have beside us the proletarian revolutionary, the outstanding Marxist-Leninist, comrade Enver Hoxha, fills us with joy and enthusiasm. His confidence in the future, his theoretical profundity and his political clarity make him one of the greatest revolutionaries of our time”. (Ibid, pp. 28-29) In Struggle, for its part, disparages both Mao and Hoxha and instead says that ”our task does not consist of following this of that person”. (Declaration, p. 2) It is clear that In Struggle has no interest in following Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin or Mao and Hoxha because, for In Struggle “tailing after.. .inevitably leads to opportunism and revisionism”!
One would think that if the Party of Labour of Albania was a “Marxist-Leninist” as In Struggle they would denounce this “tailing after” of the Latin American Parties and explain to them that this can only “inevitably lead to opportunism and revisionism” and that they must ”attach the greatest importance to (their own) political independence” a la In Struggle!! Instead the PLA bills this Joint Statement as “A DOCUMENT WHICH STRENGTHENS THE REVOLUTIONARY UNITY AMONG THE MARXIST-LENINIST COMMUNIST PARTIES”. (Albania Today, no. 2, 1977, pp. 26-27). Zeri I Popullit published an editorial devoted to this Joint Statement where it is stated that “this statement.. .constitutes a big stride forward on the course of strengthening the unity among the Marxist-Leninist communist parties, AN INDISPENSABLE CONDITION TO THE VICTORY OF THE REVOLUTION. The Albanian communists wholeheartedly welcome this multilateral meeting of the sister parties of Latin America and support the correct theses and conclusions collectively confirmed by them.” (Ibid, p. 29)
On last January 23, there was a big internationalist rally held by the Communist Party of Italy (Marxist-Leninist) in Rome. A number of Marxist-Leninist parties in the world participated in the rally and the PLA sent a message of solidarity. Comrade Fosco Dinucci, General Secretary of the CPI (ML) stated in a speech that “the report of Comrade Enver Hoxha (at the Seventh Congress of the PLA), with its tactical and strategic orientations, is a great contribution to the international Marxist-Leninist communist movement, A REAL TOUCHSTONE TO PROVE ALL THE MARXIST-LENINIST PARTIES”. (Ibid, p.34) And Comrade Raul Marco, Secretary of the Communist Party of Spain (Marxist-Leninist) stated in a speech at this rally that “the position of our Party is clear-cut, there is no ambiguity: we are one hundred per cent with the PLA.. . We loudly and clearly proclaim: defence of and solidarity with socialist Albania, the heroic Party of Labour of Albania, led by Comrade Enver Hoxha, are now in themselves A FIRING LINE WHICH DISTINGUISHES THE GENUINE COMMUNISTS FROM PHONEY COMMUNISTS AND OPPORTUNISTS”, (ibid, p. 39)
Did the PLA denounce this rally as a “sort of ’red UN’”? Did it describe this as “a sort of mad rush on the part of some who seek a ’father party’”? Did the PLA denounce this as “tailing after” that would “inevitably leads to opportunism and revisionism”? No, in an Editorial in Zeri I Popullit, the PLA states that “such meetings and rallies of the Marxist-Leninist parties and genuine revolutionaries consolidate and strengthen the unity of their ranks, the internationalist solidarity of the international Marxist-Leninist movement and their struggle and efforts for the great cause of the revolution”. (Ibid p.40)
If not for the lack of space we could cite many more things from this and other rallies like those in Germany and Portugal, but what we have demonstrated should adequately demonstrate just exactly at whom In Struggle is really aiming its attacks. We can come to no other conclusion than that In Struggle is attacking the many Marxist-Leninist Parties that participate in these rallies as going down the road of “opportunism and revisionism” and that the PLA is leading them there.
It is all to clear to us that it is In Struggle that is well down the road of opportunism and revisionism. We know all too well the type of group that Comrade Marco speaks of ”who hypocritically applauded the Seventh Congress and the report of Comrade Enver Hoxha are launching secret and perfidious attacks. ..” (Ibid, p. 39)
Although, in its Declaration, In Struggle criticised this or that aspect of the “theory of three worlds”, it did not demarcate from the theory as a whole. In Struggle did make some correct criticisms of the “theory of the three worlds” and we had hoped this would lead to a rejection of the whole theory. This, however, was not to be the case. In In Struggle speech to the conference on September 20, In Struggle abandoned its criticisms of the ”theory of three worlds – strategic concept” and instead concentrated its efforts on exposing “tailism”.
In the beginning of its speech In Struggle was careful to point out that it “intend(s) to take part in the debate to the extent of our very limited means, but with COMPLETE INDEPENDENCE”. There is no doubt that In Struggle engaged in the debate with “very limited” theoretical ”means” and there is no doubt that In Struggle maintained its “complete independence” from the international communist movement and from Marxism-Leninism. In Struggle stated that it would “engage in this struggle in a spirit of unity and not in a spirit of division”.
And how would they accomplish this noble task? “We will abstain altogether from putting any party on a pedestal because of its correct line”. Even though In Struggle “understands” that there is a bourgeois line and a proletarian line, it is not concerned with which is which. Nor is In Struggle concerned with what line is correct. In Struggle simply attaches the “greatest importance” to its “political independence”.
So instead of demarcating on the basis of political line In Struggle decided to “demarcate” on a different basis. In Struggle stated that ”there exists within the Canadian and international movement, as well as within its periphery, BEHAVIOURS AND ATTITUDES that we consider to be completely divisive and from which we TOTALLY DEMARCATE”. In Struggle “demarcates” from “tailism that always ends up leading to opportunism. The League and Bolshevik Union are these tailists.” The fact that the League is an ardent proponent of the “theory of three worlds” and that the Bolshevik Union has led a struggle in Canada against this anti-Leninist theory and for upholding the general line of the international communist movement is of no importance. It is of no importance that the League upholds the bourgeois line and the Bolshevik Union the proletarian line – all that matters is upholding the “political independence of In Struggle” and opposing ”tailing” either the bourgeois line or the proletarian line! ”We totally reject these summons to follow this one or that one. Consistent communists do not ACT in such a way”. Or shall we say consistent petty bourgeois do not act in such a way, they prefer to vacillate between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie in hopes of taking advantage of the contradiction for personal gain. In Struggle declares that those who want to turn the debate into a debate to determine the correct line are “transforming line struggle into CLASS struggle!!!”
In Struggle goes on to launch another “crushing” attack on the international communist movement: “let those who only know how to declare ’our line is correct, it’s the line of so and so’, let them know that they are not working for the unity of the movement that the only result of their actions is the formation of clans or even ’fan-clubs’ ”. The Bolshevik Union ”confesses” under the weight of this damning criticism; yes, we are members of the Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin-Mao-Hoxha “fan-club” and we “tail” after the line of these “so and sos”!!! And, YES, In Struggle, we do think our line is correct!
The rest of In Struggle’s speech was little more than a song and dance declaring that doesn’t matter what In Struggle’s line is or was.
All that matters, according to In Struggle, is In Struggle’s “practice”, i.e., its economist campaign to beg the “imperialist state” to abandon wage controls. Throughout the conference In Struggle “forgot” its opposition to the “theory of three worlds – strategic concept” and its “opposition” to the social-chauvinism of such anti-Communist groups as the League and ”Red” Star Collective. Instead In Struggle representatives engaged in outrageous slanderous attacks on the Bolshevik Union for “tailing” Comrade Hoxha and the PLA and organized open hissing when Bolshevik Union representatives quoted from the classics of Marxism-Leninism, much like the trotskyites do when they hear the name of Stalin. In Struggle never once criticised the Bolshevik Union for its line on the international situation, but only for its “splittism” and “divisiveness” for “tailing” the international communist movement. Political line was of so little importance for In Struggle that it couldn’t decide whether the world united front was a strategy or a tactic. Finally settled on a tactic!!!
As we well know, for In Struggle, the strategy for “revolution” is the struggle against wage controls – apparently the world united front is only a “tactic” in this struggle!
In summing up the Conference, In Struggle launched essentially two attacks on the Bolshevik Union, the first, of course, “tailism” and the second for “splitting” the movement. In Struggle states that “the speech by Bolshevik Union (BU) and its general BEHAVIOUR demonstrated once again that when BU talks about ’unity’, it means splitting] Thus, we were able to see that BU’s stand against the ’three worlds theory’ serves as a pretext to split the movement. For instance, at a time when the debate on this question has hardly begun in our movement, BU is declaring that there is an antagonistic contradiction between those who uphold the “three worlds theory” and the “defenders of the line of the international communist movement” (In Struggle, Sept. 15, 1977, p. 9).
This is just one of many examples in which In Struggle tries to attribute a statement to the BU that the BU never made. The position of the Bolshevik Union has always been and remains that the contradiction between the proletarian line and the bourgeois line on fundamental questions is antagonistic, that the contradiction between Marxism-Leninism and bourgeois ideology is antagonistic.
This means that in considering the international situation, the general line of the international communist movement is in antagonistic contradiction with the “theory of three worlds” as it is with anarchism, social-democracy, trotskyism, modern revisionism, etc. This is true because it has been proven in the international communist movement that the “theory of three worlds” is an anti-Leninist opportunist and revisionist theory that leads to betrayal of the international proletarian revolution, of the national liberation struggles and of socialism. It represents capitulation to and alliance with the imperialist camp, particularly U.S.-led imperialism, against the socialist camp, the camp of revolution.
It is not as if In Struggle doesn’t recognize some of these “deficiencies” of the “theory of three worlds”. In its supplement (no. 96), In Struggle stated that ”As for the theory of three worlds, it ignores the class viewpoint and replaces it with an analysis of the balance of power between countries. To consider the division of the world into three types of countries as a strategic concept leads to the weakening of national liberation struggles.” (p. 2) Apparently for In Struggle a theory that ”ignores the class viewpoint” and that “leads to the weakening of national liberation struggles” is not in antagonistic contradiction with Marxism-Leninism and the international communist movement. For In Struggle, this theory should be a part of the international communist movement, a part of Marxism-Leninism. In Struggle also states that “to consider the theory of three worlds as a strategic concept leads also to the abandoning of the proletarian revolution in the imperialist countries.” (ibid) Apparently for In Struggle, a theory that leads to the ”abandoning of the proletarian revolution” is not in antagonistic contradiction with Marxism-Leninism. And “finally, to consider the theory of three worlds as a strategic concept is to weaken the dictatorship of the proletariat in the socialist countries”, (ibid.) And finally, for In Struggle, not even that which “weaken(s) the dictatorship of the proletariat” is in antagonistic contradiction with Marxism-Leninism and the international communist movement. Even given these criticisms of the “theory of three worlds” In Struggle stated after the conference that “on the international level, VRC (Vancouver Red Collective).. .considers that the ’three worlds theory’ is a valuable though insufficient guide .. .These positions coincide with those of In Struggle!” For In Struggle a theory that “ignores the class viewpoint”, that “leads to the weakening of national liberation struggles”, that leads to the “abandoning of the proletarian revolution” and that “weaken(s) the dictatorship of the proletariat” “IS A VALUABLE though insufficient GUIDE”!!!! Yes, the “theory of three worlds” is a valuable guide to revisionism, although we realize that it may be an insufficient guide to In Struggle’s particular brand of revisionism.
This brand of revisionism on the part of In Struggle is not new in the history of the international communist movement. Lenin described it this way.
Roland-Hoist, like Rakovsky (have you seen his French pamphlet?), like Trotsky, in my opinion, are all the most harmful “Kautskyites”, in the sense that all of them in various forms are for unity with the opportunists, all in various forms embellish opportunism, all of them (in various forms) preach eclecticism instead of revolutionary Marxism. (Letter to Kollontai, August 4, 1915, LCW 35:200) This is precisely the case of In Struggle and its leader Charles Gagnon. Gagnon is just such a Trotsky-type character whose sole “contribution” has been to preach conciliation between Marxism-Leninism and opportunism and revisionism. Gagnonism is a Canadian variation of international centrism that seeks the “unity” of the international communist movement with the “theory of three worlds”. Gagnon wants both the proletarian and the bourgeois line in the same international movement, in the party in Canada and in fact tries to have both lines “united” in his own head. Like Trotsky and Kautsky, who opposed the overt social chauvinism of the likes of Plekhanov, Gagnon is opposed to the overt social-chauvinism of proponents of the “theory of three worlds”, and like Trotsky and Kautsky he advocates unity with the social-chauvinists.
Comrade Hoxha has made clear that “a Marxist-Leninist party which is respected as such cannot allow the existence of two lines in the party; thus it cannot permit the existence of one or more factions. And if such a thing does occur, the party cannot and must not allow their existence even for a short time.” {Albania Today, February 1977, p. 9) Gagnonism, however, totally rejects this notion and calls for many “lines” in the international communist movement and in a Marxist-Leninist party in Canada. This is nothing but the splitting and wrecking line followed by Trotsky and trotskyites in their frantic attempt to sabotage the unity of the Communist International. It was also the splitting line of such renegades as Lovestone in the CPUSA and Spector in the CP of Canada, who advocated American and Canadian “exceptionalism”. In other words “independence” from the line of the Communist International.
The PLA has correctly identified the “theory of three worlds” as splitting the international communist movement.
The present day anti-Leninist theories of the ’three worlds’, ’non-alignment’ and so on, are also aimed at undermining the revolution, extinguishing the struggle against imperialism, especially against US imperialism, splitting the Marxist-Leninist movement, the unity of the proletariat advocated by Marx and Lenin, creating all kinds of groupings of anti-Marxist elements to fight the true Marxist-Leninist parties which stand loyal to Marxism-Leninism, the revolution. (“The Theory and Practice of the Revolution,” LINES OF DEMARCATION no. 6, p. 12)
Canada has a number of these groupings like the League and “Red” Star Collective and we must make every effort to expose and defeat them but we must not forget that history has demonstrated time and time again that when there is a great struggle against revisionism there arises a stratum of “centrists” who either conciliate with opportunism and revisionism or use the occasion to put forward an “independent” brand of revisionism that attempts to give the appearence of occupying a “centre” position between “dogmatism” and “pure revisionism”. In the struggle against the social-chauvinism and social-imperialism of the second international, Trotsky and Kautsky were just such elements. In the struggle against modern revisionism, Tito, Togliatti and others were just such elements. In the struggle against the “theory of three worlds”, Gagnon is such as element in Canada. Although, Gagnon is not a “centrist” of international importance he is doing great damage to the Marxist-Leninist movement in Canada. He is doing this by advocating a Titoite theory of “non-alignment” in the international communist movement. Gagnon is trying to persuade Canadian Marxist-Leninists that “tailing” the demarcation against the “theory of three worlds” made by the PLA and greatly supported in the international communist movement is to “inevitably lead to opportunism and revisionism”. What Lenin said of Trotsky – “That’s it!! That’s Trotsky for you!! Always true to himself: twists, swindles, poses as Left, helps the Right, so long as he can.. . ” (letter to Inessa Armand, Feb. 19,1917, LCW 35: 288) can be applied to Gagnon with equal force. For all Gagnon’s criticisms of the “theory of three worlds – strategic concept” he spends most of his efforts on attacking those who demarcate against the “theory of three worlds” completely and totally and spends very little time on those anti-Marxist groupings whose sole function is to split and wreck the international communist movement and destroy its unity by attempting to substitute the “theory of three worlds” for the general line of the international communist movement. But thanks to Comrade Hoxha, the PLA, and many other true Communist parties and organizations, this latest attempt on the part of imperialism to destroy the international communist movement has met with decisive failure. It is in this context that the likes of a Gagnon become very useful for the theoreticians of ”three worlds” and imperialism. Gagnon, taking advantage of the general backward level of the Canadian Marxist-Leninist movement, preaches the message that even if the “theory of three worlds” “ignores the class viewpoint”, “leads to the weakening of national liberation struggles”, leads to the “abandoning of the proletarian revolution” and “weaken(s) the dictatorship of the proletariat” it is not in antagonistic contradiction with Marxism-Leninism, it is a contradiction among the people – among fraternal parties and above all, this and other lines are all part of the international communist movement.
Gagnon knows that when the movement is cleansed of the “theory of three worlds”, there will be no room for Gagnonism. At that time the “theoreticians of three worlds” will have no more use of Gagnonism and will not include it in its counter-revolutionary movement. (We can already see this happening with the League’s demarcation against In Struggle.) Gagnon’s response to this situation is to engage in a frantic and hysterical battle to reconcile Marxism-Leninism with the “theory of three worlds” into one movement so there is room for Gagnonism, i.e., “centrism” in Canada. In Struggle states that “the fact that there are divergences within the Canadian Marxist-Leninist movement and that divergences also develop on the level of the international movement is simply a reflection of the class struggle.” (Supplement, p. 1). But for Gagnonism the presence of the bourgeois line in the movement is a good thing. Gagnonism wants the bourgeoisie and the proletariat in the same movement because this allows the petty-bourgeoisie to vacillate between the two. This is a principle of Gagnonism in the international communist movement, in the Canadian movement and in the future party Gagnon envisions.
This is why In Struggle saw the struggle at the third conference as principally between “Unity or sabotage!”, (no 97, p. 10) In Struggle states that “first of all, with the exception of Bolshevik Union, all the groups reaffirmed their opinion that any form of tailism in the current debate had to be rejected; and that both on the national and on the international level, the unity-criticism-unity method had to be applied.” (ibid.) In other words, the method of handling non-antagonistic contradictions should be applied to the treatment of contradictions between Marxism-Leninism and the ”theory of three worlds.” This was the “united” opinion of In Struggle and two ”groupings of anti-Marxist elements” – the “Red” Star Collective and the Vancouver “Red” Collective, both of which are proponents of the “theory of three worlds”, just another example of how Gagnon “poses as a Left, helps the Right, so long as he can.” In Struggle puts forward two “camps” in the Canadian Marxist-Leninist movement, the camp of the uniters and the camp of the splitters. In Struggle states that ”the Lea¬gue has placed itself in the camp of the splitters. Bolshevik Union’s behavior is of the same type as that of the League, even if their political positions are different.” (ibid.) In Struggle thus makes it clear that political line is irrelevant; all that matters is the unity of the bourgeoisie and the proletarian forces like Bolshevik Union in one “camp” because neither, for totally different reasons, want “unity” with Gagnonism.
It would be a mistake to assume that Gagnonism perceives the bourgeois forces that don’t want to unite with Gagnonism and the proletarian forces on an equal basis. The facts are that despite the League’s consistent attempts to split and wreck the Canadian Marxist-Leninist movement ever since the inception of the League, In Struggle has consistently defended the League as a “Marxist-Leninist group”, and has consistently sided with the League in a completely unprincipled anti-Communist attack on the Bolshevik Union.
Given that the League is a proponent to the “theory of three worlds”, a theory that even In Struggle is forced to admit liquidates Marxism-Leninism, national liberation struggles, proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat; and given that the League is in the camp of the “splitters” one might expect In Struggle to “oppose” the League as much as the Bolshevik Union, but this is not the case. It is the Bolshevik Union that In Struggle has attempted to exclude from the Canadian Marxist-Leninist movement and the international communist movement. This shows once again how Gagnonism serves the Right. In Struggle has always sought “unity” with the League, hoping the League would change its mind and find room for Gagnonism in the Party. But because of the Bolshevik Union’s consistent defense of the general line of the international communist movement, of the single correct Marxist-Leninist line on the international situation and of the application of Marxism-Leninism to the concrete conditions in Canada, the Bolshevik Union would continue to win over the genuine Marxist-Leninists in In Struggle and destroy Gagnon’s dream of an “independent” party of Gagnonism.
In Struggle’s “demarcation” from the Bolshevik Union, however, is only an attempt to hide In Struggle’s demarcation from the international communist movement and the correct line of the PLA on the international situation. In Struggle states that, by using “the classics of Marxism Leninism and the words of the great proletarian leader Enver Hoxha, Bolshevik Union tried during this conference to split the Canadian and international movement.” (no. 98, p. 13) This, according to In Struggle, is the “definitive demarcation” against the Bolshevik Union. But the Bolshevik Union engaged in a principled and resolute struggle to unite the Canadian Marxist-Leninist movement on the basis of the general line of the international communist movement and its correct application to the current international situation by Comrade Hoxha and the PLA. The Bolshevik Union also led a determined struggle against the “theory of three worlds” and exposed this theory for the anti-Leninist theory that it is; we demonstrated that to uphold it is to abandon Marxism-Leninism, socialism, proletarian revolution, and national liberation struggles. This is how In Struggle characterizes this just and principled stand of the Bolshevik Union.
B.U. participated in the conference by openly declaring that there was no need to debate with those who defend the “Three Worlds theory”, and that differences on this question, far from being differences among Marxist-Leninists, were an antagonistic contradiction, (ibid.)
This is what we said in our speech.
The Bolshevik Union will not conciliate with the “three worldists” in Canada. The correct Marxist-Leninist line on the international situation is not up for endless “debate”, it is up for adoption by the authentic Marxist-Leninists. We have no “debate” with the proponents of the “theory of three worlds”, rather it is our revolutionary duty to purge the “theory of three worlds” from the Canadian Marxist-Leninist movement. (“For the Unity of the International Communist Movement”, p. 7)
It is our duty to build unity of our movement around a single correct Marxist-Leninist line. To In Struggle’s charges we can only say that there are not two lines in the international communist movement and ”This struggle has not been a struggle between two lines, but a struggle to safeguard, implement and enrich a single, Marxist-Leninist line.” (Albania Today, Feb. 1977, p. 11)
The Bolshevik Union will always reject this Gagnonism that maintains that the contradiction between anti-Leninism and Marxism-Leninism is not antagonistic and that it is supposedly a contradiction among Marxist-Leninists. Only in the “world” of Gagnonism is anti-Leninist a Marxist-Leninist and only in the “world” of Gagnonism is a theory that liquidates the class viewpoint, national liberation struggles, proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat and socialism a theory that is held by Marxist-Leninists. Apparently “comrade” Gagnon has been so caught up in the unity of opposites that he has “forgotten” that there are opposites and has decided there is only unity.
In Struggle knows full well that it is not the Bolshevik Union that first put forward the thesis that the “theory of three worlds” is an anti-Leninist theory, but In Struggle does not dare attack the PLA directly, for this would expose Gagnonism for what it is. Instead In Struggle attacks the Bolshevik Union for using the PLA as a “mask.” What In Struggle is trying to ”mask” is the line of the PLA and the international communist movement and hide it by attacking the Bolshevik Union, even going so far as to suggest that the Bolshevik Union is the one that is splitting the international communist movement!!! It is the proponents of the “theory of the three worlds” that are trying to split the international communist movement and it is the PLA and other parties that are heroically defending its unity from this latest onslaught of opportunism and revisionism. For defending this unity in Canada the Bolshevik Union is attacked as “splitters.” In Struggle states that
At the conference, Bolshevik Union tried to use the correct position of the Party of Labour of Albania as a mask to camoflage its real political line, a divisive and fractionalist line, a line for the destruction of the Canadian and international Marxist-Leninist movement.” (ibid.)
It is clear that for In Struggle that without the “theory of three worlds” the international communist movement and the Canadian movement will be destroyed. What will be destroyed is the opportunity for the Gagnonite theory of “independence” to flourish. Whenever Marxist-Leninists strive to reinforce and build the unity of the international communist movement around a single correct line, the revisionists and the “centrists” cry about “splitting” and “wrecking.” What is being wrecked is the bourgeoisie’s attempts to wreck the international communist movement and the only thing being split is the working class away from revisionism. Gagnonism cannot survive in a movement or Party that is united around a single correct Marxist-Leninist line and thus the greatest threat to it is those forces who are uniting the international communist movement around such a line. Gagnon however does not dare to attack openly, instead he attacks the Bolshevik Union, “red UNs”, “class struggle”, “tailism”, etc.
So when In Struggle states that “BU’s line has nothing to do with Marxism-Leninism” (Ibid.), what In Struggle is really saying is that the general line of the international communist movement and its application by the PLA to the present international situation has nothing to do with Gagnonism – a fact we are well aware of!
While it is true that Gagnon opposes the hegemony of the “theory of three worlds”, this is an opposition that is similar to Togliatti’s opposition to Khrushchev.
While they express their opposition to the splittist meeting that N. Khrushchev demands should be organized, the Italian revisionists are not in the least concerned about the problem of the unity of the communist movement and the socialist camp. On the contrary, like the Khrushchev group, they, too, are for the disruption, indeed for the complete break up, of the communist movement. With their completely opportunist and social-democratic views, the Italian revisionists have long since sown the seeds of disruption and are cultivating them with increasing care. They have waged, and are continuing to wage a stern struggle against the Marxist-Leninist parties and insist that this struggle must not be relinquished for one moment.
The so-called “autonomy” which the Togliattists advocate for the socialist countries and communist parties means, as the writings of P. Togliatti and various documents of the leadership of the Italian Communist Party bring out, that the socialist countries and communist parties should be “independent” of any Marxist-Leninist principle, of any general law, that each of them must be “free” to adopt its own “specific” road to follow “different policies”, to enter into alliances and collaborate with whoever they like and as they like. The polycentrist line of the Italian revisionists, the line of the creation of different leading centres in the communist movement, is just as blatantly opposed to the ideas of unity as the Khrushchevite line of the “single command.” (Enver Hoxha, “The Crisis of Italian Modern Revisionism,” Tirana 1977, pp. 33-34)
Comrade Hoxha stated that:
The polemics of principle is certain disaster for the revisionists, because it is demonstrating openly to the masses of communists and working people the revisionists’ flagrant deviation from the fundamental principles of Marxism-Leninism, is bringing to light their real features as renegades. (ibid., p. 9)
This is what Gagnon and his clique fear most from the Bolshevik Union and this is why the purpose of their “demarcation” is to exclude the Bolshevik Union from conferences and cease selling our publications in their bookstore. The Bolshevik Union’s polemics over Marxist-Leninist principals and their application to the concrete conditions of Canada have more and more led to the expose “three worldists” and Gagnonite “centrists” to the masses of communists and working people in Canada as the renegades that they are.