First Published: Canadian Revolution No. 4, November/December 1975
Transcription, Editing and Markup: Malcolm and Paul Saba
Copyright: This work is in the Public Domain under the Creative Commons Common Deed. You can freely copy, distribute and display this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit the Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line as your source, include the url to this work, and note any of the transcribers, editors & proofreaders above.
The usual function of the editorial statement in CANADIAN REVOLUTION has been to clearly outline the contents of each issue, our thinking behind the publication of various positions and their relevance to the Marxist-Leninist movement in Canada. This editorial is a departure from that general format. Due to a number of important struggles in the Journal collective since the fall, we felt it was important to sum up the developments in CR and to apply the lessons of these struggles to the struggles in the Marxist-Leninist movement as a whole.
We feel the questions being debated in the Journal collective have implications for all Marxist-Leninists and in that sense will prove useful to our readership in assessing their own positions.
For the most part, the current struggles in the Journal have focused around two general questions: (1) the methods of struggle in uniting Marxist-Leninists and (2) the unity, purpose and historical tasks of the Journal itself.
The first area of struggle arose, principally, out of the main article in this issue on the question of the national status of Native People in Canada, and the relationship of this question to the development of the working class and revolutionary movements. The debate, however, has not centered so much on whether Native People constitute a nation or a national minority, but on general questions raised by the article, of how differences in the Marxist-Leninist movement are handled. This has involved much discussion in the Journal of what constitutes an antagonistic or non-antagonistic contradiction, whether antagonistic contradictions can exist within the Marxist-Leninist movement (and within the Journal itself) and the question of the different methods involved in struggle with comrades inside the Marxist-Leninist movement and with counter revolutionaries, revisionists, and other forces outside of, and hostile to, the Marxist-Leninist movement. These questions have, in struggle, essentially focused on the position one takes on how struggle within the Marxist-Leninist movement should be conducted – or on what basis contradictions are resolved among Marxist-Leninists, and for what purpose.
The debate over the methods of struggle within the Marxist-Leninist movement is a struggle which is taking place throughout Canada, as more positions are advanced on the tasks facing communists, the principal and main contradictions in Canadian society, the steps in building a genuine Communist Party in this country, etc. The correct resolution of this debate is extremely important for the process of building principled unity among Marxist-Leninists; without correct methods of struggle, differences will be impossible to overcome and unity will be very difficult to maintain or achieve. In this issue of CANADIAN REVOLUTION we can see examples of both approaches to handling contradictions within the Marxist-Leninist movement.
Within the Journal we have generally summed up our struggles on this question in the following way: we view antagonistic contradictions as those between the forces of the enemy and the people, and non-antagonistic contradictions as those among the people’s forces. Although all contradictions among the people may have a secondary aspect which is antagonistic, it is our revolutionary responsibility to ensure that the main aspect (non-antagonistic) is observed in the method of resolving the contradictions. Otherwise friends become enemies, and that which is basically non-antagonistic is turned into its opposite, through incorrect assessment and method of struggle.
Because CANADIAN REVOLUTION is a group of Marxist-Leninists, contradictions over line among members are handled through persuasion in open and private debate, even if the specific two-line struggle is considered an antagonistic contradiction between the bourgeois and proletarian line. When a group or individual is characterized by bourgeois lines as their principal aspect and such contradictions are not rectified through immediate struggle, this situation is the basis for division (splits or expulsion). Agreement to these principled methods of viewing internal struggle is necessary to Journal membership.
Within the Journal and within the Marxist-Leninist movement, the method of struggle must be unity-struggle/criticism-unity. This method, a fundamental method ot work of Marxist-Leninists, does not exclude polemical criticism or sharp strong debate – in other words it is not a liberal method, to blunt the struggle against bourgeois and opportunist lines. Its function is to take into account the basic purpose of all struggle within the movement, which is to unite Marxist-Leninists on a principled basis. This method is fundamentally different than that used in struggle against those opportunist and counterrevolutionary trends outside the Marxist-Leninist movement. Different methods of struggle must be used to resolve different types of contradictions – confusing antagonistic and non-antagonistic contradictions and the methods for their resolution is a very dangerous practice. In one case the purpose is to persuade, discuss and struggle, to win over and unite all those who can be united. In the other case it is to actively oppose, fight and ultimately destroy opportunist and counter-revolutionary lines and organizations. To persist in treating non-antagonistic contradictions with the same method as antagonistic contradictions is a serious mistake which will hold back the development of unity in the Marxist-Leninist movement, and promote division on an incorrect basis.
The second area of struggle, again arising from particular discussions within the Journal and in part from the letter sent to us by the Guelph comrades (see CR No. 3), has concentrated on the present unity and historical tasks of the Journal itself. Although this struggle has primarily concentrated on the role of the Journal in the movement, we have also had to debate on what basis we in the Journal have constituted ourselves, and what leadership we can and should exert on the debates and struggle within the Marxist-Leninist movement. More recently this struggle has led to discussions of the unity we need to build (beyond our present formal statements) in order to carry out the tasks the Journal has defined for itself. In part, many views still exist among us on these questions. However, it is possible to sum up our conculsions, at this time, on basic questions concerning our orientation and direction.
Basically, we have reaffirmed the tasks of the Journal as those originally stated: that is to promote debate and struggle within the Marxist-Leninist movement on key questions facing Canadian communists, and to encourage the development of concrete analysis of Canada as the basis for a correct strategic orientation to the Canadian revolution. Furthermore, we have re-established that we are a group of Marxist-Leninists engaged in promoting struggle towards the ideological, political and ultimately organizational unity of all genuine Marxist-Leninists in Canada.
In order to carry out our tasks, we need to further establish unity in the Journal on the question of the central task facing communists, (i.e. that of building a Marxist-Leninist party) and the minimum political basis on which national Marxist-Leninist organization will be created. Unity in these areas will better enable us to direct the content of the Journal towards the advancing debate and struggle in the Marxist-Leninist movement as a whole. At the same time as we are developing a clearer position on our unity, we are also considering concrete proposals for organizing the general political struggle among Marxist-Leninists, outside of the Journal’s development, as a step towards clarifying and sharpening differences and unity.
The results of these struggles in CR, although by no means fully resolved, have further strengthened our understandings of precisely what role we can play and are playing in the development of the Marxist-Leninist movement, the limitations of the Journal as an historically necessary but transitional vehicle for debate and struggle, and the advances which must be made in our basic perspective if we are to remain a useful and important tool in furthering the unity of Marxist-Leninists in Canada. We would encourage as much response from our supporters and contributors on these questions, as is possible. Criticisms and comments which will further clarify the movement’s views of the unity and purpose of CR, and the method by which Marxist-Leninists unite and handle contradictions, will help us to define more clearly our future responsibilities and guide us in developing principled debate through the pages of the Journal. We would emphasize as well, that although we intend to respond to the letter and criticisms raised by the Guelph comrades, it is also the responsibility of other comrades across the country to put forward their opinions and criticisms regarding the issues which have been raised. It is only through this type of exchange that CANADIAN REVOLUTION can determine whether its practice in relation to file movement is essentially correct or inaccurate and one-sided.