The CPC(ML) constantly changes its calls to action depending on which way the wind’s blowing; it modifies its political line month after month, without ever self-criticizing – because, after all, the CPC(ML) never make mistakes, it just adapts!; it activates and deactivates its dozens of ad hoc committees at the drop of a hat, and last but not least it liquidates questions of program. But this doesn’t mean that it doesn’t, in fact, have a program, a bourgeois program, or more precisely a program of the radical petty-bourgeoisie – the class which the CPC(ML) is almost exclusively composed of – and of the labour aristocracy which it is trying to rally.
In the past few months, the CPC(ML) has been making a lot of noise about its so-called rejection of the “three worlds theory”, a “strategic concept” which substitutes a division of the world into three types of countries – the superpowers (“first world”), the less powerful imperialist countries (“second world”), and the other countries (“third world”) – for a class analysis on an international scale. Paraphrasing the many declarations of Marxist-Leninist groups and parties around the world which have undertaken the criticism of this new opportunist trend whose line advocates an alliance with imperialism on the pretext of struggling against the superpowers, the CPC(ML) once again has launched a “cover-up operation” to try and give itself some credibility. But, as we will see, the CPC(ML), which has maintained the same position on this subject since its creation, has never adopted a class point of view in analysing the international situation. Faithful to its petty-bourgeois conception of imperialism, the CPC(ML) has always tried to reduce all contradictions on the international scale to just one – the contradiction between the biggest imperialists, the superpowers, and everyone that opposes them.
IN STRUGGLE’s Draft Program presents the fundamental contradictions of our era as follows:
“The contradictions between:
a) the proletariat and the bourgeoisie;
b) the socialist countries and the capitalist and imperialist countries;
c) the oppressed peoples and nations, and imperialism;
d) the different imperialist countries themselves.”[1]
The first contradiction indicates that one of the main characteristics in the world today is that everywhere the working class must confront the bourgeoisie. This is true in capitalist countries where the bourgeoisie is in power, as well as in socialist countries, where the dominant class is the proletariat, but where the bourgeoisie still exists and is continually trying to re-establish capitalism. Since the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, capitalism has entered into a phase of generalized crisis. The world proletarian revolution has begun, and already, in certain countries, capitalism has been overthrown and the working class has taken power.
That is the second great contradiction in the contemporary world – the contradiction between the socialist countries and the capitalist and imperialist countries. Even if all the capitalist countries in the world are not at the stage of imperialism, an examination of the capitalist countries, as a whole, clearly indicates that imperialism is still the main characteristic. The imperialist powers strive to impose their domination on all nations. The imperialist bourgeoisies export capital to less developed countries and maintain the latter’s underdevelopment through systematic pillage. They impose their law through the threat of, or actual, armed intervention, subversion by their international agencies of banditry, like the CIA and the KGB, and all kinds of economic and political pressures. Supporting the worst reactionary regimes which it has often put in power, imperialism, headed up by the great powers, has developed the oppression of nations and peoples to a hitherto unknown degree. That is the third major contradiction in the world. Finally, the different imperialist countries, including the Soviet Union – socialist in words, but imperialist in deeds – are in hot contention over the control of markets and zones of influence.
The object is to grab the largest piece of pie in the exploitation of the world proletariat. In this battle among thieves, the USA and the USSR are the ringleaders, pulling behind them the weaker imperialist powers. Inevitably, these rivalries will lead to open imperialist warfare, where each bourgeoisie will try to use the people as cannon-fodder to win the spoils of war. That describes the fourth contradiction.
This analysis of the main characteristics of the contemporary world is much more than a superficial description of the relations between countries. It’s an analysis of the international situation which begins with a class point of view, an analysis, which starts with the point of view of the international proletariat and proceeds to draw fundamental political conclusions about the worldwide domination of imperialism, highest stage of capitalism.
But what does the CPC(ML) have to say about the four contradictions?
“The first (contradiction) opposes the socialist countries on one hand, and the superpowers on the other (...)
The second principal contradiction opposes the superpowers and the oppressed nations of the third world (...)
The third principal contradiction in the world today is the contradiction between the dominant class of the superpowers and the labouring peoples and the other oppressed strata of the people in the imperialist countries themselves (...)
The fourth principal contradiction in the world today opposes the superpowers themselves on the one hand and the other imperialist powers on the other.”[2]
Looking closely at this mishmash presented by the CPC(ML), it is clear there is a world of difference between it and a Marxist-Leninist analysis, the world which separates the anti-imperialism of the petty-bourgeoisie from the anti-imperialism of the working class, and revisionism from Marxism-Leninism.
CPC(ML) replaces the contradiction between the socialist countries and the capitalist and imperialist countries by the contradiction between the socialist countries and the superpowers alone. By doing this, CPC(ML) camouflages the rather important fact that the opposition of the capitalist countries, and in particular the imperialist countries, to the socialist countries, is, in terms of country-to-country relations, the manifestation of the opposition of two different social systems: capitalism, the rule of the bourgeoisie, and the socialism, the rule of the working class. By reducing the phenomenon of national oppression under imperialism to the opposition between the superpowers and the oppressed nations of the third world – what the defenders of the “three worlds theory” would call the contradiction between the “first” and “third” worlds – the CPC(ML) tries to wipe away the fact that all imperialist countries, including Canada, are direct agents of national oppression in the capitalist countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America. By reducing the contradiction between the different imperialist countries to the contradiction between the two superpowers on one hand, and the other imperialist countries on the other – what the “three worlders” would describe as the contradiction between the “first” and “second” worlds – the CPC(ML) would have us believe that the two superpowers are of a different nature than the other imperialist countries. This difference serves to justify a reactionary position which consists of relying on the weaker imperialist powers, like Canada, to struggle against imperialism, now reduced to the only two superpowers. By replacing the contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat by the contradiction between the dominant class of the superpowers on one hand, and all the oppressed strata of the imperialist countries, on the other, what the CPC(ML) is doing is replacing the class struggle against capitalism and imperialism by the struggle, on a world scale, against the largest imperialists. For the CPC(ML), it would be sufficient to defeat the two superpowers to eliminate the contradictions of imperialism and overcome the danger of war. Is it necessary to point out that as long as imperialism exists there will be hegemonic powers ready to lead the world into an imperialist slaughter? But the CPC(ML)’s position is not something new. Lenin criticized this petty-bourgeois way of combating imperialism as long ago as the turn of the century.
“Since the specific political features of imperialism are reaction everywhere and increased national oppression due to the oppression of the financial oligarchy and the elimination of free competition, a petty-bourgeois democratic opposition to imperialism arose at the beginning of the twentieth century in nearly all imperialist countries. Kautsky not only did not take the trouble to oppose, was unable to oppose this petty-bourgeois reformist opposition, which is really reactionary in its economic basis, but became merged in practice, and this is precisely where Kautsky and the broad international Kautskian trend deserted Marxism.”[3]
In denouncing Kautsky, the former communist leader who betrayed the cause of the working class by obediently lining up in the camp of bourgeois nationalism and imperialism, Lenin points out how imperialism, which represents reaction right down the line and the increased oppression of nations, provokes a reformist opposition to imperialism among certain strata of the petty bourgeoisie.
Fundamentally, the petty-bourgeois conception of imperialism amounts to considering imperialism as a system of oppression separate from capitalism, and consequently separate from the main characteristic of capitalism which is the irreconciliable opposition between two classes: the working class which produces all social wealth in exchange for a meager wage it must constantly fight to defend just in order to survive, and the bourgeoisie, which corners this wealth and, on that basis, controls society as a whole.
The golden rule of capitalism is the rule of profit. To continually increase their profits, the capitalists do everything in their power to speed-up production and decrease wages. It also means that each capitalist strives to concentrate production by buying increasingly efficient and powerful machines, which, by reducing the costs of production, allow him to get an edge over his capitalist competitors. In this race for maximum profits, the strongest capitalists win out, forming coalitions and financial groups controlling capital worth billions. This leads to the appearance of monopolies, the main form of modern capitalism ownership, and this is how the finance bourgeoisie becomes the dominant faction of the bourgeoisie. Controlling the capitalist State in the name of the entire bourgeoisie, the financial oligarchy establishes the worst political reaction, which, in times of crisis, can become open and bloody terror: fascism. Further, for the monopoly bourgeoisie, national borders are too constricting for its unlimited thirst for profits. Through the massive export of capital to other countries, interference and hegemonism, armed domination and brutal warfare, the imperialist bourgeoisie, linked to, and in competition with, the imperialist bourgeoisies of other countries is spreading its tentacles of domination around the world. Imperialism is not a new social regime, but rather the current dominant form of capitalism.
Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism, the stage where the fundamental opposition between the proletariat, which is increasingly numerous, and the bourgeoisie which is reduced to a handful of parasites, is pushed to its utmost extreme. That’s why we say that the era of imperialism is also the era of proletarian revolution, the epoch of the destruction of the capitalist system at its final rotten stage. To speak of revolution is to say that imperialism creates the objective conditions for revolution by aggravating all the social contradictions: exploitation of the working class, pillage of colonies, oppression of nations, impoverishment of small farmers, increased unemployment – especially for young workers – increased discrimination against women, super-exploitation of immigrants, growing proletarianization of large strata of the petty-bourgeoisie, etc. To speak of proletarian revolution, is to say that there is only one class which can wage the revolution to the end, and that class is the proletariat whose interests lie both in struggling against all manifestations of imperialist reaction, such as the oppression of nations, and in destroying the capitalist system itself, the very foundation of imperialism.
So we are dealing with two very different conceptions of imperialism: the petty-bourgeois conception advanced by the CPC(ML) which reduces anti-imperialism to the struggle against the “multinationals”, the large monopolies, especially foreign ones, and the struggle against the interference of foreign imperialists and the oppression of nations; and the proletarian conception, which, of course, is opposed to the monopolies and national oppression, but so that this opposition may be victorious, aims at overthrowing the bourgeoisie, destroying the State of bourgeois dictatorship, and establishing in its place the power of the working class, the dictatorship of the proletariat over the bourgeois minority. The political stakes of the question are whether we want to reform capitalism and substitute one bourgeois faction for another; or whether we want to destroy capitalism. Such are the class aspirations behind the two conceptions of imperialism.
Since it so easily traded a Marxist-Leninist analysis of world contradictions for a bourgeois nationalist point of view, it’s not surprise to learn that the CPC(ML) was an ardent defender of the “three worlds theory”. In the February 17, 1975 issue of the People’s Canada Daily News one can read:
“After the second world war the socialist camp came into being for a short period under the leadership of the Soviet Union facing the capitalist camp under the hegemony of US imperialism... Soon after this the socialist camp... disintegrated. At the same time the capitalist camp also broke down and US imperialism went from ascendancy to decline. As a result of these developments three worlds came into being: 1. First World, the world of two superpowers, US imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism which are the major cause and source of future wars. 2. Third World comprising the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America which were former colonies and had won formal independence. 3. Second World, the world of Eastern Europe, Western Europe, Japan and Canada. The Second World historically profited from imperialist domination and plunder. The main motive force world of revolution is the Third World. China is a socialist count, part of the third world”.[4]
And yet, without making even cursory self-criticism, the CPC(ML) claims to be, and to have always been, the great defender of Marxism-Leninism against opportunists and all those who deform revolution (see for example the sixth political resolution of the Third Congress (held in 1977)! Trying so hard to give itself a “facelift”, the CPC(ML) would have us believe that it is at the heart of the struggle against revisionism and the “three worlds theory”...
The underpinning of the CPC(ML)’s denunciation of the “three worlds theory” is the same as that of its ultra-nationalist falsification the four contradictions of our time. The “three worlds theory” can be thought of as nationalist because it subordinates the proletarian revolution and the interests of the working class in each country to a strategy of class alliance based on the relations between countries. In brief, the contradictions between nations and countries intertwined in the world imperialist chain, in particular the contradiction which has been promoted to the rank of “the motor of history” (that is, the contradiction between the third world and the two superpowers, or more precisely, the USSR) have become the basis for revolutionary strategy, replacing the four fundamental contradictions of the imperialist era. CPC(ML)’s point of view must be termed ultra-nationalist in that the opposition to the superpowers has become not the main, but the sole, aspect of the revolution. This is clear in many ways: CPC(ML) reduces, to the point of denying, the contradictions between imperialist countries. Imperialism has become a sort of super-imperialism, a single bloc where the two superpowers control everything and where the bourgeoisie of the other countries are but traitors to the nation, acting as intermediaries for the two superpowers:
“The two superpowers use the reactionary bourgeoisie of each country to suppress the proletariat of that country and intensify capitalist exploitation and wage slavery.”[5]
So, it seems it’s not mainly in its own interests that the bourgeoisie of each country exploits the proletariat, but only to serve the imperialist bourgeoisies of the two superpowers. And there we have, in a new form, donning a new disguise, a repetition of the contradiction of 1975 “between the dominant class of the superpowers and the labouring peoples and the other oppressed strata of the people in the imperialist countries themselves”. Today, the CPC(ML) does a lot of talking about the “imperialist camp”, to try and align its bourgeois line with the criticism of the “three worlds theory”. But besides the similarity in the words, the term “camp of imperialism and reaction” as understood by authentic communists has nothing in common with the “camp of imperialism led by the two superpowers”, the formula which pops up like a leitmotiv in the CPC(ML)’s propaganda. For Marxist-Leninists, the fact that they affirm the existence of an imperialist camp, in no way eliminates the autonomous existence of different bourgeoisies who are in rivalry, in the context of a world balance of power in which certain hegemonic powers stand out; this in no way means, as the CPC(ML) claims, that the two superpowers are the all-powerful masters and the others their obedient and humble servants. Rather it affirms that despite their rivalries, all imperialists and all reactionaries, be they big or small, of the “first” “second” or “third” worlds, are the sworn enemies of the proletariat and the peoples, enemies whose time has come and who must be defeated.
Yes, the CPC(ML) criticizes the “three worlds theory”. But it doesn’t criticize it from a Marxist-Leninist point of view, but rather from an ultra-nationalist point of view, from a radical petty-bourgeois point of view which substitutes the struggle against the big bad imperialists who dominate the world like the gods dominate the heavens, for the consistent struggle against the capitalist and imperialist system.
And the way in which the CPC(ML) tries to pass off its revisionism (as it has always done), consists of confusing imperialism with the two superpowers. It’s all very well for the CPC(ML) to pretend to be combating the opportunist point of view on the struggle against the two superpowers. But concretely when it speaks of struggling against the “imperialist camp led by the two superpowers”, it’s really only talking about the struggle against the two superpowers, which, it would seem, is also the struggle against imperialism. In the end, it seems that the two are but one and the same thing. In 1977, the CPC(ML) declared:
“Thus while the Canadian State is dominated by US imperialism and is an agent and spokesman for US imperialism in the international arena, the Canadian State acts on behalf of one section of the international imperialist bourgeoisie in the inter-imperialist rivalries on a world scale. They (those who defend the “three worlds theory” in Canada, ed. note) characterize Canada as a imperialist country of the second world, in order to mask the domination of Canada by American imperialism; they have used the rivalries among imperialist groups as proof that Canada is independent.”[6]
The CPC(ML) isn’t criticizing the “three worlds theory” because it’s nationalist and hides the imperialist character of “our” bourgeoisie, but on the contrary, because it isn’t nationalist enough. For the CPC(ML), the bourgeoisie is so “anti-nationalist” that it has become an international imperialist bourgeoisie which totally dominates countries like Canada which are considered as poor colonies, victims, and not full-fledged partners of imperialism.
But the hypocrisy doesn’t stop there, because even if the CPC(ML) has pretended to rally to the other Marxist-Leninist parties who are denouncing the subordination of the struggle against the internal enemy to the struggle against the two superpowers, in fact, it has in no way changed its fundamental line of alliance with the bourgeoisie. Because, for the CPC(ML), the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is quite simply secondary, and that’s why it was eliminated as a contradiction in 1975. In that year, the CPC(ML) stated in the People’s Canada Daily News, that even if Canada were an imperialist country (because as we will see later, the CPC(ML) considers Canada as a colony of the USA) “Nevertheless, the struggle between the bourgeoisie and proletariat still cannot be considered as the main struggle”[7]
This revisionist thesis, which denies the main character of the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie in imperialist countries, is essential aimed at dulling the character of the proletarian revolution to transform it into a struggle against the monopolies, and especially against foreign imperialism, that is, the superpowers. There’s good reason for the CPC(ML) to specify that an alliance should not be made with the reactionary bourgeoisie. For, as it will become clear when we analyse the application of this thesis to Canada, the reactionary bourgeoisie is not the entire bourgeoisie, but only certain factions. For example, in Canada, the reactionary bourgeoisie, also known as the “big bourgeoisie”, excludes ... the national bourgeoisie! This means that far from excluding an alliance with the national bourgeoisie, the CPC(ML)’s fine declarations against the “three worlds theory” end up saying only that an alliance should not be made with the “traitor bourgeoisie” which is “the basis for US imperialist domination in Canada”. This means that the bourgeoisie, qualified as reactionary, should be opposed to the extent and only to the extent, that it serves as an intermediary for the exploitation of the working class by the superpowers.
The reactionary point of view hiding behind the CPC(ML)’s “left-wing phrase-mongering” with regard to the “three worlds theory”, is the falsification of the nature of the imperialist camp, the liquidation of the main struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, and the promotion of a united front with the national bourgeoisie, in the perspective of waging a national liberation struggle! There is yet a third aspect of the CPC(ML)’s phoney anti-revisionist criticism which must still be examined, and that is its conception of the camp of the revolution. To the same extent that the CPC(ML) tries to camouflage its petty-bourgeois radical line on the struggle against big foreign imperialists, limiting imperialism to the domination of the superpowers, it also strives to camouflage its line on the “mass democratic anti-imperialist revolution”, that is the national struggle of all those who oppose the two superpowers, thus confusing and welding into one, a socialist revolution and a national liberation struggle.
In the same way that it uses the term “imperialist camp” to deny the autonomous existence of different imperialists, the CPC(ML) uses the term “camp of socialism” to deny that the national context of the class struggle results in different strategies for socialism.
In 1970, Chairman Mao, great leader of the Communist Party of China and of the Chinese people, suddenly became, in the words of the CPC(ML) “the greatest helmsman of the working and oppressed people of the world.”[8]
The CPC(ML) stated: “Under the great and glorious leadership of Chairman Mao, our own mass democratic anti-imperialist revolution has begun to move forward.”[9]
In 1975:
“Every revolutionary in the world must orient his policies according to the policies of the socialist People’s Republic of China, People’s China is the strongest base area against imperialism.”[10]
In 1976:
“Yesterday we said that the chairman of China is our chairman and the Path of China is our path, and we still say so today.”[11]
In 1977:
“Our Party was founded as a direct result of the vigorous struggle waged against Khruschevite revisionism by the Communist Party of China and the Party of Labour of Albania, and more specifically at the call of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution”.[12]
What do all these quotes show us, if not that the CPC(ML), in order to impose its revisionist line of “mass democratic anti-imperialist revolution” in the place of proletarian revolution in an imperialist Canada, tries to use the revolutionary prestige of comrade Mao, wading up to its neck in the lowest form of tailism!
But to speak of the camp of revolution and socialism on a world scale in no way denies the national context of the revolution nor does it reduce the path of the revolution in each country to a single pattern of world revolution: it does not deny that the leadership of the revolutionary struggle in each country belongs to the working class of that country and to its Marxist-Leninist party. It is rather a way to uphold that all the workers and peoples of the world, while struggling in specific conditions, are essentially aiming for the same objective, have essentially the same interests, and support each other reciprocally. However, the CPC(ML)’s reference to the “camp of socialism, independence and national liberation”[13] is nothing but a new disguise to put across its thesis of a single world anti-imperialist revolution. This is the thinking which leads to seeing the revolution in Canada as simply a carbon copy of the Chinese and Albanian revolutions. This is how, first, Mao Tse-tung – when it wasn’t quite simply the Chinese State – and now Enver Hoxha, became direct leaders of the proletarian revolution in Canada.
It’s quite correct to say that the proletariat of each country resolutely bases itself on the teachings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, and the other great leaders, like Mao Tse-tung and Enver Hoxha, who were able to base themselves on the experience of the revolutionary struggle of the working class and systematize the correct ideas of the masses into a scientific theory, the indispensable guide for our liberation. However, basing oneself on Marxism-Leninism means applying Marxist-Leninist science to the specific concrete conditions of the revolutionary struggle in each country in a dynamic way, as the very example of these great leaders proves.
But, for the CPC(ML), things are very different. To hide the fact that the CPC(M L) was not really founded on the basis of a rupture with revisionism at all, nor on the basis of a deep criticism of the revisionist line of the Communist Party of Canada, it now presents itself as the direct descendent of the Chinese cultural revolution! In this way, this phoney party, ignoring the imperialist character of Canada, hopes to use the names of Mao and Hoxha to apply strategy which corresponds to completely different conditions.
Consequently, the CPC(ML) tries to demarcate from the Marxist-Leninist point of view defended by IN STRUGGLE!
“Another sect (that’s how the CPC(ML) designates IN STRUGGLE! – editor) advocates that the struggle against the “bourgeoisie” is the main struggle while the struggle against the two superpowers must be subordinated to it”.[14]
“The theory of the one-stage revolution is merely trotskyite sophistry and windbaggery. There is nothing of substance in it”.[15]
The CPC(ML) even went so far as to write into its constitution (1973) the exclusion of any member who defended “counter-revolutionary slogans of ’anti-capitalist’ and ’one-stage’ revolution.”[16]
In everyday language, this kind of nonsense is called being caught with your hand in the till. The Trotskyists, with their petty-bourgeois radicalism and their right-wing line, mouth left-wing words and invoke the slogan of the world-wide revolution of the “international proletariat” against the “international bourgeoisie” so as to deny the necessity, in certain countries, of a stage of national liberation struggle before achieving socialism. And the Bainsites, finding nothing “substantial” in all that, try to make us believe that socialist revolution in any and all countries is impossible without a preliminary stage!
But what distinguishes the stage of national liberation from socialist revolution per se, is that in the first case, the national contradiction between a colonized or neocolonized nation and foreign imperialist domination is principal in relation to the contradiction between the proletariat and the national bourgeoisie. This means that to establish the socialist State of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the country, the domination exercised by the foreign imperialist State must be attacked first. On the other hand, in the case of the socialist revolution, the bourgeoisie-proletariat contradiction is principal, that is, the taking of State power by the working class involves the overthrow of the national bourgeoisie which controls the bourgeois State. Of course the socialist revolution also has the goal of totally eliminating foreign imperialist domination, but while in a national liberation struggle the anti-imperialist struggle is an indispensable condition for the pursuit of the struggle for socialism, in the case of the socialist revolution, the overthrow of the nationalist bourgeoisie is the condition for the elimination of imperialist domination.
Thus, by rejecting IN STRUGGLE!’s point of view that the principal contradiction in Canada, an imperialist country, is between the Canadian proletariat and the Canadian bourgeoisie, the CPC(ML) proposes relegating the socialist revolution against the national bourgeoisie which holds State power to a later, second stage.
What are we to conclude from all this if not that, for the CPC(ML), the denunciation of the “three worlds theory” is nothing more than new trappings permitting it to put forward its same old line on international questions, a line of bourgeois nationalism and reactionary anti-imperialism? Yes, this phoney criticism of the “three worlds theory” is nothing but new trappings. Paraphrasing the words of the Marxist-Leninist criticism of the “three worlds theory”, the CPC(ML) is in fact trying to pass off a bourgeois, revisionist and ultra-nationalist line, attempting to give it the appearance of being a criticism of revisionism. And what the CPC(ML) is really after is international backing likely to give it credibility which it could never obtain on its own merit in Canada, since its positions and actions so clearly reveal it to be a gang of provocateurs.
As we will see, the search for “international acclaim” through demagogery and trickery has been a major preoccupation with the CPC(ML) and with the Internationalists which preceded it. Not only does this activity have the objective of imposing the CPC(ML)’s revisionist line in Canada, it also seeks to sabotage the international Marxist-Leninist movement and to discredit it in the eyes of the Canadian masses. But even if these manoeuvres of international provocation on the part of the CPC(ML) can confuse some people, the CPC(ML)’s “anti-revisionism” has clearly revealed its true nature, especially when we examine its position on the path of the revolution in Canada – its neo-revisionist nature.
[1] Draft Program for the Canadian Proletarian Party, IN STRUGGLE! Dec. 1977, article 4
[2] Quolidien du Canada Populaire (People’s Canada Daily News), official organ of CPC(ML), January 20, 1975, p.1.4; our emphasis.
[3] Lenin, Imperialism, highest stage of capitalism. Works, Volume 22, p.287
[4] PCDN-OTL, Feb. 17, 1975, p. 4
[5] Political Resolution of the Third Congress of CPC(ML), Montreal, 1977, p. 4
[6] QCP, July 29, 1977, p. 4 (our translation)
[7] QCP, April 13, 1975, (our translation)
[8] Mass Line, no. 18, p.5
[9] Mass Line, no. 18, p.2
[10] Hardial Bains, PCDN, vol. 5, no. 4, p. l.
[11] Six years of CPC(ML), Hardial Bains, 1976, p. 26
[12] QCP, Nov. 16, 1977, p. 4 (our emphasis) (our translation)
[13] Political Resolution of the Third Congress of CPC(ML), Montreal, 1977, p. 31
[14] Political Resolution .... op cit., p. 21
[15] Ibid.
[16] Political Report, 1973, Documents, 1976, p. 153