Now let us proceed to demolish the confusion-mongering of the “genuine” Marxist-Leninist chieftains of En Lutte!. They have been picking at random quotations from classics of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Chairman Mao and converting these into opportunist theories. One of the slogans they have picked up from the classics is that of “combining socialism with the working class movement”. According to En Lutte!, the working class movement in Canada is still without socialism. So they have to combine this “spontaneous workers’ movement” without socialism with their “socialism”, and “unite” the “genuine” Marxist-Leninists, two aspects of a single “central task” of the “struggle to create the conditions for the formation of the proletarian vanguard party”.[36]
We shall begin with two quotes from En Lutte!: Quote 1: “Instead of also being the conscious expression of the spontaneous workers’ movement which, left on its own, is and only can be economic.”[37]
Quote 2: “Doesn’t Lenin make a very clear distinction between these economist trade unionist politics advocated by Bains and the political struggles of the real communists, that of the conscious workers’ vanguard leading a conscious class struggle with the goal, not of reforming the laws but of seizing state power to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat over the bourgeois class?”[38]
Now let us proceed with En Lutte!’s Muddle Number 1. This appears in their Quote 1 above: “Instead of also being the conscious expression of the spontaneous workers’ movement...” Let us see where this quotation comes from and how En Lutte! through a typical misdemeanour, botches it up. The quotation comes from Stalin. I reproduce the appropriate portion:
“Here is what Lenin says in another passage in his controversy with Martov:
“’Our Party is the conscious expression of an unconscious process.’ Exactly. And for this very reason it is wrong to want ’every striker’ to have the right to call himself a Party member, for if ’every strike’ were not only a spontaneous expression of a powerful class instinct and of the class struggle, which is inevitably leading to the social revolution, but a conscious expression of that process... then our Party... would at once put an end to the entire bourgeois society.’ ”[39]
First of air, it is most interesting to note that En Lutte! has actually derived their formulation from Martov, an opportunist of Lenin’s time. Second, they cannot even get this right. For the words “unconscious process” in Martov’s formulation, they substitute the phrase “spontaneous workers’ movement”. For the word “Party” in Martov’s formulation, En Lutte! quite happily (in their second quotation) substitute the words “political struggle”. They thereby land themselves in an absolute muddle.
In order to have a better grasp of the difficulties of En Lutte!, readers should pay attention to En Lutte!’s phrase “Doesn’t Lenin make a very clear distinction between these economist trade-unionist politics advocated by Bains and the political struggles of the real communists...” It will easily be seen that with this phrase En Lutte! equates the “spontaneous workers’ movement” with “economist trade unionist politics” as though they were one and the same thing. But they are not one and the same thing.
“Economist trade unionist politics” is the conscious bourgeois politics in the working class movement – while the “spontaneous workers’ movement” is the unconscious movement of the workers. These are two different things. Here I give an extensive quotation from Stalin:
“Thus, the spontaneous working class movement, the working class movement without socialism, inevitably becomes petty and assumes a trade unionist character – it submits to bourgeois ideology. Can we draw the conclusion from this that socialism is everything and the working class movement nothing? Of course not! Only idealists say that. Some day, in the distant future, economic development will inevitably bring the working class to the social revolution, and consequently, compel it to break off all connection with bourgeois ideology. The point is that this path is a very long and painful one.
“On the other hand, socialism without the working class movement, no matter on what scientific basis it may have arisen, nevertheless remains an empty phrase and loses its significance. Can we draw the conclusion from this that the movement is everything and socialism – nothing? Of course not! Only pseudo-Marxists, who attach no importance to consciousness because it is engendered by social life itself, argue that way. Socialism can be combined with the working class movement and thereby be transformed from an empty phrase into a sharp weapon.”[40]
Now we take up the Muddle Number 2 in quote 1: “... spontaneous workers’ movement which, left on its own, is and only can be economic.”
Readers may have noticed what Stalin says on this question. That is, that the “spontaneous working class movement, the working class movement without socialism ... submits to bourgeois ideology”. But the En Lutte! muddle-heads claim that the “spontaneous worker’s movement” ”left on its own, is and only can be economic”. Furthermore, Stalin goes on to say that “economic development will inevitably bring the working class to the social revolution, and consequently, compel it to break off all connection with bourgeois ideology.” This means that even after ”the working class movement without socialism” submits “to bourgeois ideology” it will still lead to social revolution ”and consequently, compel it to break off all connection with bourgeois ideology”, but the “point is that this path is a very long and painful one.” Just prior to the paragraph quoted above, Stalin explains by quoting from the Minutes of the Second Party Congress that even ”without ideologists the proletariat would of course, in the long run, work towards the social revolution, but it would do so instinctively...” [41]
So, En Lutte! has landed themselves into two muddles in a single sentence. The first half of the sentence pulls them into right-opportunism, economism, while the second half of the sentence pulls them into ”left”ism. I genuinely sympathize with these individuals to be in such hypertension. This is, of course, a symptom of our times. The ruling classes of the U.S. and Canada actually bestow honours on those who find themselves in this position and encourage songwriters to write songs, and singers to put them onto the air. Our readers must have heard the song: “Oh he is a Living Contradiction!”
Now we can isolate Muddle Number 3 in quote number 1. In order to appreciate this muddle, I reproduce the first sentence before quote 1 and the entire quote 1 again:
“Thus, the political struggle of the working class becomes nothing more than one front amongst others, instead of being the only way of overthrowing the bourgeois state and establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat. Instead of also being the conscious expression of the spontaneous workers’ movement which, left on its own, is and only can be economic.”
Thus the question arises: what kind of “political struggle” is it which is, on the one hand, ”the only way of overthrowing the bourgeois state” and, at the same time, is ”the conscious expression of the spontaneous workers’ movement”. Political struggle is a form of proletarian struggle, one of the three basic forms. The commander of political struggle is revolutionary politics, that is, politics of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie. “Political struggle” is not “the only way of overthrowing the bourgeois state” as all three basic forms of proletarian struggle are in essence political struggles. And how can the “political struggle” as “the only means of overthrowing the bourgeoisie” be the “conscious expression of the spontaneous workers’ movement”?
Now “political struggle”, whether “economic trade unionist politics advocated by Bains” or the “political struggles of the real communists” both meet on the common ground that they are both conscious. Yet in this sentence, En Lutte! charges that our ”political struggle” is not the “;conscious expression of the spontaneous workers’ movement”. This accusation is the source of all the difficulties of En Lutte! Their accusation against me and the Party, which they make by prostrating in front of the classics, only results in them throwing mud on their own faces. And this, according to them, is “besmirching” my image!
But what really is the issue here? The Party is the issue! They assert that the Party does not exist. At the same time, they want to be the “conscious expression of the spontaneous workers’ movement”. But now their difficulties are multiplied. They do not advocate building the Party! They advocate building the “Marxist-Leninist organization of struggle for the party”. Now the reader can see the reason behind all this tug of war in a single sentence. Instead of recognizing the fact that the party is the “conscious expression” of the “unconscious process”, En Lutte! gives this quality to “political struggle”.
According to Stalin, “the working class movement itself consists of two elements: the objective or spontaneous element, and the subjective or conscious element. The objective, spontaneous element is the group of processes that take place independently of the conscious and regulating will of the proletariat. The economic development of the country, the development of capitalism, the disintegration of the old regime, the spontaneous movements of the proletariat and of the classes around it, the conflict of classes, etc. – all these are phenomena whose development does not depend on the will of the proletariat... That is a field which has to be studied by the theory of Marxism and the programme of Marxism.”[42] Stalin further points out:
“The subjective side of the movement is the reflection in the minds of the workers of the spontaneous processes of the movement; it is the conscious and systematic movement of the proletariat towards a definite goal.”[43]
A Marxist-Leninist Communist Party is part of the “subjective or conscious” element, and it is the “conscious expression of the unconscious process”, that is, by basing itself on the revolutionary theory of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought, the theory which studies the “objective processes of the movement”, the Party presents proletarian strategy and tactics in order to consciously and systematically lead the proletariat towards achieving the goal of overthrowing the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, and establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat in order to achieve communism.
Proletarian strategy deals with “the conscious and deliberate movement of the proletariat towards a definite goal”. While “the objective aspect of the movement” “is a field which has to be studied by the theory of Marxism and the programme of Marxism.” Stalin explains: “From a study of the objective processes of capitalism in their development and decline, the theory of Marxism arrives at the conclusion that the fall of the bourgeoisie and the seizure of power by the proletariat are inevitable, that capitalism must inevitably give way to socialism. Proletarian strategy can be called truly Marxist only when its operations are based on this fundamental conclusion of the theory of Marxism.”[44]
In this world there is, on the one hand, the politics of imperialism, social-imperialism and all reactionaries of the world; and on the other hand, the politics of “countries want independence, nations want liberation and people want revolution”. There is no middle ground in terms of politics between these two. Either you are on the side of imperialism and social-imperialism or you are opposed to them. Why did not En Lutte! raise the simple issue of politics and show us where CPC(M-L) advances politics in support of imperialism, social-imperialism and all reactionaries of the world?
In the absence of this, En Lutte! had to create a fog, run for cover to the classics, and come out with the “accusation” that Hardial Bains and CPC(M-L) are “economists”. So they dished out this utter nausea in support of their “argument”. This is the issue. En Lutte! should pluck up some courage and accuse us of being “neo-revisionists” by providing some evidence from politics, instead of rushing about madly screwing up principles. But En Lutte!, being unprincipled eclectics, won’t do such a thing. They will merely pluck bits and pieces from here and there and make “theories” out of them.
En Lutte! has yet to notice two major historical stages of the working class movement. The first is the spontaneous working class movement, that is the movement which is unconscious and is without socialism. This is the starting point of the working class movement. Then begins a conscious stage, the conceptual stage, the stage at which Marxism is born. This stage of the working class movement varies with different countries. For example, in China, this stage was ushered in by the May Fourth Movement and with the founding of the Communist Party in 1921. This stage began in Canada during the 1919-1921 period or the period beginning with the victory of the Great October Revolution in Russia. But En Lutte! ignores all this and has picked up a dogma that we in Canada are in the Russian Iskra period of 1900-02! It is noteworthy that Gagnon’s pamphlet For a Proletarian Party makes no mention whatsoever of the communist movement in our country.
En Lutte! in front of their eyes sees “spontaneous workers’ movement” and the “political struggles of the real communists”, the two elements of the working class movement, “the objective or spontaneous element, and the subjective or conscious element”. They do not know what to do about the two. At one time, they go into a rage against one – the “spontaneous workers’ movement”. At another time, they run into a rage at the other – the “political struggles of the real communists” in order to hide their own impotency and imbecility. By flying into a rage all the time against what is really going on in the world and by aping every new trend without becoming one with it, En Lutte! has pledged itself to worship its weaknesses, glorify its impotency and imbecility, and howl the loudest to attract attention. But “attention” is the only thing they have received, since over the past year by their disruptive antics, they have stimulated maximum contempt and opposition from the Marxist-Leninists.
The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China which irresistibly stormed the bourgeois headquarters of Liu Shao-chi and other revisionists was also a call to all the communists to settle scores with revisionism in their own countries. But En Lutte! does not recognize this fact either. Thus, to get out of their difficulties, they coined their phrase that ̶political struggle” should be the “conscious expression” of the “unconscious process”.
Now En Lutte! can’t possibly write that their “organization of struggle for the party” is the “conscious expression of an unconscious process”. It would be a nice “consciousness” indeed, by which certain individuals debate with one another as to what to say about the “unconscious process”. Thus En Lutte! got over their difficulties by substituting “political struggle” for a party and came out with their phrase that “political struggle” should be “the conscious expression of the spontaneous workers’ movement”. How would the readers feel if En Lutte! had written: “The ’organization of struggle for the party’ is the conscious expression of the unconscious process”? Sick, to say the least!
We are living in the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution. We have Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought, the revolutionary theory of the international proletariat. The Canadian proletariat is a contingent of the international proletariat. Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought belongs as much to the Canadian proletariat as it belongs to the proletariat of other countries. Sooner or later the proletarians of all lands will adopt it as the theory guiding their thinking. The Communist Party in Canada based on Marxism-Leninism came into being in 1921. CPC(M-L) came into being at the call of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in opposition to the revisionist betrayal of the Communist Party. Yet the En Lutte! chieftains are still busy establishing an “organization of struggle for the party” in order to confuse the workers and disrupt the communist movement.
Their substitution of “political struggle” for the party is no accident. To get over their difficulties they had to sink into this subjective mire. Thus, instead of openly and in a straightforward manner acknowledging that the working class movement exists and that the working class movement has “the objective or spontaneous element, and the subjective or conscious element”, that the Marxist-Leninist movement is the new trend and that they should rectify their mistakes on these questions and become one with the new trend – En Lutte! opposed rectification on these questions and went from the frying pan into the fire. This is why there is so much smoke in all the justifications they present for adopting such a sadistic attitude towards themselves. Let us now make just a passing comment on the difficulty En Lutte! has in dealing with the “spontaneous working class movement” and “the political struggles of the real communists”.
It dawned on En Lutte! in 1973 that workers were waging various economic struggles in Quebec and that some workers in these struggles were conscious of the necessity of Marxist-Leninist leadership in their struggles. That is, some of the workers in certain struggles were either communists or friendly to communists, and had a desire to seek advice from the Marxist-Leninists.
En Lutte!, alongside other opportunists, then jumped into their CSLO (Comite de Soutien aux Luttes Ouvrieres – Committee to Support Workers’ Struggles).[45] CSLO was the device through which En Lutte! and other opportunists acted as disruptive elements in the working class movement. Then, of course, when these tactics no longer were suitable, En Lutte! came out with their “self-criticism” and attacked CSLO.
During the same period, the Party took up the task of investigation and study of the working class movement in Canada, and organized the Third Consultative Conference of CPC(M-L) on the working class movement in May of 1974 in Montreal which certain observers from En Lutte! attended. En Lutte! used the method of lies and slander to keep the workers under their influence from dealing with the Party line in 1973-74. But as the Party line gained influence, they first aped it and then denounced it as “economist” and “opportunist”. They did not carry out any study and investigation at all. This is the way they handled the issue of the “spontaneous workers’ movement”. The natural consequence of their erroneous line is that they are now dashing north and south, east and west, up and down, swearing and yelling “sellout”, “economism”, “opportunism” at everything which is part of the “spontaneous workers’ movement”.
Thus the phrase: “Instead of also being the conscious expression of the spontaneous workers’ movement which, left on its own, is and only can be economic.” In simple terms, En Lutte! wishes that the “spontaneous workers’ movement” should disappear from the face of the earth. This is one solution to their difficulties.
It also dawned on En Lutte! in 1972 that there should be a “proletarian party”. The sordid story of this line as well as their attitude towards the “spontaneous workers’ movement” goes back to the 1960’s. Gagnon, one of their chief ideologues, whose assertions in written form date back to the 1960’s, wrote a pamphlet in 1972 entitled For a Proletarian Party. Gagnon missed the entire working class movement, the entire communist movement in Canada, paid attention to only a portion of the international communist movement and came out with this “analysis” that “at this time priority must be given to struggle on the ideological front”.
We criticized this pamphlet, but En Lutte! paid no attention to this criticism. En Lutte! carried the line of ignoring CPC(M-L) for some time. Then they “changed” under pressure of our work and began advocating “debates” between us and them in order to tackle various issues.
But as soon as the debate started[46], En Lutte! flew off on a tangent and launched an unwarranted attack on CPC(M-L) and myself. Again, they carried out no detailed study and investigation, and showed no spirit for unity of the Marxist-Leninists. Instead, they only further extended their disruption by associating themselves under the slogan of “Oppose CPC(M-L)” with all the opportunists whom Lenin has aptly described as “hens in the backyard of the working class movement who will peck any dung to escape extinction.” En Lutte! advanced the slogan of establishing an “organization of struggle for the party”. Thus, they dealt with the communist movement by giving the two-fold slogan: “Oppose CPC(M-L)” and establish an “organization of struggle for the party”.
Now this multiplied and compounded En Lutte!’s difficulties. En Lutte! tried to overcome these difficulties by advancing the thesis that “political struggle” should be “the conscious expression of the spontaneous workers’ movement”. As in their attitude towards the “spontaneous workers’ movement”. Just as they sorted out the problem of the “spontaneous working class movement” by “abolishing” it, and by placing it out of bounds for the “conscious workers”, so in the same way, they outlawed the “conscious element” from the “spontaneous working class movement” with their nonsense that “political struggle” should be “the conscious expression of the spontaneous workers’ movement”.
Speaking very generally, the working class movement without socialism is the “spontaneous working class movement” which inevitably submits to bourgeois ideology. But the issue is when was the working class movement without socialism? In the 1880’s? 1920’s? 1960’s? 1970’s? When? En Lutte! provides no analysis.
In the “subjective or conscious element” of the working class movement of Canada, there has been struggle going on for a long time as to whether or not the strategy and tactics of the proletariat should be based on Marxism-Leninism, the theory whose “field” is to study “the objective, spontaneous element”, that is “the group of processes that take place independently of the conscious and regulating will of the proletariat”, or on something else. It went on around the time of the founding of the Communist Party in Canada in 1921 between Marxism-Leninism and anarcho-syndicalsim, and it is still going on at this time. Whether to base one’s strategy and tactics on Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought or something else is still the issue. En Lutte! is mystifying this struggle as well as ignoring the fact that the Party was founded in Canada in 1921.
Coming to their next phrase of “the political struggle of real communists”, that of the “conscious workers’ vanguard leading a conscious class struggle” etc. – this is nothing but an appeal to every “striker” to participate in opposing the economic struggle of the proletariat on the one hand, and to disrupt the political party of the proletariat based on Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought on the other. It is straightforward worker chauvinism and opportunism. Besides appealing to every “striker” and calling upon him to oppose the economic struggle and disrupt the building of CPC(M-L), En Lutte! also opposes the struggle for reforms. According to En Lutte!, the “conscious workers’ vanguard”, the “real communists” who are “leading a conscious class struggle”, should strive not for “reforming laws” but should strive for “seizing state power to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat over the bourgeois class.”
En Lutte! states: “The conscious workers must give preference to the political struggle over the struggle solely for reforms...” This phrase can be written: “Every ’striker’ must give preference to the political struggle over the struggle solely for reform...” just as En Lutte! once advised the students in the thick of their struggle that the “students must therefore inscribe their struggles within the general movement of the workers’ and peoples’ struggle against the state of the bosses and against capitalism, the source of the current crisis.”
Stalin explains that “Some think that Leninism is opposed to reforms, is opposed to compromises and to agreements in general. This is absolutely wrong. Bolsheviks know as well as anybody else that in a certain sense ’every little helps’, that under certain conditions reforms in general, and compromises and agreements in particular, are necessary and useful.
“’To carry on a war for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie’, says Lenin, ’a war which is a hundred times more difficult, protracted and complicated than the most stubborn of ordinary wars between states, and to refuse beforehand to manoeuvre, to utilize the conflict of interests (even though temporary) among one’s enemies, to refuse to temporise and compromise with possible (even though temporary), unstable, vacillating and conditional allies is not this ridiculous to the extreme?’ ”[47]
It will easily be seen that Stalin raises the question of reforms in an entirely different light than En Lutte! Stalin states: “Obviously, therefore, it is not a matter of reforms or compromises and agreements, but of the use people make of reforms and compromises.”[48] But En Lutte! raises some nonsensical “preference” between “political struggle” and “struggle solely for reforms”.
Is “struggle solely for reforms” not political struggle, a struggle which assists the bourgeoisie? Then what are we to do? Oppose the line of reformism, the parliamentary road to ’socialism’ etc. and support revolutionary politics! But En Lutte! makes no distinction precisely between the reformism of the NDP, revisionists and others, and the revolutionary politics of the Party. Instead, they muddle the entire thing up.
Lenin explains the relationship between different forms of struggle in this manner: “It is wrong theoretically to equate the two tasks as if they were on the same level: ’the task of preparing for an armed uprising’ and ’the task of leading the trade union struggle’. The one task is said to be in the forefront, the other in the background. To speak like that means comparing and contrasting things of a different order. The armed uprising is the method of political struggle at a given moment. The trade union struggle is one of the constant forms of the workers’ movement, one always needed under capitalism and essential at all times ...
“Engels distinguishes three basic forms of the proletarian struggle: economic, political and theoretical – that is to say, trade union, political and theoretical (scientific, ideological and philosophical). How can one of these basic forms of struggle (trade union form) be put on a level with a method of another basic form of struggle at a given moment? How can the whole trade union struggle, as a ’task’, be put on a level with the present and by far not the only method of political struggle? These are incommensurable things, something like adding tenths and hundredths without reducing them to a common denominator. In my opinion, both these points (the second and the third) of the preamble should be deleted. Alongside ’the task of leading the trade union struggle’ can be put only the task of leading the general political struggle as a whole, the task of waging the general ideological struggle as a whole, and not some particular, given, modern tasks of the political and ideological struggle. In place of these two points, mention should be made of the necessity of never for a moment forgetting the political struggle, the education of the working class in all the fullness of the Social-Democratic ideas, and need to achieve a close, indissoluble connection between all manifestations of the workers’ movement for creating an integral, truly Social-Democratic movement. This indication could be the second point of the preamble. The third could mention the necessity of warning against the narrow conception and narrow formulation of the trade union struggle, which are zealously disseminated by the bourgeoisie. I am not, of course, putting forward a draft for the resolution, I am not touching on the question whether it is worth while making special mention of this, for the time being I am merely examining what expression of your thought would be theoretically correct.” [49]
En Lutte! itself is an economist organization but its economism is of the anarcho-syndicalist type. This can be further seen from two features: 1) its elaboration of the scheme of building an “organization of struggle for the party” and 2) its attitude towards the elaboration of Marxist-Leninist theory and tactics to the proletariat.
Here, all the features of En Lutte!’s anarcho-syndicalism have become very clear:
1. “political struggle”, the “conscious expression” of the “spontaneous workers’ movement” in place of the revolutionary political party of the proletariat, based on Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought,
2. a “striker”, the “conscious workers’ vanguard”, the “real communist” in place of a member of the proletarian party and,
3. the “general movement of the workers’ and people’s struggle against the state of the bosses and against capitalism” in place of the working class movement which “consists of two elements: the objective or spontaneous element, and the subjective or conscious element”.
In terms of their attitude towards the dissemination and elaboration of the Marxist-Leninist theory and proletarian strategy and tactics, they advanced the slogan: “To Overcome the Capitalist Crisis, Assimilate Marxism-Leninism!”[50]
In criticising An, an opportunist of his time, Stalin explains: “So what is An getting at? Where did he dig up his queer ’find’? The point is, reader, that ’critic’ An had something entirely different in mind. He had in mind that passage in What Is To Be Done? where Lenin speaks of the elaboration of the theory of socialism, where he says that the working class cannot elaborate scientific socialism by its own efforts. But how is that? – you will ask. To elaborate the theory of socialism is one thing – to assimilate it is another. Why did An forget those words of Lenin’s in which he so clearly speaks of the assimilation of ’lofty ideals’? You are right, reader, but what can An do since he is so anxious to be a ’critic’? Just think what a heroic deed he is performing: he invents a ’theory’ of his own, ascribes it to his opponent, and then bombards the fruit of his imagination! That is criticism, if you like! At all events it is beyond doubt that An ’could not by his own efforts assimilate’ Lenin’s book What Is To Be Done?”[51]
In order to clearly show where En Lutte! stands, readers need only rewrite the quotation from Stalin replacing An’s name with the name of En Lutte! Readers can clearly see the distinction between “elaboration of the theory of socialism” which the “working class cannot elaborate by its own efforts” but which the working class can “assimilate” because it gravitates towards socialism. Stalin puts it very aptly: “To elaborate the theory of socialism is one thing – to assimilate it is another.” Which is to say that the Marxist-Leninist communist party “elaborate(s) the theory of socialism” while the working class “assimilate(s)” it.
But our heroes in En Lutte!, because they are “neither a communist party nor a trade union”, can neither elaborate nor assimilate the “theory of socialism”. Thence their predicament over what to do with the “spontaneous workers’ movement” and “political struggles of real communists”. The task of the working class is to assimilate the theory of socialism while the task of the “political struggles of the real communists” is to elaborate the “theory of socialism”. Thus En Lutte!’s “organization of struggle for the party” becomes the working class which can assimilate Marxism-Leninism in order to overcome the capitalist crisis while the “political struggles of the real communists” are left to CPC(M-L).
We are quite honoured to be in the position of elaborating the “theory of socialism” but En Lutte! does not like this state of affairs either. So, out of necessity, they had to do what Stalin says about An: “He invents a ’theory’ of his own, ascribes it to his opponents, and then bombards the fruit of his imagination!”
En Lutte!’s flimsy attack on myself is just such an invention. Neither does En Lutte! know what economism is, nor do they know what Marxism-Leninism is. They have no concept of the revolutionary political party of the proletariat and still less do they know the revolutionary theory of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought and the strategy and tactics of the proletariat. They “could not by... (their)... own efforts assimilate” Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought. They have to be led to it by their noses by the Marxist-Leninists.
Canadian Revolution, “an independent journal of Marxism-Leninism”, in its April-May issue of 1976 carried an article entitled “Ideological Struggle is Class Struggle””[52], written by “The May 1st Collective” (“M1C” for short – HB) which the editors of this journal describe as “a Marxist-Leninist group in Vancouver”. We, of course, are very much interested in Vancouver, especially in this latest fad of “Marxist-Leninist Collective” formations.
“M1C”has surfaced in Vancouver to champion the cause of En Lutte! Now let us examine just what this thesis, “Ideological Struggle Is Class Struggle”, is all about. “M1C” begins with the pronouncement that, “In Quebec, the Marxist-Leninist movement has advanced significantly.” Fine, this is good news! But what kind of “Marxist-Leninist movement” does “M1C” have in mind? “M1C” states that “the differing lines on the way forward are more developed (in Quebec – HB) than in English Canada.” The readers can plainly see what kind of ̶Marxist-Leninist movement” “M1C” has in mind. It is a movement of “differing lines on the way forward”!
“M1C”states that “En Lutte! has correctly stressed the ideological aspects – the demarcation of a Marxist-Leninist from an opportunist line – over the question of how to build the Party.” Very profound, indeed! “M1C” gives various quotations from the classics, especially from the Iskra period in Russia of 1900-02, to prove the point. I reproduce below a report from our comrades in Quebec, who present this line of En Lutte! on “party” building, showing the manner in which they practise their “interpretation” of the “Iskra period”.
Our comrades write: “Over the last several months, members of the anarcho-fascist organization En Lutte!, as well as of the “Canadian” “Communist” League (“Marxist-Leninist”) have been trying to have resolutions adopted in various general assemblies of the students in Quebec, as well as within various trade union bodies, that all members of CPC(M-L) divulge their organizational identity. This is straightforward police work on their part, and all proposed resolutions to this effect have been soundly beaten down by the masses of students and workers. At the same time, it is interesting to note that the anarcho-fascists are putting forward these proposals right at the time when the state machine is escalating its attacks against the working class and students, and against the political party of the proletariat, CPC(M-L). Every time the anarcho-fascists have made such a proposal, it has been preceded or followed by similar proposals on the part of the Trotskyites and various paid agents of the RCMP.
“During the past week, we were informed by a man selling En Lutte! in Hull that the reason they do not like a certain ANEQ organizer in Hull is that he does not come out openly as a CPC(M-L)er. According to him, CPC(M-L)ers don’t announce that they are communists. This shows that we are infiltrators whose main aim is to take over the organizations of the masses. In October of 1975, En Lutte! published a leaflet at Limoilou CEGEP in Quebec City to this effect. The tract was immediately followed by visits on the part of the RCMP to various student organizers throughout the province trying to get them to give information on CPC(M-L) members within ANEQ. The campaign of both En Lutte! and the RCMP miserably failed when the students thoroughly denounced them and their police activities.
“In a meeting at UQAM (University of Quebec in Montreal) this week, when the anarcho-fascists again tried to get their proposal adopted, a Portuguese woman thoroughly exposed them.
“The anarcho-fascists misuse Lenin to ’prove’ the correctness of their line. They quote from Volume IV of Lenin’s Collected Works, from the article entitled ’Declaration of the Editorial Board of Iskra’, where Lenin points out:
“’... Before we can unite, and in order that we may unite, we must first of all draw firm and definite lines of demarcation. Otherwise, our unity will be purely fictitious, it will conceal the prevailing confusion and hinder its radical elimination .. .’ ””[53]
“According to the argument presented by En Lutte!, they are the good guys, the Iskraists. CPC(M-L) are the ’economists’. In order to create the party, clear lines of demarcation between En Lutte! and the ’economists’ have to be drawn. Therefore, they say that in meetings, all people who have a political affiliation should identify themselves before any problem can be dealt with. By this they say they are being faithful to Lenin. The Portuguese woman pointed out that this was nothing but a fascist manoeuvre. She recalled her experience in Portugal under Salazar, where in various public meetings everyone had to identify his political affiliations. She pointed out that this was a fascist law.
“According to the ’analysis’ presented by the anarcho-fascists of En Lutte! the stage of the Marxist-Leninist movement in Canada is equivalent to that of the movement in Russia when Lenin’s Volumes IV and V were written. In this manner, they completely negate the development of the international communist movement, the formation of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolshevik), the Great October Socialist Revolution, the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution and the re-establishment of the Marxist-Leninist parties throughout the world in answer to the call of the GPCR.
“In this way, they justify their anti-Party line. They say: ’Our task now is to carry out communist propaganda. We have to elaborate a plan. Our main role at the present time is to be propagandists, i.e. we should distribute En Lutte! We should come out openly and say we are communists.’ In a general assembly at CEGEP Vieux Montreal, a member of the anarcho-fascist organization ’Communist’ League said: ’Not to come out publicly as a communist is to be anti-communist, because our basic function is to do communist propaganda. Therefore if we don’t openly say that we are communists, we will fail in our main duty.’
“They also quote from the History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to justify their position. In the section entitled ’Lenin’s Plan for the Building of a Marxist Party’, we read: ’How to begin the building of a united party of the working class was a question on which opinions differed. Some thought that the building of the Party should be begun by summoning the Second Congress of the Party, which would unite the local organizations and create the Party. Lenin was opposed to this. He held that before convening a congress it was necessary to make the aims and objects of the Party clear, to ascertain what sort of a party was wanted, to effect an ideological demarcation from the ’Economists’, to tell the Party honestly and frankly that there existed two different opinions regarding the aims and objects of the Party – the opinions of the ’Economists’ and the opinion of the revolutionary Social-Democrats – to start a wide campaign in the press in favour of the views of revolutionary Social-Democracy – just as the ’Economists’ were conducting a campaign in their own press in favour of their own views – and to give the local organizations the opportunity to make a deliberate choice between these two trends. Only after this indispensible preliminary work had been done could a Party Congress be summoned.
Lenin put it plainly: “Before we can unite, and in order that we may unite, we must first of all draw firm and definite lines of demarcation.” Lenin accordingly held that the building of a political party of the working class should be begun by the founding of a militant political newspaper on an All-Russian scale, which would carry on propaganda and agitation in favour of the views of revolutionary Social-Democracy – that the establishment of such a newspaper should be the first step in the building of the Party.’ ””[54] In order to begin exposure of these lines of the anarcho-fascists I would like to give a quotation from Comrade Stalin:
“There are two groups of Marxists. Both work under the flag of Marxism and consider themselves ’genuine’ Marxists. Nevertheless, they are by no means identical. More, a veritable gulf divides them, for their methods of work are diametrically opposed to each other.
“The first group usually confines itself to an outward acceptance, to a ceremonial avowal of Marxism. Being unable or unwilling to grasp the essence of Marxism, being unable or unwilling to translate into reality, it converts the living and revolutionary principles of Marxism into lifeless and meaningless formulas. It does not base its activities on experience, on what practical work teaches, but on quotations from Marx. It does not derive its instructions and directions from an analysis of actual realities, but from analogies and historical parallels. Discrepancy between word and deed is the chief malady of this group. Hence that disillusionment and perpetual grudge against fate which time and again betrays it and leaves it ’with its nose out of joint’. This group is known as the Mensheviks (in Russia), or opportunists (in Europe). Comrade Tyszka (Yogisches) described this group very aptly at the London Congress”[55] when he said that it does not stand by, but lies down on the Marxist view.
“The second group, on the other hand, attaches prime importance not to the outward acceptance of Marxism, but to its realization, its translation into reality. What this group chiefly concentrates its attention on is determining the ways and means of realizing Marxism that best answer the situation, and changing these ways and means as the situation changes. It does not derive its directions and instructions from historical analogies and parallels, but from a study of surrounding conditions. It does not base its activities on quotations and maxims, but on practical experience, testing every step by experience, learning from its mistakes and teaching others how to build a new life. This, in fact, explains why there is no discrepancy between word and deed in the activities of this group, and why the teachings of Marx completely retain their living, revolutionary force. To this group may be fully applied Marx’s saying that Marxists cannot rest content with interpreting the world, but go farther and change it. This group is known as the Bolsheviks, the Communists. ”The organizer and leader of this group is V.I. Lenin.””[56] En Lutte! and other anarcho-fascists belong to the first category of Marxists. “Being unable or unwilling to grasp the essence of Marxism, being unable or unwilling to translate into reality, it converts the living and revolutionary principles of Marxism into lifeless and meaningless formulas. It does not base its activities on experience, on what practical work teaches, but on quotations from Marx.”
This is what En Lutte! is. It began with a pamphlet For a Proletarian Party in 1972 and reprinted it in 1975. We criticized this pamphlet in this manner: “It is my view that the pamphlet has nothing to do with the proletariat or revolution or Quebec. It has a lot to do with the thinking of a man named Charles Gagnon for whom reality is a matter of discussion, definition and interpretation and for whom the basis of learning, advancing from one stage to another, is not class struggle inside the Party (through criticism and self-criticism based on unity-struggle-transformation) and outside, but it is ’debates’ and some ’ideological struggle’ through publishing a journal, etc.”[57]
And the scribbler of this pamphlet now has his third edition out with the following conclusions drawn. “At this time priority must be given to struggle on the ideological front. In other words, now the concrete manifestations of the willingness to organize and the desire for unity are being multiplied in the working class and amongst the working people in general, and as it is impossible for the working class to create a revolutionary party as long as greater cohesion and greater ideological unity have not been achieved, priority must be given to the ideological aspects of the proletarian class struggle.”[58] After giving this nonsense that the “priority must be given to the ideological aspects of the proletarian class struggle”, Gagnon tries to cover his tracks: “This priority of course does not mean exclusiveness. It would be mechanical materialism to say that ideological struggle must constitute the only form of political work amongst the masses at present. For in the final analysis, as far as subjective conditions go, every step forward in the workers’ movement, including progress on the development of a proletarian line and class consciousness, rests on the development of workers’ struggles. These struggles have aspects which are ideological, organizational, tactical, etc. One can never totally isolate a single one of these aspects and try to move it forward without taking the others into account. Thus political groups which have had the experience of being formed before doing any practical work and who wanted others to do the same, learned very quickly that this ’mechanical’ path leads nowhere. It is the same ’mechanical’ conception of political processes which leads some people today to grant exclusive privilege to organization through ’taking root in the material base’.”[59] Then he straightforwardly gives the Kautskyist line that “Marxism is the knowledge of class struggle” which later becomes “Marxism-Leninism... general doctrine of class struggle”, a dogma and “guide to action”.
Further, he makes the most ignorant assertion that “Understood in this way, it is quite obvious that ideological struggle has little to do with what some call the struggle within the ideological apparatus, that is, in the ’institutions’ whose role is to ’disseminate’ the dominant ideology and assure its reproduction. It is rather naive to wish to transpose onto the capitalist countries the tasks which the Cultural Revolution in China set for itself. Certain Marxists have been led to work out similar ’tactics’. It is difficult, in fact, impossible, to see how workers’ power could be built by intermediary persons or classes. One must not forget that the Cultural Revolution in China occurred more than 15 years after seizure of power by the Communist Party ... It is not wise to want to put the cart before the horse! If we take into consideration the concrete conditions in China in the 1960’s and in Quebec in 1972, we will quickly be forced to recognize that ideological struggle aims at making possible the formation of the proletarian party, that is, to make a qualitative leap in the workers’ movement on its march towards proletarian power. In China the Cultural Revolution set itself the goal of transforming the party, if you will, but above all of assuring the proletariat control over certain apparatus which are slipping out of their grasp or which were in danger of falling into the hands of the revisionists, the reactionaries. We are not in the situation where we have to extend and consolidate our power; our situation is that we have to organize to take power.”[60] And, finally, “Today the struggle of the avant guard must be carried to where the bourgeoisie, the reformists and the opportunists cause the greatest damage: to the realm of ideology. The tendency to struggle amongst the masses must carry the day over the tendency to consolidation (for the self-cultivation of the avant guard in a vacuum) through propaganda work. Propaganda work is the decisive aspect of ideological struggle, at our stage itself essential to the development of the conditions necessary for the creation of the proletarian party.”[61]
Thus, we have this ignorant scribbler, first confusing three forms of proletarian struggle, i.e. economic, political and theoretical, then confusing the issue as to what is the commander of these three forms of proletarian struggle, and then giving a revisionist line on Marxism and a revisionist theory of knowledge and finally distorting everything about the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. He does not even know that the GPCR in China began in 1919 and that each period of class struggle and national struggle in China after 1919 was marked by a cultural revolution. He does not even know that his mentor Liu Shao-chi was in power in China and that it was not a matter of “Cultural Revolution” setting “itself the goal of transforming the party” or “assuring the proletariat control over certain apparatus”, it was a matter of class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, the socialist road and the capitalist road and, within the Party, the two-line struggle between Marxism-Leninism and revisionism. The GPCR was the victory of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought over revisionism, the socialist road over the capitalist road and the proletariat over the bourgeoisie under the conditions of dictatorship of the proletariat. And the aspect which was taken up in Canada and which this scribbler mystifies is the adoption of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought as the theory guiding the thinking of the Canadian revolutionaries against all forms of bourgeois, revisionist and terrorist theories. Gagnon, the ex-terrorist and Castroite should know this very well. Furthermore, just as the Great October Revolution brought Leninism to the international proletariat and on this basis communist parties were established all over the globe, in the same way Mao Tsetung Thought was the contribution of the GPCR to the international proletariat. That is the issue. It is no wonder that now En Lutte! has to dare to come out against Mao Tsetung Thought in the open as well as in private. They despise it in private as well as in their practice even though formally they recognize the “contributions” of Mao Tsetung, along with many others, including some individuals who are even conciliators with revisionism. Finally, Gagnon has difficulty in grasping the struggle against revisionism by upholding Mao Tsetung Thought as the common revolutionary thread binding the international proletariat together, the proletariat of Canada with the proletariat of China. But he has no trouble finding commonness with Castroism and other conciliators with revisionism.
Beginning with this, En Lutte! has now reached the absurd conclusion that 1976 is like 1900-02 in Russia. Instead of following the fundamental principles of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought and forgetting about historical parallels and analogies, En Lutte! has declared itself into this absurd position. In July 1975, I met certain friends from the U.S. They asked me whether I thought that we were passing through an Iskra period. To which I replied: “It can be proven without too much difficulty that 1975 is not 1900-02. It does not matter whether one is talking about 1900-02 in Russia or any other place. 1975 simply is not 1900-02.”
Does this comment of mine mean that we are not concerned about the problems facing the communist movement in Canada and internationally? Does it mean that we do not stand for the elaboration and dissemination of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought? Does it mean that we are underplaying the necessity of struggling against revisionism? Not at all! We are also very much concerned about the elaboration of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought, and we are committed to waging a determined and consistent struggle against revisionism and opportunism of all hues in theory and in practice. This is why we passed a special resolution at the Second Plenum of the CC of CPC(M-L) in August, 1973 stressing the necessity of theoretical and investigational work. That is why we have been carrying out these tasks.
But the crux of the matter with the so-called “genuine” Marxist-Leninists is that they want to counterpose the revolutionary experience of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution with this concoction of an Iskra period which is not their “original concoction” either. It has been going around and around in the U.S. for a few years already, which also shows the utter inability of these “genuine” Marxist-Leninists to deal with the actual situation before their own eyes. It is very interesting that En Lutte!, in their latest flimsy assault on us, have attacked CPC(M-L)’s ”ultra-leftism and its way of sticking Chinese communist policy to our own country” which ”tends to push away the proletariat and to prevent it from grasping Marxism-Leninism”.[62]
Just a month ago, and in between, we were “neo-revisionists”, now the problem is of our “ultra-leftism and... (our)... way of sticking Chinese communist policy to our own country” which “tends to push away the proletariat and to prevent it from grasping Marxism-Leninism”. Is that it, sirs? Does it mean that now you are going to speak your mind and tell the world that the real Party you are fighting against is the Communist Party of China and its great leader Chairman Mao? Is that it? You, who conspire behind the scenes and who have international connections with all sorts of dubious characters, especially with those who want to reconcile Marxism-Leninism with revisionism, you are telling us about “Chinese communist policy”? Watch out sirs! The way you have already disgraced yourselves through your concoctions is going to haunt you a lifetime. This daring on your part to expose yourself about the “Chinese communist policy” will finally lead to where you belong, political extinction. We were exposed to the same nonsense in the 1960’s, when national chauvinists from Quebec considered “Castroism” as their “national ideology” but Mao Tsetung Thought as foreign. Do you remember what disaster it brought to the national liberation struggle?
Now you are again bringing the nonsense of “Iskra period” from the U.S. May we ask you lord sirs, aristocratic socialists, your majesties, why you are “sticking Russian communist policy” of bygone days, of 1900-02, to the situation in Quebec? Don’t you think that you should have some home-brew?
What you are really opposing is learning from the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution whose tenth anniversary we are just now celebrating. There is a whole history of your kind of individuals who have come forward. First, they take up a popular fad in order to mask themselves, and then when conditions are ripe, they attack and unmask themselves. Your unmasking has been going on now for over one year. You have written absolutely nothing to analyze the situation in this country apart from your nonsense about “principal contradiction”, and you have made no contribution whatsoever in advancing the communist movement in this country. Yes, you made one contribution which no one can deny you – you area teacher by negative example.
Let us now proceed further. “MIC” states that “En Lutte!, on the other hand, stresses the unevenness in Marxist-Leninist groups and holds that the advancement from one stage to another is marked by a qualitative leap.”[63] But how is this “unevenness” going to be straightened out? Here is “MIC”’s panacea:
“It is our position that unity will not be built in the Marxist-Leninist movement through struggle among a number of groups at the same level of development, but rather that unity will come about through the rallying of Marxist-Leninists to the group which is putting forward the ideological, political and organizational lines which best advance the central task of the period. In this way, the leading centre, the most advanced group, will force the entire movement to move forward. That is, the movement as a whole will move to the level of the most advanced, instead of the entire movement developing at the level of the ’lowest common denominator’.”[64]
“MIC” does not even know that if “the movement as a whole will move to the level of the most advanced”, then the “most advanced” will become the “lowest common denominator”!! This is the “genuine” Marxism-Leninism of “M1C” where, if you like, the “most advanced” pulls everyone else except those “at the same level.” And then what? Another “most advanced” will arise on the scene, will look at the “new” level as the “lowest common denominator”, and then decide to leave everyone who is at “the same level”, and force the “movement as a whole” to “the level of the most advanced”! This constitutes “M1C” ’s “ideological struggle”, which they suggest should be waged “as a form of class struggle.”
Here then, “M1C” has presented us with two theories: the theory of “differing lines” and the theory of “unevenness in Marxist-Leninist groups.” Both are straightforward anti-Marxist, reactionary, revisionist theories of productive forces. Many times it is one’s “real” friends who forget to hide their worst innermost feelings..“M1C”, the “true” believers in En Lutte!, have exposed En Lutte! as nothing but a straightforward reactionary, anti-Marxist journal. The two theories of “MIC”:
1. “the differing lines”
2. “unevenness in Marxist-Leninist groups”
These theories illuminate the path of “M1C” and they see their “Marxist-Leninist movement” pulsating in front of their eyes with:
1. Its own head, “the leading centre, the most advanced group”
2. Body, “the movement as a whole”
3. Its tail, “the ’lowest common denominator’”
The readers can quite graphically see how the tail, “the ’lowest common denominator’”, becomes the head, “the leading centre, the most advanced group”, when, as they say, the body, “the movement as a whole will move to the level of the most advanced”!! And of course, the motive force of this motion is “the differing lines” and the “unevenness in Marxist-Leninist groups”.
We will leave this image to the fertile imagination of our readers and turn to Liu Shao-chi and his disciple, Chou Yang. Chou Yang was characterized by the Marxist-Leninists in China as follows: “Chou Yang is typical of counter-revolutionary double-dealers. He consistently played double-dealing tricks to disguise his counterrevolutionary political features, tampered with history, but contrived to slip through unscathed, waved ’red flags’ to oppose the red flag, and carried out a variety of criminal activities.”[65]
First, a few words of explanation as to why we should go to Liu Shao-chi and his disciple. The first time that Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought was widely disseminated in Quebec, and the struggle for its acceptance as the revolutionary theory guiding our thinking was launched, was when the Internationalists were reorganized in May 1968 in Montreal. There the Internationalists had to confront “Quebec ideology” as the opponent of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought. What certain “Quebecois” wanted was a “socialism” of a Quebec variety, so we were told. When we met this “native socialism” head-on and carried out detailed study and investigation, we found that it was neither Quebecois nor “socialist”. It was straightforward Castroism, a front for Soviet revisionist social-imperialism. We vigorously denounced this theory of Quebec exceptionalism. Under our attacks, Castroism was banished, never to surface again in open form in recent history. As a result, the “Marxist-Leninists” in Vancouver had to be satisfied with their own opportunism for several years, especially since 1971, due to the absence of anything importable from Quebec by which they could oppose Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought.
Last year, the “genuine” Marxist-Leninists began sprouting in Vancouver in the backyard of the working class movement in order to peck on a lot of dung which has accumulated there over the last few years of history. Their sprouting was stimulated by the discovery that “in Quebec, the Marxist-Leninist movement has advanced significantly”. We do not quibble with the statement that “in Quebec, the Marxist-Leninist movement has advanced significantly” because we know that Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought has won victory in Canada over the past few years since 1968, and that a caricature of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought has now emerged to reverse the correct verdicts of history. But the “Marxist-Leninist movement” which “M1C” actually has in mind is this caricature of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought.
The ideology of this caricature is not only foreign to Marxist-Leninists in Canada, but it has also been put into its grave in China by the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. The ideology is that of Liu Shao-chi. We ask: Why revive the ghost of Liu Shao-chi?
The ghost of Liu Shao-chi has in fact been lurking in Vancouver for some time. Now it is “M1C” ’s turn to give it life. But how do you give life to a ghost? In September 1974, Jack Scott wrote a pamphlet, Two Roads, in which he vilified the Great October Socialist Revolution and sullied the great red banner of the international proletariat. Since then, rumours have been circulated by his gang that “China” is going to “denounce” Stalin. But this has not happened. Close to two years have passed, but that “miracle” has not materialized. While awaiting this “miracle” in China, these opportunists set about hatching a “Marxist-Leninist movement” in Canada, under the hoax of “unity” of “genuine” Marxist-Leninists, in order to “banish” CPC(M-L). Several renegades and traitors to Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought, absolutely anti-China and anti-Mao Tsetung Thought elements, were dusted off from the dustbin of history, and brought back as “genuine” Marxist-Leninists for the purpose of establishing a regiment of opportunists in Canada to champion the capitalist-roaders in China. Of course, these sinister characters feigned opposition to “capitalist restoration” and claimed to be “favourable” to the “contributions” of Mao Tsetung. But their plan did not materialize. Those who used to run around broadcasting that Teng Hsiao-ping was their friend, were dismayed to find their mentor overthrown by the Marxist-Leninists in China led by the Communist Party of China under the leadership of Chairman Mao. These “genuine” Marxist-Leninists were heartbroken indeed! Canadian Marxist-Leninists on their part also thrashed these imposters ideologically and politically.
CPC(M-L) vigorously criticized Jack Scott’s book Two Roads, and tore the masks off the faces of the “genuine” Marxist-Leninists to show them for what they were, opportunists.[66] Now, in quite a disgusting spectacle, each one of these groups is confessing to the skies that they were opportunists, and are using their “self-criticism” to once again attempt a comeback. Their opportunist arrogance knows no bounds. They are dashing hither and thither “uniting”, “building”, hatching and promoting themselves as “genuine” Marxist-Leninists.
In order to smash something in a thoroughgoing manner, we have to see all its features first. Within just over one year the ugly features of various “genuine” Marxist-Leninist sects and individuals have become irresistibly exposed. The snake has now come out, and the time has arrived to kill it.
The article by “M1C” culminates the coming out of En Lutte! Now its poisonous fangs are completely exposed. Let us examine what kind of “Marxism-Leninism” “MIC” displays.
Our readers can understand now why we have to turn to Liu Shao-chi and his disciple, Chou Yang. They are class brothers of our Canadian “genuine” Marxist-Leninists. Let us compare their ideologies: 1) Chou Yang, “typical of counter-revolutionary double-dealers”, peddles this trash: “As modern society is divided into classes and as the difference between progressive and backward groups will continue far into the future, the emergence of antithesis is inevitable.”[67] 2) Here follows the “genuine” Marxist-Leninist, “the leading centre, the most advanced group”, En Lutte! via“M1C”: “the unevenness in Marxist-Leninist groups ... is marked by a qualitative leap.”[68]
En Lutte!’s theory of “unevenness in Marxist-Leninist groups ... is marked by a qualitative leap” is quite at home with Chou Yang’s ”the difference between progressive and backward groups... the emergence of antithesis is inevitable”. Because Chou Yang is a double-dealer, he mentions that “modern society is divided into classes” in order to pretend that he has a Marxist world outlook, and thus fool people. In the same way, En Lutte!, via“M1C”, has advanced the rhetoric that “ideological struggle is class struggle” or as “MIC” says so well: “ideological struggle must be seen and carried out as a form of class struggle, the main form of class struggle for the Marxist-Leninists at this time.”[69] Now sirs, if “ideological struggle is class struggle”, then why do you have to carry it out “as a form of class struggle”!!?? Here you are caught again.
In place of class struggle, that is struggle against the bourgeoisie, against the capitalist road, and against revisionism, Chou Yang gave the call to ”actively and systematically refute modern revisionism on the academic front and carry on the revolution on the ideological front”.[70] How deceitful is the demagogy of Chou Yang: ”revolution on the ideological front” in order to ”serve our social revolution and socialist construction on the political and economic fronts”! At another time, under the hoax of ”a great debate on the literary front”, he states: ”This is a battle over fundamental issues in literature, a battle between the socialist line and the anti-socialist line in literature and art. It is a reflection in the realm of literature and art of the struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, between the socialist way and the capitalist way.” [71] Chou Yang cleverly detaches the “ideological front” and the “literary front” from class struggle, that is, he makes it a preserve of the class struggle of the bourgeoisie against the proletariat, and subordinates the “political and economic fronts” to it. But it is politics which is the commander, whether Marxist-Leninist politics or revisionist politics. This is the issue. But Chou Yang completely mystifies this issue. Instead of putting Mao Tsetung Thought in command of politics and subordinating the “ideological” and “literary” fronts to the proletarian class struggle against the bourgeoisie, Chou Yang uses his control over these fronts to serve the bourgeoisie.
Now let us go to the “master” himself, Liu Shao-chi. Here is what he says in his sinister book How to be a Good Communist: “True enough, the average Party comrade is far from possessing the great gifts and profound scientific knowledge of the founders of Marxism-Leninism...”[72] So here we have:
1. “the average Party comrade” – Liu Shao-chi
2. “the ’lowest common denominator’” – En Lutte! via “MIC”.
The way En Lutte!, the “most advanced group”, is going to “force the entire movement to move forward” is the same way Liu Shao-chi advises, that “it is perfectly possible for our comrades to grasp the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism ... if they really have the will...” Liu Shao-chi also states that “since Party members differ from one another in political consciousness, experience of struggle, ... it is natural that comrades should differ to some extent in the various aspects of self-cultivation...”[73]
Finally, sage master Liu Shao-chi “teaches”: “What does ideological self-cultivation mean? Fundamentally, in my opinion, it means that every Party member should use proletarian ideology to combat whatever non-proletarian ideas he has...”[74]
Here again is that glorious phrase of En Lutte!: “To Overcome the Capitalist Crisis, Assimilate Marxism-Leninism!”
And here is what the predecessor of Liu Shao-chi, the original revisionist, Eduard Bernstein has to say: “It is well known what great differences exist in the first respect in different lands. Even in countries of an approximately equal standard of industrial development, we find very important political differences and great differences in the conceptions and aspirations of the mass of the people. Peculiarities of geographical situation, rooted customs of national life, inherited institutions, and traditions of all kinds create a difference of mind which only slowly submits to the influence of the development.”[75] So much for the theoretical origins of the theory of “uneven development”.
“M1C”, besides concocting the thesis that “ideological struggle must be seen and carried out as a form of class struggle” also considers this “ideological struggle” to be “two-line” struggle which is centering around disagreement on the method of carrying out the “main task of this period – creating the conditions for the party, uniting Marxist-Leninists, winning advanced workers to communism, and the need for a national Marxist-Leninist organization of struggle for the Party”[76] and repeats the absurdity from En Lutte! that “theoretical struggle is the principle form of class struggle ...” We ask, in passing, what happened to En Lutte!’s nonsense of 1975 that “Only political struggle can put an end to the bourgeoisie and permit the working class to establish socialism.”?[77]
Now what does Liu Shao-chi say on the question of “two-line” struggle? “From the very day of its inception, our Party has struggled not only against the enemies outside the Party but also against all kinds of hostile and non-proletarian influences inside the Party ... If our Party did not carry on the latter type of struggle, if it did not struggle constantly within the Party against all undesirable tendencies... then such non-proletarian ideology... might gain ground in the Party and influence or even dominate over it.”[78] En Lutte! via “M1C” does not even have a “struggle organization for the party” not to speak of a party, and yet it too wages “two-line” struggle!
This is what Stalin says about the question: “The theory of ’defeating’ opportunist elements by ideological struggle within the Party, the theory of ’overcoming’ these elements within the confines of a single Party, is a rotten and dangerous theory, which threatens to condemn the Party to paralysis and chronic infirmity, threatens to make the Party prey to opportunism, threatens to leave the proletariat without a revolutionary party, threatens to deprive the proletariat of its main weapon in the fight against imperialism.”[79] This is precisely what En Lutte! is trying to accomplish. But, “M1C”, the disciples of En Lutte! have developed this “rotten and dangerous theory” to the highest level. “M1C” has concocted a plan for self-cultivation: “We urge all groups to publicly examine and criticize the economist lines that have been and are still dominant in our ’practical’ work.”[80]
“M1C” further parrots En Lutte!’s historical parallel about the Iskra period: “The Marxist-Leninist movement faces subjective conditions which are comparable to those in Russia described by Lenin as the Iskra period (c. 1900), where the principal feature of our movement, which has become particularly marked in recent times, is its state of (ideological) disunity and its amateur character.”[81] Now these dogs call themselves “Marxist-Leninists” but they consider their “subjective conditions” to be those of the pre-Leninist period in Russia. This exposes their opportunism further. Bernstein began his revision of Marxism under the slogan “freedom of criticism”. En Lutte! has begun its revision of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought under the slogan “ideological struggle”.
Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought is the revolutionary theory of the international proletariat. The basic strategic and tactical lines which deal with the “subjective and conscious element” of the proletariat are based on the theory of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought and the programme of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought. It is not “our” “subjective conditions” which is the issue. The issue is that proletarian strategy and tactics which deal with the “subjective and conscious element” of the proletariat, bases itself on the theory of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought, for it is this theory which deals with the “objective and spontaneous element”.
Marxism has advanced to the stage of Leninism and to the stage of Mao Tsetung Thought over the past 128 years since the publication of the great historic document Manifesto of the Communist Party. The seventy-six years since the beginning of the Iskra period have witnessed the earth-shaking Great October Revolution, the People’s Democratic Revolution of China and the unprecedented Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. A fine “most advanced group” it is which is unashamedly giving the theory of Canadian exceptionalism and is revising Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought under the slogan of “ideological struggle”. While millions of proletarians all over the world are studying and applying Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought, En Lutte!’s “subjective conditions” are at the level of pre-1900-02 Russia!
In Canada, the Canadian working class moved from perceptual knowledge to conceptual knowledge in this century. The Communist Party, based on Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism, was born in 1921. From that time on, the struggle within the Party and in the working class movement has been between Marxism-Leninism, and revisionism and various brands of opportunism. “MIC” falsifies this history. With the rise of the youth and student movement in Canada and on the world scale in the 1960’s, and with the intensification of struggle internationally against revisionism led by the Communist Party of China and the Albanian Party of Labour, the struggle against revisionism in Canada deepened and broadened. The Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist), based on Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought, was born in 1970. “M1C”deliberately falsifies this history as well. They do so with an ulterior motive.
“M1C”deliberately misquotes from the works of Comrade Enver Hoxha and from other classics in order to push their Liu Shao-chi line. Here I cite two examples. The following is a quote cited by“M1C” from Comrade Hoxha:
“The practical movement of the masses has marched and is marching ahead, whereas the subjective factor, consciousness, their organization and direction, has lagged behind and does not correspond to the tasks of the times.”[82]
Here I give the full quotation from Comrade Enver Hoxha, and emphasize the portion quoted by“M1C”:
“But, while there is a powerful upsurge of the masses and peoples in struggle and revolution, the weaknesses of the revolutionary movement in many countries and areas consists precisely in the lack of scientific strategy and tactics to open the revolutionary perspective to the masses, and to guide them on to the right road for the attainment of their objectives. The situation is such that the practical movement of the masses has marched and is marching ahead, whereas the subjective factor, consciousness, their organization and direction, in many countries has lagged behind, and does not respond to the tasks of the times. In this, a direct role of undermining and sabotage is being played by the modern revisionists, who, having abandoned the revolutionary ideals, have turned themselves into scabs and firemen to quell the revolution, and with their opportunist and anti-Marxist viewpoints and activity to strive to disarm the working class and to sow ideological and political confusion in the ranks of revolution. This is the greatest service they render to the bourgeoisie and reaction, and the greatest harm to the cause of the liberation of the peoples and socialism.”
Do you get the entire point,“M1C”sirs? First, in order to push your nonsense that “the spontaneous struggles of the workers are increasing in strength and regularity”, you delete the portion of the quotation where Comrade Enver is clearly stating that “there is a powerful upsurge of the masses of people in struggle and revolution”. But you do not believe that there is “a powerful upsurge of the masses and peoples in struggle and revolution”. Secondly, Comrade Enver squarely blames the revisionists. He clearly states that “a direct role of undermining and sabotage is being played by the modern revisionists...”, while you blame the Marxist-Leninists for it. You state: “At a time when the Marxist-Leninist movement finds excellent conditions for the penetration of Marxism-Leninism into the working class, we find the movement weak, divided and ideologically and politically underdeveloped.” By deleting the portion where Comrade Enver blames the modern revisionists, you divert the issue and misdirect the target of attack.
Now follows a quote by “M1C” from Comrade Lenin:
“(ideological and organizational) unity cannot be decreed, it cannot be brought about by a decision, say, of representatives; it must be worked for.”[83]
Here I give the full quotation from Comrade Lenin and emphasize the portion quoted by “M1C”:
“To establish and consolidate the Party means to establish and consolidate unity among all Russian Social-Democrats, and, for the reasons indicated above, such unity cannot be decreed, it cannot be brought about by a decision, say, of a meeting of representatives; it must be worked for. In the first place, it is necessary to work for solid ideological unity which should eliminate discordance and confusion that – let us be frank! reign among Russian Social Democrats at the present time. This ideological unity must be consolidated by a Party programme. Secondly, we must work to achieve an organization especially for the purpose of establishing and maintaining contact among all the centres of the movement, of supplying complete and timely information about the movement, and of delivering our newspapers and periodicals regularly to all parts of Russia. Only when such an organization has been founded, only when a Russian socialist post has been established, will the Party possess a sound foundation and become a real fact, and, therefore, a mighty political force. We intend to devote our efforts to the first half of this task, i.e., to creating a common literature, consistent in principle and capable of ideologically uniting revolutionary Social-Democracy, since we regard this as the pressing demand of the movement today and a necessary preliminary measure towards the resumption of Party activity.”
“As we have said, the ideological unity of Russian Social-Democrats has still to be created, and to this end it is, in our opinion, necessary to have an open and all-embracing discussion of the fundamental questions of principle and tactics raised by the present-day ’economists’, Bernsteinians, and ’critics’. Before we can unite, and in order that we may unite, we must first of all draw firm and definite lines of demarcation. Otherwise, our unity will be purely fictitious, it will conceal the prevailing confusion and hinder its radical elimination. It is understandable, therefore, that we do not intend to make our publication a mere storehouse of various views. On the contrary, we shall conduct it in the spirit of a strictly defined tendency. This tendency can be expressed by the word Marxism, and there is hardly need to add that we stand for the consistent development of the ideas of Marx and Engels and emphatically reject the equivocating, vague, opportunist ’corrections’ for which Eduard Bernstein, P. Struve, and many others have set the fashion.”
“M1C” quite deliberately “missed” the basic point in Lenin’s argument, that is, “the ideological unity of Russian Social-Democrats has still to be created, and to this end it is, in our opinion, necessary to have an open and all-embracing discussion of the fundamental questions of principle and tactics raised by the present-day ’economists’, Bernsteinians, and ’critics.’ ” And “that we stand for the consistent development of the ideas of Marx and Engels and emphatically reject the equivocating, vague, and opportunist ’corrections’ for which Eduard Bernstein, P. Struve, and many others have set the fashion.”
As in the case of Comrade Enver, who clearly states that “a direct role of undermining and sabotage is being played by the modern revisionists”, in the same manner Comrade Lenin cocks his guns against “the equivocating, vague, and opportunist ’corrections’ for which Eduard Bernstein, P. Struve, and many others have set the fashion.” Nowhere does Comrade Lenin give the call for “ideological struggle as a form of class struggle” within the tendency that “can be expressed by the word Marxism”. On the contrary, he calls for “an open and all-embracing discussion of the fundamental questions of principle and tactics raised by the present-day ’economists’, Bernsteinians, and ’critics’.”
And who are the “present-day ’economists’, Bernsteinians, and ’critics’”? ”M1C” does not have a word against them. According to “M1C” this would be “sectarianism”: identifying “the Marxist- Leninist movement by definition does not build unity and could lead to sectarianism.” “M1C” swears never to “draw narrow lines around the Marxist-Leninist movement which by definition excludes not only counter-revolutionaries, but also opportunists.”[84] On the contrary, “M1C” has concocted an absolute plan of bourgeois self-cultivation, “We urge all groups to publicly examine and criticize the economist lines that have been and are still dominant in our ’practical’ work.” First of all, what ’practical work’?! They do not have any!! Furthermore, what is this nonsense of “publicly examine and criticize the economist lines that have been and are still dominant”? Lenin never uttered such trash as, “Marxist-Leninists are also economists”. It is only “MIC” ’s imagination that is running wild!
Thus “MIC” ’s pretentious slogan, “ideological struggle is class struggle”, means “class struggle” between “the leading centre, the most advanced group” and “the ’lowest common denominator’” and the “movement as a whole”. What is the “lowest common denominator” of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought? Is it not Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought? Is it not the same thing? Is a communist party not known by the activities of its central committee? Then how can there be a class contradiction between “the leading centre, the most advanced group” and the “’lowest common denominator’”? Class struggle is between classes, that is, between the line of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. What is the line of the bourgeoisie on the question of party-building in this country? Precisely the line which “MIC” presents! That is the line of conciliation with revisionism and paralyzing the revolutionary movement of this country. Thus, the class struggle is between the line of “MIC”, who are conciliators with revisionism, and Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought.
“MIC” quite deliberately mystifies the objective existence of classes and class struggle and concocts mentally two opposites in order to cause confusion. They do not have a proletarian class point of view and do not base their analysis on Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought. Like Bernstein, who states “Peculiarities of geographical situation, rooted customs of national life, inherited institutions, and traditions of all kinds create a difference of mind which only submits to the influence of the development”, “MIC” has concocted the nonsense that “ideological struggle is class struggle” as a cover to struggle against Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought. According to Bernstein, a proletarian of one country is different from a proletarian of another country; for “MIC” one “genuine” Marxist-Leninist is “different” from the other because one may form “one pole in the struggle and advances that line to the highest level” while the other poor fellow loses out. If there is anything that approximates the spirit of competitive capitalism in the working class movement, then it is the line of “M1C”, where every group and individual is in competition with one another, and the “fittest” win out!
Lenin pointed out in What Is To Be Done?: “Now this slogan (’freedom of criticism’) has been solemnly advanced, very recently, in No. 10 of Rabocheye Dyelo, the organ of the Union of Russian Social-Democrats Abroad, not as a theoretical postulate, but as a political demand, as a reply to the question: ’Is it possible to unite the Social-Democratic organizations operating abroad?’ – ’in order that unity may be durable, there must be freedom of criticism.’
“From this statement two quite distinct conclusions follow: 1) that the Rabocheye Dyelo has taken under its wing the opportunist trend in international Social-Democracy in general; and 2) that the Rabocheye Dyelo demands freedom for opportunism in Russian Social-Democracy.”[85] This can be precisely said of “M1C”, and their “most advanced group” En Lutte! Instead of advancing the slogan of “freedom of criticism”, our opportunists have coined an equivalent slogan of “ideological struggle”. They have taken under their wing the opportunist trend in the international communist movement and they demand “freedom for opportunism” in the communist movement of this country. When the “left”-sloganeering front of Khrushchovite revisionism emerged in Montreal in the summer of 1971, it shamelessly advanced the slogan that “there is no freedom of criticism” in CPC(M-L), and then pushed their bourgeois line of “broadening the base”. En Lutte! has presented the same line in more concealed form because Gagnon sat around watching the movement before he issued his own slogan of “ideological struggle” in 1972.
The line of “ideological struggle” is the general yellow flag which En Lutte! has hoisted. “M1C” has picked up that yellow flag. Liu Shao-chi lurks in Vancouver. What “M1C” calls the “most advanced group” has, once again, imported opportunist trash from a foreign country, refurbished it and sent it by rail to Vancouver. As the masses use Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought to defeat this latest counter-revolutionary import against the Canadian revolution, “MIC” will have to hang around another few years for yet another fad to erupt. Then once more they will put on their arrogant posture in order to again oppose the theory of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought.
[36] “The May 1st Collective”, “Ideological Struggle Is Class Struggle”, Canadian Revolution, Vol. 1, No. 5, April-May, 1976, p. 4.
[37] En Lutte!, cited in Bains, Hardial, “A Brief Comment on En Lutte!’s Variety of Opportunism”, People’s Canada Daily News/On The Line, Vol. 5, No. 257-262, p. 12.
[38] Ibid., p. 12.
[39] Stalin, J.V., “Briefly about the Disagreements in the Party”, Collected Works, Volume 1, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1952, p. 105.
[40] Ibid., pp. 106-107.
[41] Ibid., p. 106.
[42] Stalin, J.V., “Concerning the Question of the Strategy and Tactics of the Russian Communists”, Collected Works, Volume 5, p. 163.
[43] Ibid., p. 164.
[44] Ibid., p. 165.
[45] Comite de Soutien aux Luttes Ouvrieres was organized by several op¬portunist sects including En Lutte!, in Montreal in September 1973 inorderto disrupt workers’ strike struggles, and attack the Marxist-Leninists. Isolated from the workers by CPC(M-L)’s political line, the opportunists liquidated CSLO in September 1975.
[46] “Summing Up the Stage of Discussion between CPC(M-L) and En Lutte!”, Mass Line, Theoretical Journal of the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist), Vol. 5, No. 55, p. 17.
[47] Cited in Stalin, J.V., Foundations of Leninism, Foreign Languages Press, Peking, 1970, pp. 97-98.
[48] Ibid., p. 98.
[49] Lenin, V.I., “To S.I. Gusev”, Collected Works, Volume 34, p. 356.
[50] En Lutte! English Digest Special Supplement (En Lutte!, No. 52), p. 1.
[51] Stalin, J.V., “Briefly About the Disagreements in the Party”, Collected Works, Volume 1, p. 109.
[52] “The May 1st Collective”, “Ideological Struggle Is Class Struggle”, Canadian Revolution, Vol. 1, No. 5, April-May 1976, p. 2.
[53] Lenin, V.I., “Declaration of the Editorial Board of Iskra”, Collected Works, Volume 4, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1972, p. 354.
[54] History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks) Short Course, International Publishers, New York, 1939, p. 32.
[55] The London Congress – the Fifth Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party, which met from April 30 to May 19, 1907, in London.
[56] Stalin, J.V., “Lenin as the Organizer and Leader of the Russian Communist Party”, Collected Works, Volume 4, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1953, pp. 317-18.
[57] Redpath, Joseph, “A Comment on the Pamphlet by Charles Gagnon”, North America News Service, October 1 - December 15, 1972, p. 1.
[58] Gagnon, Charles, “Pour le Parti Proletarien”, North America News Service, October 1-December 15, 1972, p.17.
[59] Ibid., p. 17.
[60] Ibid., p. 18.
[50] Ibid., p. 18.
[50] “For the Canadian Proletarian Party”, En Lutte!, Vol. 3, No. 19, April 29, 1976, p. 1.
[50] “The May 1st Collective”, “Ideological Struggle Is Class Struggle”, Canadian Revolution, Vol. 1, No. 5, April-May 1976, p. 11.
[50] Ibid, p. 12.
[50] Yao Wen-yuan, On the Counter-Revolutionary Double-Dealer Chou Yang, Foreign Languages Press, Peking, 1967, p. 2.
[50] “The Real Aim of the Pamphlet Two Roads – the Origins of the Sino-Soviet Conflict Written by Jack Scott: Phoney Defence of China and Real Slander of Leninism and the Great October Revolution”, Mass Line, Theoretical Journal of the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist), Vol. 6 & 7, No. 58, September 7, 1975, p. 3.
[50] Chou Yang, The Fighting Task Confronting Workers in Philosophy and the Social Sciences, Foreign Languages Press, Peking, 1963, p. 8.
[50] “The May 1st Collective”, “Ideological Struggle Is Class Struggle”, Canadian Revolution, Vol. 1, No. 5, April-May 1976, p. 11.
[50] Ibid., p. 13.
[70] Chou Yang, The Fighting Task Confronting Workers in Philosophy and the Social Sciences, p. 2.
[71] Chou Yang, A Great Debate on the Literary Front, Foreign Languages Press, Peking, 1965, p. 1.
[72] Liu Shao-chi, How To Be a Good Communist, Foreign Languages Press, Peking, 1964, p. 12.
[73] Ibid., p. 12.
[74] Ibid., p. 34.
[75] Bernstein, Eduard, Evolutionary Socialism, Schoken Books, New York, 1970, p. 165.
[76] “The May 1st Collective”, “Ideological Struggle Is Class Struggle”, Canadian Revolution, Vol. 1, No. 5, April-May 1976, p. 5.
[77] Bains, Hardial, “A Brief Comment on En Lutte!’s Variety of Opportunism”, People’s Canada Daily News/On the Line, Vol. 5, No. 257-262, p. 12.
[78] Liu Shao-chi, On Inner-Party Struggle, New Century Publishers, New York, 1952, p. 4.
[79] Stalin, J.V., Foundations of Leninism, Foreign Languages Press, Peking, 1970, p. 116.
[80] “The May 1st Collective”, “Ideological Struggle Is Class Struggle”, Canadian Revolution, Vol. 1, No. 5, April-May 1976, p. 37.
[81] Ibid., p. 34.
[82] Hoxha, Enver, Report Submitted to the 6th Congress of the Party of Labour of Albania, The “Nairn Frasheri” Publishing House, Tirana, 1971, p. 210.
[83] Lenin, V.I., “Declaration of the Editorial Board of Iskra”, Collected Works, Volume 4, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1972, p. 354.
[84] “The May 1st Collective”, “Ideological Struggle Is Class Struggle”, Canadian Revolution, Vol. 1, No. 5, April-May 1976, p. 5.
[85] Lenin, V.I., What Is To Be Done?, Foreign Languages Press, Peking, 1973, p. 11.