Hardial Bains boldly proclaimed at the Fifth Consultative Conference of the so-called “’CPC(ML)” that “our Party was established in March 1970 in opposition to Khrushchev revisionism and against opportunism of all hues. Our Party firmly waged a vigorous ideological struggle against modern revisionism and opportunism of all hues which it carries on to date. The founding of the Party was an historic event in the life of the working class movement and the communist movement and was a big blow to revisionism and opportunism of all hues.” (Documents of the Fifth Consultative Conference, p. 20)
Bains could only expect his lobotomised followers, and people who have not had the opportunity to investigate the history of his “Party,” to believe this.
The facts are that Bains has always only opposed Khrushchevite revisionism with his own brand of revisionism.
Khrushchevite revisionism was opposed and defeated by the struggle of the Party of Labour of Albania and the Communist Party of China and other Marxist-Leninists by upholding the purity of Marxism-Leninism and remaining faithful to the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin.
Bains, however, openly rejected Marxism-Leninism and instead formed his “party” on the basis of “Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought” which, according to Bains, was the Marxism of a “new era.”
In the program adopted at their first convention, the Bainsites declare that “the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) takes Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought as the theoretical basis guiding its thinking. Mao Tse-tung Thought is Marxism-Leninism of the era in which imperialism is heading for total collapse and socialism is advancing to worldwide victory.” (Mass Line, July 1, 1971, p. 4)
This was nothing but a slanderous attack on Comrade Mao Tse-tung, for as Comrade Hoxha stated about Mao Tse-tung at the Seventh Congress of the PLA:
The work of this outstanding Marxist-Leninist represents a contribution to the enrichment of the revolutionary theory and practice of the proletariat.(Report Submitted to the Seventh Congress of the PLA, Tirana 1976, p. 201)
Mao Tse-tung was a great Marxist-Leninist who fought Krushchevite revisionism tooth and nail, using Marxism-Leninism. He stood side by side with Comrade Hoxha and the PLA in a struggle against Khrushchev’s attempts to revise Marxism-Leninism and postulate a “new era” of “peaceful transition to socialism.” “peaceful coexistence,” etc.
Bains from the very beginning rejected Marxism-Leninism and put forward what Bains called “Mao Tsetung Thought.” It should be understood that, for Bains, Mao Tsetung Thought was not the application of Marxism-Leninism to the concrete conditions of the Chinese revolution. For Bains it was rather the “Marxism-Leninism of our era.
Where did Bains got the idea of separating Mao Tse-tung from Marxism-Leninism? The answer to this question is clear when we look at the cover of the April 22/May 3. 1970 issue of Mass Line, an issue to “celebrate” the centenary of Lenin’s birth. On this cover are two quotes, one from Comrade Stalin and one from the counter-revolutionary Lin Piao.
The first quote reads:
Leninism is Marxism of the era of imperialism and the proletarian revolution. To be more exact, Leninism is the theory and tactics of the proletarian revolution in general, the theory and tactics of the dictatorship of the proletariat in particular. (J. V. Stalin)
The second quote reads:
Mao Tsetung Thought is Marxism-Leninism of the era in which imperialism is heading for total collapse and socialism is advancing to worldwide victory. It is a powerful ideological weapon for opposing imperialism and for opposing revisionism and dogmatism. (Lin Piao)
Bains used the occasion of the centenary of Lenin’s birth to repudiate Leninism, to deny that we live in “the era of imperialism and the proletarian revolution,” to deny that “Leninism is Marxism” of our era, and to deny that “Leninism is the theory and tactics of the proletarian revolution” in our era. Instead Bains tried to substitute for Leninism a revisionist theory that postulates a “new era” in which imperialism is “heading for total collapse” without proletarian revolution and in which “socialism is advancing to worldwide victory” without proletarian revolution.
This is clear when in that same issue of Mass Line it is stated that:
All countries and people subjected to aggression control, intervention or bullying by U.S. imperialism and Soviet revisionism are forming the broadest united front. A NEW HISTORICAL PERIOD struggle against U.S. imperialism and Soviet revisionism has begun. The death-knell is tolling fo imperialism and social imperialism. (p. 8)
Stalin tells us that Lenin had “one general conclusion: that imperialism is the era of the socialist revolution.” (Foundations of Leninism, Peking, p. 27)
But for Bains, this is the wrong conclusion. For Bains the “correct” conclusion is that imperialism is the period in which all the countries subjected to superpower “bullying” should form “the broadest united front.” What is this but another revisionist forerunner to the counter-revolutionary theory of “three worlds”? Bains, along with the theoreticians of “three worlds,” wants to liquidate the era of proletarian revolution and have an era of class collaboration of “all countries,” an era in which “socialism is advancing to worldwide victory” without proletarian revolution, an era of a “new international economic order” that is neither imperialist or socialist. What is this but another variation on Khrushchev’s theory of “peaceful transition to socialism”?
That same issue of Mass Line makes clear that Bains’ “Mao Tsetung Thought” has nothing in common with proletarian revolution, by stating that “Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought, integrated with the revolutionary MASSES in their hundreds of millions and with the concrete practice of PEOPLE’S REVOLUTION IN ALL COUNTRIES, will certainly bring forth inexhaustible revolutionary strength to smash the entire old world to smithereens!”
This should make it clear that Bains founded his “party” opposing proletarian revolution in those countries where it is on the agenda, and calling for a classless “people’s revolution“ carried out by the “masses.” What is this bit another step down the road to the counterrevolutionary theory of “three worlds”?
It is this revisionist Bainsite theory that is the basis of Bains’ call for “people’s war” instead of proletarian revolution in imperialist countries such as Canada and England. Bains “fought” Khrushchevite revisionism by opposing to it a classless theory that called for the rural areas of the world to encircle the urban areas, a theory that called for the “masses” to make “people’s revolution” in order to bring imperialism M “total collapse” and to advance socialism to “total victory.” Khrushchev had his “party of the whole people,” and Bains has his “revolution of the whole people” – a quarrel among thieves. Bains tells us that he has always fought to preserve the purity of Marxism-Leninism, but the truth is that he has always fought against Marxism-Leninism.
In fact, the Political Report of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China at its Tenth Congress, presided over by Comrade Mao Tse-tung, clearly disassociates Mao Tse-tung and his Party from all this slander. This report states:
Chairman Mao has often taught us: We are still in the era of imperialism and the proletarian revolution. On the basis of fundamental Marxist principle, Lenin made a scientific analysis of imperialism and defined “imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism.” Lenin pointed out that imperialism is monopolistic capitalism, parasitic or decaying capitalism, moribund capitalism. He also said that imperialism intensifies all the contradictions of capitalism to the extreme. He therefore concluded that “imperialism is the era of the social revolution of the proletariat” and put forward the theories and tactics of the proletarian revolution in the era of imperialism. Stalin said, “Leninism is Marxism of the era of imperialism and the proletarian revolution.” This is entirely correct. Since Lenin’s death the world situation has undergone great changes. BUT THE ERA HAS NOT CHANGED. The fundamental principles of Leninism are not outdated; they remain the theoretical basis guiding our thinking today, (p. 21)
One would think that this would have put Bains and his “new era” in the same garbage can as his mentor, Lin Piao. But Bains continued his attacks on Marxism-Leninism and his defense of his “new era” by saying in a speech on July 26, 1975 that “some people have been whispering around that the Tenth National Congress of the Communist Party of China said different things.... The ’difference’ which they are talking about is that the Tenth Congress Party (sic) did not believe in Mao Tsetung Thought as the Marxism-Leninism of our era. They say that the political report said that this is the era of imperialism and social revolution of the proletariat. ... So those individuals are trying to create confusion on this front, and for what reasons? What motivation do they have? The motivation is to suggest that Mao Tsetung Thought as a theory doesn’t exist, Marxism-Leninism exists. Which means under this subterfuge they are again opposing the dissemination of Mao Tse-tung Thought.” (PCDN-OTL, September 8-13, 1975)
Could it be clearer that Bains sees what he calls “Mao Tsetung Thought” as a “theory” separate from Marxism-Leninism? In fact, Marxism-Leninism does not exist for Bains, a fact we have been well aware of all along! In a rare moment of candor even Bains admits that the “Mao Tsetung Thought” he peddles has nothing to do with Mao Tse-tung, the CPC or Marxism-Leninism.
Bains’ revisionist aims could not be stated more clearly than in the next paragraph.
The point is that at this time it is all the more crucial that Mao Tsetung Thought is disseminated on a large scale, and Mao Tsetung Thought is the Marxism-Leninism of our era. (Emphasis Bains!’ ibid.)
But “crucial” for what aims? Crucial to advance Bains’ counter-revolutionary schemes.
Comrade Enver Hoxha has hailed “the victory of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, the smashing of the counterrevolutionary plots of Liu Shao-chi, Lin Piao, and Teng Hsiao-ping” (Report Submitted to the Seventh Congress of the PLA, p. 201). Bains, however, has only paid very minor lip service to the smashing of Lin Piao. Instead Bains launched an hysterical campaign to denouce anyone who didn’t uphold Bains’ “Mao Tsetung Thought” as the “Marxism-Leninism of our era” as a revisionist and a counterrevolutionary. It was by haranguing away at this point alone that Bains summarily dismissed a number of different criticisms of the political line of his “party” that none of his critics upheld Mao Tsetung Thought as the Marxism-Leninism of our era.
The “CPC(ML)” had long been repudiated by many elements claiming sympathy to Marxism-Leninism in Canada. With the growth of the Marxist-Leninist movement of struggle for the party, in 1974 and 1975 Bains began to panic for his hegemony over all who called themselves Marxist-Leninist. Thus he went on a frenzied campaign against the Marxist-Leninist movement, concentrating particularly on the question of recognising “Mao Tse-tung Thought” as the “Marxism-Leninism of our era.”
Bains proclaimed that “the first point comrades and friends that we should grasp firmly, is that today, China is still the issue, the international situation is still the issue, whether or not to follow Mao Tsetung Thought, none of these issues has gone to the background.” (PCDN-OTL Sept. 8-13, 1975, p. 10)
Then Bains put forward two major articles to defend his revisionist views. One was entitled “Mao Tsetung Thought – the Marxism-Leninism of our era” (PCDN-OTL, Sept. 8-12, 1975, p. 3) (also published as “The Negative Lines Within the Communist Movement in Canada on the Question of Mao Tsetung Thought,” Mass Line, August 15, 1975, p. 4) and “The Negative Lines Within the Communist Movement of Canada on the Question of the International Communist Movement and the International” (PCDN-OTL, Sept. 15-20, 1975, p. 12). Bains claims that:
We have shown in the article: Negative Lines Within the Communist Movement in Canada on the Question of Mao Tsetung Thought that opportunists do not consider Mao Tsetung Thought as the Marxism-Leninism of our era. By not doing so, they are sometimes pitting Marxism-Leninism against Mao Tsetung Thought and other times add Mao Tsetung Thought as a corollary to Marxism-Leninism. In either case they refuse to base their thinking on the Marxism-Leninism of our era, Mao Tsetung Thought. (PCDN-OTL. Sept. 15-20, 1975, p. 12)
For Bains this was the so-called “two-line” struggle in the movement. Bains claimed that “no one can wish away this two-line struggle between the positive and negative lines.” This trick has been frequently used by opportunists and revisionists of all hues, who proclaim that there are “two lines” instead of a single correct Marxist-Leninist line. They push this “two-line” struggle as something eternal so as to justify the continued presence of the bourgeois line and therefore the bourgeoisie in the communist movement. Bains claims that “this dialectical unity and struggle of opposites within the Canadian Communist Movement is an objective phenomenon and is independent of anyone’s will. It reflects the struggle in society between the two classes, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, and no one can wish away this two lines struggle between the positive and negative lines.” (Ibid.) This is nothing but an attempt to trick Marxist-Leninists that Bains’ revisionist views are a “legitimate” part of the international communist movement and then use this “legitimacy” to attack and undermine Marxism-Leninism.
Comrade Hoxha has said that
A Marxist-Leninist party which is respected as such cannot allow the existence of two lines in the party; thus it cannot permit the existence of one or more factions. And if such a thing does occur, the party cannot and must not allow their existence even for a short time. (As quoted in “The PLA Has Always Pursued a Single Marxist-Leninist Line,” Albania Today no. 2 (33), p. 9)
The article adds:
All the Marxist-Leninist parties destroyed or transformed into revisionist parties up till now have been destroyed or become revisionist because they have deviated from the Marxist-Leninist principles and allowed opposing lines and factional anti-Marxist trends to be formed and operate within their ranks, thus being unable to combat and liquidate them. (Ibid.)
Bains has always rejected these Marxist-Leninist principles because the greatest threat to “Bains Thought” is solid Marxist-Leninist unity around a single correct line.
By looking at Bains’ arguments that “Mao Tsetung Thought is the Marxism-Leninism of our era,” it can be seen just exactly how Bains uses his “two-line struggle” to attack Marxism-Leninism.
In order to put forward his revisionist line, Bains has to discredit the universality of Leninism. He does this in the same way as other revisionists - by “nationalizing” Lenin. In 1973 “CPC(ML)” adopted Bains’ political report that described:
...Leninism, which is the theory of actually over-throwing the Czarist aristocracy and building the first socialist state (Political Report 1973, p. 59)
And in these articles Bains states:
Lenin developed Marxism to a new stage. He scientifically analysed imperialism and he led the proletariat in organizing the peasantry to overthrow capitalism and landlordism in the Russian Empire, and established and consolidated the first dictatorship of the proletariat in the world. (PCDN-OTL, Sept. 8-13. 1975,p. 3)
What is this but the line of Zinoviev which Stalin so savagely attacks in Problems of Leninism:
Nevertheless, it appears that there are people in our Party who consider it necessary to define Leninism somewhat differently. Zinoviev, for example, thinks that:
“Leninism is Marxism of the era of imperialist wars and of the world revolution which began directly in a country where the peasantry predominates.”
What can be the meaning of the words underlined by Zinoviev? What does introducing the backwardness of Russia, its peasant character, into the definition of Leninism mean?
It means transforming Leninism from an international proletarian doctrine into a product of specifically Russian conditions.
It means playing into the hands of Bauer and Kautsky, who deny that Leninism is suitable for other countries, for countries in which capitalism is more developed.
It goes without saying that the peasant question is of very great importance for Russia, that our country is a peasant country. But what significance can this fact have in characterizing the foundations of Leninism? Was Leninism elaborated only on Russian soil, for Russia alone and not in the soil of imperialism, and for imperialists countries generally? Do such works of Lenin as Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, The State and Revolution, The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky, “Left-Wing” Communism, An Infantile Disorder, etc., apply only to Russia, and not to all imperialist countries in general? Is not Leninism the generalization of the experience of the revolutionary movement of all countries? Are not the fundamentals of the theory and tactics of Leninism suitable, are they not obligatory, for the proletarian parties of all countries? Was not Lenin right when he said that “Bolshevism can serve as a model of tactics for all”? (See Vol. XXVII, p. 386) Was not Lenin right when he spoke about the “international significance of Soviet power and of the fundamentals of Bolshevik theory and tactics”? (See Vol. XXV, pp. 171-172) Are not for example, the following words of Lenin correct:
“In Russia, the dictatorship of the proletariat must inevitably differ in certain specific features from that in the advanced countries, owing to the very great backwardness and petty-bourgeois character of our country. But the basic forces – and the basic forms of social economy – are the same in Russia as in any capitalist country, so that these specific features can relate only to what is not most important.” (See Vol. XXIV, p. 508)
But if all that is true, does not it follow that Zinoviev’s definition of Leninism cannot be regarded as correct? How can this nationally restricted definition of Leninism be reconciled with internationalism? (Problems of Leninism, Peking, p. 162)
We echo the great words of Stalin: “How can this nationally restricted definition of Leninism be correct?”
It is “correct” for Bains because he is trying to deny that “Leninism is Marxism of the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution” – our present era.
To Bains, the era of Leninism only lasted until Lenins death. In order to attempt to father his revisionism Bains puts Comrade Stalin in a different era then Lenin. Bains says that “Stalin was the leader, the helmsman of the Bolshevik Communist Party (sic) after Lenin’s death. He led the whole glorious EPOCH of the establishment of the first socialist state.” (Ibid. p. 4) Apparently Bains feels that Stalin didn’t understand what era he lived in!
Then Bains tells us:
After Stalin’s death, various opportunists led by Khrushchev seized control of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Soviet State.... It was the Communist Party of China, under the leadership of Chairman Mao Tse-tung, which LED the struggle against these Khrushchevite revisionists who had seized control of the CPSU. History called upon Chairman Mao, as in the past it called upon Karl Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin to take the leadership of the modern proletariat in the struggle against the bourgeoisie. (Ibid.)
What about Comrade Enver Hoxha and the glorious Party of Labour of Albania? Despite Bains’ demagogy, Comrade Hoxha and the PLA also led the struggle against Khrushchevite revisionism.
Bains goes on to say that Mao Tse-tung
has brought Marxism-Leninism to a higher completely new stage. Mao Tsetung Thought is Marxism-Leninism in the present era. Once again the international proletariat and oppressed peoples have a centre for world revolution, a guiding thought, as they did under Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin. (Ibid.)
Bains also says that Mao Tse-tung
is the great and respected leader, not just of one country, China, but is also the dear and respected leader of all the peoples and communists of the world... Mao Tsetung Thought is the leading thought not just of China, but the international communist mouvement.... Mao Tsetung Thought is the international doctrine of the proletarians of all lands, suitable and MANDATORY FOR ALL COUNTRIES WITHOUT EXCEPTION... To deny Mao Tsetung Thought is the theory of revolution, “ Marxism-Leninism in our era, is to open the door to eclecticism and modern revisionism.... Chairman Mao did not just make “some contributions,” he raised Marxism-Leninism to a new stage, and his teachings are the Marxism-Leninism of our era. The great dividing line between Marxism-Leninism and opportunism of all kinds is whether one grasps this central feature of the present era. (Ibid.)
What is this but a “disguised” attack on all Marxist-Leninists who uphold that our era is the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution and that Leninism is the Marxism of our era?
The PLA has always followed a single Marxist-Leninist line and the line on our epoch is stated as follow.
The great October Socialist Revolution confirmed the brilliant conclusions of Marx and Lenin in practice. After the death of Lenin, too, the international communist movement resolutely adhered to his teachings about the present epoch, adhered to his revolutionary strategy. The triumph of the socialist revolution in a number of other countries confirmed that the Leninist thesis on the present epoch, as the epoch of the transition from capitalism to socialism, reflects the fundamental law of the development of present day human society. The collapse of the colonial system, the winning of political independence by the overwhelming majority of the countries of Asia, Africa, etc., is another confirmation of the Leninist theory on the epoch and the revolution. The fact that the teachings of Marxism-Leninism and the revolution were betrayed in the Soviet Union and a number of former socialist countries does not alter the Leninist thesis on the character of the present epoch in the least, because this is nothing but a zigzag in the course of the inevitable victory of socialism over capitalism on a world scale. (“The Theory and Practice of the Revolution,” Albania Today no. 4 (35), p. 21)
What are we to take from Bains’ positions other than that the PLA is ’ ’opening the door to eclecticism and modern revisionism” and “opportunist” because the PLA doesn’t “grasp” the “central feature of the present era”? Is it with this kind of counter-revolutionary slander against the PLA and all genuine Marxist-Leninists that Bains was “fighting Khrushchevite revisionism” and “defending the purity of Marxism-Leninism”? It is clear to us that, with this kind of demagogy against the PLA and the CPC. Bains was siding with the cause of Khrushchevite revisionism in trying to subvert the purity of Marxism-Leninism.
Bains even goes so far as to maintain that Comrade Hoxha and the PLA agree with Bains’ revisionist views (PCDN, Setp. 15-20, 1975, p. 19). This is nothing but another slander in the service of Khrushchevite and Titoite revisionism. Comrade Hoxha made his views of Comrade Mao Tse-tung clear to anyone who cares to know.
In a speech on Nov. 28, 1969, while speaking about the great Chinese proletarian cultural revolution and the 9th Congress of the Communist Party of China, Comrade Hoxha said:
The theoretical principles worked out by Chairman Mao Tse-tung, and his thought, by which the great Chinese proletarian cultural revolution was guided, constitute an outstanding creative contribution to the development of Marxism-Leninism, shedding light on the problems of the development of socialist revolution in conditions of the dictatorship of the proletariat, they are a powerful weapon. (Speeches 1969-1970. p. 115)
And in 1970 Comrade Hoxha said that:
The glorious thoughts of Mao Tse-tung have educated a Marxist-Leninist party and a great people of 700-800 millions, and the policy of the Chinese state, too, is a correct and glorious policy in the interests of socialism, the revolution, the national-liberation struggle, and the freedom and independence of the peoples. Therefore, the communist parties, the revolutionaries, the peoples of the world and the progressive states, have in China and Mao Tsetung, a great comrade, a friend, a brother, an assistant and supporter in any situation, in sunshine or in times of storm. (Ibid., pp. 309-310)
In a speech before electors in Tirana on Oct. 3, 1974, nearly a year before Bains intensified his “two line struggle,” Comrade Hoxha said that:
The foreign policy of the People’s Republic of Albania is the policy of a socialist country where the dictatorship of the proletariat is in power, and which is led by the Party of Labour which is inspired by and stands loyal to, the teachings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin. (Our Policy is an Open Policy The Policy of Proletarian Principles, Tirana 1975. p. 20)
Comrade Hoxha praises “the construction of socialism in China, which is being realized in a correct way, according to the doctrine of Marx and Lenin and the teaching of Mao Tse-tung”. (pp. 27-28)
Comrade Hoxha also states that:
The Albanian people and all the peoples of the world nurture an ardent love for, and have great faith in, socialist China, her glorious Party, and Mao Tse-tung, the respected and beloved leader of the Chinese people and the Chinese communists, respected and beloved also by all the peoples and communists of the world, (p. 27)
Comrade Hoxha makes it clear just exactly what is the basis of the unity of Albania and China.
The People’s Republic of Albania, our people, our Party of Labour, hare loyal friends, close friends and comrades, faithful allies of the Peoples Republic of China, the fraternal Chinese people, and the glorious Communist Party of Mao Tse-tung’s China. We are united by our common ideals, we are united forever by Marxism-Leninism….(p. 30)
So why does Bains lie about the principled and correct positions of the PLA? Comrade Hoxha has said that “Our Party is of the opinion that the sole guide of the communists is Marxism-Leninism, it leads them; it is Marxism-Leninism and the principles of proletarian internationalism that unite them in their great struggle”, (quoted in the History of the Party of Labour of Albania, Tirana, p. 549)
Why is it that Bains claims that Marxist-Leninists “must of necessity come under the discipline of Mao Tse-tung Thought, recognize Mao Tse-tung Thought as the leading authority in the world communist movement?” (PCDN-OTL. Sept. 8-13, 1975, p. 5)
Bains goes on to say that:
The international communist movement which has always recognized a single leading authority and come under the discipline of the teachings of the world authority in the international communist movement. All the “alleged socialists” who refused to do so. regardless of what period in the history of the international communist movement inevitably ended up taking an opportunist path.
For Bains, Comrade Hoxha must be an “alleged socialist” who is “taking an opportunist path” when he unequivocably states that “the authority of Leninism has been and is decisive. It should be established in such a way as to purge erroneous views everywhere and in a radical way. There is no other way out for us communists.” {The Party of Labour of Albania in Battle with Modern Revisionism. Tirana, p. 98)
Bains slanders Comrade Hoxha and the PLA, Comrade Mao Tse-tung and the CPC all the while proclaiming his “struggle against Khrushchevite revisionism” and for “the purity of Marxism-Leninism.” And at the same time Bains takes up the very same revisionist line as Khrushchev on the question of the relations of Communist parties. In fact, the whole “two line struggle” that Bains takes up with other opportunists such as In Struggle and MREQ (now “CCL(ML)”) is nothing but the classic “two-line struggle” in the camp of the modern revisionists that Comrade Hoxha brilliantly exposed in article recently republished by Albania. Under the section title “Polycentrism and ”Mono-centrism – Two Anti-Marxists Tendencies in the Ranks of Modern Revisionism,” Comrade Hoxha states:
The other important question which Togliatti raises in his testament is the so-called theory of polycentrism, which is counterposed to the monocentrist line of N. Khrushchev and his group.
The line of the Khrushchev group is the line of banging the fist on the table, not only towards the Marxist-Leninist parties, but also towards other revisionists, the line of stern dictate to force all to obey the Khrushchev group unconditionally, and humbly approve its policy of great-state chauvinism and the “mother party”. Whereas the poly-centrist line of Togliatti is a typical expression of a liberal, opportunist, social-democratic policy, which wants to get rid of any imposition from the Khrushchev group, and not only for the Italian Communist Party, but also for all the other revisionists, both in the capitalist world and in the socialist countries. (“Togliatti’s Testament, the Crisis of Modern Revisionism and the Struggle of the Marxist-Leninists.” October 1964, in Enver Hoxha: Speeches and Articles, 1963-64, p. 298)
The Khrushchevite line of a single centre is actively promoted in a new form by Bains, who engages in a “two line struggle” with “poly-centrists” like In Struggle who are well known for their struggle for “independence” from Marxism-Leninism. This is precisely how the Gagnonites and the Bainsites have conspired to have their revisionist “two-line struggle” foisted off as “two lines” in the international communist movement when in reality both lines are revisionist and their purpose is to sabotage the unity of the international communist movement around Marxism-Leninism. Comrade Hoxha says:
The polycentrist line of the Italian revisionists, the line of the creation of different leading centres in the communist movement, is just as blatantly opposed to the ideas of unity as the Khrushchevite line of the “single command”. (Ibid, p. 34)
This how Bains “struggled against Khrushchevite revisionism” and “defended the purity of Marxism-Leninism”: by promoting Khrushchevite revisionism in a new form! Bains’ whole conception of a “new era” is not new to Marxist-Leninists. We are quite familiar with the attempts of all sorts of revisionists to undermine Marxism-Leninism by postulating “new conditions,” “new eras” and “creative interpretations of Marxism.” Marxist-Leninists are well aware of the necessity for correctly analysing new developments in a changing world, but we never abandon Marxism-Leninism because this is our scientific tool to understand these changes in a way that will allow us to overthrow imperialism and achieve the dictatorship of the proletariat. Comrade Hoxha points out that:
The Party of Labor of Albania recognizes and understands the deep changes that have taken place in the world, the new conditions and phenomena that have arisen. But we reject all and every attempt being made by the present-day revisionists who, under the slogans of the “creative interpretation of Marxism in the new conditions”, are spreading their false and opportunistic viewpoints; they are seeking to sell them as a further development of Marxism, and they hasten to stigmatize as dogmatist, sectarian and adventurer anyone who goes on record against such viewpoints. These are known tactics. There is nothing new, nothing original in this. All the revisionists and opportunists, beginning with Bernstein and ending with Tito, under the guise of the changes in the situation” and of the “new phenomena”, have denied the basic principles of Marxism. As V. I. Lenin used to say, by always masking themselves under the slogan of the fight against dogmatism, using the catchword: dogmatist”, they have risen against Marxism. (The Party of Labor of Albania in Battle with Modern Revisionism. Tirana 1972, p. 112)
Bains is just such an element that has risen against Marxism-Leninism, trying to replace it! with “Bains thought,” a disguised form of Khrushchvite revisionism.
Why did Bains slander Comrade Hoxha and the PLA by implying that Albania is subservient and under the discipline of a foreign leader and a foreign country, following the authority of an ideology different from Marxism-Leninism?,/p>
Comrade Hoxha has said that “the Soviet revisionists see our unbreakable friendship with China with a jaundiced eye. They resort to every means to try to damage it, but never, never, will they obtain their goal. Everyday in their broadcasts the Moscow renegades trumpet that we are satellites of China, that we are dependent on her, that the Albanian people are divided from their leaders, etc., etc.. This is the position of every imperialist.” (Our Policy is an Open Policy, the Policy of Proletarian Principles, Tirana 1975, p. 31) And this is the position of the Hardial Bains, “great struggler against Khrushchevite revisionism” and “defender of the purity of Marxism-Leninism.”
Not only did Bains sing Khrushchev’s tune that Albania “marches to Peking’s baton”; Bains also spread this slander against the entire international communist movement. Bains said that “Mao Tsetung is the leading thought not just of China, but of the international communist movement.” (PCDN-OTL, Sept. 8-13, 1975, p. 4) Bains claimed that the international communist movement comes “under the discipline of the authoritative line of the Communist Party of China.” (Ibid. p. 8) Bains goes so far as to maintain that China ran an “international.”
The class outlook of the proletariat is proletarian internationalism. Today the crystalized expression of this outlook is Mao Tse-tung Thought. The international existed in those June days of the first insurrection of the modern proletariat in Paris, has existed ever since at one level or form or another, and will continue to do so.
... It consists of all the genuine communist revolutionaries in the world who are united together by Mao Tsetung Thought, the Marxism-Leninism of our era. (PCDN-OTL, Sept. 15-20, 1975)
Every proletarian and national liberation revolutionary fighter enthusiastically sees himself as a soldier in the international with Chairman Mao at its head. (PCDN-OTL, Sept. 8-13, 1975, p. 5)
These are nothing but the same lies that the Khrushchevite revisionists spread when they try to obscure the principled struggles of Marxist-Leninists against modern revisionism by making accusations that Marxist-Leninists are “Maoists” who are agents of the “national interests” of China promoting an ideology alien to Marxism-Leninism.
The revisionists in Canada have been able to make their demagogy against Marxist-Leninists much more “believable” because they have had Bains and his “party” to point to.
In 1943 Comrade Stalin said that:
The dissolution of the Communist International is proper because... it exposes the calumny of the adversaries of communism within the labour movement to the effect that communist parties in various countries are allegedly acting not in the interests of their people but on orders from outside. From now on an end is also put to this calumny. (“Stalin’s Reply to Reuter’s Chief Moscow Correspondent, 28 May 1943”)
Khrushchev ressurected this calumny in two ways. The first was to violate the principles of proletarian internationalism that had operated since the dissolution of the Comintern by the most insidious violations of the principle of equality of Marxist-Leninist parties. Khrushchevite revisionism tried in every imaginable way to get Marxist-Leninists to abandon the interests of their people and serve the interests of modern revisionism and Soviet social-imperialism. The PLA and the CPC, as well as Marxist-Leninists from around the world, exposed Khrushchev’s revisionist schemes and dealt modern revisionism crashing defeats by their valiant defense of Marxism-Leninism and the principles of proletarian internationalism.
Having failed to force Marxist-Leninists under the “discipline” of his revisionist dictatorship, having utterly failed to hide, by revisionist demagogy, the valiant defense of Marxist-Leninists for the principle of party equality, for the authority and purity of Marxism-Leninism, Khrushchev tried to ressurrect this calumny by accusing the PLA and other Marxist-Leninists of following the dictates of China, of abandoning Leninism, etc. etc.
The PLA and the CPC repudiated these revisionist slanders and firmly built the unity of the international communist movement on the basis of proletarian internationalism and the authority of Marxism-Leninism.
So what can we say about those people who, dressed as Marxist-Leninists, proclaim through “left” phrasemongering that Marxist-Leninists are constituted into an “international” that is under the “discipline” of the CPC, that rejects Marxism-Leninism as outdated, that divides the immortal work of Comrade Enver Hoxha and Comrade Mao Tse-tung from Marxism-Leninism and calls it a new “thought” for a “new era”?
They are a “left” sloganeering front for Khrushchevite revisionism. Bains’ insufferable phrasemongering about a “new era” of “Mao Tsetung Thought” could only aid the attempts of the modern revisionists in trying to discredit Mao Tse-tung, the Communist Party of China and the Peoples Republic of China.
At the 1969 meeting of the revisionists the revisionist traitor Leonid Brezhnev tried to discredit Comrade Mao Tse-tung and his Party by saying that “Mao Tse-tung’s thought has been proclaimed the Marxism-Leninism of the modern epoch”. (Marxists (sic) on Maoists (sic), Moscow, 1974, p. 71) and made the slanderous accusation that Mao was “hoisting the banner of Mao Tse-tung’s thought over the globe” (Ibid.) We have quoted the Tenth Congress of the CPC that clearly states Mao’s views that we are living in the era of imperialism and that Leninism is the Marxism of our era. Who, then, is Brezhnev speaking about? None other than his faithful servant, the arch renegade and counterrevolutionary Lin Piao, who when exposed tried to flee to Brezhnev’s side.
After the Tenth Congress of the CPC Comrade Enver Hoxha said in praising “the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, initiated and led by Comrade Mao Tse-tung in person” that the masses:
Did short work of the counterrevolutionary plot of the traitor, careerist, and agent of the Soviet revisionists, Lin Piao, defended the victories of the revolution, consolidated the dictatorship of the proletariat, and now have got down to work to implement the historic decisions of the 10th Congress of their Party and to develop unceasing struggle against the reactionary ideas of Confucius and Lin Piao. (Our Policy is an Open Policy, The Policy of Proletarian Principles, Tirana 1975, p. 29)
Why is it that Bains rejected the historic decisions of the Tenth Congress and continued to vehemently put forward Lin Piao’s .revisionism all the while claiming to support the Tenth Congress?
Comrade Bains dwelt on the significance of the Tenth National Congress of the Communist Party of China and hailed the basic line of the Tenth National Congress. Comrade Bains stated that as far as he is concerned he believes that a NEW ERA of tremendous revolutionary advance and sweep LED by the great, glorious and correct Communist Party of China guided by invincible Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought has already been ushered in. “We are in the midst of it. WE MUST REMOLD OUR THINKING ACCORDING TO THE NEED AND DEMANDS OF THIS GREAT ERA. Imperialism and social-imperialism will make many attempts to divide up the world in their own spheres of influence and drown in blood the basic aspirations of the people of the world for national independence, liberation and social revolution, but these activities by imperialism and social-imperialism will merely strengthen the revolutionary unity of the struggling COUNTRIES, NATIONS AND PEOPLE and bring nearer the final overthrow of imperialism and social-imperialism.” (PCDN, Oct. 4, 1973, p. 3)
Bains carried on Lin Piao’s struggle against Leninism and created the conditions for the continued slander of Marxist-Leninists by the modern revisionists. For all of Lin Piao’s “left” phrasemongering, his line was class collaboration. He called for “masses” irrespective of classes to unite the “rural” areas of the world to struggle against the “urban” areas, in other words uniting with all sorts of reactionaries in the backward countries and oppressed nations to “oppose the superpowers.” What is this but a refinement of Tito’s “non-alignment” theory and a precursor of the theory of “three worlds”? This theory has the same results as the theory of “three worlds,” “non-alignment,” etc. – the abandoning of socialism, proletarian revolution and national liberation struggles. Bains wants a “united front” of “countries, nations and people” to “bring nearer the final overthrow of imperialism and social-imperialism.” Although Bains might have claimed that he wanted to bring it “nearer,” he has spent his political life opposing the means to bring imperialism to an end – the unity of socialist countries, the international proletariat and national liberation struggles to overthrow the imperialist camp.
It was in part the continued “left” phrase mongering by the likes of Bains in the world about “new eras” etc. that allowed revisionist scum like Enrico Berlinguer of the Italian revisionist party to spread slanders like this one:
We consider it a bad mistake that the Communist Party of China should reiterate its claim to imposing on all countries and all parties its way as the only correct one, proclaiming Mao Tse-tung’s Thought as the “Marxism-Leninism” of the present epoch and conduct divisive activites. (Marxists on Maoism, p. 177)
Bains gives further credence to these slanders by maintaining that the Marxist-Leninists around the world are in an “international” that is “under the discipline of the Communist Party of China” and united aroung a “Mao Tsetung Thought, the Marxism-Leninism of our era” and even includes the Party of Labour of Albania, a Party that has resisted every kind of subterfuge to preserve its independence from revisionism and to preserve its adherence to Marxism-Leninism. It is the likes of Bains that gives credibility to the absurd slanders of Brezhnev at the 24th Congress of the “CPSU” that:
The Chinese leadership went over to the establishment in a number of countries of splinter groupings under the signboard of the so-called “Marxist-Leninist” parties, and has clearly tried to unite them in some way as a counterweight to the international communist movement. (sic) (Ibid., p. 82)
Bains was simply giving credence to the revisionist accusations that Marxist-Leninists don’t represent the interests of the proletariat in their countries or the interests of the international proletariat, but that instead they are supposedly under the control of a foreign government. Stalin thought the dissolution of the Comintern was correct in order to put an end to this calumny. Brezhnev, with the apparent help of the likes of Lin Piao and Bains, is trying to revive this calumny as a part of his full-scale attempt to destroy socialism in the world.
When “CPC(ML)” in its program adopted in 1971 stated that the “Party” had “become a worthy member of the INTERNATIONALE” (Mass Line, July 1,1971,p. 4), it was not said as a figure of speech. Nor was it said out of Bains’ fantasies about one international existing since the Communist Manifesto. This was in fact a true statement. “CPC(ML)” was and is part of a so-called “Internationale” founded by Bains and headed by Bains.
Bains came to Canada as a student from India and formed a group called the “Internationalists” at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. This group amounted to little, and Bains then went to Ireland to teach at Trinity College.
Here the “Internationalists” were re founded and by their own admission amounted to four people (North American News Service, April 16-19, 1973, p. 4). Trinity College was not exactly the high tide of student unrest. Having done next to nothing at Trinity, except lose his teaching position, Bains and his three cohorts suddenly emerged on August 1, 1967 holding an international “Necessity for Change Conference,” the “First Historic Conference of the Internationalists (Marxist-Leninist Youth and Student Movement)” (Mass Line 10, Sept. 17, 1969) in London, England. This conference had participants from Ireland, England, Canada, U.S. and India. In addition Bains says that there were “25 liberation organizations” participating in the Conference, including UNITA of Angola. ZANU of Zimbabwe and “representatives from the Middle East.” How a group of four people from Trinity College in Ireland could organize such a conference remains a complete mystery. The purpose for which it was held, however, is somewhat clearer. Bains as “The Chairman of the Internationalists,” in a “Public Statement” at the final meeting of the conference, said the following:
As a representative of the Internationalists, I would like to make three announcements. Firstly, we have reports from the various organizations which have been established during the conference and will be operating in their respective countries and on the international level. The English Internationalists, Progressive Workers, Immigrants (National Minorites), Youth and Students’ movement will operate from London, and will coordinate with our headquarters in London. The Irish Internationalists (Youth and Students’ Movement) will be working in both the North and South of Ireland with headquarters in Dublin. The International Committee will be functioning from London at the present time. The tasks of the International Committee are twofold: 1) to wage ideological struggles and 2) to coordinate with various liberation movements. (Ibid., p. 9)
Bains also said that “I would like to convey that during the conference we have achieved all that we came here to achieve. I will close the conference by announcing that we are going to organize an International Congress next year in which we will adopt our political programme, the structural form of the organization, and give birth to a genuinely anti-imperialist and anti-revisionist movement”. (Ibid.)
We had always assumed that the international Marxist-Leninist communist movement was “genuinely anti-imperialist and anti-revisionist.” but apparently for Bains this was not the case. Instead he sought to build his own “Internationale.” Bains said, “We do not recognize that any ’anti-revisionist’ groups are closer to being Marxist-Leninist groups, and so we will not abandon our organization in the hope of guidance and direction from these groups.” (Ibid.) So Bains’ intentions to establish an “independent Internationale” were clear. As to the politics of this “Internationale,” they were consistent with what we have been discussing.
The anti-imperialists, of whom the most solid are the anti-revisionists, under the brilliant leadership of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-tung’s thought are uniting the working and oppressed people into one mighty storm... .The people’s wars in defence of their fatherlands and against the most decadent imperialism of our times are flaring all over the world.... Long live Marxism-Leninism Mao Tse-tung’s thought! Long live People’s War! Long live the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution! These are the slogans working and oppressed peoples of the world have in their minds all the time.... Imperialism can only be destroyed through the rousing of people in their tens, thousands and millions all over the world, and through the successful execution of the people’s war. (Ibid.)
Whether Bains had his “First International Congress” is a mystery. But it was not long before Bains had set up the “Canadian Student Movement,” the “Irish Student Movement,” as well as organizations in England, the U.S. and India. What became of Bains’ “Internationale” is made clear in “CPC(ML)’s” program. “The Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) upholds proletarian internationalism; it firmly united with the Parti Communiste du Quebec (marxiste-leniniste),... with the American Communist Workers Movement (Marxist-Leninist), the Communist Party of Ireland (Marxist-Leninist), and the English Communist Movement (Marxist-Leninist).” (PCDN, July 1, 1971, p. 4) The English group shortly became the “Communist Party of England (Marxist-Leninist)” and the American group became the “Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninists (COUSML).” Bains also founded the “Hindustani Ghadar Party” as a so-called “part” of the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist). This latter “party” functions principally if not exclusively in Canada. All of these groups were and still are under the direction of Bains, as is irrefutably demonstrated by the fact that all of them have loyally followed Bains in his many twists and turns of counterrevolutionary line.
Bains has remained generally “discreetly” silent about his “Internationale.” But in a speech at the end of 1975 he had some interesting things to say about it. Bains says that “It was to uphold the basic guidelines and theory of proletarian internationalism that we organized the Necessity for Change Conference in London, England, from August 1-15, 1967.” (Against Soviet Social-Imperialism for National Liberation, Norman Bethune Institute, 1976, pp. 16-17) So for Bains, “proletarian internationalism” was setting up his own personal “Internationale” in order to interfere in Marxist-Leninist movements in many countries. Presumably this is just one more example of how Bains “fought Khrushchevite revisionism” and “defended the purity of Marxism-Leninism.” Bains further exposes his counter-revolutionary activities by saying that:
We are very proud to declare to you at this time that our relations with ZANU and UNITA, as well as with other organizations from Africa, including the Congo and other countries, date back to this Conference. It was at this Conference that for the first time (!!), a consistent stand was adopted in support of the struggles of the people of Zimbabwe, Angola, Mozambique, Azania, the Congo and other countries. Over 25 liberation organizations participated in the programme, including representatives from the Middle East. (Ibid., p. 17)
Since Bains remains secretive about just exactly who these groups are, it is hard to determine the significance of their participation. That Bains was trying to extend his counterrevolutionary schemes all over the world is clear.
At least in the case of UNITA, Bains found some partners in crime. The Communist Organization of Angola has clearly exposed UNITA as agents of Portuguese colonialism and U.S. imperialism. UNITA was founded in 1966, as a split from the FNLA. The next year it was at Bains’ conference. The COA says, “UNITA was known principally abroad thanks to the activity of several groups of militants located there; these groups were constituted by intellectuals who called themselves Marxist-Leninists.” Bains and his “Internationale” have consistently aided and abetted UNITA’s attempts to disguise itself as a progressive force. In the same pamphlet where Bains extols his support of “proletarian internationalism,” Bains gives us his definition of “proletarian internationalism.” “At the heart of the slogan of upholding proletarian internationalism is to uphold the principle of the national independence and sovereignty of nations.” (p. 22) Then Bains goes into a long diatribe on how the Soviet Union violates this “principle.” It is obvious that for Bains proletarian internationalism is just a slogan. Just like the theoreticians of “three worlds,” he trys to equate proletarian internationalism with a defense of nationalism of any kind. Then Bains allies with U.S. imperialism in Angola by only opposing Soviet intervention and calling for support for UNITA.
For our part we stand firmly with Comrade Enver Hoxha. who stated in his Report Submitted to the Seventh Congress of the PLA:
Proletarian internationalism is the unity of thought and action of the proletariat of each country in particular and of the world proletariat in general, for the purpose of overthrowing the old capitalist world by violence, smashing the power of the bourgeoisie to its foundations and becoming the masters of means of production and everything else that serves the capitalists for the exploitation of man by man. (Report, Tirana, 1976, p. 234)
Comrade Hoxha also points out that “in the phrase ’proletarian internationalism’ only the term proletarian links internationalism indissolubly with the world proletariat.” (Ibid.) But for Bains, the only term in the phrase “proletarian internationalism” that has any meaning is nationalism! Bains uses the word ’proletarian’ only to give himself a cover, much like the theoreticians of “three worlds” who reduce proletarian internationalism to the recognition of the five principles of peaceful co-existence. Revisionism and social-chauvinism have always sought to destroy the content of proletarian internationalism by reconciling the proletariat to the interests of the national bourgeoisie. Bains from the very beginning pushed the line that called on the proletariat to engage only in “anti-imperialist revolution” allied with imperialists, feudalists, monarchists, etc., as long as they “opposed the superpowers.” Bains did not even distinguish between imperialist countries like Canada and neo-colonies. For Bains they are all the same and there should be so-called “anti-imperialist” revolutions in all of them. From the beginning Bains maintained that “Canada is a neo-colonial nation no less than any other subject nation in Africa or Latin America.” (Mass Line, Sept. 17, 1969, p. 10) Bains has all along pushed for “national revolution” all over the world. This for him was “Mao Tsetung Thought.’’ The similarities of Bains’ line with the theory of “three worlds” are many, and Bains was putting them forward in the ’60s.
It is with the help of Bains that William Kashtan, head of the revisionist party in Canada, could give a ring of legitimacy to claims like to following in Canada: “Maoism is an anti-Leninist disorder, an expression of petty bourgeois nationalism.... This opportunism masked with ’left’ phrases is a negation of proletarian internationalism.” (Marxists or Maoists, p. 123) While this is a slanderous attack against Marxism-Leninism in a desperate attempt to cover for revisionism’s total betrayal of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism, it is a correct criticism of “Bains Thought” of a “new era.” This is why we call the Bains clique a “left” phrasemongering front for modern revisionism. There is no question that Bains’ posturing helped the Canadian revisionist party make it through some hard times when its membership was dying off of old age. Bains drove many young progressives from Marxism-Leninism into the clutches of the revisionists. He could not have done a better job if he had been paid for it.
Bains used his “Internationale” to promote bourgeois nationalism under the name of “Marxism-Leninism.” In Canada Bains said:
The stage is set for the further development of the anti-imperialist revolution of the Canadian working class and people, which is mass democratic in form and anti-imperialist in content, and which is a necessary stage before the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. (Political Report 1970, p. 4)
This was not, however, limited to Canada. It was the international line of his “Internationale.” Bains’ “Communist Party of England (ML)” put forward the same line for England.
Making a concrete analysis of the concrete conditions we have established that the stage of Revolution in England can be characterized as mass democratic in form, and anti-imperialist and anti-fascist in content. Surely this stage will lead to the development of the proletarian socialist revolution. (Workers England Weekly News, September 25. 1971)
One is led to wonder how in “making a concrete analysis of concrete conditions” the Bainsites in England, Canada, the United States, Ireland and India all came to the conclusion that in their countries the revolution was “mass democratic in form and anti-imperialist in content”? Apparently the Irish Bainsites want unity with the Irish national bourgeoisie to fight the British national bourgeoisie, which is united with the British Bainsites and “struggling” against the American national bourgeoisie who are united with the American Bainsites. And then there are the Indian Bainsites who unite with their national bourgeoisie to struggle against the American and British bourgeoisies!
It should not be surprising that Kashtan could get a receptive ear outside of the geriatric nursing home known as the “CPC” that this “anti-Leninist disorder, an expression of petty bourgeois nationalism”!
The “CPE(ML),” like all of Bains’ “parties,’ ’ are small sects and have remained so since their beginnings. Their demagogy, however, known no bounds. Thus on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the “Internationalists,” Workers Weekly, the organ of CPE(ML) (August 21, 1977), boldly proclaimed that it was the “party of the proletariat” even though for ten years the English proletariat has utterly rejected them. That this “party” is part of Bains’ conspiracy is made quite clear when “CPE(ML)” says that it:
salutes the 10th anniversary of the Necessity for Change Conference, held in London from August 1st-14th, 1967. It was at this historic Conference that the decisions were taken that led to the founding of the Communist Party of England (Marxist-Leninist). (Ibid.)
“COUSML”, the American section of Bains’ “Internationale”, says that “The CPC(ML), led by Comrade Bains, and the COUSML (and its predecessors) have always been firmly united with each other, have shared weal and woe and have battled opportunism and the bourgeoisie side by side.” (Mao Tsetung Thought Versus Opportunism, COUSML, 1976, p. 69)
The “weal and woe” they have shared is fighting Marxism-Leninism, and it is for this that Bains’ founded COUSML in Canada! COUSML says that
It was not until 1969 that the First Conference of North American Marxist-Leninists (the Regina (Saskatchewan. Canada) Conference of May 1969) ushered in the period of applying the lessons of the great Proletarian Cultural Revolution to the U.S., and gave rise to the first national center for dissemination of Mao Tsetung Thought. The American Communist Workers Movement (Marxist-Leninist), a predecessor of the COUSML. (Ibid., pp. 35-36)
This conference was only a conference of Bainsites, and it was plotted out there how to go about destroying the Marxist-Leninist movement. The plan for the US was the same as for Canada: Try to discredit Marxism-Leninism by replacing it with “Mao Tsetung Thought,” which was for the Bainsites nothing but “Bains Thought.” COUSML says:
We were raised on Mao Tsetung Thought as our mother’s milk. The role of the Internationalists, led by Comrade Hardial Bains, now Chairman of the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist), is of great significance. Comrade Bains was the ONLY person in the youth and student movement in Canada who consistently upheld a proletarian revolutionary line and fought uncompromisingly for Mao Tsetung Thought, the theoretical basis of our thinking. (Ibid., p. 68)
The mother was Bains and the milk was the putrid milk of revisionism sweetened up with some “Marxist-Leninist”-sounding demagogy. Thus the COUSML proclaims that “learning from the advanced experience of the Canadian comrades... (we) won many victories over opportunism, forming and consolidating the Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninists, the nucleus of the Party of the American proletariat.” (Ibid., p. 69)
“COUSML’s” purpose was the same as that of “CPC(ML)” and all the sections of Bains’ “Internationale.” “The American Communist Movement (Marxist-Leninist), a predecessor of COUSML, was founded as the first nationale center for the dissemination of Mao Tsetung Thought.” (Ibid., p. 61) “COUSML” said at the Fourth Consultative Conference of the “CPC(ML)” on May 16, 1976 that “many of the comrades here were first aroused to participate consciously in the class struggle during revolutionary storms of the 1960’s and...raised high the bright red banner of Mao Tsetung Thought, disseminated the Red Book of Quotations from Chairman Mao Tsetung.” (Ibid., p. 53)
Their purpose was to disseminate Lin Piao’s selection of quotations from Mao’s writings and use this as a cover to promote “Bains Thought.” Like Lin Piao, the Bainsites were never to be found without their Red Book. But, as we know, carrying the book didn’t make a person a Marxist-Leninist or a supporter of Mao Tsetung.
Mao Tse-tung Thought was for COUSML the same thing as for Bains. “Mao Tsetung Thought, the highest development of Marxism-Leninism, the Marxism-Leninism of our era.” (Ibid., p. 13) For “COUSML” “Marxism-Leninism had developed to an entirely new stage, that of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought.” (Ibid., p. 54)
According to all the Bainsites, this happened as a result of the Cultural Revolution, and all Marxist-Leninists according to the Bainsites had to apply the “lessons” of this revolution to their own country.
The COUSML and its predecessors have always held that adherence to Mao Tsetung Thought means learning and applying to U.S. conditions the lessons of the Cultural Revolution. The Cultural Revolution was an important sign that Marxism-Leninism had developed to a new stage, Mao Tsetung Thought. Mao Tsetung Thought and the experience of the Cultural Revolution are not only applicable to the class struggle under the dictatorship of the proletariat in China but also to the class struggle under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie in the United States. In that, they are obligatory for U.S. Marxist-Leninists to combat revisionism and build a genuinely revolutionary party. (Ibid., p. 13)
What were the “concrete conditions” of the U.S. that allowed this? “The imperialist cultural counter revolution, used to undermine the youth and student movement, also gave particular urgency to the study of the lessons of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution.” (Ibid., p. 61) In other words the so-called “special oppression-of youth as a class,” the suppression of drugs and “hippie” culture, made up the “imperialist cultural counter revolution.” And the response of the Bainsites was to call for a cultural revolution of students and youth that went so far as to open a “coffee house” for “hippies” in Vancouver called the “Flat Mattress.” It is easy to see why the Bainsites thought they were living in a different “era.” It is easy to see that the “Mao Tsetung Thought” of Hardial Bains had nothing to do with Marxism-Leninism.
In the U.S., like in Canada, the Bainsites went on a big “two-line” struggle over “Mao Tsetung Thought.” “COUSML” proclaimed, “How can one be a Marxist-Leninist and ’forget’ Marxism-Leninist-MaoTsetung Thought?” (Ibid., p. 9) “How can Marxist-Leninists even begin to think of uniting to build the Party if the party’s principal point of unity, Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought is not even mentioned? How is it possible to consider someone a Marxist-Leninist if they ’forget’ the theoretical basis of our Party?” (Ibid., p. 12)
For “COUSML,” how is it possible for them to consider the PLA a Marxist-Leninist party since its principal point of unity is “only” Marxism-Leninism? “COUSML” deals with this in the same way as Bains, by lying about the international communist movement and the PLA.
The international communist movement is leading the forces of socialism, and it is led by the Communist Party of China and Chairman Mao and the Party of Labor of Albania and Comrade Enver Hoxha. THIS MOVEMENT IS GUIDED BY MARXISM-LENINISM-MAO TSETUNG THOUGHT. COMRADE ENVER HOXHA HAS PUT IT WELL. (Ibid.)
Why do the Bainsites slander the PLA and Comrade Hoxha this way? Why do they distort the positions of Mao Tse-tung’s Communist Party of China this way? Why do they attack and slander anyone who does not accept the Bainsites’ revisionist views? Why does “COUSML” claim that the “revisionists have directed the spearhead of their attack at... the universally applicable theory of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought” (ibid., p. 64) and that “the essence of the campaign against... Mao Tsetung Thought is capitulation to imperialism” (ibid., p. 35)?
Of course, this has nothing to do with the attacks on Mao Tse-tung and socialist China made by the modern revisionists; for the Bainsites the “revisionists” are the Marxist-Leninists who reject Bains’ and Lin Piao’s concept of a “new era”; for the Bainsites the “revisionists” are those that reject Bains’ and Lin Piao’s “Mao Tsetung Thought”; for the Bainsites the “revisionists” are those that uphold the purity of Marxism-Leninism and the Marxist-Leninist line on the present era – the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution, the era of Leninism. It is clear that for the Bainsites the genuine Marxist-Leninists are “revisionists.” Is this not the same thing, only in “left” clothing, that the modern revisionists say about Marxist-Leninists? How convenient it has been for the modern revisionists that in five countries they have the Bainsites to hold up to ridicule as “Marxist-Leninists” and in this way try to discredit Marxism-Leninism.
The work of the Bainsites has helped the likes of Irwin Silber of the Guardian, a “left” supporter of Soviet social-imperialism and longtime promoter of “Americo-communism”, to say:
The U.S. left has historically come to grief as a result of blind allegiance to other parties and movements. The failure of the communist party in this countiy is inextricably bound up with its flunkeyist relation to the Party and state leadership at the USSR. We do not propose to correct this error of the past by substituting for it a dogmatic loyalty to any other revolutionary party – whether in Peking. Havana, Pyongyang or anywhere else. (Guardian, October 18, 1972)
The “two line” struggle for the Bainsites between “monocentrism” and “polycentrism,” between “COUSML” and Silber, between “CPC(ML)” and In Struggle has nothing to do with Marxism-Leninism and does nothing but allow the modern revisionists to slander Marxist-Leninists.
When the Bainsites talk about “the heroic Second Anti-Colonial War of the Angolan People led by UNITA and guided by Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought,” it becomes crystal clear that, for the Bainsites, fascism and capitulation to U.S. imperialism and South African racism is “Mao Tsetung Thought.” This is exactly how the modern revisionists have slandered Comrade Mao Tse-tung and Marxism-Leninism. The modern revisionists denounce those that do not ally with Soviet social-imperialism as therefore allying with U.S. imperialism. In Angola as well as everywhere else, to ally with one superpower to oppose the other is to abandon the revolution. The Communist Organization of Angola is working to build a party that will lead the Angolan people against both superpowers. But how convenient it is for the modern revisionists to ignore the COA and say that Marxist-Leninists are allied with UNTTA, a group clearly allied with U.S. imperialism and South African racism.
How convenient it is for modern revisionism that in five countries there are Bainsite groups that promote UNITA, and serve the modern revisionists well as “Marxist-Leninist” groups that can be ridiculed.
Bains and his “Internationale” are nothing but a “left” phrase-mongering front for modern revisionism.
Revisionism remains the main danger for the present-day world revolutionary movement. All the revisionist theories, which circulate in the world today serve the international bourgeoisie and imperialism. They are not only irreconcilable with Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism, but viewed from the first hand, they represent theories inspired by a marked bourgeois nationalism of the chauvinist character of the big state or by the narrow interests of their “own” national bourgeoisie. (Hysni Kapo, The Ideas of the October Revolution are Defended and Carried Forward in Struggle Against Modern Revisionism, Tirana. 1977, p. 41)
Throughout Bains and his “Internationale’s” history the dominant theme has been bourgois nationalism, but his clique has always claimed to be Marxist-Leninist. This has been true of Bains’ line on the international situation and on Canada (as well as the other countries where his “Internationale” is located).
First, on the international level Bains has supported, long before their clear enunciation, the counter-revolutionary politics of the theory of “three worlds.” In their early years the Bainsites, despite being an “Internationale,” seemed to not be greatly interested in the international situation and had little to say about it. In his first “political report” in 1970 Bains had next to nothing to say about the international situation. All he had time to talk about was how best to collaborate with the “nationalist” sections of the bourgeoisie to make a “two-stage” revolution against U.S. imperialism. Bains denounced the “ ’left’ error of one-step revolution” (Political Report 1970, p. 34). Bains wanted to ally with the Canadian imperialist bourgeoisie to engage in a “peoples war” against U.S. imperialism to preserve Canada’s “national independence.” In Canada, an imperialist country since the early 1900s, Bains called for “anti-imperialist revolution of the Canadian working class and people, which is mass democratic in form and anti-imperialist in content, and which is a necessary stage before the establishment of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.” (Ibid., p. 4)
Bains’ interest in China was not based on Marxism-Leninism but on nationalism. Bains used the experience in China, a semi-colonial country, to try to propagate the line that Canada was not imperialist, that all of Canada’s problems were the fault of U.S. imperialism (a sentiment many Canadian imperialists tried to perpetrate). What united Bains with China. Albania, Vietnam, Korea, Laos, Cambodia, etc. had nothing to do with Marxism-Leninism but had everything to do with nationalism.
As Marxist-Leninists we are well aware of the progressive role nationalism can play in national liberation struggles against imperialism in the colonies, semi-colonies, oppressed nations, etc. But to promote nationalism in an imperialist country like Canada is to promote imperialism. Bains’ whole “Internationale” expressed its “internationalism” by promoting “two-stage” ’’national” revolution in Canada, England and Ireland and linked these with “national” revolutions in India and elsewhere. What is this but a prelude to the “unity’ of the so-called “second and third worlds”?
When Bains proclaimed that “China’s path is our path,” he did not mean that China’s path is Marxism-Leninism and our path is Marxism-Leninism. He meant that in China the first stage of the revolution was national-democratic, so in Canada the first stage is national-democratic. But since Canada has had national “independence” at least since 1867. Bains’ call for national revolution is only a cover for a call to strengthen Canadian imperialism. Once again the theory of “three worlds” in “embryo”!
So Bains had little to say about the international situation, little that is until the new international opportunist current started to emerge.
In 1973, in his political report, Bains had considerably more to say about the international situation. He openly abandoned any pretention to proletarian revolution and said that “the anti-colonial, anti-imperialist revolution of the world’s people is aimed against these superpowers.” (Political Report 1973, p. 84) What happened to socialism, to the international proletarian revolution allied with the national liberation struggles against the imperialist camp? For Bains these do not exist. For Bains all that exists is the “world’s peoples,” including imperialists, fascists, monarchists, and all sorts of reactionaries facing the superpowers. This for Bains is “revolution.” In 1973 Bains tells us:
Aggression by the superpowers and their drive for hegemony have aroused a world-wide resistance movement from the people of Asia, Africa, Latin America and from the people of the capitalist countries themselves. This has led to the growing unity of many countries of the world in the struggle against the U.S. imperialists and Soviet social-imperialists.
This resistance mouvement includes those who are waging armed struggle with those who are waging unarmed struggle. (Political Report 1973, p. 84)
Bains is clear that by the growing “unity” of the world’s peoples he means “the growing unity of many countries.” What is this but what the theoreticians of “three worlds” call “the unity of the second and third worlds against the superpowers”? And who are “those who are waging unarmed struggle”? “In Latin America, nations... are increasingly upholding the right to independent development away from the dictates of the U.S. imperialist economic or military schemes.” (Ibid., p. 87)The “unarmed” struggle of Latin American military dictators against U.S. imperialism for “independent development” will lead to the defeat of U.S. imperialism by establishing a “new international economic order.” What is this but modern revisionism’s theory of “peaceful transition to socialism”? Apparently “third world” countries are supposed to unite with “second world” countries to engage in “unarmed struggle” to attain “independent development” and defeat the “first world”! And where is this “growing unity of many countries*’ realized? Where do they wage their “unarmed struggle” against the superpowers? In the United Nations, which is
... a forum in which smaller and medium-sized nations stood up and voiced their opposition to the policies of the U.S. imperialists and the Soviet social-imperialists. (Ibid., p. 87)
In addition to liquidating the imperialist camp and instead postulating a “first world” of the superpowers, Bains also liquidates the socialist camp and socialist countries by putting them forward as the leaders of this “united front.” Bains says that China and Albania “are leading the struggle of the nations of the world against the policy of the two superpowers.” (Ibid., p. 90)
In addition to all of this Bains said, “Today, U.S. imperialism is in decline” (Ibid., p. 82) and that the U.S. is pursuing a “desperate” struggle to avoid “extinction” which would come as a result of capitulating to the Soviet Union. He was thus portraying the Soviet Union as the much stronger superpower.
In its desperate attempt to avoid extinction and guarantee for itself definite spheres of influence, U.S. imperialism is colluding as well as contending with Soviet social-imperialism. (Ibid., p. 83)
Hardial Bains is here putting forward the theory of “three worlds” in 1973 even before the “three worlds” were formally postulated. Bains must have received considerable inspiration from Tito’s theories of “non-alignment.”
By 1975, Bains in his New Years speech told us about the supposed “inevitability of superpower war” (PCDN, Jan. 20,1975, p. 1). Bains also took this occasion to outline the four contradictions, or what he thought they are, for the first time in his history. Bains completely ignored the four contradictions for 12 years and in 1975 he put forward four contradictions that are an attempt to justify the theory of “three worlds.” We deal elsewhere extensively with Bains’ conception and use of the four contradictions, but here we must review some of the most important points.
“The first is between socialist countries on the one side and the superpowers on the other.“ (Ibid.) It is with this conception that Bains tries to deny that there exists a socialist camp and an imperialist camp, that there is a contradiction between socialism and capitalism. Bains puts forward a bourgeois-nationalist view of socialist countries, a view that sees their national existence and the level of development of their productive forces, rather that their social system and class basis, as the essence of their existence. Bains only sees the “diplomatic” contradictions between socialist countries and the superpowers. For Bains, of course, there are no important contradictions between socialist countries and “second world” or “third world” countries because socialist countries are “leading” these other countries against the superpowers!
For Bains, “The second main contradiction is between the superpowers and the oppressed nations of the Third World.” (Ibid., p. 4) In classic “third worldist” style Bains eliminate the contradiction between imperialism and the many imperialist countries and oppressed nations. Bains says immediately afterwords that “the Third World COUNTRIES are a great motive force in world history. Their struggles for national independence and liberation are the motive force of the fight against superpower politics and hegemonism in this decade because all the main contradictions in the world are expressed in a highly concentrated form in the Third World.” (Ibid.) Bains liquidates the struggle for socialism and proletarian revolution and substitutes the diplomatic intrigues of the likes of the Shah of Iran, Pinochet, Suharto, Geisel, Marcos, etc. as the “motive force.” Pure bourgeois nationalism, pure theory of “three worlds.”
For Bains “the third main contradiction in the world today is the contradiction between the ruling class of the superpowers and the working and oppressed people in the imperialist country itself.” (Ibid.) For Bains there is no contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie in Canada, France, Italy, Germany, Poland, Yugoslavia, etc., etc. The proletariat is supposed to “unite” behind “its” bourgeoisie in the U.N. and to fight for a “new international economic order.” Even in the superpowers, for Bains, the contradiction is not a class contradiction. Instead it is the old revisionist formula of monopoly capital versus the mass of people.
Bains, no doubt, is aware of the correct formulations of the four contradictions. Why, then, does he wilfully distort them? He does so for the purpose of promoting bourgeois nationalism throughout the world and promoting capitulation and collaboration with Canadian imperialism. “Essentially, then, overthrowing these monsters is the work of uniting the forces of the world’s people in opposition to the superpowers.” (Ibid.) And in Canada. Bains puts forward the slogans “Build the Canadian People’s United Front against the U.S. imperialist domination of Canada and against the two superpowers!” and “Uphold Marxism-Leninism Mao Tsetung Thought!” (Ibid.) So Bains’ “Mao Tsetung Thought” is a mixture of Lin Piao and Teng Hsiao-ping, of people’s war and the theory of “three worlds.”
On February 17, 1975 PCDN indicated Bains’ complete support for the theory of “three worlds” by stating:
After the second world war the socialist camp came into being for a short period under the leadership of the Soviet Union facing the capitalist camp under the hegemony of U.S. imperialism.... Soon after this the socialist camp... disintegrated. At the same time, the capitalist camp also broke down and U.S. imperialism went from ascendency to decline. As a result of these developments, three worlds came into being: 1. First World, the World of two superpowers, U.S. imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism which are the major cause and source of future wars. 2. Third World comprising the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America which were former colonies and had won formal independence. 3. Second World, the world of Eastern Europe, Western Europe. Japan and Canada. The Second World historically profited from imperialist domination and plunder. THE MAIN MOTIVE FORCE OF WORLD REVOLUTION IS THE THIRD WORLD... China is a socialist country, part of the third world. (PCDN-OTL, Feb. 17, 1975, p. 4)
And what of Albania? For Bains it must be a part of “the world of Eastern Europe”! For Bains Albania is in the same “world” as Yugoslavia and Bulgaria struggling against superpower “bullying.” For Bains, Albania should probably “unite” with “second world” imperialism and “third world” fascists and reactionaries to preserve its national independence. Are Bains and other proponents of “three worlds” trying to accomplish in a “left” form what imperialism has never managed to accomplish in any other way – the subjugation of socialist Albania to imperialism?
In fact Bains, holds up Yugoslavia’s “resistance” to the superpowers and gives credence to Tito’s dreams of Balkan “unity”.
Since early 1974 Soviet social-imperialism has become more blatant and aggressive in its designs on the “tinderbox” of Europe and the Balkans. They tried to foster a pro-Soviet subversive group in Yugoslavia which was caught and punished by the Yugoslavian government. They forced one Balkan state to provide a military corridor. When Balkan states resist pressure, the Soviet Union organizes military manoeuvers on its borders. (PCDN-OTL, Feb. 21, 1975, p. 1)
Bains holds up Yugoslavia as an example of resistance to the superpowers. What is this but support for Tito’s “non-alignment”? And when Bains praises “when Balkan states resist pressure,” what is this but supporting “Balkan federation” as a feature of the “unity” of the “second world”?
In February 1975, Bains launched an all-out campaign for support for the theory of “three worlds.” He merged PCDN with a bourgeois nationalist publication On the Line. The first issue boldly proclaims in a first page headline, “Campaign Against the Two Superpowers Begins in Canada” (PCDN-OTL, Feb. 17, 1975). Under this banner it calls for “mass campaigns on the united front basis,” a united front “of the Canadian people” against the “two superpowers.” Another headline reads “Anti-Capitalist Alliance In University of Waterloo Launches Campaign Against the Two Superpowers.” The Bainsites formed the “Anti-Capitalist Alliance” with all sorts of degenerate “Marxologists” like Prof. Leo Johnson. “Comrade Bains presented a speech in which he issued a vigorous call to the students to take up the struggle against the two superpowers.” (Ibid.) “The students unanimously passed a resolution denouncing the two superpowers and in support of beginning a campaign against the two superpowers.” (Ibid.)
Another front page headline reads: “China, The Superpowers and the Threat of World War Meeting in Toronto Denounces the Two Superpowers. ’’ This was a meeting that was organized by “CPC(ML)” with the “Marxist Institute,” a mishmash of progressives, “Marxologists,” Trotskyites and revisionists. Proudly pictured in PCDN is the head table of the meeting, and sitting at the table are Hardial Bains, K.T. Fann (notorious proponent of the theory of “three worlds”) and a professor at York University (which is run by the most nationalist faction of the Canadian monopoly bourgeoisie. Walter Gordon is chancellor of the University), and Steve Moore, member of the central committee of the “Revolutionary Workers League,” the Canadian section of the Trotskyite “Fourth International.” The only one missing from this august collection of “denouncers of the two superpowers” is Pierre Trudeau himself. Then the “united front” of the Canadian “people” would have been complete.
PCDN then undertakes serializing an extended version of Bains’ speech to this meeting where Bains puts forward his “vision” of defeating the superpowers. As with all proponents of the theory of “three worlds,” Bains must in essence deny the existence of socialism, while giving it lip service. Bains does this by saying that ’ ’the rise of Soviet revisionist social imperialism was a big blow to the socialist camp and this camp ceased to exist.” (Ibid., p. 3) Bains claims it only existed “after the Second World War for a time” (Ibid., pp. 3-4) and that “at the present time, there are only socialist countries like China and Albania while there is no socialist camp.” (Ibid., p. 4) Bains says that those who see a continued existence to the socialist camp as upholding the “Khrushovite revisionist line”. (Ibid.)
The PLA states:
The view of our Party is that today, too, we should speak about the socialist world, as Lenin and Stalin did, that the Leninist criterion is always correct, as Leninism itself is vital and correct. The argument of the theoreticians of the “three worlds”, the -non-aligned wor!d“, etc., who have eliminated the existence of socialism from their schemes, referring to the fact of the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union and some other former socialist countries, hence the disintegration of the socialist camp, is without foundation. It is in complete opposition to the Leninist teachings and the class criterion.
The revisionist betrayal, the return of the Soviet Union and a number of former socialist countries to capitalism, the spreading of modern revisionism widely in the international communist and workers’ movement and the splitting of this movement were a heavy blow to the cause of the revolution and socialism. But this by no means implies that socialism was liquidated as a system and that the criterion of the division of the world in two opposing systems must be changed, that the contradiction between socialism and capitalism no longer exists today. (“The Theory and Practice of the Revolution,” Albania Today no. 4 (35). 1977, p. 22)
But as we have seen, for Bains there is only a contradiction between socialist countries and the superpowers. In response to a polemic against “CPC(ML)” from “polycentrist” Dave Paterson (who states “what CPC(ML) offers us is a ’left’ form of the discredited Soviet ’socialist camp vs. imperialist is the main contradiction’ line” – Canadian Revolution 2, p. 10). Bains writes: “as to the question of CPC(ML) advocating the ’socialist camp versus imperialist camp’ line, Dave Paterson has merely to grow up from these childish tricks. Our party has advocated that there are four major contradictions on the world scale. All our statements printed in our press verify that fact.” (PCDN-OTL, Sept. 8-13, 1975, p. 5) We have seen what Bains formulation of the four contradictions means – a cover for the theory of’ ’three worlds.’’ We have seen that Bains denies the existence of a socialist or imperialist camp. Paterson, who is well known for his “childish tricks,” tries to attribute a Marxist-Leninist line to Bains. Bains, of course, does not tolerate such “tricks” and makes it clear that he opposes Marxism-Leninism. Bains attacks the Marxist-Leninist line of the PLA as the “Khrushchovite revisionist line.” When Bains says he has always opposed Khrushchevite revisionism, what he means is that he has always opposed Marxism-Leninism.
There is one area in which we are in agreement with Bains: when he says, “to be a Marxist-Leninist is one thing and to unite on the basis of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought is another thing.” (PCDN-OTL, September 15-20, 1975, p. 8)
Bains continued his attack on socialism in his 1975 speech by saying that “China is a socialist country; part of the developing world.” (PCDN-OTL, Feb. 17, 1975, p. 2) This conception of putting socialist countries in the “developing world” or “third world” only liquidates the question of socialism and puts socialist development on the same level as capitalist development. The PLA states that “a truly socialist country cannot include itself in such groupings as the so-called “third world” or “non-aligned countries”, in which any kind of class boundaries have been erased and which serve only to divert the peoples from the road of the struggle against imperialism and for the revolution.” (“The Theory and Practice of the Revolution,” Albania Today no. 4(35), 1977, p. 27)
Any true Marxist-Leninist analysis would never place a country like Albania, a country that is blazing the socialist road, in the same world as a dictator like Pinochet. The only thing Pinochet is “developing” is increased imperialist penetration of Chile and increased emiseration of the people of Chile.
As we have seen in Bains’ rendition of the four contradictions, he reduces them all to a struggle between the superpowers and the rest of the world. The PLA has said:
Not only does the theory of the “three worlds” not take account of the contradiction between the two opposing social systems, – socialism and capitalism, or the great contradiction between labour and capital; but neither does it analyse the other major contradiction, that between the oppressed peoples and world imperialism, which it reduces to the contradiction with the two superpowers only (“The Theory and Practice of the Revolution”, ,Albania Today, no. 4 (35), 1977, pp. 24-25)
But this is exactly what Bains does. He talks about the contradiction “between the masses of mankind and the ruling classes of the two imperialist powers” (PCDN-OTL, Feb. 18, 1975, p. 3), and he talks about the “alliance of the two superpowers against the vast majority of mankind living in the developing poor countries of Africa, Latin America and Asia.” (Ibid.) Instead of identifying imperialism of the “second world” countries as an enemy of these peoples, Bains praises “countries following a foreign policy of principled support for the struggles of the Third World countries.” (Ibid.) Bains calls for a “united front” of “the ex-colonial and semi-colonial countries of the world, all the bullied small and medium-sized countries as the working classes of the United States and the Soviet Union” (Ibid., p. 4) against the superpowers. Bains ignores world imperialism as a system and camp, and instead denounces “the self-interest of a very small class of militarists, capitalists, bureaucrats and various bad elements of two nations, the United States and Russia, imposing their selfish wills on the overwhelming masses of humanity.” (PCDN-OTL, Feb. 21, 1975, p. 4)
Apparently, for Bains, “militarists, capitalists, bureaucrats and various bad elements” are found only in the superpowers, certainly not in the so-called “second and third world”!
Bains then gives us his own rendition of the Kautskyite theory of imperialism.
Everywhere imperialism creates its own grave-diggers. The concentration of capital into fewer and fewer hands forces a mighty alliance, a united front, of all those who are oppressed, bullied, dominated, and exploited by this concentration of capital. The very day Kissinger rattles his sabre at the oil producing countries and the European powers, a NEW ALIGNMENT OF FORCES BETWEEN THE ARAB PRODUCING STATES AND THE EUROPEAN CONSUMERS IS ORGANIZED. At the very time Soviet social-imperialism defends the old imperialist “laws of the sea” former English colonies, products of those laws, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, JOIN THEIR OPPOSITION TO THE POSITIONS OF THE TWO SUPERPOWERS. Superpower politics, two power “detente” has created its opposite, a mighty and gathering alliance of all oppressed nations. (Ibid.)
So from Bains we find out that Marx must have been “wrong” when he said it is the proletariat that are the gravediggers of capitalism. Bains trys to claim that European imperialists in a “united front” with oil sheiks are digging the grave of imperialism! Apparently they are only “oppressed nations” in a “mighty and gathering alliance” against the superpowers. Bains tells us some more about how this “mighty and gathering alliance” works. Bains talks about
a continuation of the confrontation politics adopted by the Ford-Kissinger regime in September, 1974, against the Third World oil producers, and the Western European allies. This is the theory of “international resources” and “international order” in raw material distribution. He attacked THE EUROPEAN RESISTANCE to come under the U.S. plan for a confrontation between the “consumers” and “producers” by saying that the Europeans “suffer from an enormous feeling of insecurity,” and “sense of impotence.” Yet five days later the U.S. was impotent as Europe’s ECC members unanimously adopted a program to recycle 10-12 billion oil dollars in coordination with OPEC against the U.S. plan of a “producer” consortium confronting OPEC. (Ibid., p. 2)
So here we have Bains’ view of how the world works. This is: U.S. imperialists accuse European imperialists of being “impotent.” The European imperialists supposedly don’t take this sitting down and instead make an alliance with some oil sheiks to “recycle” money. This supposedly outmanoeuvers U.S. imperialists, who now become “impotent” themselves. This is, for Bains, how the grave is being dug for imperialism! The best that we can say is that Bains is an “impotent” Marxist-Leninist. Then Bains shows us that he is a “potent” revisionist when he says:
The decisive factor in history today is precisely struggle of the Third World’s peoples against superpower politics. They are leading the united front against U.S. and Soviet social-imperialism – A UNITED FRONT WHICH INCLUDES MANY DIFFERENT CLASSES AND COUNTRIES. WHAT PROPELS HISTORY FORWARD IS THE STRUGGLE AGAINST SUPERPOWER POLITICS. (Ibid., p. 4)
And then Bains’ makes it clear just exactly what “Mao Tsetung Thought” means to him. He says that “Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought is the great theoretical guide to expose reactionary theories of superpower politics.” (Ibid.) So Bains’ “Mao Tsetung Thought” is his “guide” to supporting European imperialists, all kinds of “third world” reactionaries, Tito, etc., etc. We must once again heartily agree with Bains that “to be a Marxist-Leninist is one thing and to unite on the basis of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought is another thing.” (op. cit.)
Bains gives us some concrete examples of how the “struggle against the superpower politics” go on and how this is “digging the grave” of imperialism.
Between April 9 and May 2, 1974, at the Sixth Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly, a mighty political struggle took place between the third world countries and the two superpowers. After 20 days of close political fighting, the draft documents of the 77 developing countries were adopted. They were the “Declaration on the establishment of a new international economic order” and the “Programme of Action”. (PCDN-OTL, Feb. 22, 1975, p. 6)
Bains explains further that “the Third World countries... set out a new course and program for economic development which would end superpower domination of their economies, imperialist and colonial plunder and political hegemony.” (Ibid.) Bains is trying to tell us that by so-called “third world” countries passing resolutions in the U.N. for a “new international economic order” and engaging in “peaceful economic competition” with imperialism and uniting with “second world” imperialism they will be able to “end” “superpower domination of their economies,” end “imperialist and colonial plunder.” Bains also tells us that he has always struggled against Khrushchevite revisionism, but what is this but Khrushchevite revisionism?! If Bains is asking people to believe that the Shah of Iran, some oil sheiks, and the likes of Pinochet, Giesel and Suharto “united” with German, British, French, Canadian, Japanese, etc. imperialism are going to “end superpower domination of their economies” and end “imperialist and colonial plunder and political hegemony” he might as well ask us to believe Jesus Christ is going to rise from the dead and bring “peace on earth,” because we will have to wait just as long for one as for the other. Bains tell us further that:
The U.S. delegates then tried to dish up a “special programme” in an attempt to split the Third World countries, and sow discord among them. Instead of dampering the enthusiasm of the Third World countries, the two superpowers only served to strengthen their militancy and unity.
The Third World countries organized a plan which consisted of two drafts ready to push through for adoption without delay. They won the support of France, Norway, and Sweden and Finland, medium, small and developing countries, THUS CEMENTING A UNITED FRONT AGAINST THE TWO SUPERPOWERS. Faced by this united front, the superpowers were forced to retreat and the two major documents of the 77 developing countries were passed unanimously. This event is of MAJOR significance because it is the political reflection of the growing militancy and unity of the Third World countries who are leading the fight against the two superpowers. (Ibid.)
This is nothing but the bourgeois conception that the fate of the world is decided by meetings of diplomats rather than by classes and class struggle. Bains would have the workers of Canada think that the fate of the world is being decided by U.N. bureaucrats, that by passing a resolution imperialism is rendered “impotent.” This is presumably just one more example of how Bains has “always defended the purity of Marxism-Leninism.”
Bains tells us:
A second important international conference of great practical significance to the Third World countries trying to win their independence and strengthen their economic development against imperialism, and especially superpower political hegemony was the second session at the Third U.N.Conference on the Law of the Sea.... A fierce struggle took place between small and medium sized countries against the two superpowers over the issue of the width of the territorial sea and the fishing zone.... Latin America gave leadership to the Third World countries on this important political front This includes the support or approval of a number of advanced capitalist countries, small and medium sized such as France, CANADA, New Zealand, Australia, Norway and so on the development of a united front of countries and nations fighting against the two superpowers....The two superpowers found themselves more and more isolated, and only through exertion of every manoeuver and manipulation were they able to block the conference from adopting certain key resolutions. But the key thing is that they were forced to abandon their straight-forward line of “customary laws,” the laws of imperialism and colonialism from which the peoples of Africa, Latin America and Asia are making a radical rupture today. THAT IS IN FACT THE CONTENT OF THE UNITED FRONT AGAINST THE TWO SUPERPOWERS: “customary laws” – i.e. plunder and oppression of the worlds peoples by one or two superpowers, and the radical rupture from the past, the standing up of the worlds peoples to bullying, plunder and oppression. Status quo versus revolution – this is the actual content of the Third World’s peoples position on the law of the sea. (PCDN-OTL, Feb. 22, 1975, pp. 6-7)
Thus it becomes quite clear what Hardial Bains is referring to when he talks of “revolution.” It becomes quite clear what it means for Bains when he calls for “revolutions” that are “mass democratic in form and anti-imperialist in content”: in other words, bourgeois-democratic in form and imperialist in content.
Bains goes on to say:
U.S. imperialism issues threats to both the Arab countries and the West European consuming nations, to get in line with a “global” solution, i.e. a “solution” imposed by the two superpowers who collude and contend to dominate the oil markets around the world and hold both producers and consumers to their reason.... The foreign ministers of France and West Germany proclaimed a “dialogue” between the European Economic Community and the Arab countries. Both countries announced support of the Palestinian cause, of the “legitimate aspirations” and “legitimate rights” of Palestine and both spoke of Arab-European collaboration of fuel and industrialization. WHAT ELSE IS THIS BUT AN EXPRESSION OF THE BROADEST POSSIBLE FRONT AGAINST THE TWO HEGEMONISTIC SUPERPOWERS, the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. (Ibid. p. 7)
The PLA states that:
In the presentation of the so-called “Second world” which includes mostly capitalist and neo-colonialist countries, which constitute the main supporters of the two superpowers, as the ally of the “third worId”, allegedly in struggle against US imperialism and Soviet social imperialism, the anti-revolutionary and pseudo-anti-imperialist character of the theory of the “three worlds”[1] is quite obvious.
This is an anti-revolutionary otheory- because it preaches social peace, collaboration with the bourgeoisie, hence giving up the revolution, to the proletariat of Europe, Japan, Canada, etc., who have to fight the monopoly bourgeoisie and the system of exploitation in the countries of the “second world”, because the interests of the defence of national independence, and particularly the struggle against Soviet social-imperialism, allegedly require this.
This is also a pseudo-anti-imperialist theory because it justifies and supports the neo-colonialist and exploiting policy of the imperialist powers of the “second world” and calls on the peoples of Asia, Africa, and Latin America not to oppose this policy, allegedly for the sake of the struggle against the superpowers. In fact, in this way the anti-imperialist and anti-social imperialist struggle of the peoples of the so-called “third world” and those of the so-called “second world” is weakened and sabotaged. (“The Theory and Practice of the Revolution,” Albania Today no. 4 (35), 1977, p. 26)
At the end of his speech Bains made it clear what his line meant for Canada. After speaking of the superpowers he said:
A new force, its opposite has come into being – a mighty force of nations and countries fighting for their liberation and independence. And underneath the great revolutionary surging of the world’s peoples against U.S. and Soviet social-imperialism and all reaction. THIS IS THE MAIN TREND TODAY. The Canadian masses are part of this trend and will definitely make a contribution to the overthrow of the counter-revolutionary alliance of U.S. imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism. (PCDN-OTL. Feb. 21, 1975)
Bains gives us an example of how the “Canadian masses” are to be a part of this “main trend” when he speaks of the necessity “to warn the Canadian people that the two superpowers are preparing for the world war. And this warning has to be brought home.” (PCDN-OTL, Feb. 17, 1975, p. 4) This is how Bains “brings it home”:
If you recall in October, 1973 at the time of the latest middle east war we were informed one morning that the U.S. imperialists had mobilized the Canadian armed forces without even asking the permission of Canadian defense minister. The excuse for this wrong-doing was that the minister of defense was “asleep.” If the world war breaks out it is the masses of the people who are going to suffer most from shambles which the imperialists are preparing for the world. FOR THIS REASON IT IS THE MASSES OF CANADIAN PEOPLE WHO MUST TAKE THINGS INTO THEIR HANDS AND AROUSE THE SLEEPING DEFENSE MINISTERS. This is the first mass meeting organized on this topic in Toronto and I think it is a good beginning. (Ibid.)
So this is how the Canadian masses are to defeat imperialism, by “arousing the sleeping defense ministers.” Would Bains prefer that James Richardson, defense minister from one of the most important monopoly capitalist family in Canada (Hudson’s Bay, International Nickel and Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce among others) be “wide awake” when Canada goes to war on the side of U.S. imperialism? Or possibly Bains thinks that a “united front” between himself and Richardson will “defeat” the superpowers.
(In fact it has long been an ambition of Bains to “unite” with the national bourgeoisie in Canada. More on this later.)
PCDN tells us that this “was the first meeting of its kind.” (Ibid.) We would however point out that the revisionist party has had many meetings of this type, the type that calls for collaboration with the Liberal government and its ministers tor the sake of “national independence.” And like the revisionists, Bains calls this type of meeting “a victory for Marxism-Leninism and for the revolutionary forces in Canada.” (Ibid.) With the likes of Bains organizing the “revolution,” the government ministers can sleep easy and count on many restful nights.
We are then told that “at the end of the meeting, it was announced that the Toronto Committee Against the Two Superpowers had been founded.” (Ibid.) This is how the Canadian “people” would “take things into their hands and arouse these sleeping defense ministers.”
The founding resolutions of the “Toronto Anti-Superpower Committee” state:
The contention and collusion of the superpowers, U.S. imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism, is the source of the disorder, crises, conflicts in the world today. (All the quotes from the “Toronto Anti-Superpower Committee” are taken from a leaflet published by that committee on Feb. 14, 1975)
This is, of course, what Trudeau and the liberal government always say – we have nothing to do with the crises, it is the big powers that are responsible, it is the fault of the superpowers. There is nothing we can do.
Bains, giving a “left” cover for the bourgeoisie, has his “Anti-SuperpowerCommittee” say:
The present situation in the world is characterized by great disorder. Every day there are new and complicated conditions developing in the political, economic and social conditions of every nation in the world. ALL THESE CHANGES, ALL THE CRISES, ALL the scandals and conflicts and ALL the alliances of forces on the world scale as well as IN EACH PARTICULAR PLACE are in one way or another directly related to contradictions created by the existence of the two superpowers, their superpower politics and designs to gain hegemony over the entire world. (Ibid.)
Apparently, for Bains, if the superpowers didn’t exist, or at least weren’t so “super,” we would no longer have “crises,” “scandals and conflicts” and “all these changes.” This must be the “new international economic order,” a real “heaven on earth.” The only thing standing in the way supposedly is that the superpowers are such “bullies.” Not only are the superpowers the cause of everything bad in the world, they are “inevitably” leading the world to a world war. The resolutions state that “the increased fighting for world hegemony by the two superpowers is leading the world into a third world war and the peoples of all countries must get prepared.” Bains’ “Anti-Superpower Committee” tells us that “it is in the nature of imperialism which determines the relationship between the two superpowers, and this can result only in contention. This contention MUST INEVITABLY lead to war.”
And as all proponents of the theory of “three worlds” believe, “Europe is the focus of the rivalry between the two superpowers.” What do we do in Canada about this “world war” in “Europe”? Bains’ “superpower committee” tells us:
Every cell of society, independent of its will, is profoundly affected by the frantic preparations being made by the superpowers to launch a third world war. Their fierce contention is bound to lead to world war someday and the people ALL COUNTRIES MUST GET PREPARED. It is the responsibility of the left in Canada to build a strong UNITED FRONT to provide the people with a correct orientation on the true nature of the two superpowers and AROUSE the people against the superpowers’ preparations for war.
So the “left” is supposed to engage in a “united front” in order to give the masses an “orientation” to “arouse” “sleeping defense ministers” “against the superpowers’ preparations for war.” The PLA correctly points out:
It is anti-Marxist to preach unity with weaker imperialisms to oppose the stronger, to side with the bourgeoisie of one country to oppose that of another country. (“The Theory and Practice of the Revolution,” Albania Today, no. 4 (35), 1977, p. 26)
This is exactly what Bains and his “CPC(ML)” and his whole “internationale” have done, but not only have they promoted “unity” with Canadian imperialism and all the other imperialisms of the so-called “second world,” they have also promoted the unity of the “left” to realize this. As his “superpower committee” said, “a call will be given to all those in the left and to the broad masses of the people to form a broad front,” and “let all leftists unite to make this programme a success!” In other words – Trotskyites, revisionists, anarchists, libetarian “Marxists”, feminists, social-democrats, etc. should unite to arouse the “sleeping defense ministers.” This was the real slogan of Bains: a call for the unity of all counter-revolutionaries to ally with Canadian and European imperialism and with reactionaries and fascists throughout the world to crush the revolution. This is how Bains “defended the purity of Marxism-Leninism” and “struggled against Khrushchevite revisionism”!
Bains founded his party on the basis of bourgeois nationalism. So it is not in the least suprising that he took up with a theory like the theory of “three worlds.” Bains has always done his best to promote anything other than proletarian revolution in Canada. In the report to the first congress of “CPC(ML)” Bains said, “Canada can be called a neo-colony of the U.S. imperialists.” (Mass Line, April 5, 1970, p. 3) And what does Bains conclude from this? Nothing other than liquidation of proletarian revolution. Bains says, “Any forward march in Canada means the elimination of the national oppression and the building of material condition for proletarian revolution”. (Ibid.) Bains does not want proletarian revolution; he wants only to “build the material conditions” through “the elimination of national oppression.” Marxist-Leninists consider that it is the task of the imperialist system itself to prepare the “material condition” for proletarian revolution in the imperialist countries, and that it is the communists who prepare the subjective conditions for revolution. Bains, however, like opportunists and revisionists everywhere, tries to co-operate with the bourgeoisie in preparing the objective conditions for proletarian revolution. Thus he simply puts forward the classic Menshevik line of building up the bourgeoisie and capital since it is capitalism that “builds the material condition for proletarian revolution.”
Bains tells us that the principal contradiction in Canada is the “contradiction between U.S. imperialism and its lackeys, and the Canadian people.” (Ibid.) According to Bains, “this contradiction is the principal one and will necessarily lead to an anti-imperialist revolution.” (Ibid.) What of the contradiction between labour and capital and the dictatorship of the proletariat? Bains tells us that “the material conditions will not be prepared for establishment of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. In this respect, for the duration of the period of mass democratic anti-imperialist revolution, this contradiction takes a SECONDARY POSITION.” (Ibid.)
Bains goes so far as to maintain that “the national bourgeoisie may want to fight the imperialists, and they must be called upon to do so.” (Ibid.) So Bains’ call to “arouse sleeping defense ministers” was not a momentary indiscretion in his support for the theory of “three worlds.” It is fundamental to the formation of “CPC(ML)” to call upon Canada’s imperialists to oppose foreign imperialists! This is, of course, the classic revisionist position dating back to the betrayal of the revolution by the social chauvinists in World War I.
Bains managed to mask himself as a communist by putting forward his line of a “new era,” “Mao Tsetung Thought,” “Chairman Mao is our Chairman, China’s path is our path,” etc. China’s revolution was a new democratic revolution precisely because of the concrete conditions of China, that it was dominated by imperialism. But the style of revisionism of the Second International, that of openly calling for alliance with imperialist bourgeoisies, had been discredited. Therefore, in order to put forward the old revisionist line, a new package, a new mask had to be found. This mask was the line that the new-democratic type revolution was universally applicable to all countries. It is in this way Bains pushed a class collaborationist counter-revolutionary bourgeois nationalist line in imperialist countries such as England and Canada. Bains even tried it in the U.S., but it had to be dropped there for its obvious absurdity.
Bains managed to gain a certain amount of credibility for this in Canada because in the period of approximately 1965-1975, the national bourgeoisie in Canada, the imperialist bourgeoisie, was leading a campaign of intense nationalism in order to try to win the petty-bourgeoisie and the working class into supporting it in its inter-imperialist contradictions with U.S. and European imperialism. There were at the time many bourgeois and petty-bourgeois organizations that put forward the line that Canada was like a colony, a neo-colony or a semi-colony. A leading example of these is the Committee for an Independent Canada, whose principal financier is Brascan, a Canadian imperialist company which extends its tentacles into South America and into Northern Canada. It is only inevitable that this trend found its way among those who call themselves Marxist-Leninists. Revisionists, like Bains, try to deceive the working class into thinking that bourgeois ideology is Marxism-Leninism. This has a number of effects: it leads some workers to follow revisionism and it leads many to reject Marxism-Leninism because they are deliberately misled by the revisionists into thinking that Marxism-Leninism is collaboration with the bourgeoisie. It also drives many workers to social-democracy. The Communist Party of Canada began to lose much of its influence in the working class by adopting a social-democratic, class collaborationist program and trying to mask it as Marxist-Leninist.
So the communist movement in Canada’s history is not unfamiliar with the type of revisionism being pushed by Bains. Bains’ line that Canada is some kind of colony, neo-colony or semi-colony was in fact the position of the Communist Party of Canada, up until 1928. The party before had taken the position that Canada was a colony of Great Britain and that before the proletarian revolution we must first unite with the “people” including the bourgeoisie in order to make Canada “independent.”
It was decided at the Sixth Congress of the Communist International:
It is necessary to distinguish between those colonies which have served the capitalist countries as colonizing regions for their surplus population, and which in this way have become extensions of the capitalist system (Australia, Canada, etc.) and those which are exploited by the imperialists as market for their commodities, as sources of raw materials, and as spheres of capital investment. Colonies of the first type became Dominions, that is members of the given imperialist system with equal or nearly equal rights. (The Communist International Documents, Vol. II. p. 534)
On the basis of this resolution by the Sixth Congress, the Executive Committee of the Communist International sent a letter in April 1929 to the Communist Party of Canada on the eve of its Sixth Convention. The letter stated that:
On the basis of Canada’s development into a definite capitalist country the Party must put emphasis on the Canadian bourgeoisie as the main enemy of the Canadian proletariat.[2] The ties between Canada and the British Empire are not ties of compulsion but of mutual interests in exploitation. The Canadian proletariat therefore cannot attribute to the Canadian bourgeoisie the role of an anti-imperialist class fighting for national freedom and a bourgeois-democratic republic. The Canadian bourgeoisie is the chief and most active agent of the imperialists in their attacks upon the Canadian working class. The Canadian bourgeoisie takes advantage of the conflict between British and American imperialism for influence in Canada and the weakening of the strength of the British empire to assert an ever growing measure of administrative independence. In these circumstances the slogan of “Canadian Independence under a workers and farmers government”... can only confuse ... and lead the working masses to believe that they are oppressed more by the British imperialists than by the Canadian bourgeoisie.
And, in August 1930, The Communist (the theoretical journal of the Communist Party of the U.S.A.) published an explanation of the line of the Comintern on the question of Canada. Among other things, this article stated:
... Maurice Spector (now a renegade Trotskyite) estimated Canada as a colony of Great Britain. Following from this false premise (which was based upon a total misunderstanding as to the nature of a colony) he formulated the theory that the “Liberal” bourgeoisie of Canada was leading a struggle for “independence” from Great Britain, the “exploiting” imperialist country. Thinking that the constitution adjustments in the relations of Canada with Great Britain made up an “anti-imperialist” movement, he tied the Canadian Party and the working class to the tail of the Canadian capitalist class, and looked to petty-bourgeois liberals for leadership.
... The theory was evolved that the Canadian bourgeoisie was “hopelessly” involved in the conflict between Great Britain and the U.S.A., and, as a “battleground” between these two imperialist powers had no interests of its own and no firm bourgeoisie. THIS AMOUNTED TO SAYING THAT CANADA WAS A SEMI-COLONY, AND TO THAT EXTENT ALSO DENIED THE PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION IN CANADA.
... The Comintern position regarding Canada is that, in spite of its peculiarities (upon which no Party can base its political line – see Stalin’s speech before the American Commission, May 1929), CANADA MUST BE CONSIDERED AN IMPERIALIST COUNTRY, THE BOURGEOISIE OF WHICH PURSUES A POLICY OF IMPERIALIST DOMINATION AND STEERS A LINE DEFINITELY IN ITS OWN INTERESTS. The Comintern declares that the revolution in Canada is a proletarian revolution and that the demand for “Canadian independence” is wrong on principle, because it removes the eyes of the Canadian workers from their real enemy, the Canadian capitalists, abroad to America and Britain – Canada does not by any means play a passive role as a victim in this imperialist struggle, but is actively engaged in grabbing after its own share of the spoils. The Canadian bourgeoisie has never and will never play any sort of anti-imperialist part, but is a definitely imperialist bourgeoisie, bound up inextricably with international imperialist contradictions, (p. 713)
The Communist International magazine of June 30, 1929 denounces “a conception... held in many circles of the Comintern that Canada is virtually a colony of the United States.” It goes on to say that:
The truth of the matter is that Canada, since its bourgeois revolution of 1837, has ceased to be a colony, has developed since that time in the sphere of complete capitalist relations. Canada is developing its own imperialist interests and is seeking a place on the world market.
In an article in the Oct. 3, 1929 issue of the Communist International it was stated that:
For years the party ascribed to the Canadian ruling class, a revolutionary role, and remained silent upon the question of the proletarian revolution! The basis of this theory was the conception of Canada as a colony.
The opportunist leadership of the CPC, in order to cover for their line, had taken up active support for Lovestone’s American exceptional-ism line in order to push a Canadian exceptionalism line. Stalin said that the American Party was “guilty of the fundamental error of exaggerating the specific features of Americar capitalism.” (Stalin’s Speeches on the American Communist Party, 1929, Proletarian Publishers, p. 11) This was true of the Canadian Party as well.
Stalin says further:
It would be wrong to ignore the specific peculiarities of American capitalism. The Communist Party in its work must take them into account. But it would be still more wrong to base the activites of the Communist Party on these specific features, since the foundation of the activites of EVERY Communist Party, including the American Communist party, on which it must base itself, must be the general features of capitalism, which are the same for all countries, and not its specific features in any given country. It is on this that the internationalism of the Communist Party is founded. Specific features are only supplementary to the general features. The error... is that they exaggerate the significance of the specific features of American capitalism which are characteristic of world capitalism as a whole. (Ibid.)
Bains has taken up this revisionist position in Canada but under a “left” form. In other words, by engaging in all kinds of phrasemongering about the Chinese revolution, the cultural revolution, Mao Tsetung Thought, etc., Bains put forward the same bourgeois nationalism that all the revisionists in Canada’s history have put forward. When the Communist Party of Canada degenerated into revisionism it once again took up the slogans of “Canadian independence” and open collaboration with the bourgeoisie.
Bains’ call for unity with the national bourgeoisie was not just an abstraction but an objective actively pursued by “CPC(ML).”
Various dogmatists advocate that the Canadian Independence Committee and other bourgeois organizations are sell-out and that it is in their class interests to be so. While in theory it is correct, and inevitable, this is not the case in practice. Experience of the International Proletariat has shown that various bourgeois organizations do participate in anti-imperialist revolutions and do so in an earnest fashion but when it suits them and for that period of time only. (PCDNR, September 24, 1971)
And who is this committee that Bains says will participate in “anti-imperialist” revolution “in an earnest fashion”? The CIC is a committee that is promoted, financed and controlled by the most rabid nationalists among the Canadian monopoly bourgeoisie. Its largest support comes from Brascan, a company which has one of the largest concentrations of capital in Canada, which is firmly merged with the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (remember Richardson, the sleeping defense minister!), and which is the largest corporate investor in Brazil. In addition to this, Brascan has multiple investments around the world and throughout Canada’s colony in the North. The CIC was founded by Walter Gordon, who comes from one of Canada’s long-time monopoly families. (Jake Moore, president of Brascan, got his start working for Gordon.) Gordon was Minister of Finance in the Liberal Government for many years, and from this position he launched the bourgeoisie’s campaign to compete more intensely against U.S. imperialism. It was an alliance between Gordon and other of the most nationalist monopolists with Power Corporation (Canada’s second largest holding company) and the Royal Bank of Canada (Canada’s largest Bank) that made Trudeau Prime Minister of Canada. Today Gordon is chancellor of York University and heads up his own holding company that is firmly linked with the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (more aptly titled the Canadian Imperialist Bank of Exploitation).
Although we intend to go into this aspect of things in much more detail in Lines of Demarcation no. 8, we point out these facts in order to indicate just exactly who it is that Bains wants to unite with in his “’revolution.” It is clear that Bains’ “mass democratic in form, anti-imperialist in content revolution” is nothing but bourgeois democratic in form, imperialist in content counter-revolution. Is it by this unity with Canadian imperialism that Bains has “always defended the purity of Marxism-Leninism”? Is it by giving a “left” cover to revisionism that Bains “struggled against Khrushchevite revisionism”?
The anti-Marxist preachings of the supporters of the theory of “three worlds” who call on the proletariat to unite with its “own” bourgeoisie on behalf of the struggle for the sake of the defense of national independence from one superpower, renouncing the revolution, are identical to the social-chauvinist theses of the Second International. (Hysni Kapo, The Ideas of the October Revolution are Defended and Carried Forward in the Struggle Against Modern Revisionism, Tirana 1977, pp. 34-35)
Bains’ line has been from beginning to end bourgeois nationalist, social-chauvinist and revisionist in every aspect. Bains supported the theory of “three worlds” because it was a good cover for his bourgeois nationalism, just as Lin Piao’s line on “peoples war”, a “new era” and “Mao Tsetung Thought’’ were.
In 1976 Bains continued his active support for the theory of “three worlds.” In a speech supporting UNITA, Bains made a number of declarations that make it even clearer how he was “defending the purity of Marxism-Leninism.”
Bains states that “the struggles of the oppressed nations and peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America against old and new colonialism and against hegemonism of the two superpowers comprise the motive force of world anti-imperialist socialist revolution.” (Against Soviet Social-Imperialism and for National Liberation, 1976, p. 19)
Bains then tells us:
It is the responsibility of the proletariat in the capitalist and imperialist countries, in the revisionist and social imperialist countries, to give unqualified and enthusiastic support to ALL the liberation movements and liberation organizations. (Ibid.)
Bains uses this line of argument to argue for the support UNITA in Angola. Bains continues by saying:
To conclude this point. I would like to emphasize that the hoax being presented by this reactionary alliance of forces, is that the Canadian proletariat can only support a national liberation movement if it is “Marxist” and “socialist.” This line is in fact part of the conspiracy by imperialism and social-imperialism to liquidate the revolutionary solidarity of the proletariat of this country with the fighting people of Asia. Africa and Latin America. (Ibid., p. 21)
This is quite the countrary to what the PLA says.
... preachers have emerged, who treading in the footsteps of the Second International, divide with a deep abyss the struggle for national independence from the struggle for socialism and make a great fuss about the fact that if you speak of the perspectives of the proletarian revolution in the countries of the so-called “third world”, this is allegedly Blanquism, Trotskyism and the passing over of stages. The aim of these new opportunists is to negate the leading role of the proletariat in the anti-imperialist revolution.
Lenin showed that the national question can only be completely solved on the basis of the proletarian revolution, that the revolutionary struggle of the oppressed peoples against imperialism is the only road to their liberation from the oppression and exploitation, that this struggle constitutes the natural ally and powerful reserve of the world proletarian revolution. Lenin and Stalin teach us that the interests of the proletarian movement in the metropolises and the national liberation movement in the colonies demand the unity of these two currents of the revolutionary movement in a united revolutionary front for the overthrow of capitalism and world imperialism, under the leadership of the proletariat.
They teach us that the proletariat of the imperialist countries must give their all-round support to this struggle, by resolutely rising against the oppression and exploitation of the other peoples by their own imperialist bourgeoisie. They also teach us that the communists do not support every national movement in the oppressed countries, but only those movements which are really directed against imperialism and which create premises for the development of the social revolution of the proletariat. Those who under the pretext of the struggle against the two superpowers or one of them, back up the most reactionary forces of the bourgeoisie in the former colonial and semi-colonial countries and who bless the exploitation of these countries by various imperialist powers to create a so-called “united world front” against Soviet social-imperialism, have nothing in common with those teachings of great Lenin. (Hysni Kapo, The Ideas of the October Revolution are Defended and Carried Forward in Struggle Against Modern Revisionism, Tirana 1977, pp. 35-37)
Bains then makes the incredible statement that we have cited earlier. ’ ’At the heart of the slogan of upholding proletarian internationalism is to uphold the principal of the national independence and sovereignty of nations.“ (Against Soviet Social-Imperialism and for National Liberation. 1976, p. 22) Then a few paragraphs later Bains proclaims that “It is very important to understand that China upholds a revolutionary foreign policy.” (Ibid., p. 23)
Then Bains goes on to say, “It is organizations such as those which claim to be ’genuine Marxist-Leninists’ which are doing the real dirty work for Soviet social-imperialism.” (Ibid., p. 26) And how do the “genuine Marxist-Leninists” do this “dirty work”?
They expose themselves as agents of Soviet revisionist social-imperialism as it is the thesis of Khrushchov-Brezhnev-Kosygin that the “socialist camp” is decisive in terms of successful national liberation struggles which is a thesis to oppose national liberation struggle. We are opposed to this reactionary thesis as we are opposed to the thesis that opposition to Soviet social-imperialism necessarily means support for U.S. imperialism. In fact the opposite is true. Failure to oppose Soviet social-imperialism is support for U.S. imperialism. (Ibid.)
Or as Bains’ “Anti-Superpower Committee” said, “Soviet social-imperialism is more dangerous than U.S. imperialism.” (op. cit., p. 2) Comrade Hoxha, however, has correctly stated that the superpowers “pose the same danger.” The PLA says that “the attitude towards the superpowers is a demarcation line dividing the revolutionaries from the reactionaries and traitors of every hue.” (Kapo, p. 30) It is clear on which side of this line we find Hardial Bains.
Bains can’t even say “socialist camp” without putting it in quotation marks. He instead uses the deformations by the modern revisionists of Marxism-Leninism as an excuse to attack Marxism-Leninism.
As Comrade Hoxha said, “the countries that march consistently on the socialist road constitute a firm support for, and give active help to, the revolutionary and liberation struggles of the peoples. They constitute an IRREPLACEABLE factor for the triumph of revolution.” (Report Submitted to the 7th Congress of the PLA, Tirana 1976, p. 161)
The PLA says:
The view of our Party is that today too, we should speak about the socialist world, as Lenin and Stalin did, that the Leninist criterion is always correct, as Leninism itself is vital and correct. The argument of the theoreticians of “three worlds, the ”non-aligned world“, etc., who have eliminated the existence of socialism from their schemes, referring to the fact of the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union and some other former socialist countries, hence the disintegration of the socialist camp, is without foundation. It is in complete opposition to the Leninist teachings and the class criterion. (“The Theory and Practice of Revolution.’’ Albania Today no. 4 (35), 1977, p. 22)
And the socialist countries are united with the international proletariat and the national liberation struggles in one great revolutionary camp struggling for the world-wide victory of socialism. These forces are struggling against the superpowers, all imperialism, and reactionaries of every hue that make up the imperialist camp. As Comrade Hoxha pointed out:
Facing imperialism, social-imperialism and their savage aggressive and expansionist activity, facing the bourgeoisie, the international monopolies and their barbarous exploitation, facing reaction and its violence and terror, with multiplied forces stand the world proletariat and the staunch revolutionaries, the peoples that are struggling for freedom and democracy, for socialism. (Report to the 7th Congress of the PLA, pp. 158-159)
Bains has always opposed this correct Marxist-Leninist line because it gives the leading role to the proletariat. This is the bane of the existence of any bourgeois nationalist, who will fight it in any way possible in order to preserve the interests of the bourgeoisie. Bains has always tried to subvert Marxism-Leninism from within by promoting bourgeois nationalism and revisionism as “Marxism-Leninism.” Bains’ political work over these many years can be accurately characterized as being a “left” phrasemongering front for modern revisionism.
By February of 1977 Bains had changed the appearence of his politics to the point where he now says:
Opportunists in the service of imperialism and revisionism, recognizing the fact that the socialist camp of the kind that existed right after the Second World War for a period extending into the fifties, no longer exists altogether. (Political Resolution of the Third Congress of CPC(ML), p. 25)
We completely agree with Bains that it is “opportunists in the service of imperialism and revisionism” that say this. But what is to be said of Bains when he took this position? Bains does not admit to having had the wrong line. Bains makes no self-criticism. He only, by implication, accuses himself of being “in the service of imperialism and revisionism” – something we have known for years.
Bains in the next sentence says:
Then the Khrushchovite revisionists, in order to sow maximum confusion, turn around and malign the Marxist-Leninists that they do not believe that the world was split into two irreconcilable camps with the victory of the Great October Revolution. The other opportunists then advance their slander that anyone who believes that the socialist camp exists is a “Khrushchovite revisionist”. The Third Congress of CPC(ML) is resolutely opposed to this confusion mongering of these revisionists and opportunists. (Ibid.)
Who exactly was it in Canada that was engaging in this “confusion-mongering’’? Who was the opportunist who slandered the “genuine Marxist-Leninists” who upheld the existence of the socialist camp and denounced them as “Khrushchovite revisionists”? It was none other than Hardial Bains, his “CPC(ML)” and his whole “internationale.” Now Bains says, “At the present time, the opportunists are mouthing the Titoite analysis of the two superpowers in opposition to the Marxist-Leninist analysis of the world being divided into the carnp of socialism and the camp of imperialism.” (Ibid., p. 24) But what is to be said of Bains who a few months earlier had been “mouthing the Titoite analysis” and denouncing all those who divided the world into two camps as “Khrushchovite revisionists”?
The fact is that this “change” on the part of Bains was completely superficial. For all his denunciations of those who oppose dividing the world into camps, why does he persist in using the formulation of the contradiction between socialism and capitalism used by the theoreticians of the “three worlds” to deny the socialist system? Bains speaks of “the contradiction between socialist COUNTRIES on the one hand and imperialism and socialism on the other.” (Ibid.. p. 23) The PLA speaks on the other hand, of “the contradiction between two opposing systems – socialist and capitalist.” (“The Theory and Practice of Revolution,” Albania Today, 4 (35) 1977, p. 22)
Bains made no self-criticism for “change” of line because this change had nothing to do with line but rather with the crisis Bains found himself in. Bains and his “party” have never managed to gain any “recognition” from the proletariat, Marxist-Leninists or progressive people in Canada. He has always tried to build himself on the basis on international “recognition.” First there was his own “internationale,” then he tried to hook his chariot to Lin Piao, and was actually “recognized” for a period of time, fell out of favor and then tried to hook his chariot to Teng Hsiao-ping right after the latter put forward the theory of “three worlds” in the U.N. in 1974. But by 1976, it was becoming abundently clear that Bains was losing the sweepstakes to the so-called “Canadian Communist League (Marxist-Leninist),” which along with In Struggle? were “recognized” until October, at which time the “CCL(ML)” got the exclusive “three worlds” franchise. In all of this “CPC(ML)” was ignored, certainly, however, not for a lack of trying. Before it started its “anti-superpower campaign” “CPC(ML)” had dwindled to fewer than 100 members. Its newspaper, even though it was called a daily newspaper, appeared on highly erratic basis, sometimes not coming out for weeks. Then the Bainsites merged with some bourgeois nationalists in Ontario and started their superpower campaign. Their following swelled a bit because of this, but as the League and In Struggle had much larger followings, it was not to the advantage of the theoreticians of the “three worlds” to “recognize” “CPC(ML)” because they had in the “CCL(ML)” a much more potent force for counter-revolution. Bains had, however, already done great work for the modern revisionists. He had, after all, singlehandedly sabotaged the reconstruction of the Communist Party in Canada for nearly 15 years. He had performed similar services in India, Ireland, England and the United States. He performed the service of making it appear that Marxist-Leninists supported UNITA and thus U.S. imperialism. He had done great damage to the image of Albania and China in Canada. Maybe it was because of this service to modern revisionism that the theoreticians of the “three worlds,” given their inter-revisionist contradictions with Soviet revisionists, decided Bains was of no use. Whatever the reason, Bains’ forces dwindled again. There was even an internal challenge to his leadership that failed. The modern revisionists were apparently throwing Bains on the garbage heap.
Then the situation turned around for the Bainsites as a result of the Seventh Congress of the PLA. Shortly after the Congress Bains took advantage of the fact that there were no “parties” in North America that supported the Seventh Congress, and so Bains put forward “CPC(ML)” as the “voice” of Marxism-Leninism in North America. The “Party” was suddenly extremely well financed and proceeded to publish and engage in other activites all out of proportion to its size.
Shortly we will examine the report at “CPC(ML)’s” third congress and show how Bains has abandoned the theory of “three worlds” only in word but still promotes his revisionism and bourgeois nationalism in somewhat new disguises. Then we will show that his Fifth Consultative Conference in November, 1977, was yet another attempt to cover his past and his revisionism. And then we will show that in his newspaper, even most recently, he is still pushing bourgeois nationalism and revisionism.
At his third congress, after having told us that authentic Marxist-Leninists were revisionist for not upholding “Mao Tsetung Thought as the Marxism-Leninism of our era,” Bains now makes no mention of “Mao Tsetung Thought.” This no doubt became “embarrassing” because Comrade Hoxha makes no mention of it in the Seventh Congress Report, which according to Bains has become “the theory and practice of communism” (Ibid, p. 11). Bains, however, says that Mao was “the greatest Marxist-Leninist of our era” (Ibid., p. 7), thus elevating him above Lenin, Stalin, and Hoxha.
But first we note that Bains tells us Mao Tse-Tung “inherited and defended and developed Marxism-Leninism to a NEW level.” (Ibid.)
To come under the revolutionary authority of Chairman Mao Tsetung was tantamount to coming under the authority of world revolution, the authority of the international proletariat, the authority coming out of the deepest desires of the millions and millions of proletarians and toilers of the world for emancipation and liberation. (Ibid., p. 8)
Bains is still peddling the same old line of trying to portray the international communist movement including Albania as coming under the “authority” of a foreign state.
Instead of talking about “Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought”, Bains now says that “with the death of Chairman Mao Tsetung, the international proletariat lost another Marx, another Lenin.” (Ibid., pp. 8-9) But for Bains Stalin on the other hand is only “a great Marxist-Leninist, a leader of the Communist International and a great fighter against imperialism, revisionism and fascism.” (Ibid., p. 10) Bains can’t attack Stalin directly so he does it indirectly.
Bains then tells us that “The Third Congress of the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) considers our epoch to be the epoch of the victory of Marxism on a world scale. It is the epoch of the victory of Marxism over imperialism and revisionism on the world scale.” (Ibid., p. 13) So here we have yet another “epoch” from Bains. The last one was “Mao Tsetung Thought is the Marxism-Leninism of the era when imperialism is leading for final collapse and the forces of socialism are advancing to worldwide victory.” This epoch supposedly started with the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. Bains’ new “epoch” started with the Seventh Congress of the PLA. “The Third Congress of the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) considers the Seventh Congress of the Party of Labour of Albania to be the victory of Marxism.” (Ibid., p. 15) And we are told that “the Third Congress of the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) hails the glorious leadership of Comrade Enver Hoxha and considers his Political Report submitted to the Seventh Congress of the Party of Labour of Albania to be THE theory and practice of communism.” (Ibid., p. 11) We have made clear our position on the great historic importance of this Report, but we are confident that Comrade Hoxha would consider the theory and practice of communism to include more than this Report. What careerist aims is Bains trying to accomplish this time with his absurd ranting about a new “epoch”?
Bains make his aims clear when he states, “Comrade Enver Hoxha stands as the successor to Chairman Mao Tsetung in terms of revolutionary AUTHORITY and prestige” (Ibid., p. 11), and “We recognize the revolutionary AUTHORITY of Comrade Enver Hoxha.” (Ibid., p. 12) And finally, Bains puts forward the slogans:
Let us stand with clenched fists raised high and applaud the revolutionary authority of Comrade Enver Hoxha!
Long live the Great Leader of the International Marxist-Leninist Communist Movement and Teacher of the International Proletariat!
What Bains is trying to do is to slander Comrade Hoxha just as he did Comrade Mao Tsetung. Comrade Hoxha certainly doesn’t claim “authority” over the international communist movement, nor does he claim to be “The Great Leader” of all parties. All authentic Marxist-Leninists uphold Comrade Hoxha as an outstanding Marxist-Leninist who has made invaluable contributions to the international communist movement. But Bains is trying to use this fact to push the same kind of revisionist line as he did about Comrade Mao Tse-tung. Albania does not control the international communist movement in some kind of secret international. Why is Bains using these Lin Piao tactics against Comrade Hoxha?
As always, Bains uses his revisionism to try to cover up his revisionism. He says, “The Third Congress is the victory of Marxism in Canada.” (Ibid., p. 15) This is supposedly true because “over the period since the Second Congress of CPC(ML), opportunists of all hues in Canada have vulgarized and distorted the theory of Marxism. Our Party stood firmly against this vulgarization and fought against it.” (Ibid.) We would certainly agree that “opportunists of all hues in Canada have vulgarized and distorted the theory of Marxism,” but it is sad joke for Bains to claim he stood against this. As large numbers of people in Canada know, Bains was the principal manifestation of it. We ask the reader, is denying Marxism-Leninism, postulating new eras, distorting the four contradictions, denying the existence of a socialist camp and imperialist camp, supporting the theory of “three worlds,” calling for alliance with one’s “own” imperialist bourgeoisie, calling for a united front of imperialists and reactionaries to oppose the superpowers, calling the so-called “third world” the motive force of history, etc., calling for the unity of all who call themselves Marxist-Leninists, calling for the unity of the “left” against the superpowers, “vulgarizing and distorting the theory of Marxism”? Bains did all these things between his second and third congress and now he has the incredible nerve to say that he stood against the vulgarization and distortion of the theory of Marxism.
Let us take a closer look at Bain’s Third Congress. There we will see it was no victory for Marxism but a victory for bourgeois nationalism in its struggle to find even more sophisticated disguises.
Bains said that the third congress “affirms the political thesis advanced by the First and Second Congresses that in Canada there are three major contradictions.” (Ibid., p. 17) Bains must rely on his followers not to be able to count or read, because at the first two congresses he put forward four major contradictions and at all three of his congresses he put forward different formulations of these contradictions. We will list them in order.
There are four basic contradictions inherent in Canadian society: Contradiction 1. Contradiction between U.S. imperialism and its lackeys, and the Canadian people. This contradiction is the principle one, and will necessarily lead to an anti-imperialist revolution. Without the resolution of this contradiction, all the other contradictions will not be resolved....
Contradiction 2. Contradiction between the working class, the labouring masses of both the urban and rural petit-bourgeoisie, and the capitalists. This contradiction will necessarly lead to a proletarian revolution and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. But without the working class leading the anti-imperialist revolution, the material conditions will not be prepared for the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. In this respect, for the period of mass-democratic anti-imperialist revolution, this contradiction takes a secondary position....
Contradiction 3. Contradiction between the Comprador bourgeoisie and the national bourgeoisie, and amongst the Compradors themselves.
Contradiction 4. This is a contradiction amongst the people. (PR. ’70, pp. 11-12)
The four basic contradictions in Canada are the following:
1. The main contradiction is between U.S. imperialism and its lackeys in Canada and the vast majority of the Canadian people. This is the leading contradiction and is playing the decisive role in the movement of society forward.
2. The second contradiction is between the Canadian monopoly class and the working class of Canada.... National struggle against U.S. imperialism is class struggle of the proletariat against the Canadian monopoly class during the period of preparation for the proletarian revolution.
3. The third contradiction exists between various sections of the monopoly capitalist class aligned to various financial groups and hierarchies abroad....
4. The fourth contradiction is amongst the people. (P.R ’73, pp. 45-56)
The Third Congress of the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) affirms the political thesis advanced by the First and Second Congresses that in Canada there are three major contradictions: A contradiction between U.S. imperialism and the Canadian monopoly capitalist class, and the Canadian people; b) There is a contradiction in the camp of U.S. imperialism and the Canadian monopoly capitalist class, amongst various monopolist groups; and c) there is a contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.
This analysis cuts across all the confusion generated by opportunists on this question. (!!!) (P.R. ’77,p. 17)
We will give Bains this much credit: there is a common essence running through all of these “contradictions,” and that is bourgeois nationalism and betrayal of the revolution. What is clear in all of these is that the proletariat should abandon proletarian revolution for the sake of “national independence.” It is not until the Third Congress that Bains even acknowledges a contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat (albeit only number 3). For Bains the main contradiction has always been a national contradiction between the Canadian “people” and U.S. imperialism and its “lackeys.” Bains’ talk about a Canadian monopoly bourgeoisie is deceptive because for Bains this is the same as the comprador bourgeoisie.
Bains tells us that “monopoly capitalism in Canada developed by importing massive amounts of foreign capital and it did not develop as a result of the indigenous merger of industrial and banking capital....The Third Congress of CPC(ML) upholds the view-that the social system in Canada is a capitalist system with monopolies imposed on it.” (Ibid., p. 19) You see, we good Canadians have nothing to do with the rapacious exploitation carried out by Canadian companies like Brascan in Brazil, Noranda in Chile, or the Canadian banks in the Caribbean. It was “imposed” on us. But we will engage in a united front with them in Canada to overthrow imperialism!!! In fact not only are the Canadian monopolies “aliens,” the Canadian state is too. “The Third Congress of CPC(ML) considers the Canadian state to be part and parcel of the world imperialist system of states – it is an oppressor state. At the same time, the Third Congress advocates that Canada is like a colony, its capitalism is a dependent capitalism and its state is dominated by U.S. imperialism.” (Ibid.) The Canadian state isn’t “Canadian.” it is imposed on us, it is all the fault of U.S. imperialism!!
And where is all this leading?
The opportunists make no distinction between the big bourgeoisie, the bourgeoisie which controls the main means of production and expropriates the surplus value, and the national bourgeoisie, which is extremely weak and incapable of fighting the big bourgeoisie. (Ibid.)
We must be just such alleged “opportunists” because we don’t sympathize with our “extremely weak” “national bourgeoisie.” The “poor fellows” only have the most concentrated banks in the world, banks that are among the largest in the world. They only control the economies of a “handful” of Caribbean countries, they are only the largest single investor in Brazil, they are only the leading investors in Chile since the coup, they have only become the second largest investor in Ireland (larger than England!), etc., etc. Obviously we should “unite” with them and give them a hand since they are so “weak” and helpless! Bains continues his damning indictment to us “opportunists” by saying that “to these opportunists, the meaning of the term ’national bourgeoisie’ refers to a capitalist or monopoly capitalist who is Canadian.” (Ibid., p. 19-20) How could we “opportunists” slander the poor “weak” “national bourgeoisie” this way!
“These opportunists do no recognize...the fact that the bourgeoisie is divided between the big bourgeoisie and the national bourgeoisie” (Ibid., p. 20), and “the big bourgeoisie in Canada is the base of the U.S. imperialist domination in Canada, and is reactionary through and through.” (Ibid.)
We “opportunists” just don’t understand that it is only the compradors “imposed on us” and their “oppressor state” “imposed on us” that are “reactionary through and through” and that the “weak national bourgeoisie” isn’t so reactionary after all, so that we have to “unite” with it against the “big bourgeoisie.”
Bains set us “opportunists” straight and tells us:
The proletarian revolution is a thoroughgoing and protracted revolution against the big bourgeoisie, against the foreign imperialists. (Ibid.)
No mention of the “national bourgeoisie.” Apparently for Bains, proletarian revolution isn’t against one’s “own” bourgeoisie. No doubt we are supposed to “unite” with the “national bourgeoisie” and make the “proletarian revolution” as “protracted” as possible! Bains goes on to say in the next sentence:
This is why the proletariat must lead this revolution stepwise through stages, firmly completing one stage as a prelude to the next. The theory of the one-stage revolution is merely trotskyite sophistry and windbaggery. There is nothing of substance in it. (Ibid.)
We have no doubt Bains and the “national bourgeoisie” would like to lead it through as many “stages” as possible. But given all of Bains’ appeals to international “authority.” why is he accusing the Comintern of “Trotskyite sophistry and windbaggery” and advocating a line that has “nothing of substance in it”? It was the Comintern that put forward the line of “one-stage revolution” in Canada. Well, we “opportunists” will continue to stand by the “Trotskyite” Communist International and reject Bains’ “victory of Marxism” line advocated by renegade Trotskyite Maurice Spector in the Communist Party of Canada, a line calling for alliance with the “weak national bourgeoisie.” This “victory of Marxism” is apparently just one more way that Bains has always “defended the purity of Marxism-Leninism” and “struggled against Khrushchovite revisionism.”
For all of Bains’ sophistry and windbaggery, and “praise” for the Seventh Congress Report of Comrade Hoxha, he has no use for its true historic significance nor its application to Canada. Bains is simply looking for a way to cover for his bourgeois nationalism and revisionism. We have a hard time believing that Bains didn’t notice the following statement of Comrade Hoxha.
The crisis is further sharpened by the unrestrained competition of the industrialized bourgeois and revisionist countries among themselves, as well as between them and the developing countries, the main producers of raw materials. The operation of the law of uneven political development of capitalist countries drew the Common Market, Japan, CANADA and others into the arena of the struggle for markets and privileges and of challenging U.S. domination in the sphere of capital exports. (Report Submitted to the Seventh Congress of the PLA. p. 163)
How is it that, if Canada is “like a colony” with only a comprador bourgeoisie that controls the state and is a complete “lackey” of U.S. imperialism, and has only a “weak national bourgeoisie,” it can “challenge U.S. domination in the sphere of capital exports”? How is it that Canada is “struggling for markets and privileges”? How is it that Canada can be singled out with the Common Market and Japan in this regard? Is this the activity of a comprador bourgeoisie completely sold out to U.S. imperialism? It is obviously the activity of a “national bourgeoisie” that is an imperialist bourgeoisie from an imperialist country.
As Lenin pointed out in his great work on imperialism:
The capital-exporting countries have divided the world among themselves in the figurative sense of the term. But finance capital has led to the actual division of the world. (“Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism,” LCW 22:245)
Obviously Comrade Hoxha was using “Canada” in this figurative sense and is well aware of the fact that it is Canadian finance capital that is engaging in this struggle. The process Comrade Hoxha described is entirely typical of imperialism. Lenin says:
Imperialism is capitalism at the stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed. (Ibid., pp. 266-267)
Bains, however, has never understood imperialism or the era that we live in. Apparently, for Bains the Seventh Congress report is “the theory and practice of communism” everywhere but Canada. Apparently, for Bains the Seventh Congress was “the victory of Marxism” everywhere else, but it took the Third Congress of “CPC(ML)” to achieve “the victory of Marxism” in Canada.
All these “threoretical” gymnastics by the Bainsites fail to cover up their principal objective, class collaboration with the “national bourgeoisie” in Canada. They are “social-chauvinists, i.e. socialist in words, but chauvinists in deeds, who are helping ’their own’ bourgeoisie to rob other countries and enslave other nations. That is the very substance of chauvinism – to defend one’s ’own’ fatherland even when its acts are aimed at enslaving other peoples’ fatherlands.” (Lenin, “Opportunism and the Collapse of the Second International.” LCW 22, pp. 109-110)
It is not just for Canada that Bains advocated his brand of bourgeois nationalism at the Third Congress. He advocated it for all countries.
The proletariat of ALL countries must wage a vigorous class and NATIONAL struggle against imperialism, social-imperialism and all reaction, and most particularly against one’s own reactionary bourgeoisie. (Third Congress, p. 36)
How does the proletariat wage a “national struggle” against its national bourgeoisie? For Bains, proletarians of all countries should unite with “their” “national bourgeoisies” to oppose the superpowers and the “reactionary,” i.e. comprador bourgeoisie. This is Bains’ “theory” for international capitulation to “national bourgeoisies.” Bains tries to deceive people by talking about the “reactionary bourgeoisie,” but as we have seen, for Bains, this only includes only the compradors, not the “national bourgeoisie.” In imperialist countries like Canada, the whole bourgeoisie, be it comprador or national, along with its agents like the revisionists, social-democrats, Trotskyites, proponents of the theory of “three worlds” or Bainsites, are ALL reactionary!
After Bains’ “victory of Marxism,” the PLA published &“The Theory and Practice of Revolution.” In that editorial, one of the things that is said about the anti-Leninist counter-revolutionary “theory of three worlds” is:
This is an anti-revolutionary “theory” because it preaches social peace, collaboration with the bourgeoisie, hence giving up the proletariat of Europe, Japan, CANADA etc., who have to fight the monopoly bourgeoisie and the system of exploitation in the countries of the “second world”, because the interests of the defense of national independence, and particularly the struggle against Soviet social imperialism, allegedly require this. (“The Theory and Practice of the Revolution,” Albania Today no. 4(35), 1977, p. 26)
Once again the PLA lays stress on putting Canada in the same catagory as Europe and Japan. In Canada we have to fight the “the monopoly bourgeoisie and the system of exploitation,” they are one and the same, and this monopoly bourgeoisie is indigenous to Canada, just as it is in Europe or Japan. Canada is an imperialist country and no amount of demagogy by the likes of Bains and the “national bourgeoisie” will change that. This was the conclusion of the Comintern and the genuine Marxist-Leninists in the Canadian Party. It is a correct line and it is, of course, no surprise that the PLA has the correct line on this question as well.
Bains has never agreed with this line, but he has to find some way to mask himself, change his appearance in order to try to worm his way into the international communist movement so he can be of further use to his revisionist masters.
Bains had to compensate for the Editorial in some way. Therefore, at his “Fifth Consultative Conference of the CPC(ML),” Bains now says: “The main enemy of the proletariat and people in Canada is the reactionary bourgeoisie and U.S. Imperialism.... The correct Leninist analysis of the concrete conditions in Canada is that the main contradiction in Canada is between the reactionary bourgeoisie and the Canadian people.” (p. 40) On the face of it, this formulation is dialectically absurd. But Bains is looking for a way to make his bourgeois nationalism conform to the appearance of the line of the PLA. Now, if we recall what Bains means by the “reactionary bourgeoisie,” his new formulation is just the same old bourgeois nationalism. He is simply counterposing the comprador bourgeoisie against the “people,” which naturally includes “our” “weak national bourgeoisie.” The “people” are to wage national revolution against the comprador bourgeoisie and U.S. imperialism. Bains is all for “revolution” against the “reactionary bourgeoisie,” but it is still “Trotskyite sophistry and windbaggery” to wage the revolution against the “progressive national bourgeoisie.” Bains pompously tells us:
Our Party will continue on the course illuminated by the theory of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao Tsetung and Comrade Hoxha and will continue to oppose revisionism and opportunism of all hues as a component part of the struggle against the reactionary bourgeoisie and the two superpowers. (Ibid., p. 43)
But what of Canada’s very own imperialist bourgeoisie? Bains “opposes revisionism and opportunism” by adopting the very line that has been peddled by the revisionist party in Canada for years: the line of uniting the “people,” the proletariat, the petty bourgeoisie, and the “progressive” national monopoly bourgeois against the reactionary monopoly bourgeois who are allied with U.S. imperialism. Kashtan and Company will give lots of verbiage, just like Bains, that this has to be under the leadership of the proletariat, but we are not deceived by Kashtan’s demagogy. Nor are we going to be deceived by Bains’ demagogy. They are both dedicated agents of modern revisionism and Canadian imperialism.
And for all of Bains’ demagogy about his opposition to the theory of “three worlds,” he still supports this theory and has recently put forward his own version of it in order to justify his Canadian exceptionalism and bourgeois nationalism.
Only the proletariat is a really revolutionary and really patriotic class. Only the proletariat looks at the question of Russian spies from the point of view of opposing all foreign domination, punishing the traitorous elements, expropriating the property of the imperialists and their agents and genuinely defending independence and national sovereignty. Only an armed proletariat can establish a genuinely independent state. The question of independence is part of the proletarian revolution; it is one of the two banners of proletarian revolution, the other being socialism, and only the proletariat can raise the two banners high through proletarian revolution. The proletariat is leading the new democratic revolution in the semi-feudal and semi-colonial countries, a necessary stage in the proletarian revolution, while the proletariat in the capitalist and revisionist world is leading the proletarian revolution. Socialism is the immediate issue in the capitalist and revisionist world while independence is the immediate issue in the semi-colonial and semi-feudal countries. Both socialism and independence are immediate issues in Canada, which is a monopoly capitalist country, which at the same time, is dominated by U.S. imperialism. The proletariat of Canada faces double exploitation. It can only end this double exploitation by firmly raising the two banners of socialism and independence as the banners of the proletarian revolution. (PCDN, February 13, 1978, p. 1).
So you see, there is the “world” of the “semi-feudal and semi-colonial countries,” or shall we say “third world” where we fight for “independence.” And then there is “the capitalist and revisionist world,” or shall we say the “first world,” where we struggle for socialism. Then there is a country like “Canada, which is a monopoly capitalist country, which at the same time, is dominated by U.S. imperialism,” where “both socialism and independence are immediate issues,” or shall we say that Canada, like certain other countries, is “a monopoly capitalist country, which at the same time is dominated by U.S. imperialism” comprises a “second world” that is between the other two “worlds” where “independence and socialism” are the main issues. And we know that for Bains, in these “second world” countries like Canada the proletariat is supposed to unite with the “national bourgeoisie” to fight the comprador bourgeoisie and the superpowers. And we know from Bains that the “people” of these “second world” countries are supposed to unite with “all” “independence” forces in the “semi-feudal and semi-colonial countries” and form a “united front.” What is this but another version of the theory of “three worlds”?
Bains has made it clear that he doesn’t limit his “second world” of “independence and socialism” to only Canada. In talking about NATO Bains says:
It is an alliance which groups together the arch-reactionary ruling cliques in each country – the anti-patriotic reactionary bourgeoisie which have sold out the interests of and ruthlessly subjugate the people of each country and have taken up the aggressive global ambitions of U.S. imperialism, and have tied their countries to the war chariot of U.S. imperialism. (PCDN, December 8, 1977, p. 1)
So here again, as in Canada, Bains trys to blame it all on a section of the bourgeoisie that is sold out to U.S. imperialism. Bains has not one unkind word to say about the “patriotic progressive national bourgeoisie.” Bains completely distorts the fact that these countries have their own imperialist interests. Bains, apparently, has nothing against these. He only opposes those “alien” bourgeois who subjugate their countries to U.S. imperialism. Thus for Bains, in “Canada, which is a monopoly capitalist country, which at the same time, is dominated by U.S. imperialism,” “both socialism and independence are immediate issues.” On the other hand, for Bains, ”socialism is the immediate issue in the capitalist and revisionist world, while independence is the immediate issue in the semi-colonial and semi-feudal countries.“ Thus, for Bains, Canada and countries like it are not in the “capitalist and revisionist world,” nor are they among the “semi-colonial and semi-feudal countries.” They must then comprise an “intermediate world,” a “second world” of “independence and socialism”!
The PLA states that:
At present, there is a great deal of talk about the division of the world into the so-called “first”, “second” and “third” worlds, about the non-aligned world”, the world of the “developing countries”, the “North” and “South” world, etc. Each of the supporters of these divisions presents his own “theory” as the most correct strategy, which allegedly responds to the real conditions of the present international situation. (“The Theory and Practice of the Revolution,” Albania Today no. 4 (35), 1977. p. 21)
Now we have Bains trying to sneak into the international communist movement once again, this time with his own version of a theory of “three worlds” which is only a thinly disguised version of the one Bains so “vigorously denounces.”
Bains’ “theory,” like all the others, seeks to undermine the revolution. Bains’ call for “firmly raising the two banners of socialism and independence as the banners of the proletarian revolution” is nothing but a call for the proletariat to combine itself with the bourgeoisie and abandon the revolution. The Comintern 49 years ago denounced the line in the Communist Party of Canada that called for unifying the struggle for independence with the struggle for socialism in attacking the slogan of “Canadian Independence Under a Workers’ and Farmers’ Government.” Why is Bains reviving this revisionism? It is indeed ironic that Bains is holding an “international rally” in Canada to try to launch the “CPC(ML)” as the party of the international communist movement in Canada, when “CPC(ML)” has a political line that 49 years ago to the month was denounced by the Comintern.
Bains is engaging in a large, well-financed, concentrated, all-out, full-scale, last-ditch campaign to convince the international communist movement that his “CPC(ML)” is the party of the proletariat in Canada, something he hasn’t managed to convince more than a handful of workers of in Canada. Bains is trying every kind of demagogy and lie in order to achieve his objective. Bains has never made a single self-criticism, but instead praises all those things we have exposed here as having “always defended the purity of Marxism-Leninism.” The facts are that Bains has always been an opportunist, a revisionist, a bourgeois nationalist, and a counter-revolutionary, and he always will be. Bains is an unrepentant revisionist who is still on the revisionist road. Bains is trying to sneak into the international communist movement to accomplish the same aims as he was trying to accomplish when he slandered Comrade Mao Tse-tung and the CPC, to discredit the international communist movement and destroy the basis for communism in Canada and all the other countries he and his agents operate in.
Bains has managed to sabotage the formation of an authentic communist party in Canada for 15 years and he is trying to do it for 15 years more. No matter how many Parties and groups “recognize” “CPC(ML),” this “party” will never be recognized by the Canadian proletariat. It will, if anything, only help drive some of the proletariat away from Marxism-Leninism and into the hands of the social-democrats, the revisionists, and various opportunists, as well as into an all-round sense of pessimism toward international communism. This, after all, is Bains’ purpose and cause, and has always been. Bains has devoted his life to making communism look ridiculous in as many countries as possible. He and his followers are without a doubt a “left” phrasemongering front for modern revisionism.
Comrade Hoxha said:
To confuse the people, to benumb the revolutionary thought and action of the proletariat and its Marxist-Leninist parties, innumerable anti-Marxist trends are in action, the most varied revisionist and “Leftist” “theories” are emerging and being spread. They are the fifth column in the ranks of the world revolution, the aim of which is to prolong the life of international capitalism by fighting the revolution from within to prevent it from breaking out and, in case it does, to have the firemen to put it out and the scabs to break the will of the working class. (Report Submitted to the 7th Congress of the Party of Labour of Albania, Tirana, pp. 221-222)
Bains, his “CPC(ML),” and his whole “Internationale” are just such a fifth column, just such firemen and scabs.
[1] See the Bolshevik Union’s pamphlet CCL(ML), The Canadian Counter-Revolutionary League (Social-Fascists), to realize the striking similarity which this line has with the League’s counterrevolutionary line. The League is the leading dealer of the theory of “three worlds” in Canada today.
[2] The Bolshevik Union considers that this line was entirely correct for the concrete conditions of 1929. In the present conditions, however, because of the strong objective penetration of the American superpower into the Canadian political economy, it is now both American imperialism and the Canadian bourgeoisie which are the main enemies of the Canadian proletariat. But the contradiction with both is a class contradiction; there is no national contradiction with U.S. imperialism for the Canadian proletariat to resolve.