The formation of new “Marxist-Leninist” groups in Canada in the period 1963-64, notably the groups of people surrounding Jack Scott, is often accepted as being evidence of a sincere and decisive split with modern revisionism. Especially in the case of former members of the Communist Party of Canada, these groups have been made great heroes of the struggle against Khrushchevite revisionism. This was a very romantic idea which obscured the reality and served as cover for the rise of bourgeois nationalism. The CPC had defeated bourgeois nationalism in its ranks. On the instructions of the Comintern, it corrected the position which it had held for the first ten years of its existence, that Canada was a colony of Great Britain. The period 1940-43 saw a brief resurgence of bourgeois nationalism, but it was defeated in the period immediately preceding the liquidation of the Party in June 1943.
The polemics against the revisionism of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union gave the bourgeois nationalists a new chance to gain legitimacy and hegemony. They could appear as fierce opponents of Khrushchevite revisionism. Attacking the party of Lenin and Stalin was old hat for these people. They appeared to be so good at the struggle against modern revisionism because they had secretly been attacking the Soviet Union for years. They were “excellent” at pointing out that the Soviet Union was a social-imperialist country because they taught that the U.S.S.R. had been social-imperialist in the days of Lenin and Stalin. They were ardent defenders of the People’s Republic of China, because they had been “defending” China against the “aggression” of the socialist Soviet Union for years. Jack Scott and his clique are romantically painted in this way by such opportunists as the Long March Collective, In Struggle?, and MREQ. The LMC says:
It is the view of our group that the Progressive Worker Movement made a significant contribution to the struggle against revisionism in the Canadian working class. In order for the class struggle to move forward, however, it is important for the Marxist-Leninist movement to make a thorough demarcation from the erroneous lines of the PWM. (“A Legacy of Economism and Bourgeois Nationalism in the Marxist-Leninist movement,” Proletarian Unity no 6, p. 16)
It is precisely the line taken by such a group, that these renegades made significant contributions to the struggle against revisionism, that has allowed them to flourish. It is not enough to make a “thorough demarcation” from the “erroneous lines” of the PWM, it is absolutely necessary to make a “thorough demarcation” from the PWM. While Scott and Co. did do positive work, in their educational work surrounding the People’s Republic of China, this was the price they had to pay in order to maintain their sabotaging activities. Scott’s liquidationism and attentisme is a major factor in the nonexistence of a Marxist-Leninist party in our country.
While In Struggle? admits that “PWM was never really able to break with revisionism,” it also promoted Scott and his gang (now the “Red” Star Collective) by giving him special treatment at its First Conference of the Marxist-Leninist movement held in 1976.
The most recent activities of the RSC include an open denunciation of the PLA, as well as attacks on Stalin and the Cominform. Scott will continue in his anti-communist activities until he is isolated and defeated by the genuine Marxist-Leninists: This is not accomplished by collaborating with him and his friends.
We have spent this time discussing PWM because of the importance it held for the Bainsites in the early years, while they were under the banner of the “Internationalists.” The “Internationalists” were formed by Bains at the University of British Columbia in March 1963. They were part of “the rising tide against revisionism.” The basis of the Bainsites was a declared “anti-imperialism.” By posing as active “anti-imperialists,” and claiming to support China and Albania, they attempted to distinguish themselves from the Khrushchevite revisionists. These activities aided in their ability to remain cloaked under an appearance of Marxism-Leninism. Thus, they were able to feed off of the just anti-imperialist fervour due to the plunder of Southeast Asia by the US imperialists, as well as the successes of the growing national liberation movements in Asia, Africa and Latin America. The just condemnation of US imperialism was used as a cover to promote a line of collaboration with Canadian imperialism, which the Bainsites and PWM refused to admit existed.
The Bainsites never did an independent analysis of Canada or the world. Instead, they attempted to attach themselves to PWM as their student wing. They adopted the bourgeois nationalist politics of PWM and defended the politics as Marxist-Leninist. This they have continued to do after the inevitable falling out with Scott and Co., a falling out which is best described as quarreling amoung thieves.
Bains went to Ireland in 1965 to teach at Trinity College in Dublin. He exported the “Internationalists” and his concept of the “mass democratic in form, anti-imperialist in content” revolution to the British Isles. Bainsite literature contains this description of the origins of the “Internationalists” in Ireland:
The Internationalists were founded in Trinity College in November 1965 and the initial group was made up of two students and two teachers. Comrade Bains, then a lecturer in Microbiology in Trinity College, Dublin, was the founder of the Internationalists and it was no coincidence that the group of young people he brought together had no links with the revisionists old or new, but came directly from out of the oppressed students and lecturers in Trinity College. (North American News Service, April 6-9, p. 4)
The great oppression of students is the major theme for the Bainsites during this period. We will see that due to certain circumstances (which reduce themselves to the Bainsite belief that the working class had been bought off by the relative “prosperity” of the sixties), the economic contradiction had become secondarized to the cultural contradiction.
Because the petty-bourgeoisie is an intermediate class, a class that is caught between the two contending classes of our system, it is torn between them. The petty-bourgeois aspire to the life of the bourgeoisie, but the general crisis of imperialism is constantly throwing them into the ranks of the proletariat. Some of those who are unable to make it in the bourgeois world attempt to keep their positions of privilege by carving out a comfortable position on the backs of the working class. They seek to achieve hegemony of the growing workers movement against that class which they had recently sought to emulate.
When the great clarion sounded to take up the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China, the Bainsites sought to utilize it as their means of achieving this hegemony over the working class, to maintain their positions of privilege. They painted a picture of the great oppression suffered by the petty bourgeoisie.
We pointed out during this period and afterwards that, because of the temporary and transient economic expansion of US imperialism, the contradiction between the US imperialists and their lackeys, the Canadian compradors, and the Canadian people was becoming most acute on the cultural level. This takes the form of large-scale ideological propaganda for imperialist ideology – rascism, fascism and decadent life style and the confounding of right and wrong
We pointed out that because of the intensification of the contradiction between the US imperialists, their lackeys, and the Canadian people on the cultural level, the economic contradiction was temporarily relegated to a secondary position. Because of this, the petit bourgeoisie, especially the students in the universities, would be the first to rise. (Political Report ’70, p. 14-15)
The incredible agony felt by these poor “oppressed students and lecturers” were experiencing, is best summed up in the speech given by Bains at the “Necessity for Change” conference held by the Internationalists in London in August 1967. Here Bains elaborated his major contribution to Marxism-Leninism, the “historical crib.” Excerpts from this speech are found in the appendix to this article.
Consciousness, for Bains, is determined by the “historical crib” which “transmits through the parents and social institutions” the “particular prejudices of the society.” The historical crib holds for all members of society, regardless of class. From this, we can understand two things: (1) that Bains believes that all members of society are born into the same social conditions; or, (2) that it is the most rampant idealism. Actually, both of these tenets are applicable. The entire article is idealist. While it reiterates that “consciousness is a reflection of social being,” the essence of the analysis concerns the “will-to-be”, the self-fulfillment of the ideal subject.
The consciousness of the struggle against the cocoon at least brings to the attention of the individual the fact that something is straining to be free - to be able to see the light. This something is the root cause of his alienation to the historical crib. This something is his will-to-be. (Mass Line, no. 10, September 17. 1969. p. 3)
Here Bains is swimming in the same waters as the rest of the New Left of the era. He is one with the proponents of the theory of the “young Marx”. Briefly, these bourgeois scholars taught that the most important element of Marx’s teaching was the concept of “alienation.” Due to the high standard of living which had been achieved in the imperialist countries, economics as the determinant of social life no longer applied. Victims of the very propaganda they claimed to denounce, that believed that everyone had the essential material goods needed for a prosperous life – television sets, stereos, cars, etc. Now a new malaise was hitting “everyone.” That was the feeling of “alienation” from society. Here was a concept which crossed all class boundaries. The strategic reserve of the revolution grew by leaps and bounds. A new “Marxism” came into being, based on a one-sided emphasis of the concept of alienation in the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844. Evidently, the aging Marx had grown “conservative.” He had lost the spark which had ignited him in his youth. In the imperialist countries, the proletariat had lost the spark which had ignited it in its youth. It had been corrupted by the high standard of living which it “enjoyed.” The petty-bourgeois was now the focal point of the contradictions of capitalism. The essence of this theory is the same as that of the theory of “material incentives” which the modern revisionists have introduced into their economies. It equates “progress” with material gain. Marxists-Leninists have been merciless in their assaults on such a theory.
As we said, the “historical crib” was held by Bains to be an absolute for all members of society. The material conditions which determine consciousness were now the same for all classes. Therefore, the “historical crib” was universal. And any and all individuals of society could become conscious through their “will-to-be.”
The contradiction which Bains is posing here, although he does not use the term contradiction, is between parents and youth. All youth are born into the same “historical crib” at a specific time. To overcome this, they need to develop in opposition to their parents, who are responsible for the repression of their children, as they are the transmitters of the “particular prejudices of society.” Bains is feeding off and propagating the “youth culture”, the “youth as a class” theories which were justification for the reactionary assault on the young people. Bains encourages ideas of self-indulgence when he writes:
The NECESSITY FOR CHANGE is on a fundamental level it involves making relevant things relevant and irrelevant things irrelevant. We would suggest that an understanding of society is the most relevant activity for any person, and secondly, the removing of the contradictions in the society. If the analysis of someone is that the society should have more sexually indulgent people, then he should follow that analysis to its ultimate consequences and not suffer from contradictions. At no time is it comfortable to continue saying one thing and doing another; this is schizophrenia. (Mass Line no. 10, p. 7)
Bains emerges as a prominent ideologist for the bourgeoisie. “Do your own thing!” is the call he is raising to his followers. If you want sex, indulge in sex; if you want drugs, do drugs; if you want to be a revolutionary, be a revolutionary. It’s all the same. What is important is to not live a contradiction.
In the sections where he expounds upon the torment undergone while coming to political consciousness, Bains was not depicting the awakening of class consciousness as it occurs in all classes. He was expounding upon the particular case of the petty-bourgeoisie. Enver Hoxha has written of this process:
When an intellectual becomes a communist, events do not develop as in the former case (that of the workers – BU). At every step of the triumph of socialist consciousness, the intellectual is compelled to destroy something of his past. Thus, he destroys and builds, and in the first steps he takes he has the impression not of creating but of struggle against himself. (HSWII: 729-30)
Bains, in his egoism, has taken the lot of the petty-bourgeois, i.e. himself, as universal man. He has not understood that basic precept of materialism – matter determines consciousness. The “historical crib” determines consciousness. But this process of destruction and construction does not hold for those whose material conditions are different. Those who work the means of production, rather than solely with ideas, find in Marxism-Leninism the logical outgrowth of their existence.
When a worker becomes a communist, he feels that something that had been latent in him is now flourishing, he discovers a culture which enlightens him on what he has been dimly aware of, he finds in Marxism the clear assertion of himself, becoming aware of what had existed in his subconscience. Hence, when a worker becomes a communist he builds and consolidates himself. (Ibid.)
Such trash as Bains put forward in Necessity for Change might be written off as the product of youthful exuberance. However, there has never been a self-criticism for it and it was republished by the Canadian “Communist” Movement (“M-L”) just a few months before the founding of the “Party”. It was obviously seen as an important document, the “source” of what was to come. “In fact, the NECESSITY FOR CHANGE analysis was the direct consequence of the rigorous anti-imperialist student movement which developed in Trinity College during 1965-67 giving rise to a thorough-going Marxist-Leninist youth and student movement in 1968.” (Mass Line no. 10. p. 31) The years indicated for the development of the experience which led to the “Necessity for Change” were the years that Bains was teaching at Trinity. In 1967 the College did not renew his teaching contract. He returned to Canada. Canada’s loss was Ireland’s gain.
The Bainsites regrouped themselves in Montreal in March 1968, re-establishing the “Internationalists.” The “Internationalist” international was located in four countries – Canada, Ireland, and England, with contacts in the USA. These international ties with so many other guilt-ridden petty-bourgeois led to a feeling of self-importance. The Bainsites set out to conquer the Canadian proletariat. As they later wrote:
So our main target is to mobilize the Canadian working class. In May 1968. when there was no active Marxist-Leninist movement, and no large-scale dissemination of Mao Tsetung Thought, and when the student movement had liquidated itself after years of betrayal by the revisionists and reformists, the best place for us to begin was in the university, with the main aim of building a Communist Student Movement. (Political Report 1970. p. 36)
The working class was to be reached by going into the universities!
It was there that the Red Guards would be rallied who were needed to fight off the “DECADENT IMPERIALIST CULTURAL COUNTER-REVOLUTION” (PR. ’70, p. 9) which the US imperialists had launched. We have quoted the Bainsites to the effect that the cultural contradiction was the principal contradiction at this time. Therefore the working class would have to wait until the vanguard of the petty-bourgeoisie was rallied. By that time, even the working class would be ready for revolution and the Bainsites could lead them on. Or so they hoped.
As Marx and Lenin said, in a period of revolutionary upheaval, months and even years are compressed into weeks or even days. Such must have been the case during the great student rebellions of the late sixties. One year after the founding of the Canadian Student Movement, the Bainsites diversified and created the Canadian “Communist” Movement as a companion company under Bainscorp, Ltd. The label was changed and they took up serious economism.
We need a class analysis of Canada before we can have a party. We need to develop a revolutionary theory before we can build the party. Both these pre-requisites for party-building are erroneous, anti-working class and anti-Marxist. Class analysis develops out of struggle. We do not need to develop a revolutionary theory. What we must do is apply the revolutionary theory of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought to the concrete conditions of Canada and lead the people’s democratic revolution. This requires going deep into the masses to investigate and study the concrete conditions to arrive at a class analysis. The responsibility for class analysis lies on those who are in the forefront of the political struggles of the working class. In party-building, the key question of the moment is not having a class analysis, but doing ideological propaganda for organizational work and for the necessity of building the party. (Mass Line no. 5, September 13, 1969)
The Bainsites render Lenin more profound by pointing out that he was incorrect when he wrote “without revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary movement”. They render Lenin more profound when they correct him for his “anti-working class” statement that “before we can unite, and in order that we may unite, we must first of all draw firm and definite lines of demarcation.”
A Marxist-Leninist party is united around a program for revolution. This is the political unity which is indestructable. It is not a unity around the “ideology” of Marxism-Lenixism, i.e. a unity of all those who call themselves Marxist-Leninist. It is a unity around Marxism-leninism applied to the concrete conditions of each country. It is unity around the “revolutionary theory” which must exist before there can be “revolutionary movement”. It is not a “unity” around the abstract principles of Marxism-Leninism but around those principles applied to Canada. The Bainsites have arrived at the decision that a “people’s democratic revolution” is on the agenda for Canada. But they admit that they have not burdened themselves with the elaboration of the “revolutionary theory” which would scientifically show that Canada still needs to complete her democratic revolution. This will be done by those who are “in the forefront of the political struggles of the working class.”
The working class does not begin to wage revolutionary political struggles against the bourgeoisie until it is conscious of itself as a class, until it has constituted itself as a class for itself in its political party. All its struggles until this time are defensive political and economic struggles, attempting to maintain their level of existence against the bourgeoisie who are constantly trying to extract more and more surplus value from them. But these struggles do not threaten the power of the bourgeoisie. They are part of the capitalist mode of production.
The Bainsites were attempting to build a party based on common practice, not common politics. Their ideological propaganda was done around the need for an organisation and the necessity of doing organisational work, not around the politics which would permit the establishing of Bolshevik unity.
But the Bainsites never realized how complicated the revolution is. They had a very simplistic idea. There was only one revolution throughout the world: this was the world anti-imperialist revolution. We mentioned this earlier in connection with their adherence to Lin Piao Thought, They went so far as to call for a people’s war in Quebec to seize the countryside and surround the cities! What was there to study?
It was on this granite foundation that the “Party” was declared, either “for all intents and purposes” at the Regina Conference in May 1969 (Political Report ’70, p. 16), or at a conference in Vancouver in December 1969 (Learn from the Teachers by Negative Example, by Boylan, Sept. ’75, p. 46), or perhaps it was in March 1970 (publisher’s note to the 1976 edition of the Political Reports from 1970 and 1973). However, a party can not be declared. No, a party must be tested in the heat of the class struggle. The party must engage in struggle with its opponents and emerge victorious. And this the Bainsites did with great success!
Since the participation of the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) in the Federal elections, the Party has emerged as the national Party of the proletariat against, on the one hand, the straightforward capitalist parties (Liberal Party, Progressive Conservative Party and Social-Credit Party), and against, on the other hand, the sham socialist parties (the social-fascist parties – socialist in words, fascists in deeds – the New Democratic Party and the so-called Communist Party of Canada). (P.R. 1973, p. 44)
The Bainsites fielded a group of candidates, many of whom were not even members of the “Party,” who were absolutely ignorant of Marxism-Leninism. The only claim they can lay hold to, is that they did their utmost to discredit Marxism-Leninism to any and all who saw them in “debate” with their opponents. The election campaigns of the Bainsites were one of their greatest successes in terms of reaching a large number of people in a short space of time, and leaving them with a unbounded feeling of contempt for Marxism-Leninism, and thus, with a feeling of contempt for the revolutionaries who have given and are giving their lives in order to make the proletarian revolution. The Bainsite antics discredit the socialist countries and the great strides they are making in abolishing classes and building a society organised to meet the needs of the producers of the countries’ wealth. The Bainsite antics have turned many people away from Marxism-Leninism and have undermined the reconstruction of a new communist party. The Bainsite antics are anti-communist, spreading anti-communism in the service of the bourgeoisie. In this they have been consistent since their beginnings. No matter what the package, the brightly coloured wrappings, the container has been devoid of Marxism-Leninism.