Marxist-Leninists are able to understand the alignment of forces in the world today because they correctly apply the four contradictions as elaborated by Lenin and Stalin. These fundamental contradictions, which develop on the basis of the essential contradiction between social production and private capitalist appropriation, are:
– the contradiction between socialism and capitalism,
– the contradiction between labour and capital in the capitalist countries,
– the contradiction between the oppressed peoples and nations and imperialism,
– the contradictions between the imperialist powers and financial groups.
Revisionism of the general line of the international communist movement begins with the manipulation of these four contradictions. This manipulation can be of varying forms: the elimination of one or more of the contradictions, the absolutising of one of the contradictions, or a changing of the formulation of one or more of the contradictions.
The Khrushchevite revisionists absolutized the contradiction between socialism and capitalism. This provided theoretical justification for their doctrines of limited sovereignty, peaceful co-existence, and the parliamentary road to socialism. It also provided justification for their hegemony-seeking over the national liberation struggles of the oppressed peoples and nations.
The latest attempt to divert Marxism-Leninism from its one correct revolutionary line, the latest attack upon the purity of Marxism-Leninism, is the pernicious “theory of three worlds.” It also attacks the four contradictions. (A recent defense of the theory by its proponents makes no mention of the four contradictions.) The contradictions are rendered useless in understanding the world because the theoreticians of “three worlds” divide the world according to national boundaries and the level of economic development. Countries of the so-called “second world” are called upon to unite with the countries of the so-called “third world” in order to isolate the two superpowers and resist their hegemony. The theoreticians of “three worlds” reformulate the four contradictions in order to dispose of the socialist system (a goal long sought by imperialism), and then they absolutize the inter-imperialist contradictions to spread the defeatism that a new world war is “inevitable.” Thus, the proletariat must give up their struggles against their internal oppressors and fend off the aggression of the superpowers. It is a “theory” which actively works for the sabotaging of the proletarian revolution and collaboration with imperialism.
In the historic document The Theory and Practice of the Revolution, the Party of Labour of Albania consigns this pseudo-revolutionary and psuedo-anti-imperialist theory to the garbage heap of history, where it enjoys the company of other revisionist theories and doctrines defeated by Marxism-Leninism. In its document, which together with Comrade Enver Hoxha’s Report Submitted to the 7th Congress of the PLA and joint documents signed by Marxist-Leninist parties have exposed the theory of “three worlds,” the PLA stress the importance of maintaining a correct Marxist-Leninist stance on this question:
The Marxist-Leninists have always based their definition of the present epoch and their revolutionary strategy on the analysis of the major social contradictions which characterize this epoch. What are these contradictions? Following the triumph of the socialist revolution in Russia, Lenin and Stalin spoke about 4 such contradictions: the contradiction between two opposing systems – socialist and capitalist, the contradiction between labour and capital in the capitalist countries, the contradiction between the oppressed peoples and nations and imperialism, the contradiction between imperialist powers. These are the contradictions which constitute the objective basis of the development of the present-day revolutionary movements, which in their entirety, constitute the great process of the world revolution in our epoch. All present-day world development confirms that since the time of Lenin these contradictions have not waned or disappeared but have become more acute and are more clearly obvious than ever before. Therefore, the recognition and admission of the existence of these contradictions constitute the basis for defining a correct revolutionary strategy.
On the contrary, to deny the existence of these contradictions, to hide them, to ignore one or the other contradiction, to distort their real content, as various revisionists and opportunists are doing, causes confusion and disorientation in the revolutionary movement, serves as a basis for building up and advocating distorted, pseudo-revolutionary strategy and tactics. (“The Theory and Practice of the Revolution”. Albania Today no. 4 (35), 1977, p. 21)
The Bainsites. in turn, denied, hid, ignored and, finally, distorted the four contradictions. They have yet, as we will show, to elaborate the four contradictions correctly. This included their “Political Resolutions” from their Third Congress.
The Canadian “Communist” Movement, the form of the Bainsites immediately preceding the “Party,” did no analysis of the international situation. It merely applied the line of Lin Piao very mechanically to Canada. Its newspaper, Mass Line, carried a number of articles on various anti-imperialist struggles from around the world. This served in place of a general analysis. They viewed the revolution as a “world anti-imperialist revolution” rather than the world proletarian revolution. There is no mention whatsoever of the four contradictions.
Mass Line number eleven (September 24, 1969) is a special issue on national liberation struggles. The Bainsites reproduce in this issue documents from the Afro-Asian Youth Movement (Anti-Imperialist). This organization was a front group for the Bainsites, one of their “mass organizations” through which they tried to spread their cancerous lies. Bains, himself, directed its operations. It was this organization which produced the recently praised article, “Denounce the Left-Sloganeering Front for Khrushchevite Revisionism.” Thus, if in 1977, Bains claims one article as “theirs,” we trust he will be so generous with another. While, today, he may try to posture his way out of it, it was clear at the time that it had their support.
Mass Line vigorously supports this conference and is producing this issue no. 11 mainly about this movement and is reproducing all its important documents. The working and oppressed people of Canada and Quebec have a special interest in this conference because this gathering of the Afro-Asian peoples and their friends in Montreal immensely strengthened proletarian internationalism and shows that their struggle is against the same common enemy of the people, U.S. imperialism. We have a common cause with all the oppressed nations and peoples and we are greatly moved to see the development of a common front of all peoples against U.S. imperialism in Quebec, (p. 1)
The entire world is making revolution against U.S. imperialism, as their main enemy, according to this passage from the Bainsites. The “Draft Resolution” of the AAYM (AI) begins as follows:
The main contradiction in the world today is between imperialism headed by the U.S. and the world’s peoples. The leading aspect of this contradiction is between imperialism and the oppressed peoples and nations of Asia, Africa and Latin America. U.S. imperialism is the enemy number one of the world’s peoples....
National liberation struggles at this time in history are being waged by the people of Asia, Africa and Latin America and other oppressed nations for independence and national salvation. National liberation struggles are the material and historical force to resolve this main contradiction between imperialism and the oppressed nations and peoples and to move the world forward, (p. 2)
We will return to these quotes in the following section. For the moment, we wish to draw out the first two sentences of the “Draft Resolution. ” The main contradiction is none of the four elaborated by Lenin and Stalin. One of the four, between imperialism and the oppressed nations and peoples, is now an “aspect” of the main contradiction. What is an “aspect” of a contradiction? In the contradiction “A versus B”, one aspect is “A” and the other aspect is “B.” The “aspects” are the two sides of the contradiction, the two elements which are opposed to one another. Therefore, it does not make any sense to say that the contradiction between imperialism and the oppressed peoples and nations is the “leading aspect” of a contradiction whose aspects are “imperialism headed by U.S. imperialism” and “the world’s peoples.” The oppressed peoples and nations are a part of the aspect “the world’s peoples.” “Imperialism” is the other aspect. Elements from both aspects cannot be part of the same aspect, no matter how “interconnected” they are, or the degree of “inter-penetration”. Such only serves to “confuse and disorient” those who read it.
The formulation of the main contradiction in this erroneous manner by Bains lays the groundwork needed for the “theory of three worlds.” The four main enemies of the people of Asia, Africa and Latin America are listed as “U.S. imperialism – enemy number one, Soviet social-imperialism – the main accomplice, the bureaucrat comprador capitalists and the big landlords.” (p. 2) Already the weaker imperialist powers are removed from the scene.
The “First Congress” of the Bainsites, now the self-declared vanguard of the proletariat, adopted a “Political Report,” the main content of which is a lengthy dissertation on “style of, work.” Nowhere in this founding document of the “party” is the international situation analysed. Nowhere do they put forward the general line of the international communist movement. And, needless to say, nowhere do they elaborate, or even mention in passing, the four contradictions.
The “program” of the “Communist” “Party’” of Canada (“ Marxist-Leninist”) which was adopted at the “Twenty-First Convention of the Communist Party of Canada (sic)... First Congress since the criticism and repudiation of modern revisionist line...” also makes no mention of the four contradictions.
It is 1973 before the Bainsites make an attempt at a lengthy and coherent account of the world situation. This is contained in their “Political Report” from their second Congress. We will return to this document below. For the moment, we will simply point out that they continue to ignore the four contradictions.
In fact it is January 1975 before the Bainsites make any mention of the elements which form the basis of a Marxist-Leninist understanding of the world! A group which boldly proclaims that it has been actively struggling against revisionism since 1963, a group which claims to be the party of the Canadian proletariat, makes no mention of the four contradictions for twelve years!
Let us take a look at the four contradictions as presented by the “genuine” party of the proletariat. After spending twelve years trying to “deny the existence of these contradictions, to hide them, to ignore one or the other contradictions,” the Bainsites are forced to admit their existence because of the rising forces of a new Marxist-Leninist movement in Canada, as well as because of their acceptence of the theory of “three worlds” which uses certain of the contradictions in distorted form in order to oppose the correct understanding of the four main contradictions.
In presenting four contradictions, the Bainsites must “distort their real content as various revisionists and opportunists are doing.” This they do masterfully:
The first is between the socialist countries on the one side and the two superpowers on the other
The second main contradiction is between the superpowers and the oppressed nations of the Third World....
The third main contradiction in the world today is the contradiction between the ruling classes of the superpowers and the working and oppressed people in the imperialist country itself
The fourth main contradiction in the world today is the contradiction between the superpowers themselves on the one hand and between the other imperialist powers on the other. (PCDN, Vol. 5, no. 17. January 20, 1975)
Even a cursory glance at these contradictions reveals the chasm which separates them from the contradictions elaborated by Lenin and Stalin. Each has been barbarously manipulated to remove its revolutionary core. We are left with an imperialist system comprised solely of the superpowers and we are keyed into Bainsite jargon: i.e. “imperialist country” equals superpowers. Socialism is nationalistically seen as “countries.” The “Third World” enters the arena. The contradiction between labour and capital in the weaker imperialist countries is dropped.
These contradictions, so formulated, are rancid attempts by the Bainsites to cover for their call for class collaboration on the part of the proletariat. Let us continue by analysing the full meaning of these revisions in greater detail and explicitly show their counter-revolutionary nature.
The theory of “three worlds” is a bourgeois nationalist analysis of the world. It calls on the proletariat of the so-called “second world” to abandon their revolutionary struggles and unite with their oppressors, the bourgeoisie. It calls for the oppressed peoples and nations to abandon their revolutionary struggles for national liberation and unite with the fascists and feudalists who exploit and oppress them. With a “social peace” reigning, the countries of the so-called “second world” must then form a united front with the countries of the so-called “third world” against the politics of superpower hegemonism. The struggle against imperialism is abandoned to the struggle against “hegemonism.” The world is not seen in terms of class or social system; the world is seen in terms of countries. The countries are differentiated by their degree of development, rather than according to classes situated in a particular relation to the means of production. This differentiation is a conscious effort on the part of these revisionists to justify the theory of “material incentives.” Economic development, individual material gain, is placed above the political gains of the proletariat and its allies. Imperialism is reduced to “hegemonism”; that is. imperialism is reduced to a matter of annexations.
The Bainsite line on the international situation divided the world into two – U.S. imperialism and everyone else. The only possible strategy to be drawn from their line is: everyone against the superpower. As the Soviet Union reared its head and assumed a position comparable to that of the United States, the Bainsites openly took up the anti-Leninism which they now so vigorously denounce. They were open to the theory of “three worlds” because it has the same essence as the line they had been propagating since their inception. Their line was simply a variation on the same theme of bourgeois nationalism.
Lenin characterizes “the specific political features of imperialism (as) reaction all along the line”. (Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, Peking, p. 133) In the era of imperialism, the bourgeoisie in the oppressor nations is reactionary as a class. It has long since ceased to play a progressive historical role. It is the oppressor class in the highest, and final, stage of capitalism. The nations and peoples who are oppressed by the imperialist system may include a part or all of the national bourgeoisie. But the national bourgeoisie is not automatically and necessarily revolutionary. They play a progressive role to the degree that they are anti-imperialist, and to the degree that they do not obstruct the proletariat from taking its role of leadership in the national liberation struggle.
Since the specific political features of imperialism are reaction all along the line and increased national oppression resulting from the oppression of the financial oligarchy and the elimination of free competition, a petty bourgeois democratic opposition to imperialism arose at the beginning of the twentieth century in nearly all imperialist countries. And the desertion of Kautsky and of the broad international Kautskyan trend from Marxism consists precisely in the fact that Kautsky not only did not trouble to oppose, was not only unable to oppose this petty bourgeois reformist opposition, which is really reactionary in its economic base, but became merged with it in practice.
In the United States, the imperialist war waged against Spain in 1898 stirred up the opposition of the “anti-imperialists,” the last of the Mohicans of bourgeois democracy (Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, Peking, pp. 133-134)
The war in Vietnam stirred up the opposition of our own “anti-imperialists.” And while the mass movement to end the war had the positive result of aiding in the defeat of U.S. imperialism in Southeast Asia, it also set the stage for the rise of our “last of the Mohicans of bourgeois democracy.” Such are the Bainsites, who endlessly call the Canadian state “fascist” and are seeking to win a democracy as the first stage of the two-stage revolution. They began as a “petty bourgeois reformist opposition” and grew into an active counter-revolutionary opposition. They are the honoured company of the renegade Kautsky because they have the same one-sided, nationalist misunderstanding of imperialism.
In the above quote from Mass Line no. 11, it is stated that U.S. imperialism is “the same common enemy of the people.” “We have a common course with all the oppressed nations and people and we are greatly moved to see the development of a common front of all peoples against U.S. imperialism” (p. 1). U.S. imperialism was indeed the common enemy of the world’s peoples, as are the two superpowers today. But while there are contradictions between the two superpowers and the monopoly capitalist bourgeoisies of the other imperialist powers, these monopoly capitalists are not part of the world’s “peoples.” The Bainsites are calling for a world united front against U.S. imperialism. That this united front includes these “nationalist” “allies” is clear from the Bainsite analysis of the principal contradiction in Canada, which calls for a two-stage revolution &38211; the first stage against U.S. imperialism, the second stage for the institution of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Bains outlined the principal contradiction as follows in January 1975:
The first contradiction is between U.S. imperialism and the monopoly capitalist class, on the one hand, and the masses of Canadian people on the other. When we speak of the masses of the Canadian people, we mean not only the Canadian working class but include a large section of the petit bourgeoisie and even some sections of the bourgeoisie. (Usher in the First Year of the Last Quarter of the Glorious Twentieth Century, p. 29)
The only section of the monopoly capitalists that Bains is worried about is the section which is totally sold out to U.S. imperialism. The rest are part of the Canadian “masses.”
In passing, we note that this is the same line as that of the so-called “Canadian Communist League (Marxist-Leninist)”, the official local agents of the theory of “three worlds.” [1]
This line of reasoning is very fully developed by Bains in an early article in People’s Canada Daily News Release (September 24, 1971). He provides the following justification for an alliance with the bourgeoisie:
The contradictions among the big bourgeoisie are becoming irreconcilable and the anti-imperialist forces must take advantage of the situation. We say that there is a class struggle going on on the question of national struggle amoung the big bourgeoisie: Those who advocate out-right sell out policies, and those who will take a somewhat independent stand for their own class interests. This is to say that whosoever opposes U.S. imperialism in Canada and in whatever form, and to whatever extent is against the genuine interests of the Canadian compradors and other bureaucrat capitalists and we must encourage them to carry on their own opposition to our common enemy. This is to say that whosoever opposes our principal enemy, U.S. imperialism, is our friend, and whosoever supports U.S. imperialism under whatever pretext, is our enemy, (p. 2)
This is a prime example of the incorrect way to utilise inter-imperialist contradictions. As the PLA emphasizes: It is anti-Marxist to preach unity with the alledgedly weaker imperialisms to oppose the stronger, to side with the bourgeoisie of one country to oppose that of another, under the pretext of exploiting contradictions. (“The Theory and Practice of the Revolution,” Albania Today no. 4(35), 1977, p. 26)
The result of such a strategy is not the exploitation of the inter-imperialist contradictions, it is the exploitation of the proletariat.
Bains says that there is a class struggle going on between two factions of the bourgeoisie on the question of the degree they are willing to sell out Canada to U.S. imperialism. We always thought that class struggle went on between classes! He then tries to tell us that actually, one faction of the big bourgeoisie has the same “class interests” as the Canadian people! The Joint Declaration of Five Communist Parties (October 1977) explicitly counters such a view:
Bearing these facts in mind, it is not possible to have common interests between the proletariat and the monopoly bourgeoisie in our countries. Such common interests do not exist, either with regard to the struggle for national independence against the two superpowers, or with regard to the threat of a new imperialist world war. On the contrary, the situation in our countries is characterized by the fact that the contradiction between the proletariat and the working masses on the one hand, and the monopoly bourgeoisie on the other, is rapidly becoming more acute. (“Joint Statement,” Albania Today no. 6 (37), 1977, p. 48)
Bains tries hard to make the contradiction between the U.S. imperialists/Canadian compradors and the national bourgeoisie a national contradiction. But the fundamental interests of these factions are identical – the exploitation of the proletariat. The contradiction is that between rival financial groupings. It is a national contradiction in the sense that the Canadian monopolists don’t want a foreign bourgeoisie exploiting “their own” proletariat! The Canadian monopolists are not allies of the Canadian proletariat. As the five Parties remark about the bourgeoisie of their countries: “In reality, these imperialist and capitalist states are integrated in the systems of the alliances and blocs of the two superpowers, and the monopoly bourgeoisie of those countries has betrayed the national interests.„ (Ibid., p. 52)
The inter-imperialist contradictions are utilised to weaken the bourgeoisie, by creating tensions between them. This strengthens the proletariat because it weakens the enemy. But we do not preach “unity” with these forces; they do not become a part of the ranks of the “people.”
But national contradictions remain principal to Bains and his “ites.” National contradictions are also principal for other adherents of the theory of “three worlds.” Both the League and In Struggle pose the secondary contradiction in Canada as that which opposes U.S. imperialism to the Canadian people. This is the chauvinist logic of the Plekhanovs, Scheidemanns, and Co. of the Second International.
The same article from PCDNR contains the following Bains classic:
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, p. 2)
Here we see the proletarian revolution as part of the world anti-imperialist revolution. The Bainsites are clear which is principal to them. We also see the result of the “theory” done by their implantees in the “forefront” of the proletariat’s “political struggles.” For Bains, while in “theory” the C.I.C. is totally sell-out, and according to “theory” this is “inevitable”, bourgeois organisations have participated at particular times and in particular places in anti-imperialist revolutions; therefore they will in Canada. From an erroneous beginning the Bainsites are constructing the surest road to defeat. So much for theory at all (even excluding the fact that they are wrong in their analysis, they don’t even follow their own theory!) Why should they bother with analysing the concrete conditions of our country at all when, instead, they can apply – but not “dogmatically” (Good god no! “Dogmatists” are those who “waste their time” with theory) – the experience of the Chinese Revolution! The Bainsites do not need theory because what theory poses as inevitable is contrary to the whims of the self-styled vanguard of the proletariat. Anti-Marxist groupings do not need Marxism-Leninism. They merely need the facade of Marxism-Leninism to engage in their sabotage so that they are not immediately transparent. And this facade becomes ever more refined.
The revolution in Canada must go through two stages, according to the Bainsite sage. (After all, that was the case in Russia and China, right?) What else does the crystal ball reveal?
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)
Bains introduces here an obscure “Marxist-Leninist” concept which those comrades who rely upon the classics might not have encountered before. It did however, prove useful to the Bainsites. They started finding such revolutions wherever they looked!
The “Communist Party of England (ML)” found it to be of great help in understanding their tasks:
Making a concrete analysis of concrete conditions we have established that the stage of revolution in England can be characterized as mass democratic in form, and anti-imperialist and antifascist in content. Surely this stage will lead to the development of the proletarian socialist revolution. (Workers England Weekly News, September 25, 1971)
“Surely” anyone possessed with even one of the five senses would be able to discern the difference between the “Political Report” of the Bainsites and the concrete conditions of England.
It has been necessary to piece together the Bainsites’ early view of the world because it wasn’t until 1973 that they attempted to set their ideas to paper coherently. This early view held that every revolution, except that in the United States, perhaps, is a two-stage, anti-imperialist revolution. They still hold this view for Canada, as we will show later. This outlook produced some contradictions which the Bainsites were apparently unable to resolve, much less admit existed, when applied to their fraternal parties in Ireland and England. (Except by dropping all references to the “CPE(ML)” during the last year).
The “CPI(ML)” called for a national liberation struggle against British imperialism. The “CPE(ML)” called for a two-stage revolution against U.S. imperialism. What is the contradiction they were never able to resolve? It is this. In order to defeat U.S. imperialism, the English proletariat needed to align itself with the “nationalist” bourgeoisie in England (if theory didn’t matter in Canada, it certainly wouldn’t matter to the “CPE(ML)”). The “nationalist” bourgeoisie in England are at the same time supposedly defending their “class interests” by oppressing the people of Ireland. Bainsite nationalism leads to alliances with the main enemy of fraternal parties!
While some opportunists may venture that this is merely the application of “dialectics” (in the same fashion as the League and In Struggle resort to “dialectics” as justification for their collapsing of the first two stages of party-building, i.e. justification for their economism), it is merely the logical conclusion of bourgeois nationalism. This is the necessary end result when “country” is substituted for “class”.
In this morass of anti-Marxism, we find the kernel of the strategy now employed by the theoreticians of “three worlds”: unite all who can be united against the superpowers, and this includes everybody, because whoever is not the superpowers is different from the superpowers; where there is difference, there is contradiction; and we must utilize those inter-imperialist contradictions!
Other “kernels” of the theory of “three worlds” are found in the “Draft Resolution” pusblished in Mass Line no. 11, which we quoted earlier.
National liberation struggles are the material and historical force to resolve this main contradiction between imperialism and the oppressed nations and to move the world forward, (p. 2)
Now we see concretely how the manipulation of the four contradictions “serves as a basis for building up and advocating distorted, psuedo-revolutionary strategy and tactics.” First, one contradiction instead of four – imperialism versus the oppressed nations (minus the oppressed peoples). This is how they are manipulated. Second, this produces a line which denies that class struggle is the motive force of world history. Only the national liberation struggles are recognised. The proletariat in the capitalist countries is written off. The proletariat is told to wage a national liberation struggle arm in arm with its oppressors against U.S. imperialism.
Given a few years, and a slightly more refined appearance, this is the theory of “three worlds.” And we thought the Bainsites were stupid! They were putting this forward five years before Mao supposedly “mentioned it in a conversation with foreign dignitaries”! Again we see the inherent logic of bourgeois nationalism, how it inevitably works its way towards class collaboration.
The Bainsites’ implicit view of the world becomes explicit with their Second Congress in 1973, and the “Political” Report adopted there. The world is split into two:
Today, the counterrevolutionary and reactionary united front is being led by U.S. imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism while the united front of the world’s people, led by the People’s Republic of China and the People’s Republic of Albania, is further developing in depth and breadth and is preparing for the total defeat of all imperialism, colonialism, and neo-colonialism. (Political Report 1973, p. 80)
While this gives the appearance that it might be the general line of the international communist movement #&8211; revolutionary front versus the counter-revolutionary front (and in their recent publications this is definitely the impression they seek to leave) – the rest of the section from which it is drawn makes clear that, in effect, the division amounts to “the superpowers” vs. “the second world and the third world,” as the following quotes illustrate:
The anti-colonial, anti-imperialist revolution of the world’s peoples is aimed against the superpowers. (p. 84)
The Anti-Imperialist United Front is Growing Daily Against Superpower Politics of War, Aggression, Hegemony and Interference, (p. 84)
This has led to the growing unity of many countries of the world in the struggle against the U.S. imperialists and the Soviet social-imperialists. (Ibid.)
The whole trend towards revolution and closer unity among the oppressed peoples of the world has been clearly reflected in the United Nations, (p. 87)
China’s participation helped to develop the United Nations into a forum in which small and medium sized nations stood up and voiced their opposition to the policies of the U.S. imperialists and Soviet social-imperialists. (Ibid.)
The Bainsites simplified matters by postulating the unity of the “second world” and “third world” as given. This eliminated the need for blatantly counter-revolutionary polemics encouraging this unity. They were smart. They never let people think the “second” and “third world” were not united to begin with.
The Bainsites passed the following resolution:
The Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) (sic) supports all those countries who are refusing to accept the arbitrary policies of U.S. imperialism which seeks to impose upon them the burden of its economic crisis, (p. 91)
Does the “Communist” “Party” of Canada (“Marxist-Leninist”) intend to support countries such as Japan, West Germany, France, Great Britain, etc., when they refuse to accept the “arbitrary policies” of the United States? Are they going to support the Canadian government when it opposes the “arbitrary policies” of the United States? Evidently so. After all, it will supposedly weaken U.S. imperialism.
What about these “arbitrary policies”? The U.S. imperialists were forced to put forward new policies due to the deepening of the general crisis of imperialism and the severe crisis of the recent years. As the crisis intensified, the four contradictions intensified. And of course, the tension between the imperialists increased, i.e. the U.S. imperialists adopted “arbitrary policies” against the other imperialists to protect itself. These measures were precisely not “arbitrary policies.” They were necessary and inevitable for U.S. imperialism because of the growing acuteness of the four fundamental contradictions. But because the Bainsites do not “admit to the existence of the four contradictions, they were unable to understand the deepening crisis. As a result, they put forward the Kautskyan theory of “policies preferred” by the imperialists. Imperialism is seen as a collection of countries who play games of diplomacy with one another. The imperialists supposedly can act independently of the million threads of finance capital which entwine the globe.
The 1973 Political Report fully consolidates the bourgeois nationalism of the Bainsites. They explicitly make countries rather than classes the building blocks of this strategy. Thus, it begins to resemble more and more the anti-Leninist theory of “three worlds.” The superpowers have become the main danger. Small and medium-sized countries are called upon to unite to oppose the hegemony of the superpowers. This is all part of a “united front against superpower politics,” a “united front” which is reflected in the United Nations where fascist butchers, feudalists, and other reactionary bourgeois are supposedly uniting with representatives of the oppressed people and nations to present a strong front against U.S. imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism.
At the time of the introduction of the theory of “three worlds” at the United Nations by Teng Hsiao-ping in April 1974, the Bainsites were like disconnected pieces of a jig-saw puzzle, waiting to be assembled. The theory of “three worlds” brought “order” into their existence. They began utilizing the terminology of the theory of “three worlds” during the summer of 1974. The following are excerpts from their coverage of the Third U.N. conference of the Laws of the Sea, as reported in Peoples Canada Daily News.
The general debate, which lasted for 11 days, featured very sharp struggle between a handful of highly industrialized imperialist countries, led by the two superpowers – the U. S. imperialists and the Soviet social-imperialists – on the one hand, and the vast majority of the other countries on the other. The content of the struggle was whether the law of the sea would remain a tool of the superpowers, perpetuating their hegemony over the seas, or would become a tool of the small and medium sized countries in their struggle to develop their national economies free from imperialist interference. The results of the general debate were very favourable to the developing countries, as their unity was strengthened and the superpowers were extremely isolated. (July 26, 1974, p. 4)
Many Third World countries stood up to denounce the superpowers’ policies of maritime hegemony. (Ibid.)
The people of the world should enthusiastically support the victories of the Third World and other countries against the two superpowers, but at the same time make preparations to engage the imperialist powers in greater and more decisive battles. (Ibid., p. 4)
Although only the first step in smashing the maritime hegemony of the superpowers, the new regime being worked out will gready strengthen the positions of the Third World countries in their anti-imperialist activities. (August 7-8, 1974, p. 7)
In these passages we can see that the Bainsites have clearly taken up the theory of “three worlds.” They contain the germ of the New International Economic Order, the battleground for the “greater and more decisive battles” of the future.
The acceptance of the theory of “three worlds” brought with it the propagation of four contradictions distorted to fit class collaboration. No longer able to ignore “the basis for defining a correct revolutionary strategy,” these able agents of imperialism offer four contradictions which have been twisted, pulled, torn and wrapped around their political line in a manner somewhat reminiscent of an overweight fifty-year-old man attempting to get into his aged wedding clothes. He finally succeeds in getting the attire on, but what remains of the suit serves as a pointed illustration of the differences between the young man and the old. The holes reveal the older man. The four-contradictions as elaborated by the Bainsites in January 1975 serve as pointed illustration of their absolute demarcation from Marxism-Leninism.
(1) “The first is between the socialist countries on the one side and the superpowers on the other.”
True to their nationalism, the Bainsites reduced two contending social systems to two contending sets of countries. While imperialism feels no need to worry about boundaries when buying off the officials of foreign governments, the Bainsites do not have the same grasp of imperialism as a system, the million threads which tie the imperialists to one another, which hold the system together. No wonder they believe the Committee for an Independant Canada can be relied on. They obscure and eliminate the class character of the question. But not only do they reduce the social systems to collections of countries, they butcher the imperialist system down to the two superpowers, excluding those supposedly “reliable allies” of the world proletarian revolution, the French, British, German, Japanese, Canadian, etc., imperialists, as well as their close comrades-in-arms, the Shah of Iran, Pinochet, Geisel, Marcos, Mobutu, etc. After the Bainsites have granted these supposed “progressives” their liberation, they are now supposedly able to give the proletariat and oppressed peoples and nations aid in the struggle to defeat the superpowers. The enemy is not nearly so fierce after he has been reduced to this size by the revisionists.
The Bainsites undermine the importance of socialism as a rationally planned economic system by reducing it to “countries,” rather than stressing that it is the social system which will show moribund and parasitic capitalism its grave. In analysing the world, the whole is reduced to a simple collection of parts. The interconnections are ignored. Conflicts and tensions between countries, individual countries, are seen, rather than the life-and-death struggle between two antagonistic methods of organising society.
The imperialist system as a whole is in general crisis. But the Bainsite “logic” reduces this to a series of coincident crises in different countries. It propagates the fallacy that by just working a little harder, by producing a bit more, by making Canadian products more competitive on the world market, Canada can avert this crisis and pass it off onto another country. This is what the bourgeois parties are trying to pass off onto the working class. The Bainsites are giving them considerable support.
It is the imperialist system which is being rent by these contradictions. It is the system as a whole which is collapsing. There will be no survivors.
2)“The second main contradiction is between the superpowers and the oppressed nations of the Third World.“
Once again, imperialism is reduced to the two superpowers. Supposedly there is no contradiction between the secondary imperialist powers and the oppressed nations and peoples (whose “umbrella” of the “third world” is not strong enough to fend off the superpowers, but is supposedly strong enough to keep away the imperialists of the so-called “second world”).
The Marxist-Leninist formulation of this contradiction correctly places the imperialist system in opposition to the oppressed peoples and nations. There is a reason for being precise and naming “imperialism” as one aspect of this contradiction. It is precisely “imperialism” as a system which is the oppressor. This is reflected in a division between “richer” and “poorer” countries, but the oppressor, the means to this “wealth,” is imperialism. It is therefore imperialism which must be eliminated. By formulating this contradiction in this correct, precise, Marxist-Leninist scientific terminology, there is no room for uniting countries into the so-called “third world”. The correct formulation, correctly understood, excludes that type of opportunist manipulation. Imperialism oppresses peoples and nations. At times, in particular cases, these peoples and nations will be united as a country. But most of these oppressed peoples and nations are living within the boundaries of the so-called “third world” countries, countries whose economic base is part and parcel of the imperialist system. The compradors, the fascists, the feudalists, the landowners, who administer these countries for the imperialists, are just as much the enemy of the oppressed peoples and nations as the external imperialists. These elements are part of imperialism as a social system. This is the essence of the matter, which has been obscured by the Bainsites and other proponents of the theory of “three worlds.”
The bourgeoisie is aware of this. The bourgeoisie actively promotes the usage of the term “third world,” the way it has promoted Tito and “non-alignment”. It knows that the “third world” as such presents no threat. A racist South African goes into a rage when he hears “his” country refered to as Azania. The imperialists go into a rage when they hear talk about “oppressed peoples and nations.” For the imperialist, there are only “underdeveloped” countries. This sanitary title allows them to hide the truth. It obscures the reality – that imperialism oppresses peoples and nations. The proponents of the theory of “three worlds” leave the imperialists with even a cleaner, fresher taste. With the appelation “third world,” the imperialists don’t even have to admit that certain countries need “development.” They just exist; exist for imperialist plunder.
3) “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.”
The 1975 formulation liquidated the contradiction between labour and capital in the secondary imperialist powers. The proletariat of Germany, France, Japan, etc., are told they have no contradiction with their oppressors. The Bainsites have always sought to avoid the charge of social-chauvinism by denying that Canada is imperialist. But here they openly call for class collaboration on the part of the proletariat with the bourgeoisies they admit are imperialist. They make the national contradiction principal, but again they attempt to throw up a smokescreen and pretend they are making it a class contradiction by pitting the proletariat against the “ruling class” of the superpowers.
4) “The fourth main contradiction in the world today is the contradiction between the superpowers themselves on the one hand and between the other imperialist powers on the other.”
Finally we find mention of “the other imperialist powers.” This should not surprise the attentive reader, because we are discussing the one contradiction the Board Room Marxists love to enshrine – inter-imperialists contradictions. But the Bainsites manipulate this contradiction, too, in an extremely clever use of words, to cover again for their bourgeois nationalism.
What do they in fact say? “The contradiction between the superpowers ON THE ONE HAND and between the other imperialist powers ON THE OTHER.”
Thus, for the Bainsites, the only inter-imperialist contradictions which have any meaning are those which oppose the superpowers to the so-called “second world.” The contradictions between the two superpowers themselves, the most likely source of a new world war, is liquidated. The contention amongst the many lesser imperialist powers is liquidated. Along with the theoreticians of “three worlds,” the so-called “second world” is seen as a united bloc capable of singly opposing the so-called “first world”.
Lenin’s theory of imperialism has been tossed aside. This line is a denial of the unequal development of capitalism. Without this understanding, there can be no Marxist-Leninist analysis of imperialist wars, of the redivision of the world.
Finance capital and the trusts do not diminish but increase the differences in the rate of growth of the various parts of the world economy. Once the relation of forces is changed, what other solution can be found under capitalism than that of force? (Imperialism. The Highest Stage of Capitalism, Peking, p. 116)
The philistines and renegades of the Second International would heartily applaud their cronies in Canada. The Bainsites have vigorously earned their support through the consistent and resolute aid they have given and continue to give to the Canadian bourgeoisie.
The Bainsites butchered “imperialism” down to the “superpowers.” They reformulated the contradictions to incorporate this “minor” revision in order to make them “serve as a basis for building up and advocating distorted, psuedo-revolutionary strategy and tactics.”
What is this strategy?
All the changes, all the crisis, 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 the contradictions created by the existence of the superpowers, their superpower politics and designs to gain hegemony over the entire world. (PCDN, Vol. 5, no. 17, January 20, 1975)
This passage is from the same article as the four contradictions. It is concrete proof of the correctness of the analyses made by the Party of Labour of Albania on the pernicious character of the theory of “three worlds.”
After reducing imperialism to the superpowers, these renegades then identify imperialism with the superpowers. Imperialism becomes one of its forms rather than its essence. The Leninist analysis of decadent, moribund capitalism is thrown out. The result is this. Eliminate the superpowers, the cause of “all the changes, all the crisis, all the scandals, and conflicts and all the alliances of forces on the world scale as well as in each particular place,” and you have eliminated all these “changes, crisis, scandals, conflicts, and alliances of forces.” In short, defeat the superpowers and you have defeated imperialism.
The revisionist contradictions “clearly show” that there is nothing to fear from the “other imperialist powers.” Therefore, all that needs to be done to the superpowers, is to weaken them until they are no stronger that the “others,” until they are no longer “superpowers.” And for this the people certainly don’t launch civil war. It can be easily done by instituting a New International Economic Order, where the superpowers must submit to the dictate of the “third world.”
What is left of Marxism-Leninism? What is left of the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat? What is left of the revolutionary struggle of the oppressed peoples and nations? The revolutionary front has been split; the revolution has been sabotaged. Such are the results of the theory and practice of the Bainsite “anti-imperialist” “mass-democratic” world revolution.
What is the theoretical underpinning of this counter-revolutionary theory? What is the pin which holds together this machine for smashing the proletarian revolution?
Besides the usage of Marxist-Leninist terminology as a facade, there must be a “theoretical” foundation. For economists, it is “the workers become conscious in the heat of the class struggle,” i.e. the workers learn their class political consciousness from within the economic struggle rather than from without, they supposedly learn it through their practice of spontaneous trade union struggle. This is the basic precept from which their entire edifice is erected. It can be readily assimilated by converts; it requires no knowledge of scientific socialism (it demands no knowledge of the classics). and once accepted, it provides all the theoretical justification which is needed to liquidate Marxism-Leninism and engage in vulgar reformism.
In a similar fashion, the same article from January 1975 provides the neat formula of the Bainsites: “It is the revolutionary class itself, the proletariat, which must actually overthrow the bourgeoisie and it is the people who actually overthrow imperialism.” (p. 4)
Rather than master dialectical materialism, learn this simple formula. “Proletariat vs bourgeoisie. People vs imperialism.” For the Bainsites. at all times, at all places, under any condition, in contradiction with the internal bourgeoisie is the proletariat, in contradiction with imperialism are the people. Here is the “Marxist-Leninist” “principle” upon which the entire Bainsite line rests. (This position is identical to that of the League and In Struggle.)
In direct contrast to this simplistic and childish idiocy, the Party of Labour of Albania states:
The bourgeoisie of the various countries is linked in one way or another with this or that superpower. This makes it absolutely essential that the proletariat, which is moving towards the revolution, while fighting its own bourgeoisie, must not forget the danger that threatens it from the superpowers, and while fighting against the threat posed by the superpowers, it must not forget its own bourgeoisie that oppresses and exploits it. The struggle against its own bourgeoisie and the struggle against the threat from the superpowers do not constitute two different problems, but two aspects of the same problem, which only the revolution of the proletariat and its state power can solve once and for all. (Zija Xholi, “Socialist Revolution – The Only Road of Social Progress,” Albania Today no. 5 (36), 1977, p. 19)
What is the essence of the formula put forward by the Bainsites (and the League, etc.)? The essence of this formula is bourgeois nationalism. A contradiction with imperialism is supposedly always a national contradiction. Mobilize the people against imperialism, and then the proletariat will by this alone supposedly overthrow the bourgeoisie. Imperialism is separated from capitalism. It is merely a “part” of capitalism which can be defeated separately. This is the Bainsite understanding of imperialism.
Imperialism is not a “part” of capitalism; imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism. The concentration of production, the growing importance of the banks, the merger of industrial with banking capital, created a qualitative leap in the development of capitalism as a whole. (Again we come upon the one-sided approach of the Bainsites to the question.) Competitive capitalism transformed into its opposite – monopoly capitalism.
But the Bainsites see imperialism in purely nationalist terms, i.e. imperialism as a matter of annexations. Imperialism is what the capitalists do when they are out of the country. Lenin’s criticism of Kautsky’s definition of imperialism also applies to the Bainsites.
This definition is utterly worthless because it one-sidely, i.e. arbitrarily, singles out only the national question (Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, Peking, p. 108)
While the Bainsites do not use the same analysis as Kautsky, they use the same method of analysis. They therefore inevitably commit the same error. We are not dealing with “attitudes” or “desires.” We are dealing with the internal logic inherent in a particular method of analysis. The analysis is not a dialectical materialist analysis; it views only the national question, therefore the internal logic compels it towards bourgeois nationalist errors, just as inevitably as those of Kautsky. To lose sight of “class,” to ignore or obscure that imperialism is reactionary all along the line, that the bourgeoisie in imperialist countries is reactionary all along the line, opens the door to class collaboration. One more illustration of their rejection of the Marxist-Leninist analysis of imperialism: “The monopoly capitalist class has been ruling Canada since, and before, 1867.” (Political Report 1973, p. 51)
Poor Marx! He lived his life under the “delusion” that in England he was studying the most highly developed form of capitalism in the world. Had he only taken his head out of those books, poor doctrinaire!, he might have “realised” that Canada was already monopoly capitalist, before the time of Lenin!
The Bainsites held on to the line we have just criticised until the Seventh Congress of the Party of Labour of Albania. They continued to apply these four contradictions until this time.
What does Alcan have to do in the four main contradictions in the world today? Has the Canadian “Communist” League (C“C”L) forgotten that their are four main contradictions in the world today and that one of them is the contradiction between the two superpowers and the oppressed peoples and nations of Africa, Asia, and Latin America?
Secondly, the real aim of The Forge clearly comes out when it states what is the relation between workers of the capitalist country (Alcan workers) and oppressed people and nations of the world (in this case, Azania). According to them, that “contradiction” is: “The Canadian transnational Alcan is participating not only in the exploitation of the Canadian working class but also to the oppression of the Azanian people.”
That is, that the Canadian proletariat and Azanian people are fighting the same enemy. And what is the enemy? Alcan, the Canadian transnational. (PCDN, vol. 6, no. 64, November 15, 1976, p. 2)
While the Bainsites do not elaborate all four of the contradictions, they still make imperialism include only the two superpowers. Thus they mock the possibility that Canadian imperialism can participate in the exploitation of the oppressed peoples of the world. Despite their ravings about the “reactionary Canadian bourgeoisie” from time to time in PCDN, they make it clear here that this “reactionary Canadian bourgeoisie” is free from all blame for its imperialist exploits abroad. The theory of “three worlds” rears its head again: the so-called “second world” is defended for its “positive links” with the so-called “third world,” and the isolation of the two superpowers is absolutised. Class collaboration and the “defense of the fatherland” is substituted for proletarian internationalism and proletarian revolution.
A test of an authentic Bolshevik Party is its ability to ruthlessly expose its own errors, to effectively correct these errors, learn from them, and further steel itself for the struggle to abolish classes. No party is correct 100% of the time. But when a party is wrong, it must be able and willing to recognize its mistakes, to admit to the masses that it has erred, to explain to them why the mistake occurred, to explain precisely what the mistake was, and then to explain how it is being corrected and why this is now the correct way to act. The party must fully understand its mistake, and it has the duty to ensure that the masses also understand. Only in this way will the error be presented from recurring. By such actions, the party earns and maintains the respect of the people. As Comrade Enver Hoxha expresses it:
The people have never reproached the Party when it has said things, as it has always said them, bluntly, openly, just as they are; on the contrary, they love and would lay down their lives for the Party, precisely because it speaks out openly. Why should the Party not boldly cure certain diseases that appear in the healthy body of our socialist society? Or should it let this beautiful body become gangrenous? Certainly not, for then we should have committed the great crime.
Openly pointing out defects and dangers, criticizing and fighting them has indeed always characterized our Party. Has the party lost its honour by criticizing in this way? No, its honour has risen to the skies and shines like the sun. {Speeches 1971-1973, p. 290)
Bourgeois parties are incapable of self-criticism. They cower in fear before the strength of the Marxist-Leninists when we boldly admit our errors. The great leader Frederich Engels was aware of this when he published Marx’s Critique of the Gotha Programme in 1891:
The fear that it would put a weapon in the hands of our opponents was unfounded. Malicious insinuations, of course, are being attached to anything and everything, but on the whole the impression made on our opponents was one of complete bewilderment at this ruthless self-criticism and the feeling: what an inner power must be possessed by a party that can afford such a thing! That can be seen from the hostile newspapers you sent me (for which many thanks) and from those to which I have otherwise had access. And, frankly speaking, that really was my intention when I published the document. I was aware of the fact that at the first moment some persons here and there would be most unpleasantly affected by it, but this was inevitable, and it was amply outweighed, in my view, by the contents of the document. I knew, also, that the Party was quite strong enough to stand it, and I reckoned that it would today also be able to stomach this unconcealed language used fifteen years ago; that one would point with justifiable pride to this test of strength and would say: where is there another party that can dare the like? (Marx and Engels. Selected Correspondence, Moscow, p. 405)
Great revolutionary that he was, Engels recognized the offensive value of such a ruthless self-criticism. The bourgeoisie cowers; the proletariat grows strong.
In 1967, in conversation with the great leader of the Brazilian people, Pedro Pomar, who has since been barbarously murdered by the savage oppressors of his country and people (those same savage fascists with whom the proponents of the theory of “three worlds” seek unity), Comrade Hoxha emphasised the importance of self-criticism: “Some one may say that you make mistakes. But where is that party, big or small, old or new, which has not had shortcomings and made mistakes in its work? The important thing here is not to conceal them, but to recognize them, to analyze and correct them on the basis of Marxism-Leninism. This is Marxist dialectics.” (Albania Today no. 2, 1977)
Why is it that the bourgeois parties cannot make self-criticisms? They cannot make self-criticisms because they are not based on the support of the masses. They are based on the support of the bourgeoisie. They get their orders from the bourgeoisie, and they exist solely to maintain the exploitation and oppression of the masses. Obviously, then, it is not possible for a bourgeois party to trust the masses. The bourgeois parties believe that they can pull the wool over the eyes of the people, that the people can be fooled and their mistakes will pass by unnoticed. They believe the masses are too stupid and do not understand such things.
But the people cannot be fooled. Who is it, if not the people, who suffer because of the “errors” of the bourgeois parties? Who is it, if not the people, who suffer when the bourgeois parties are “correct”? Are not the people the ones who should first know when something is wrong?
A Marxist-Leninist party depends on the masses. They are its lifeblood. The party must trust the masses if it are to win the trust of the masses. The party which is on the correct Marxist-Leninist road, which continues unhesitatingly forward on that road and does not stop, or deviate from the burning matters of principle which it must uphold without compromise – that party will have the trust of the people. That party will be able to say to the people, “Look, comrades, we have made an error. We must work together to correct this error before it becomes too great.”
That party will adhere to the road of revolution with the complete trust, and complete aid, of the masses.
At their Third Congress, the Bainsites proclaimed rigid adherence to Comrade Hoxha’s Report to the Seventh Congress of the PLA. They claim to uphold the general line of the international communist movement as set forward by Comrade Hoxha. Might it then be correct to expect therefore that the Bainsites have recognised their past errors, have rectified these past errors, and that, therefore, the Canadian proletariat and genuine Marxist-Leninists would consider its support of international communism a good thing, a great advance in the building of an authentic Communist Party?
No, this would not be correct. This is merely a change in appearance. It is but another attempt by this counter-revolutionary group to achieve international legitimacy, as a tool to be used for the purpose of gaining hegemony over those forces which are working to build the revolutionary party. The Bainsites have used the same strategy in the past. The last time, they praised Mao, carried the little red book, and declared, “China’s Chairman is our Chairman!”.
But the adulation gained them nothing. They exposed themselves as at best, petty bourgeois playing at revolution, at worst, as active agents of the bourgeoisie.
Now they are attempting the same strategy with those in the world who have taken leadership in opposing the theory of “three worlds.” Adulation replaces serious study and application of the general line of the international communist movement, and it serves to obscure the fact that their line is incompatible with the line of the international communist movement. Demagogues have always known that yelling out allegences and posturing can be a good way, temporarily, to cover up the lack of application in practice of Marxism-Leninism.
As Marx wrote, history repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.
How can we be sure the change is all in the surface? We have conclusively proven that the Bainsites’ line from its inception has been bourgeois nationalist and social-chauvinist. They have called for class collaboration on the part of the proletariat. They ignored and then distorted the four contradictions, and then propagated the theory of “three worlds.” They denied that Canada is imperialist. With the “change” in their position, they offer no self-criticism. They do not even admit to having carried an incorrect line. They only denounce the theory of “three worlds.” The thief points to the burglar and cries, “You’re a crook!”.
In our work, we have stood steadfast in defence of the purity of Marxism-Leninism....
Since its founding, our Party has always upheld the thesis that Marxism-Leninism is defended and its purity maintained in concrete work and in the practical life of the working class movement, that Marxism-Leninism is the guide to our work, the guide to the working class movement, the theoretical foundation and guide of proletarian revolution, the guide to the revolutionary movement of the proletariat against the double exploitation by the Canadian and American bourgeoisie. (PCDN, vol. 7, no. 272, November 14, 1977, p. 2)
But the Bainsites are correct about one thing. They do not need to put forward a self-criticism because their line has not fundamentally changed!
In the first place, they are still putting forward distorted versions of the four contradictions. That is, they are still distorting the basis of revolutionary strategy and tactics.
In the second place, they continue to call for a two-stage revolution in Canada. At the Third Congress they stated:
This is why the proletariat must lead this revolution through stages, firmly completing one stage as a prelude to the next. The theory of the one-stage revolution is merely trotskyite sophistry and wind-baggery. There is nothing of substance in it. (Political Resolutions 1977, p. 20)
The Bainsites attack the Marxist-Leninist line as “trotskyite.” Why is this? It is because the Marxist-Leninist line on proletarian revolution in Canada prohibits the class collaboration of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie. Marxism-Leninism recognized the reactionary character of the Canadian bourgeoisie as a class, be they that faction of the bourgeoisie which is closest to U.S. imperialism, or that faction of the monopoly bourgeoisie represented by Walter Gordon, a faction which the Bainsites consider to be “national.”
The Bainsites’ attack on Marxism-Leninism in our country on this question echoes the attack of the proponents of the theory of “three worlds” against the Party of Labour of Albania. The renegade-traitor Vilar, chieftan of the anti-Marxist Portuguese “Communist” “Party” (“M-L”). has labelled the Albanian comrades “super-revolutionaries” and “trotskyites” for waging a stern struggle against the pernicious influence and confusion sown by the theory of ’ ’three worlds,” and for its refusal to succumb to the blows this new revisionism is trying to deliver. The PLA and other Marxist-Leninist Parties will not be drawn into class collaboration, as these “theoreticians” would have them. Because they refuse to align themselves with the imperialists and other reactionary members of the imperialist system, the opportunists attack the Marxist-Leninists.
And so it is with the Bainsites. They reveal their common bourgeois nationalist, social chauvinist, anti-Leninist stance by utilising the same argument as cover for their theory of class collaboration in Canada. The Marxist-Leninists are “trotskyite” because they refuse to align themselves with the imperialist Canadian bourgeoisie.
The real test of whether the Bainsites uphold the line of the international communist movement is whether or not they apply it, whether or not their adherence goes beyond mere verbiage.
We are in the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution. If a group does not understand imperialism, it will be unable to make proletarian revolution. If a group does not understand imperialism, it will not understand the four contradictions which develop on the basis of the contradiction between social production and private capitalist appropriation. If a group does not understand imperialism, cannot apply the four contradictions, then it is correct to say that it is not upholding the general line of the international communist movement.
Kautsky did not understand imperialism. Therefore, when it came time to actively raise the call for proletarian revolution in Europe, he capitulated. We have seen that the Bainsites have a Kautskyite line on imperialism. They see it as a “part” of capitalism, not as the system itself. We will now investigate this matter more thoroughly, basing ourselves on the Political Resolutions from the Third Congress of the “CPC(ML),” held in February-March of 1977.
The Bolshevik Union has published two chapters from our forthcoming book Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Canadian Capitalism. (L.D. no. 5, pp. 5-25) We have shown thus far that the concentration of production in Canada in the early years of the twentieth century equaled that of the United States and that the banks were transformed from “middlemen into powerful monopolies having at their command almost the whole of the money capital of all the capitalists and small businessmen and also the larger part of the means of production and of the sources of raw materials ” (Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, Peking, p. 31)
Canada is an imperialist country. This assertion is based upon the concrete analysis which we have done on the political economy of our country. It fully conforms with the position of the Communist International. The Communist Party of Canada up until the time of the Sixth Congress of the Comintern held a bourgeois nationalist line, that Canada was a colony of Great Britain. This line was peddled by Maurice Spectre, who later became a Trotskyite after he was purged from the CPC. The Comintern issued a directive to the Party at that time, to rectify their error. This was finally accomplished by 1931. It was a difficult struggle to correct this error. But what do the Bainsites say about the Party’s line at the time?
During the first ten years of its existence, the political line of the Party was, in the main, correct. {Political Resolutions 1973, p. 53)
The Party was formed in 1921. Therefore, the Bainsites consider that until 1931, it was “in the main” correct. What happened in 1931 to change all this?
In February, the Central Committee and others held an enlarged plenum. At this plenum, the Party self-criticised for its errors on Canada, i.e. self-criticised for its previous erroneous line calling for “independence” from Britain. It expelled Jack MacDonald, the former general secretary and leading proponent of the theories of the American opportunist Jay Lovestone. In other words, the Party officially adopted the directive sent to them by the Comintern and purged some of the trash it had collected. They rectified errors which the Bainsites term “in the main correct”!
The Party of Labour of Albania, adhering consistently to Marxism-Leninism, upholds the Comintern line on Canada: “...such imperialisms as the West German, Japanese, British, French, CANADIAN ones, etc” (“The Theory and Practice of the Revolution,” Albania Today 4 (35), 1977, p. 25)
The Bainsites attack Marxism-Leninism by denying that Canada is an imperialist country, thus apologising for and aiding the Canadian imperialists. The following quotes illustrate their consistency on this attack:
Canada is a capitalist country under the complete domination of U.S. imperialism and its lackeys, the Canadian compradors. The compradors have completely submitted to the interests of U.S. imperialism, and run the economics, politics, and culture of the country for the sole purpose of serving their masters. (Political Resolutions 1970, p. 10)
Because of the Canadian capitalists dependence on foreign capital, their exists today in Canada a foreign dependent capitalist system. (Political Resolutions 1973, p. 47)
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. (Political Resolutions 1977, p. 19)
What attacks do they launch upon the Marxist-Leninist line on this question?
It is usually at this point in the discussion on Canadian political economy that some Trotskyist, revisionist or other opportunists interjects with a case for the “Canadian” monopoly capitalist class as the main enemy of the Canadian people, and even going so far as to say that Canada is an imperialist country itself.... (PCDN, Vol. 5, no. 8, p. I, August 27. 1976)
Because the social system in Canada is monopoly capitalism, this leads all these opportunists to push the COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARY thesis that the state of Canada is imperialist and that Canada is an imperialist power. (PCDN, Vol. 6, No. 48, p. 1, August 27, 1976)
For the Bainsites, denying that U.S. imperialism is the main enemy is bad enough, but to accuse our poor “dependent” bourgeoisie of being imperialists, well, that’s too much!
The Bainsites do not deny that monopoly capitalism exists in Canada; they just do not want to feel that “Canadians” were in some way responsible for it.[2]
Today, then, the social system can be described as state monopoly capitalism, i.e. a capitalist system overlaid with monopolies, mainly multinational U.S. imperialist corporations, in which the State operates as an executive committee of the most powerful finance capitalists participating, directing, financing, and controlling a large number of key economic sectors. (Political Resolutions 1977, p. 19)
Compare this with the quote above from 1970 and it is clear that the “adoption” of the general line of the international communist movement means nothing more than demagogic ammunition. The Bainsites have not changed anything. They continue to actively sabotage the revolution by propagating that Canada is not imperialist, that the development of monopoly capitalism in Canada was due entirely to external forces. It was supposedly imported to Canada, first from Great Britain and, following that, from the United States. The Bainsites preach that it was solely due to the importation of foreign capital that Canadian capitalism grew and flourished.
In “Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Canadian Capitalism,” in Lines of Demarcation no. 5, the Bolshevik Union lays this counterrevolutionary fallacy to rest. It is true that great amounts of capital were imported into Canada during the last three decades of the nineteenth century (the time of Canada’s first large industrial development). According to the Bainsites, the ratio of British to American capital in 1867 was 93% British to 7% American (PCDN, Vol. 5, No 19, January 11, 1975). The facts are that by 1900, British imperialism accounted for 85% of the capital in Canada while U.S. imperialism accounted for 14%. But of this money, which amounted to $1232 million in 1900, just over half, 52%, was invested in securities. By 1903, this percentage was risen to over 80%. Of the total capital invested in Canada between 1900 and 1913, 90% was invested in securities, i.e. portfolio investment. (Canada’s Balance of International Indebtedness 1900-1903, Jacob Vilner, Carleton Library, pp. 126, 284.) While we do not have figures for investment breakdowns between 1867-1900, Vilner is clear that it was not exceptional, in fact, it was the norm, for British investors to leave control of Canadian entreprises to the Canadian capitalists.
An example of this is the Canadian Pacific Railway. While Canadians only controlled 15% of the stock, effective control of the railroad remained in their hands. The only major exceptions to this, which Vilner points out, were the Grand Trunk Railway and Hudson’s Bay. What this means is that during the time of Canada’s take-off, while the British were clipping coupons, the Canadian capitalists were accumulating capital. The Canadian capitalists could use this capital to expand their plant as well as to buy back the securities from the British. The consequence of this is that the growing concentration of production and the merging of banking and industrial capital occured because of the laws of capitalist development. Canada’s development followed the same pattern as that of the other countries whose economies were transformed from competitive to monopoly in this period. The Canadian capitalists, who had control over the majority of this capital, emerged as imperialists in their own right.
In order to justify their own ignorance on this matter, the Bainsites find a quote from Mao. While they are quick to pull out figures to show the great quantity of capital invested in Canada during this period by the British, they can only apply it to the Chinese model. They ignore the crucial difference -– that Canadian capitalists were allowed to control their industries and accumulate capital. They compare the development of Canadian monopoly capitalism with that of China, as presented by Mao:
Central to the issue of the nature of state monopoly capitalism in any given country is the origin and development of this capital. “The state monopoly capitalism of old China differed from that in developed capitalist countries. The latter, by and large, reached the stage of state monopoly after passing through the stage of monopoly in general on the basis of the expansion of industrial production and the development of capitalism. It was different with the state monopoly capitalism of old China. Old China was a semi-colonial, semi-feudal country with an extremely backward economy. As a result of imperialist aggression, capitalist economy in general could not develop. State monopoly capitalism did not come into being on the basis of expansion of production and the growth of capitalist economy in general; it emerged full-blown by relying on imperialism, working hand in glove with the feudal forces, and using state power directly to plunder the working and peasant masses and other small producers as well as oppress the national bourgeoisie. (Mao, as quoted in Peking Review, March 3, 1961, p. 9. Quoted in PCDN, Vol. 5. No. 9, January 10, 1975)
In Lines of Demarcation no 5, we outline the development of various cartels in Canada – cotton, steel, coal, sugar refiners, oil refiners, salt, mining, paper, furniture manufacture, boot and shoes, etc.. etc., etc. To talk about the emergence of Canadian monopoly capitalism ”fullblown“ is a lot of demagoguery signifying nothing – nothing but a concerted attempt to distort the facts, to distort the history of Canadian capital in order to actively work for Canadian capital. The Bainsites are simply trying to justify the line which they had been carrying for twelve years (in their articles attacking MREQ). They believe they can do this by an application of “Mao Tsetung Thought” to Canada. They find that the British imported large amounts of capital into Canada, but they don’t investigate the essence of this capital. They remain on the surface. They rant and rave about finance capital, but they haven’t the slightest idea what the beast is. (For our developed position on the concentration of production in Canada, the emergence of finance capital, as well as a rundown on the attempts by the capitalist to organise into cartels – an attempt which was hardly “fullblown” emergence – we refer readers to “Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Canadian Capitalism.” in Lines of Demarcation no 5.)
But now the Bainsites face a dilemna. On the one hand they recognise the importance of the PLA in the struggle for the unity of the international communist movement; on the other hand, the PLA upholds the Comitern line on Canada as imperialist. Yet they have adamantly attacked this line since their inception. How are they attempting to resolve this contradiction?
The Third Congress of CPC(M-L) considers the Canadian state to be part and parcel of the world imperialist system of states – it is an oppressor state. (Political Resolutions 1977, p. 19).
Marxist-Leninists know that the imperialist system has a handful of oppressor countries and that the rest are oppressed. Marxist-Leninists know that those that are “oppressor” in this sense are imperialist. There are “oppressor“ countries of first importance, and a number of “oppressor” countries of secondary importance (countries that are oppressors but are also dependent to a greater or lesser degree upon the bigger imperialists). Lenin characterises some of these countries as having “transitional form of state dependence.” Such is the case for Canada. While the Canadian imperialists exploit various oppressed peoples and nations abroad, as well as its own colony within its borders, the Native north, Canada is also subject to immense penetration of U.S. capital. On one side of the coin are those who deny the importance of the penetration of U.S. imperialism. They deny that U.S. imperialism is one of the two main enemies of the Canadian proletariat. These metaphysicians are unable to understand the meaning of “transitional forms of state dependence” and deny that U.S. imperialism can share control of the Canadian state. They set the state itself up as the main enemy (in order to give their economic struggles as appearance of political content) and declare that the principal contradiction is between the Canadian bourgeoisie and the Canadian proletariat because of the formers’s allegeddly exclusive control of state power. They rehabilitate the revisionist line of the renegade Tim Buck.
The Bainsites chose the other side of the coin (tailing after Jack Scott). They see that the state is controlled also by U.S. imperialism, but they deny that the Canadian bourgeoisie has any control.
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., p. 19)
When the Bainsites characterise the Canadian state as an oppressor state, what do they mean?
When the state of the British colonialists was established in York in the 1790’s, it was established as an oppressor state and it established the capitalist mode of production in Upper Canada and wherever it expanded. The opportunists are on their knees on these questions. These questions – whether or not Canada is an oppressed state; whether or not Canada is dependent, and whether or not Canada is a colony proper – are not decided by the success or failure of the bourgeois democratic revolution. What is now Canada was established as an extension to this country of the socio-economic system and political forms of the English bourgeoisie. (Ibid., pp. 18-19)
Statements such as these could only have written out of total ignorance and anti-Marxism. Canada has had an oppressor state since before the transition of competitive capitalism to monopoly capitalism. Canada has had an oppressor state since the time of the industrial revolution. What the Bainsites are telling us is a fundamental principle of Marxism-Leninism, that the state is an instrument of oppression. But then so are all states. If the Canadian state served as a means of oppression, the same must also be said for the state of India, or any other of the British or others’ colonies. The Bainsites therefore eliminate the distinction between oppressor and oppressed in the imperialist system. All states in the imperialist system are oppressor states.
But they are also saying that Canada has an oppressor state because it was imposed upon the Canadians by the British. Canada “was established as an extension to this country of the socio-economic system and political forms of the English bourgeoisie.” And for bourgeois ideologues, the world is static, immutable, and unchanging. If the “socio-economic system and political forms” were initially just the extension of the English bourgeoisie, then, supposedly, they will remain that way!
The Bainsites are able to sow such confusion on this point, because they, too, deal with the state in the same manner as the other opportunists and anti-Marxists of our country. They talk almost exclusively about “the state,” “the oppressor state,” etc. But they character the economic system as “dependent” and “like a colony.” Because the state was supposedly imposed upon the Canadian people from without, it becomes, for the Bainsites, an oppressor state run by a comprador bourgeoisie. U.S. imperialism supposedly has exclusive control of this oppressor state, together with a handful of traitors and agents. The Canadian imperialist bourgeoisie thus becomes a national bourgeoisie struggling side by side with the proletariat for national liberation. The theory of “three worlds,” once again.
Throughout their history, the Bainsites have proven that they are active agents of the bourgeoisie. They have unceasingly put forward bourgeois nationalist politics of social-chauvinism, and class collaboration. The source of their counter-revolutionary political line is their feverish work to maintain their position of privilege based on imperialist superprofits. This collection of petty bourgeois knows where its privilege originates, and will do all in their power to keep the workers confused and backward. For when the working class understands Marxism-Leninism, when the working class becomes conscious and is organised into a revolutionary party, they will deal with the Bainsites swiftly and justly.
Has the “adoption” of the four contradictions, the “adoption” of the general line of the international communist movement, compelled them to change any of this?
No. It has not. Now, they present their counter-revolutionary work under the cover of the most recent defense of the purity of Marxism-Leninism, under the defense of the unity of the international communist movement from the splittng activities of the proponents of the theory of “three worlds.”
Their “Political Resolutions” are full of praise for Comrade Enver Hoxha, for the glorious Party of Labour of Albania, for the historic Report Submitted to the Seventh Congress of the PLA, for the developing fraternal relations between the Marxist-Leninist parties of the world, but this is mere eyewash, the red garments within which they attempt to hide the sinister attack which is the essence of their line, of their work since their inception.
We will tear off these red garments, and show that they are objectively the red coats of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, not Marxism-Leninism. Whether they are actually paid agents of the police does not matter. Such is the objective result of their line and their practice in Canada. We return to the four fundamental contradictions now, and compare them with the formulations by the Third Congress of the “CPC(M-L).”
The Bainsites formulate this contradiction in their Political Resolutions 1977 as follows: “the contradiction between socialist countries on the one hand and imperialism and social-imperialism on the other” (p. 23). As we saw earlier, the Bainsites reduce the socialist system to a collection of countries. Socialism is seen through nationalist blinders. A grave consequence of this erroneous formulation of this contradiction is the infantile babbling of the theoreticians of the “theory of three worlds” who are trying to eliminate the existence of socialism on the grounds of the treacherous betrayal of Marxism-Leninism by modern revisionism and the restoration of capitalism in many countries which were once socialist. Because these renegades base their analysis on “countries,” such a setback seems insurmontable. This causes panic amoung these wobbling elements, and they begin to preach that the revolution is impossible. Revolutionary activity is supposedly hopeless, and so the proletariat must make unprincipled compromises with so powerful an enemy. The proponents of “three worlds” preach revolutionary defeatism and attempt to sow the seeds of counter-revolution.
Contrast this with the revolutionary optimism expressed by the five European Parties in their Joint Declaration:
In this theory, the importance of socialist countries for the international proletariat and the world communist movement is completely negated. Despite this, for the world communist movement and the international proletariat the existence of the socialist countries constitutes their greatest historic victory. And even though, due to the betrayal of the modern revisionists, the socialist camp does not exist today, as it emerged after the Second World War. this does not alter this fact. Even if little socialist Albania were the only socialist country in the world, it would be of very great importance for the international proletariat and the world communist movement in general, because the dictatorship of the proletariat has been established in that country, socialism has been transformed into a reality, and the oppression and exploitation of the working class have been liquidated. Therefore, even if, in fact, it were the only socialist country in the world, Albania would represent the aspirations, hopes and aims of the international proletariat and would be a bastion of the world revolution confronting imperialism and the old world of oppression and exploitation. (“Joint Statement.” Albania Today 6 (37), 1977, p. 51)
Compare the confidence in the victory of the international proletariat proclaimed by these Marxist-Leninist parties with the defeatism of the theoreticians of “three worlds,” who have panicked and capitulated to the attacks of modern revisionism. Compare this confident revolutionary optimism, based on a real understanding of the fact that we are in the era of proletarian revolution, with the cowardice that calls for the oppressed peoples and nations to unite with the imperialists of the so-called “second world” as well as with the fascists, feudalists, landowners, and compradors who subjugate them to the whims and needs of imperialism, that calls upon the international proletariat to give up their revolutionary struggles and link arms with their exploiters, in order to pave the way for the “peaceful” transition to a “New International Economic Order.”
“Even if little socialist Albania were the only socialist country in the world”, she exists to inspire the people who are still fighting against oppression and exploitation, she exists to inspire those who are battling with modern revisionism and opportunism, she exists to inspire those who realise that the revolution is a protracted process, that there are bound to be zig-zags and temporary set-backs before the bourgeoisie is wiped from the face of the earth.
By deforming this contradiction to the contradiction with the socialist countries, the Bainsites negate the importance of the life-and-death struggle between two fundementally antagonistic social systems; they negate the contradiction which ties all the other contradictions into a single knot. Thus the Bainsites do not attack the interests of the theoreticians of “three worlds”; on the contrary, they serve those interests.
The Bainsites characterise Canada as “like a colony, its capitalism is a dependent capitalism and its state is dominated by U.S. imperialism.” How does such a characterisation affect the contradiction between the proletariat and rhe bourgeoisie in our country? It liquidates it. Instead, the Bainsites continue to call for an alliance with the “national” bourgeoisie against imperialism.
The social revolution in Canada is against both the U.S. imperialists and the reactionary bourgeoisie and against the capitalist system, (p. 20) If the Bainsites were really interested in overthrowing capitalism, they would include in their enemies the bourgeoisie as a class. But they draw a distinction between the reactionary bourgeoisie and the national bourgeoisie. Even their use of the term “reactionary bourgeoisie” belies their real interests. In the Report Submitted to the 7th Congress of the PLA and other documents from the international communist movement since that time, the term “reactionary bourgeoisie” means those comprador bourgeoisies in non-imperialist countries such as those in Asia, Africa and Latin America. The Bainsites obviously consider that Canada has more in common with them that the countries of Europe.
The social base of reaction in Canada is the reactionary bourgeoisie, that is the big bourgeoisie, that which is solely Canadian and that which is simply the extension of the U.S. big bourgeoisie. This big bourgeoisie controls and monopolizes everything and is quite distinct from the national bourgeoisie. (Ibid. p. 19)
Here they talk of a “solely Canadian” reactionary bourgeoisie, but further on in the same paragraph they write:
To these opportunists, the meaning of the term “national bourgeoisie” refers to a capitalist or monopoly capitalist who is Canadian.... Such a “national bourgeoisie” cannot exist in Canada as the big bourgeoisie because of the entire historical development of Canada, (pp. 19-20)
They present us with the existence of a solely Canadian big bourgeoisie and the impossibility of such an animal in the same paragraph!
What, of course, they really believe is that, no, there are no Canadian monopolists, much less imperialists. Therefore, their revolution becomes a revolution against only the “U.S. imperialists and the reactionary bourgeoisie” (who are entirely “comprador”) and not against the capitalist system.
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 wiridbaggery. There is nothing of substance in it. (p. 20)
The Bainsites want a two-stage revolution, just as does the revisionist party of Canada. They are postponing the revolution against capitalism until after the revolution against imperialism. This, we will recall, comes from their thesis that imperialism is something distinct from capitalism, and not the highest and final stage of capitalism. In reality, the Bainsites drop the second contradiction, the contradiction between labour and capital, in the same fashion as the proponents of the theory of “three worlds.” Again, rather than defeat this pernicious theory, they actively reconcile with it.
In the Political Resolutions 1977, this contradiction is formulated: “the contradiction between the oppressed nations on the one hand and imperialism on the other.” (p. 23) What happened to the oppressed peoples of the world? Are they not exploited and oppressed by imperialism? The example of the Native people in Canada provides an excellent case of how the Bainsites apply this contradiction. And in practice, we find the not too surprising result, that they do not recognise the “oppressed peoples.” This leaves some question as to how much support they would actually give to the “oppressed nations.”
But the social-chauvinists of our country, and this includes the Bainsites, do not recognise the Native people as an oppressed people. They call the Native people a national minority and “promise” the “restoration of the hereditary rights of the Native people.” (p. 68) What are these hereditary rights? What is this thing called “hereditary rights”?
To yell loudly about the “hereditary rights” of Native people in Canada is to try consciously to drown out the fundamental question of imperialist oppression: do the peoples oppressed by imperialism have the right to self-determination? Or must they submit to the dictates of the metropolises? Since the Bainsites see Canada itself as one oppressed colony, and deny the imperialist nature of the Canadian bourgeoisie, of course they have no basis in their counter-revolutionary analysis to recognise the right of Native Canada to self-determination. But rather than being open about their analysis of Native Canada, which would interfere with their historically active and expensive struggle to win hegemony over the Native movement, buy the following of Native Marxists-Leninists and split them from their people, the Bainsites conceal their true line on Native people by yelling about “hereditary rights.”
The petty bourgeoisie must protect its position of privilege. It must protect the sources of this privilege, including the superprofits extracted from Canada’s colony, the Native north. “Hereditary rights” must mean that the social-chauvinists will honour the treaties signed by the Native people with their Canadian exploiters. The social-chauvinists will guarantee to the Native people the same “rights” which the invading bourgeoisie granted to them, that is, the right to reserves, the right to the land on which to hunt, fish and maintain their culture. In return for this “honourable” act, the Native people will forfeit the remainder of the north which will allow the imperialists to exploit the wealth which it contains. Maybe the social-chauvinists will even promise the Native people jobs extracting this wealth. An abundant source of cheap labour!
The experience of the Caravan in 1974 shows concretely how the Bainsites deal with “oppressed peoples.” We wrote in our article “Nationhood or Genocide,” published in Canadian Revolution no. 4:
CPC(ML) took the position that, having provided thousands of dollars worth of support to Native people during the Caravan, they were now entitled to ownership rights over the Native movement. The Native people got CPC(ML)’s usual fare. CPC(ML) offered support for specific activities, with strings attached; they used the carrot and the stick, alternatively praising and denouncing them; they did not discuss with Native leaders the Party’s political line on the Native question (that is, that Native people are a national minority), and would not tell them even when asked, for quite a long period of time; they told them that if they were not with the “Party” they were not Marxist-Leninists; they discouraged them from doing their own independent investigations on certain subjects and told them that “we will tell you what you need to know”; they split and wrecked the Native movement for their own hegemonic ends. (CR-4, pp. 54-55)
This information was obtained in conversations we have had with members of the Native movement who were directly involved with the “CPC(ML).” The ’Bainsites’ anti-communist activities are a direct result of the chauvinist line which they carry. If the Native people were in fact a national minority, it would indeed be correct for them to subordinate their separate struggles to the struggle of “the working class as a whole.” i.e., the Party in all its revolutionary activities. But if this is not the case, and we have established through thorough analysis that it is not. then the struggles of the Native people against imperialism are entirely sabotaged by the “national minority” line. Evidence of the “extremely sympathetic attitude” which the Bainsites have for the oppression of the Native people, no doubt! They continue:
The proletariat takes an extremely sympathetic attitude towards the Native people and considers them as allies of the proletariat against the reactionary bourgeoisie. But this alliance also must not be confused with the basic alliance that exists between the proletariat and the poor and small farmers. It is a special alliance coming out of the objective conditions of the Native people that calls for immediate restoration of the hereditary rights of the Native people, (pp. 69-70)
Again the Bainsites deny that the Native people are an oppressed people. Their alliance with the proletariat is supposedly of a “special” type. It is not the alliance of the small and poor farmers. What can this mean? Marxism-Leninism teaches that the oppressed peoples and nations are the strategic reserves of the proletarian revolution. As the five European Parties phrased it in their Joint Declaration:
The national liberation and anti-imperialist movement of the oppressed peoples continues to strike telling blows at imperialism and represents the biggest strategic reserve of the proletarian revolution in our epoch. (“Joint Statement,” Albania Today 6 (37). 1977, p. 48)
Can this “special alliance” be the alliance between the proletariat and oppressed people?
The proletariat vigorously fights for the restoration of the hereditary rights of the Native people and takes this as one of its strategic tasks. (p. 70)
It is the task of oppressed people to take its struggle for liberation into its own hands. The proletariat of another country, or nation, can not hand it its victory on a silver platter. There can be no revolutionary unity between nations which is not freely consented to. The Bainsites obviously mean this “special alliance” to mean the hegemony of the proletariat, read “Party,” over the Native peoples’ struggle.
Because the principal contradiction in the North opposes not just the proletariat but the masses of Native people to Canadian and American imperialism, the inherent character of the Native struggle takes on a two-stage form. This means that certain national tasks, the consolidation and defense of the Native nation, must be centralised in the struggle for Native liberation. Unity between Native Canada and the Canadian proletariat in the south must be based on this understanding, and on the recognition of the right of Native Canada to self-determination.
Not for the Bainsites. They propagate social-chauvinism and deny the third contradiction.
It goes without saying that if a group cannot determine what countries are imperialist and what countries are not imperialist, it will have an immense difficulty utilising the contradictions between imperialist powers correctly. The Bainsites call for the Canadian people, including those “progressive” members of the big bourgeoisie such as the Committee for an Independent Canada, to unite to defeat U.S. imperialism and acheive national independence. What is this but the same strategy called for by the proponents of the theory of “three worlds”?
The Bainsites drop the fourth contradiction.
Can we say that the Bainsites correctly apply the four contradictions? Can we say that the Bainsites are defending the general line of the international communist movement? Can we say that they are speaking the truth when they claim to “have stood steadfast in defense of the purity of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism”? (PCDN, Vol. 7, no. 272, p. 2, November 10,1977)
The obvious, and only answer to these questions is no. It should be clear that the Bainsites have no idea whatsoever about imperialism. But the bourgeoisie is always obscuring the issue, trying to divert, subvert, and split the revolutionary forces from their task of making revolution. For the Bainsites, this amounts to calling for a war of national liberation from U.S. imperialism, based on the “granite” foundation of their analysis which tells them that Canada has been ruled by the monopoly bourgeoisie since and before, 1867. For the Bainsites, any and all talk of Canadian imperialism is revisionist, trotskyite, reformist, and counter-revolutionary.
The Bolshevik Union, for our part, will resolutely defend the Comintern and its analysis; we will defend it because it is correct. The Bolshevik Union will staunchly support the glorious Party of Labour of Albania, when the Bainsites tell us by implication that it, too, is trotskyite and counter-revolutionary. The Bolshevik Union will continue to stand with and support the oppressed peoples and nations when the Bainsites abandon their struggle to the hegemony of the compradors in their midst and the labour aristocracy in the metropolises.
The Bolshevik Union will continue to defend the purity of Marxism-Leninism from the attacks upon it by counter-revolutionary sects such as the “Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist).”
[1] “CCL(ML)”, the Canadian Counter-Revolutionary League (Social-Fascist)“: An Exposure of the Canadian Agents of the Revisionist and Counter-Revolutionary Theory of “Three Worlds,” by the Bolshevik Union.
[2] This is also the line of Jack Scott and the Red Star Collective. We noted earlier that the Bainsites did no independent analysis of the Canadian political economy until well into the 1970’s.