The struggle to defeat the theory of “three worlds” has been gaining in intensity and strength since the historic Seventh Congress of the Party of Labour of Albania. The Marxist-Leninist Parties and organizations throughout the world are forging a militant and impregnable unity in their efforts to unmask this counterrevolutionary theory. Numerous bilateral and multilateral meetings have been held by the Latin American and the European Parties, meetings which have been marked by joint declarations affirming that Marxism-Leninism remains the guiding revolutionary theory of the international proletariat.
The important editorial from Zeri i Popullit, “The Theory and Practice of the Revolution” published on July 7, 1977. signaled an important step in this struggle. The PLA painstakingly proves in this document that the theory of “three worlds” has nothing in common with Marxism-Leninism, that it actively seeks to bring the national liberation struggles of the oppressed peoples and nations under the hegemony of the reactionary regimes of the so-called “third world,” and that it similarly seeks to quell the rising struggle of the international proletariat in the imperialist and capitalist countries in order to facilitate the unity of the so-called “second world.” Basing itself firmly on the teachings of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, the PLA proved without a doubt that the theory of “three worlds” is a new current of revisionism, compatible with Titoite revisionism, actively seeking to collaborate with US imperialism against the supposedly “more dangerous” Soviet social-imperialism.
The surge which the PLA editorial gave to the struggle to defeat this newest current of modern revisionism has been a surge felt throughout the world.
The so-called “Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist)” claims to be the authentic party of the Canadian proletariat. It claims to be the Marxist-Leninist opponent of the theory of “three worlds” in Canada. But we must examine their claim from the following perspective. If there existed in fact an authentic Communist Party in Canada, what would be its tasks in carrying this struggle forward in our country? The Canadian proletariat has the right to expect that this party would devote much effort to making the people in Canada aware of the importance of this struggle; would conscientiously expose the proponents of this “theory” in Canada, detailing the counter-revolutionary application of this strategy in the context of Canadian conditions. It would have the right to expect that this party explain the great importance of the Zeri i Popullit editorial, elaborating in detail its concrete implications in the tasks of making revolution in Canada and the world.
These tasks would be all the more important if this authentic party had a daily newspaper, to put the various struggles of the oppressed peoples and nations and the international proletariat into the context of the struggle against the theory of “three worlds”, to show how the theory of “three worlds” works to thwart the revolutionary aspirations of the international socialist camp.
It would be the revolutionary duty of this party to fulfill these tasks. In short, the Canadian proletariat would have the right to expect that this authentic party would take up a meaningful and concrete struggle against the theory of “three worlds” in its own country. The so-called “Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist),” however, in fact simply abandons this historic struggle to a few scattered phrases which generally denounce the evils of the theory of “three worlds” with a great show of fanfare but without any real analysis or application. In particular, this so-called Party has now been clinging with a new burst of vigour to the very analysis of Canada which comes from and expresses the counter-revolutionary strategy of “three worlds.”
The Portuguese Communist Party (Reconstructed) received the editorial, “The Theory and Practice of the Revolution,” shortly before its Second Plenary of the Central Committee. Basing itself upon this editorial and upon Enver Hoxha’s historic Report Submitted to the Seventh Congress of the PLA, the PCP(R) issued this call to the Party: “Learn from the example of the PLA – such is the directive given by the Central Committee to the whole Party as this struggle begins.”
What is the example of the PLA in this struggle against the theory of “three worlds”? What is the example which the Marxist-Leninists are supposed to emulate? It is that of unflinching and unremitting struggle against all attacks upon the purity of Marxism-Leninism. The PLA has never left the barricade, and has remained in the front line of attack. This tiny country has withstood every assault launched against her by all the great powers of the imperialist world, and its lackeys such as Tito. The Khrushchevite revisionists were unable to bring her to her knees. The constant intrigues of the Titoite revisionists have been unable to find a crack in her defense. The manipulations of US imperialism have been unable to make her come begging for credits and aid. The Albanian people have remained, and will remain, true to the promise of Comrade Shehu in his speech of November 28, 1977:
We, the Albanian communists and our entire people have given our great word of honour to Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, and our Party and people will keep this word today and forever, generation after generation, ready and determined to make any sacrifice, to do the impossible, in order to defend the party line, Marxism-Leninism. Those who think and hope that the Albanians will not live up to their word and the Albanian communists may come back on their pledge of loyalty towards Marxism-Leninism, are gravely mistaken and history will cover them with shame. (Socialist Albania Will Never Budge from its Revolutionary Positions, Mehmet Shehu, Tirana 1977, pp. 14-15)
In the struggle against the theory of “three worlds”, the PLA has devoted great time and energy to the explication of the problems facing Marxist-Leninists and the path by which they must proceed. In virtually every major speech and document, this great Party relates the problem at hand concretely to the struggle to defeat the theory of “three worlds.” The PLA stands unafraid, for Marxism-Leninism is strong enough to survive all attacks and all obstacles.
Have the Bainsites fulfilled the revolutionary duty of Marxist-Leninists in the present situation? Do they follow the shining example of the PLA? The very suggestion is absurd. The Bainsites published the Zeri i Popullit editorial without comment, other than the obligatory “PCDN calls on all our readers to seriously and conscientiously study this editorial, which defends and upholds the correct Marxist-Leninist line on the international situation against all opportunist and revisionist deviations.” That’s it. That is as far as the “vanguard of the proletariat” in Canada is willing to go to clarify a complex and demanding situation of the world proletarian revolution. The Bainsites are like the doctor who advises a dying patient: “Take two aspirins and call me in the morning.” The Bainsites, of course, are on the golf course when the patient returns the call.
It is very important for the political careers of the Bainsites to ignore the revolutionary duty of Marxist-Leninists, to ignore the very real lessons which the struggle against the theory of “three worlds” teaches to authentic Marxist-Leninists. The “CPC(ML)” must ensure that the struggle against the theory of “three worlds” is not understood. To understand the theory of “three worlds” would be to expose the “CPC(ML)”, because the politics of the Bainsites are precisely the politics of “three worlds”.
The Bainsites have published this great editorial, and have made a great show of pretending to adhere to the general line of the international communist movement, in a last hope attempt to gain a certain international credibility as a cover for their counter-revolutionary activities in Canada. But as part and parcel of their opportunist exploitation of the growing unity of the international communist movement, the Bainsites must also refuse to make this document and its implications clear to the Canadian proletariat and the Canadian working masses.
The “CPC(ML)”’s first article on the theory of “three worlds” to appear after its publication of the Zeri i Popullit editorial was an article published two days later, on July 26, 1977. Do the Bainsites perhaps take up their revolutionary duty at this point? Again, of course not. There is no mention of the Zeri i Popullit editorial. Instead, they attempt to whitewash their own history, their previous positions on the situation in Canada and the world, positions which were so far from being Marxist-Leninist that we hesitate to say that they were even revisionist.
For example, the Bainsites attack the theoreticians of “three worlds” for “deny(ing) the existence of the four fundamental contradictions in this era.... ” (PCDN, July 26, 1977, p. 4), just forgetting to mention that themselves made no mention of these same four fundamental contradictions until 1975, at which point these were introduced in a manner deformed beyond recognition. It is clear that this practice on their part is a mere continuation in the unceasing struggle by the “CPC(ML)” against Marxism-Leninism, in its unceasing struggle to camouflage its counterrevolutionary history in red paint. The principal concern of the Bainsites is the bolstering of the careerist interests of this phony so-called “Party,” and Marxism-Leninism be damned. If a few people are deceived by their rhetoric, then this would only put them in a better position to defeat the Marxist-Leninists who are in fact defending the purity of Marxism-Leninism.
We note here that in their summation of the year 1977, published on January 2, 1978, the Bainsites characterize this article as being of great importance in the struggle to defeat the theory of “three worlds” in Canada.
The article vigorously denounced the anti-Leninist theory of ’three worlds’ and the opportunists who promote it in Canada. (PCDN, vol. 8, no. 1)
While the article may have been a “vigourous denunciation”, it did little to explain the theory of “three worlds” concretely.
Let us investigate this article more closely, considering the importance which the Bainsites attach to it. It begins with a celebration of the Bainsites’ “mass democracies”:
The main theme of mass democracy was to resolutely defend Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism and to usher in the period of planned and conscious dissemination of the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao Tsetung and of Comrade Enver Hoxha and other revolutionary literature from China and Albania. This mass democratic meeting (on July 26, 1968) in which hundreds of progressive people participated, was a big blow to Castroism and other brands of opportunism, as well as a big defeat of modern revisionism. The mass democracy meeting acted as a big impetus to the growth of the Marxist-Leninist communist movement in Canada. The style and method of mass democracy was developed by the Internationalists as a method to defend the purity of Marxism-Leninism and all brands of opportunism right in the midst of the masses. (PCDN, vol. 7, no 177, July 26, 1977)
The disappearance of “Castroism” from the Canadian political spectrum is taken as proof of the “defense of the purity of Marxism-Leninism” by the “CPC(ML).”
Nine years later, while Castroism has suffered a crushing defeat and is no longer a significant opportunist ideology in Canada, other brands of opportunism have sprung up to divert the revolutionary masses from taking up Marxism-Leninism as the theoretical guide to action. (Ibid.)
No need to wonder who delivered this “crushing defeat”! Such are the lengths our “vanguard” must go to in order to prove its “revolutionary” credentials. The single most important contribution to the “defeat” of Castroism in Canada was the October crisis and the application of the War Measures Act. It was no coincidence that members of the FLQ ended up in Cuba. The Bainsites prefer to remain in their dream world.
From here, the Bainsites move on to their supposed “vigorous struggle” against the theory of “three worlds.” Marxist-Leninists know that the struggle to defeat this “theory” is a multi-faceted struggle. It must be waged on all fronts because it is precisely on all fronts that we need to make the revolution. The Bainsites reduce the struggle against the theory of “three worlds” to one side:
The central fundamental point at issue is the definition and character of our epoch. The modern revisionists and opportunists of all hues have revised Marxism-Leninism on this central and fundamental issue.
Our Party has always upheld the view that the definition and character of our epoch is the transition from capitalism to socialism.
We were loyal to Marxism-Leninism when we correctly upheld during our Congresses that the world is divided into two irreconcilable camps and that the historical trend in our epoch is the transition from capitalism to socialism. The strategy and tactics of the proletariat in Canada are based on recognizing this central and fundamental point. That is why we place the international proletariat at the centre of the present situation and consider class struggle as the motive force of historical development. (Ibid., p. 11)
We have shown above that these claims are completely phoney. When the Bainsites saw the world as divided into two, the division was based on imperialism vs. anti-imperialism. The proletarian revolution was liquidated or at best seen as part of the larger “world anti-imperialist revolution.” This aspect of their line has not changed. They still base their strategy and tactics on a “world anti-imperialist revolution” of which the first stage of the Canadian revolution is part – the struggle against U.S. imperialism and the so-called “reactionary bourgeoisie.”
Because the national liberation struggles of the oppressed peoples and nations are the main ally of the international proletariat (with the socialist countries), the Bainsites can utilize terminology such as “reactionary bourgeoisie” and provide a smokescreen for the patent absurdity of comparing the struggle in Canada with that of the oppressed nations and peoples putting forward the banner of “independence, democracy and socialism.” A history of bourgeois nationalist groups clearly indicates that over time such a slogan is reduced to mere “independence” (the Waffle is an excellent example of this trend). While the Bainsites are clever enough to continue promoting “socialism” in words, they in actions promote merely “independence” (for the Canadian bourgeoisie).
This is seen in the “struggle” they wage with the proponents of the theory of “three worlds” in Canada. Their article of July 26 ends as follows:
These theoreticians of “three worlds” also falsify the stage of revolution in Canada and they are opposed to considering the banner of independence, democracy and socialism as the banner of proletarian revolution, or that the transition from capitalism to socialism is the main character of the revolution in Canada. They also blunt the sharp edge of proletarian revolution when they exclude US imperialism as the main external enemy. In defining the main enemy neither can the Marxist-Leninists forget about the reactionary bourgeoisie of Canada nor can they suggest that US imperialism is not the main enemy of the Canadian proletariat and people. By using demagogy and left phrases, they only see the struggle between “the proletariat and bourgeoisie” in the abstract, in order to attack the real struggle of the proletariat to mobilize all the people against the US imperialists and the reactionary bourgeoisie of Canada and bring about the transition from capitalism to socialism. The main struggle in Canada is the struggle for socialism (!!!) This struggle for socialism is the struggle both against the reactionary bourgeoisie and its monopoly capitalist system and US imperialism. (Ibid., p. 5)
This is a brilliant example of anti-Marxism developing in the struggle against anti-Marxism in order to better defeat Marxism. According to the Bainsites, the proponents of the theory of “three worlds“ in Canada: 1) “falsify the stage of revolution in Canada”; 2) “oppose independence, democracy and socialism”; 3) deny “that the transition from capitalism to socialism is the main character of the revolution in Canada”; 4) “see the struggle between ’the proletariat and bourgeoisie’ in the abstract” in order to 5) “attack the real struggle of the proletariat to mobilize all the people against the US imperialists and the reactionary bourgeoisie in Canada.
The first thing to understand is that the above has nothing to do with the political exposure of the theory of “three worlds.” It is instead an attack on the Marxist-Leninist analysis of Canada as imperialist. Thus the Bainsites assert initially that the theory of “three worlds” denies that we are in the first of a two-stage revolution. But this is incorrect. The theory of “three worlds” denies the revolution in its entirety. The theory of “three worlds” promotes the unity of the Canadian proletariat with our own imperialists in their plunder of the oppressed peoples and nations and against the hegemony of the superpowers. This is also the line of the Bainsites, who wish to ally with Canadian imperialism against US imperialism and their category of the so-called “reactionary bourgeoisie”. Thus they continue to assert that US imperialism is the main enemy of the Canadian “people.” While the League collaborates by claiming that the Canadian bourgeoisie is “independent” of US imperialism and can thus be of use in the struggle against the “hegemony” of the superpowers, the Bainsites are claiming to be closer to Marxism-Leninism because they “only” wish to collaborate with the supposed “nationalist” sections of the Canadian bourgeoisie.
The Bolshevik Union has proven (in Lines of Demarcation no. 1 and elsewhere) that the League and In Struggle do in fact “only see the struggle between ’the proletariat and bourgeoisie’ in the abstract,” in their formulations of the principal contradiction. But the use of such a statement by the Bainsites is diversion and serves to attack the characterisation of Canada as imperialist.
What does this “polemic,” taken as a whole, amount to? It equates the theory of “three worlds” with the recognition of Canada as an imperialist country and the opposition to a two-stage revolution in Canada! Anyone at all familiar with the theory of “three worlds” will recognize the diversionist character of these arguments. For the proponents of this “theory,” it is precisely not such details which make any difference at all. The theory of “three worlds” prescribes the same strategy for all countries, be they the US, those of the so-called “second world,” or those of the so-called “third world”. In fact, it prescribes the same strategy for all countries with the sole exception of the “main danger” – the Soviet Union. It denies all revolutions, be they one or two-stage. It liquidates the difference between imperialist and capitalist countries, between oppressor and oppressed.
The struggle against the theory of “three worlds” waged so vociferously by the “CPC(ML)” in this article is nothing but an attack on Marxism-Leninism. Surprise, surprise.
Their “vigourous denunciation” was so effective that the Bainsites did not feel compelled to dwell again on the topic until September! It is over one month before the Bainsites resume their “attacks” on the most recent current of revisionism in the world. And what do these masters of the historical rewrite and “vigourous denunciation” have to say?
An ideological struggle against the anti-Leninist “theory of three worlds” has broken out in the Internationa! Communist Movement. Whoseoever keeps quiet about this matter and does not take his responsibility of attacking the opportunist and revisionist theory of “three worlds” cannot be called a genuine Marxist-Leninist and a revolutionary. (PCDN. September 5. 1977)
Straight from the horse’s mouth.
The group which has led the great silence about the theory of “three worlds” comes out and promotes itself with appeals to the great struggle of the genuine Marxist-Leninists around the world.
On September 10th, the “CPC(ML)” held a rally in Montreal to denounce the theory of “three worlds”. And not only did they “vigorously denounce” it, they even plucked up the courage to pass a resolution which “vigorously denounced” it! Picture the scene. The Party press had been waging a vigorous silence since the appearance of “The Theory and Practice of the Revolution.” The faithful had gathered in Montreal. In strides their “Chairman”, fashionably late, to a crowd which rises and shows its unbounded love for Bains. The “Chairman” begins to talk, the words flow freely. In a rousing display of demagogy, with the bravura of P.T. Barnum, the “Chairman” explains the theory of “three worlds” to his flock. Swept away, the assembled vote the resolution. It passes! The theory of “three worlds” is resoundingly defeated! Canada is saved!
Can any greater contempt for the life-and-death struggle being waged by the Marxist-Leninist Parties be imagined? Any greater contempt for the fierce and unceasing struggle being waged by the PLA to preserve and enrich the correct socialist development of its country against the constant blows being directed towards Albania by the imperialist-revisionist encirclement?
All this means nothing for the Bainsites because their main task remains the defeat of Marxism-Leninism and socialism. They actively aid the imperialist-revisionist encirclement. They are part of the imperialist-revisionist encirclement of Albania. It is their counterrevolutionary duty, the task charged to them by their imperialist-revisionist masters, to defeat the construction of socialism, the revolution of the international proletariat and the national liberation struggles of the oppressed peoples and nations for freedom and sovereignty.
By the 15th of September, the Bainsites are able to announce:
The international trend of opportunism, floated by the imperialists, which upholds the counter-revolutionary theory of “three worlds,” has been thoroughly exposed and repudiated in Canada by CPC(ML). This has been a big setback to international opportunism, and a great victory for Marxism-Leninism, and for the revolution. The “genuine” Marxist-Leninist opportunist sects in Canada which support and reconcile with the “three worlds” theory are in total disarray and their splittist dirty work in the service of the bourgeoisie has been struck a hard blow. (PCDN vol. 7, no 221, p. 5)
Through the courage and great willpower of our idealist “comrades,” the theory of “three worlds” has already been “thoroughly exposed and repudiated in Canada.” We have shown that this “great victory” was not the result of hard work or all-sided political exposure. Their paper remained silent. We are left to assume that it was Bains’ “stirring” speech on September 10, and the resolution which was passed, which struck this “hardblow.”
September 15 also marks the first day of a series of articles entitled “Hold High the Bright Red Banner of Marxism-Leninism and Proletarian Internationalism.” According to PCDN, in this article “the theory of ’three worlds’ and its proponents were resolutely exposed and denounced. They write:
The struggle against the theoreticians of “three worlds” and the supporters of Teng Hsiao-ping is complicated as they behave like chameleons who change their colours according to the situation in order to deceive the revolutionary forces. Just a few years ago, they were opposed to Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought. But now they are putting forward “Mao Tsetung Thought” in opposition to Marxism-Leninism. The spearhead of their attack is against the theory of Marx, Engels. Lenin. Stalin. Mao Tsetung and Enver Hoxha. They go so far to oppose Marxism-Leninism that they state THAT “MARX AND ENGELS FOUNDED THE DOCTRINE OF SCIENTIFIC SOCIALISM AND THE PRINCIPLES OF THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT. BUT THEY HAD NO EXPERIENCE OF THE VICTORY OF THE PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION AND THEREFORE SUCH A QUESTION HAD NEVER BEEN POSED FOR THEM IN A CONCRETE WAY.” If one goes by this agnostic brainless philosophical logic, then Marx and Engels “had no experience of the victory of scientific socialism either, “and therefore such a question”, that is the founding of the doctrine of scientific socialism could “never have been posed for them in a concrete way”. Lenin pointed out “that many idealists and all agnostics... call the materialists metaphysicians, because it seems to them that to recognise the existence of an external world independent of the human mind is to transcend the bounds of experience”. Thus, how could the question of proletarian revolution “have been posed” for Marx and Engels “in a concrete way”, when it was not in the “bounds” of their experience! By pursuing this agnostic brainless philosophical logic, they not only dismiss Marx and Engels, but also dismiss Lenin who “died too early to see with his own eyes the completion of the socialist transformation of the ownership of the means of production and it was impossible for him to answer the question” of class struggle under conditions of socialism “clearly and definitively”. And, of course, Stalin is dismissed because “theoretically he did not acknowledge that after the collectivisation of agriculture, the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie and between the socialist road and the capitalist road continued in the Soviet Union.” And the historical experience of the dictatorship of the proletariat in Albania does not count.
Every word the theoreticians of the “three worlds” utter is a lie. It is a deliberate and calculated lie in order to hit at Marxism-Leninism under the hoax of being followers of “Mao Tsetung Thought”. (PCDN, Vol. 7, no. 221, September 15, 1977, p. 1)
Compare the above with the following from the ardent supporters of “Mao Tsetung Thought”:
THIS GREAT HISTORIC DOCUMENT CREATIVELY DEVELOPED MARXISM-LENINISM AND SOLVED THE QUESTION OF REVOLUTION UNDER THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT. Marx and Engels founded the theory of scientific socialism. Lenin and Stalin developed Marxism, solved a series of questions of the proletarian revolution in the era of imperialism and solved the theoretical and practical questions of establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat in one country. Chairman Mao Tsetung developed Marxism-Leninism, solved a series of questions of the proletarian revolution in the present era and solved the theoretical and practical questions of carrying on the revolution and preventing a restoration of capitalism under the dictatorship of the proletariat. These are three monumental milestones in the history of the development of Marxism.
THE QUESTIONS WHICH CHAIRMAN MAO TSETUNG SOLVED WERE: ARE THERE STILL CLASSES AND CLASS STRUGGLE IN A SOCIALIST SOCIETY. PARTICULARLY AFTER THE SOCIALIST TRANSFORMATION OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION HAS IN THE MAIN BEEN ACCOMPLISHED? DO ALL THE CLASS STRUGGLES IN SOCIETY STILL CENTRE AROUND THE QUESTION OF THE FIGHT OVER POLITICAL POWER? UNDER THE CONDITIONS OF THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT, DOES THE PROLETARIAT STILL HAVE TO MAKE REVOLUTION? Marx and Engels could not possibly solve this series of major theoretical problems at their time. Lenin saw that after the proletariat seized power, the defeated bourgeoisie remainded stronger than the proletariat and was always trying to stage a come-back. At the same time, small production continuously engendered capitalism and the bourgeoisie anew, thus posing a threat to the dictatorship of the proletariat. These are three monumental milestones in the history of the development of Marxism.
THE QUESTIONS WHICH CHAIRMAN MAO TSETUNG SOLVED WERE: ARE THERE STILL CLASSES AND CLASS STRUGGLE IN A SOCIALIST SOCIETY, PARTICULARLY AFTER THE SOCIALIST TRANSFORMATION OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION HAS IN THE MAIN BEEN ACCOMPLISHED? DO ALL THE CLASS STRUGGLES IN SOCIETY STILL CENTRE AROUND THE QUESTION OF THE FIGHT OVER POLITICAL POWER? UNDER THE CONDITIONS OF THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT, DOES THE PROLETARIAT STILL HAVE TO MAKE REVOLUTION? Marx and Engels could not possibly solve this series of major theoretical problems at their time. Lenin saw that after the proletariat seized power, the defeated bourgeoisie remained stronger than the proletariat and was always trying to stage a come-back. At the same time, small production continuously engendered capitalism and the bourgeoisie anew, thus posing a threat to the dictatorship of the proletariat. In order to cope with this counterrevolutionary threat and overcome it, it was therefore necessary to strengthen the dictatorship of the proletariat over a longer period of time. There was no other way. However, LENIN DIED BEFORE HE COULD SOLVE THESE PROBLEMS IN PRACTICE. Stalin was a great Marxist-Leninist who actually did clear out a large number of counter-revolutionary representatives of the bourgeoisie who had sneaked into the Party, including Trotsky. Zinoviev, Kamenev, Radek. Bukharin, Rykov, and their like. BUT WHERE HE FAILED WAS IN NOT RECOGNIZING ON THE LEVEL OF THEORY, THAT CLASSES AND CLASS STRUGGLE EXIST IN SOCIETY THROUGHOUT THE HISTORICAL PERIOD OF THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT AND THAT THE QUESTION OF WHO WILL WIN IN THE REVOLUTION HAS YET TO BE FINALLY SETTLED; in other words, if all is not handled properly there is still the possibility of a come-back by the bourgeoisie. The year before he died, Stalin became aware of this point and stated in his book Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR that contradictions do exist in socialist society and if not properly handled might turn into antagonistic ones. Comrade Mao Tsetung gave full attention to the whole historical experience of the Soviet Union. He correctly solved this series of problems in a whole number of important writings and instructions, in the historic May 16, 1966 Circular, and in the social practice of the proletarian cultural revolution personally initiated and led by him.
This is a most important sign indicating that Marxism has developed to entirely new stage. In the early years of the twentieth century, Marxism developed into the stage of Leninism. In the present era. it has developed further into the stage of Mao Tsetung Thought.
This explains how Mao Tsetung Thought came to be the Marxism-Leninism of our era. (Mass Line, August 15, 1975, p. 7)
In the first article, the Bainsites “vigorously denounce” the position they peddled two and a half years earlier! Strange that along the way there was no self-criticism of the former position. We might be tempted to say that “they behave like cameleons who change their colours according to the situation in order to deceive the revolutionary forces,” except that Bains of course has told us that the “CPC(ML)” is just “inexperienced.” Rather than admitting to outright deception, Bains will propose that his former positions was actually only one stage of his group’s “stepwise” development. One stage of the Bainsites’ multi-staged Canadian counterrevolution.
The struggle against the theory of “three worlds” is again dropped during October, resurfacing only after a prod from the five European Parties in the form of their Joint Declaration. This time the Bainsites even see fit to add editorial comment on the importance of the Joint Declaration.
Why their sudden concern?
The Joint Declaration is an historic document which reflects and cements the growing unity of the international Marxist-Leninist movement. This is a hard-won unity, achieved through the all-out efforts of the Marxist-Leninists to defeat the main danger to the international communist movement, modern revisionism. If the Bainsites are going to survive, they need to fool the genuine Marxist-Leninist Parties elsewhere in the world and the Canadian proletariat at home, to convince them that the “CPC(ML)” is the legitimate representative of the Canadian working class. Thus the Bainsites are compelled to remove their standard one-line denunciation of the theory of “three worlds” from the shelf, dust it off, and reuse it.
The Joint Statement firmly opposes the new international opportunist current with the anti-Leninist theory of “three worlds” as its theoretical base. (PCDN, September 17. 1977. p. 4)
The Bainsites do not carry out the necessary education. They stonewall the education, serving instead, “vigorous denunciations.” Their great “daily newspaper” remains silent.
Hardial Bains has spent fifteen years perfecting all forms of disguise in order to cloak himself with revolutionary credibility, particularly international credibility. He has well understood the importance of the prestige of the international communist movement in winning credibility for his “party” and he has painted himself with whatever rhetoric necessary in order to cash it on it. The most noticeable example of this is his “party” ’s daily newspaper, People’s Canada Daily News.
Looked at superficially, the fact that Bains’ “party” has a daily newspaper would seem to indicate that this “party” is well organized politically and has a reasonably strong base amongst the Canadian masses. Through his newspaper, Bains has always tried to mask himself with the most current rhetoric designed to win the most prestigious international appeal. Thus it does not surprise people who have been watching Bains for the last number of years that, since the Seventh Congress of the PLA, the entire tone of his rhetoric has taken a sudden turnabout and his Marxist-Leninist disguise has become even more slippery and sophisticated. This kind of deception is crucial to the existence of the so-called “CPC(ML)” as an active counterrevolutionary force in Canada, since Bains was quick to grasp the international significance of the Seventh Congress.
Bains devotes great time and energy to the promotion of People’s Canada Daily News. This newspaper appears weekly, in batches of seven, each bearing a different number and date. To enable its publication, it has to be filled with reprints from other countries and from the genuine Marxist-Leninist Parties, along with simple rehashes of the Third Congress Political Resolutions. Not only is PCDN not a daily newspaper, but it is a newspaper which is in no way capable of explaining the events of the real world in the light of an all-round Marxist-Leninist understanding of the world. It is designed for appearance.
Another example of Bainsite trickery and deception is the “Fifth Consultative Conference” which the Bainsites held in mid-November 1977. At its peak this conference was attended by about 300 people, but Bains reported an attendance of about 2000 in his newspaper. This conference was one of Bains’ grandiose attempts to cash in on the great strides which are now being made by the international communist movement.
As in the case of PCDN, the purpose of the Fifth Consultative Conference was its appearance. Its raison d’etre was the reinforcement of Bains’ only consistent political line: “We are the Party.” Thus, at this conference Bains hammered away at the most outrageous imaginable lie: “Our Party has always upheld the purity of Marxism-Leninism.” This malicious lie, this malicious slander against Marxism-Leninism in the world, was designed to deceive many elements who had not been following the history of the Bainsites until fairly recently, who are not familiar with the history of the “Party” when it supported the theory of “three worlds” and Lin Piaoism, when it trumpeted the eternal glories of “Mao Tsetung Thought” as the Marxism-Leninism of our era. Thus, to win the ear of those who are not familiar with the history of the so-called “CPC(ML),” Bains asserted at the Fifth Consultative Conference:
We paid attention to the classics, to the experience of the International Communist Movement, the polemics against Khrushchov revisionism, as well as to the experience of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution and to the experience of the PLA in leading socialist revolution and socialist construction and to the experience of the workers’ and communist movement of our own country and vigorously defended the purity of Marxism-Leninism and upheld the principles of proletarian internationalism. (Documents of the Fifth Consultative Conference, p. 29)
People who do not know of the history of this “Party” will not know that the classics which Bains mentions do not go further than the copies of the Little Red Book which his zombie “Mao Tsetung Thought Propaganda Teams” learned to hold high when they were arrested for isolated and petty-bourgeois provocation of the police, designed deliberately to send cadre to jail. People who do not know of the history of this “Party“ will not know that the experience of the international communist movement taught the Bainsites that “the International existed in those June days of the first insurrection of the modern proletariat, has existed ever since in one level or form or another, and will continue to do so until the cause of the world proletariat is everywhere successful....” (PCDN-OTL, September 15-20, 1975, p. 19). People who do not know of the history of this “Party” will not know that the only polemics against Khrushchevite revisionism they paid attention to were written by Togliatti and Tito: that the lesson of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution taught them that in Canada “the economic contradiction was temporarily relegated to a secondary position” (Political Resolutions 1970, p. 15) and that “the US imperialists were organizing a DECADENT IMPERIALIST CULTURAL COUNTERREVOLUTION” (Ibid., p. 9). People who do not know of the history of this “party” may easily be persuaded by Bains’ newest masks that he has always acted in the defense of the purity of Marxism-Leninism and in support of proletarian internationalism (does this also include Bains’ continued aid and support of UNITA, the fascist tool of US imperialism in Angola?).
Those unfamiliar with the infamous history of the “Internationalists” would not understand that when Bains carried out his supposed struggle against social-chauvinism at the Fifth Consultative Conference, he was only carrying on a struggle against himself and his own history and continuing practice. Who were the “chauvinists in Canada” if not Bains himself, when he said, “Because of the concentration of these contradictions in Asia, Africa and Latin America, the struggles in these oppressed nations have become the motive force of world revolution and opposition to the two superpowers” (Leaflet of the Toronto Superpower Committee, February 14. 1975) Or that “The Third World countries are a great motive force in world history” (PCDN, vol. 5, no. 17, p. 4)? Or that “Furthermore, the decisive factor in history today is precisely struggle of the Third World’s peoples against superpower politics. They are leading the united front against US and Soviet social-imperialism – a united front which includes many different classes and countries. What propels history forward is the struggle against superpower politics” (PCDN-OTL, vol. 5, no. 45, p. 4)?
The Documents of the Fifth Consultative Conference also state: “Our Party vigorously fought all these revisionists and opportunists during the past seven years and defended the purity of Marxism-Leninism and the principles of proletarian internationalism.” (p. 38) We heartily agree that Bains “vigorously fought all these revisionists and opportunists”; Bains fought them as Togliatti fought Khrushchev. His fights were mere quarrels among different fractions of the bourgeoisie.
Why does Bains work so hard to cover up his history, to spread the conscious and outright lie that he has always vigorously defended the purity of Marxism-Leninism? Why does Bains feel compelled to rewrite his history? Why does Bains resort to deceit, lies and trickery, all the favorite ploys of the bourgeoisie, rather than boldly admitting his errors, boldly making a self-criticism? Because, in order to do a true self-criticism, in order to truly repudiate his long-standing attack on Marxism-Leninism, Bains would have to take up the defense of the purity of Marxism-Leninism for the first time. To repudiate the incorrect politics which the Bainsites have been disseminating, they would have to take up correct politics. But Bains cannot carry correct proletarian politics without undermining his basic function in the imperialist camp, in the front of world reaction. All he can do is approach closer and closer to a superficial acceptance of Marxism-Leninism, increasingly improve his sophistication in his mockery and mimickry of Marxism-Leninism. Bains has not admitted his previous adherence to the theory of “three worlds,” to Lin Piaoism, to “Mao Tse-tung Thought” as the Marxism-Leninism of our era, because such admission would demand that the political line coming from these social-chauvinist “theories” must itself be repudiated. For example, adherence to the general line of the international communist movement in practice would mean the open recognition that Canada is an imperialist country. It would mean admitting that the criticism of the Marxist-Leninist movement which arose in response to and to counter the Bainsites were correct; it would mean admitting that the Bainsites were just another self-proclaimed group which was not really Marxist-Leninist, despite its claims; it would mean admitting that the Bainsites were not always the unique party of the Canadian proletariat since their formation, as they had been claiming; it would mean that Bains would lose the only claim which subjectively separates his collection of social-fascist goons from those of the League. To self-criticize for social-chauvinism would mean recognizing the right of Native Canada to self-determination. To make such a bold admission would deprive Bains of his only ammunition: “There cannot be two organizations in one country which are genuinely Marxist-Leninist” (p. 50). It would mean admitting the falsity of the claim that “Our Party was established in March 1970 in opposition to Khruchchov revisionism and against opportunism of all hues. Our Party firmly waged a vigorous ideological struggle against modern revisionism and opportunism of all hues which it carries on to date. The founding of the Party was an historic event in the life of the working class movement and the communist movement and was a big blow to revisionism and opportunism of all hues.” (p. 20) It would mean admitting the falsity of the claim that “the Canadian proletariat has given birth to such a Party. The Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) is such a Party.” (p. 86) It would mean that, far from Bains’ claim that “...we have vigorously carried on, on the correct path. We have never vacillated in this path” (p. 63), the truth would be exposed that the Bainsites have never been on the correct path, that they have devoted all of their efforts in Canada to attacking and sabotaging this path, to sowing anti-communism and confusion in the ranks of the proletariat and to splitting and wrecking the difficult task of reconstructing an authentic communist party in Canada.
The Bainsites are not only ignoring the struggle against the theory of “three worlds” on the general level and on the level of its application to the concrete conditions of Canada. They also refuse to explain the counter-revolutionary character of it when reporting on the particular struggles of the international proletariat and the oppressed peoples and nations throughout the rest of the world. A case in point is the present struggle occurring in the Horn of Africa. In an article published in PCDN, vol. 8, no. 12, January 14, 1978, which gives a summary of recent events in Ethiopia and Somalia, no mention is made of the incorrect assessment of the situation by the proponents of “three worlds.” As is well known, last year the Soviet Union pulled out of Somalia and began massive aid to Ethiopia, including the sending of Castro’s mercenaries into the country. (Where is the great Bainsite struggle against “Castroism” now?) The proponents of “three worlds” made great news of the Soviet withdrawal from Somalia – a great victory for the.“third world,” a great blow towards defeating Soviet social-imperialism. The proponents of the “three worlds” obscure the aid promised to Somalia by Iran and Saudi Arabia. They obscure that this great “defeat” of Soviet social-imperialism was an advance for US imperialism.
Thus the situation in the Horn of Africa is an excellent example for Marxist-Leninists to demonstrate concretely the counter-revolutionary and pseudo-anti-imperialist character of the theory of “three worlds.” The Bainsites will have none of it, however. They prefer to aid in the propagation of revisionism by ignoring its existence – by issuing vague denunciations where detailed analysis is demanded.
We emphasize again that this is not due to “inexperience.” This is their experience, their concrete activity in the working class. These are not “mistakes.” The Bainsites’ activity is a part of the frontline of the bourgeois assault on Marxism-Leninism in Canada. The frontline is the discrediting of Marxism-Leninism in the eyes of the proletariat. In fifteen years (this March) of activity the Bainsites have now become the great Party they claim to be. They have adapted their line to the winds of the movement, creating and dissolving the Communist Party of Quebec (ML) at will, changing their line as frequently as Trudeau changes ministers or the Italians change governments.
In their year-end review they make this bold claim:
The Closing Rally of the Third Congress held in Montreal on March 13 was the largest Marxist-Leninist rally ever held in Canada, with over 2000 members, supporters and friends of the Party in attendance. (About 1700 of them must have been covered with “invisible paint.” The attendance was approximately 300 at its peak – BU) The number of people attending the Closing Rally showed in a concrete manner the close ties the Party has with the proletariat and other labouring masses, and also showed that the revisionists and opportunists have completely failed in their attempt to isolate the Party from the proletariat and other labouring masses, and to smash it. (PCDN vol. 8, no. 1)
The largest “Marxist-Leninist” rally ever held in Canada! they boldly claim. And what of the Communist Party of Canada in the 1930’s? Another so-called “Marxist-Leninist” group, the “Canadian Communist League (Marxist-Leninist).” can also hold meetings in Montreal, in fact gathering a considerably larger crowd than the “CPC(ML)” ever does. Is it numbers which prove that a group has “close ties” with the proletariat? Do the “large” followings of either the “CPC(ML)” or the “CCL(ML)” prove anything about the correctness of their political line? Or do they merely illustrate and reflect the crisis of imperialism, the crisis of Canadian capitalism, the large numbers of petty-bourgeois who, in a last attempt to preserve their privileged style of existence, are now proclaiming to the proletariat, “Let us be your leaders! Follow us!” It should be noted that for both of these groups their “large crowds” are conspicuous for the nearly complete absence of workers. “CPC(ML)” has been in existence in one form or another for nearly 15 years and the number of workers that attend its rallies can be counted on the fingers.
Do these “large followings” reflect a “correct line” on the part of either of these groups, or do they reflect the “vigour” which the petty-bourgeoisie and the labour aristocracy can muster to preserve the source of their privilege – the plunder of the Canadian north, the genocide of the Native people? The Bainsites “vigorously” deny the existence of Canadian imperialism to this day. They “vigorously” deny the existence of an English Canadian nation. What other purpose can this have but to promote bourgeois nationalism in Canada and to focus all concern on the evils in Canada on the external enemy, US imperialism. The logic leads to class collaboration. The logic might be phrased something like this: “We Canadians can freely exploit our North. We are only a weak debtor country. Once we rid ourselves of this ’oppressor state’, which is only an oppressor because of US imperialism, we can continue to kill off the Native people ourselves, granting them of course their ’hereditary rights’ (i.e., reserves) just as the bourgeoisie does, force them to assimilate as we open up our north. Bring them the joys of ’proletarianization.’ And because English Canada is not a nation, it cannot be an oppressor nation.”
The Bainsites are using the life-and-death struggle of the PLA, the people of Albania, and the Marxist-Leninists to rewrite their own history – a history of open appeals to class collaboration and infantile adventurism. Have they attempted to explain how the unity of the Canadian proletariat with the Committee for an Independent Canada is any different than the unity proposed by the theoreticians of “three worlds”? They have not, and they cannot. To explain the theory of “three worlds” is to reveal their own past history as completely opportunist, anti-Leninist, pseudo-anti-imperialist and pseudo-revolutionary. To explain the theory of “three worlds” is to reveal their own current history as completely opportunist, anti-Leninist, pseudo-anti-imperialist and pseudo-revolutionary.
With such a consistent past, it is only a matter of time before these Bainsite scum are exposed and subject to the wrath of the proletariat, which will be well aware of how to deal with charlatans and deceivers. For the present, it is incumbent upon Marxist-Leninists to work to expose and isolate the “CPC(ML),” to consider the struggle against the theory of “three worlds” in Canada as incomplete unless it includes the struggle against Bains and his gang of thugs.