Comrades and friends,
First, let us state that we welcome this conference as an important forum in which the struggle over ideological and political line can he sharpened and deepened. We, of the Red Star Collective, see the task of developing a program for the Marxist-Leninist organization – of developing a revolutionary strategy – as central at present. It is the lack of a concrete application of Marxist-Leninist principles aimed at grasping Canadian society which is holding back the organizational unity of Marxist-Leninists and the winning of the most advanced elements of the proletariat to the revolutionary cause.
It is with this in mind that our collective has taken as its main work the development of positions on a number of key questions. The first important result of this work was the issuing of our pamphlet on political economy, entitled “Canada: Imperialist Power or Economic Colony?”. In this pamphlet we put forward our line on the principal contradiction and the implications this holds for revolutionary strategy in Canada. Briefly stated our position is that the principal contradiction opposes the Canadian bourgeoisie and US imperialism to the Canadian Proletariat. The fundamental nature of the relationship between the two bourgeoisies is alliance. This is based on a division of roles in the exploitation and oppression of the Canadian proletariat. This alliance is unequal existing as it does between a superpower and a relatively weak Second World country. As an internal part of the principal contradiction, US imperialism is a force which must be defeated in order to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat.
There are some in the movement who have apparently welcomed our pamphlet on the basis that it exposes the erroneous view of the League which states that Canadian Marxist-Leninists are divided into two camps led by themselves and In Struggle!. There is no doubt that this view is wrong. But we did not develop a line on political economy simply to expose the League. Our intention is to contribute to a correct understanding of Canadian society in order to create a basis on which Marxist-Leninists can unite.
The League asserts that the key to the unity of the Marxist-Leninist movement is the struggle to resolution of the differences between themselves and In Struggle! and then organizational unity of these two groups on this basis. We hold that this would not necessarily mean that the political line resulting from this ’unity’ would be correct – and that is what is important. It would in fact be a step backward if a large force were consolidated around an incorrect line. We must not forget Mao Tse-tung’s warning that “the correctness or incorrectness of the ideological and political line decides everything”.
We must break with the approach which sees as primary the developing of a correct line only on unity. Instead we must start from the recognition of the objective need for a thorough, concrete and correct analysis of Canadian reality, based on the scientific Marxist-Leninist viewpoint and approach. Neither In Struggle! nor CCL-ML has developed such a line. In fact neither group has made large strides in that direction. Resting content with fairly mechanical application of general principles and formulae, the resulting political lines if put into practice would lead the Canadian proletarian revolution to defeat.
When we put forward the need for Marxist-Leninists to unite around a correct understanding of Canadian reality it is because otherwise the revolution will fail, not because fuzziness on these questions would lead to improper forms of unity among Communists.
The debate on questions of political economy has gone on for many years now. In the 1960’s the Progressive Workers’ Movement developed in opposition to the revisionism of the Communist Party. Starting from a proletarian class stance PW made important strides in concretely analysing Canadian society. However, in opposing views which failed to grasp the nature of US imperialism as an internal force in Canada, PW’s position allowed for the possible interpretation that it supported a two-stage revolution. Lack of clarity on this was an error. Later, thoroughly bourgeois-nationalist groups such as the Waffle and the Canadian Liberation Movement emerged in English Canada and drained the revolutionary content out of the analysis that saw US imperialism as part of the principal contradiction in Canada. Meanwhile in Quebec, bourgeois nationalism expressed through the FLQ, the PQ and the trade union movement had gained hegemony. It is a positive development that Marxist-Leninists have rejected bourgeois nationalist solutions. Both In Struggle! and the League have done ideological battle with the PQ as has the Regina Marxist-Leninist Collective against the Waffle. But let’s not throw out the baby with the bath water. Let’s not fall back on abstract principles and ignore Canadian reality.
We need neither the empiricism of the Waffle and other bourgeois nationalists nor the dogmatism best exemplified by the CCL-ML. We cannot start form preconceived notions based on a brief reading of Lenin and then proceed to force Canadian reality to conform – ignoring or twisting facts where they do not fit and even ignoring parts of Marxist-Leninist theory where it is not consistent with the already adopted conclusion. And we should guard against the error of economism as well. For what is it if not economism when the League suggests that the struggle being waged by Canadian workers against their bosses is evidence that the principal contradiction is between the Canadian bourgeoisie and the Canadian proletariat?
What specifically will be the results if the revolutionary movement is guided by the erroneous analysis being advanced by CCL-ML, In Struggle! and others? It could result in adventurism. Failing to see US imperialism as a direct internal enemy and thinking they will face only the much weaker Canadian bourgeoisie, the proletarian forces will be totally unprepared for the counter-attack against their attempt to seize state power. The other possibility is rightist errors. As soon as US imperialism became involved the strategy would he changed to one of national liberation. The proletarian revolution would be put off while there was an attempt to enlist the Canadian bourgeoisie in a united front against US imperialism to regain Canada’s presumed national independence. But this would be impossible. Canada has never had any more than formal independence and the Canadian bourgeoisie has no interest in allying with the proletariat against US imperialism. National independence is vet to he achieved in Canada and it will only be achieved through socialism.
There is a tendency to assume that since the objective of revolution is to seize state power, that therefore one need simply identify the class which controls the state and the principal contradiction has automatically been defined. But this is not the case. While very little work has been done so far, the preliminary evidence suggests that the Canadian bourgeoisie, in the main, holds state power, although US imperialism has some direct control and much indirect influence.
However, even if it is confirmed that the state is operated exclusively by the Canadian bourgeoisie, this would not negate the fact that US imperialism is a direct enemy.
The work done to date by ourselves and by other Marxist-Leninists in the area of class analysis has been confined largely to an examination of the bourgeois camp. We must analyze the size and the nature of the proletariat. We must identify all the intermediary interests – their size and the likelihood of them supporting the revolution.
Comrades and friends, we have attempted in this statement to outline what we see as the key questions and the important errors that must be struggled over in order to advance a Marxist-Leninist analysis of Canadian society. We expect that with open minds and a sincere desire to seek the truth that the movement will make strides in the coming period in the historic task of developing a revolutionary program.