Comrades and friends:
The Vancouver Red Collective, formerly the Wednesday Study Croup, consolidated as such after a split with a minority opportunist position. We consider ourselves to be part of the growing Canadian Marxist-Leninist movement. We are in substantial agreement with, the points of definition of the Marxist- Leninist movement, enunciated in the first issue of Proletarian Unity. We have established tactical unity with other Marxist-Leninists and progressives in Vancouver in the last eight months on the occasions of: October 14th, International Womens’ Day, and the Committee Against Bill C-24. While this is a limited practise, these interventions demonstrate our group’s involvement in winning workers and advanced militants to communist ideas and, at the same time, striving for the greatest possible unity of Marxist-Leninists in Canada for the creation of the Canadian proletarian party. As part of this task we see the development of political line to be of great importance; hence our participation at this conference on Path to the Revolution.
We wholeheartedly endorse the calling of this conference by In Struggle!. We believe that only through rigourous public debate on the vital questions of the conference by all Marxist-Leninists and advanced militants in Canada will we be able to arrive at a line and strategy to direct the course of the revolution in Canada. We criticize those who call for a boycott of this conference, particularly CCL(ML). They myopically see the development of line as an exclusive function of the two national leading groups, mechanically applying their notion of the role of the leading centre to developmental conditions. We do not view the League’s objections to the conference as principled. Their boycott call serves to divide Marxist-Leninists and to unnecessarily thwart the struggle and development of a correct political line on this question.
In preparation for this conference, we have attempted to situate ourselves with regard to some of the major lines in the Marxist-Leninist movement on the path to the revolution; the ones we have studied most extensively, specifically the lines of CCL(ML), In Struggle! and the Red Star Collective. We want to make clear that we have not done our own primary research, but we maintain that it is not necessary for each small group to duplicate the work done by others in the movement. Rather, we see our task as building on the work already done and contributing to the development of the line, by criticizing existing positions which we consider to be in error, and by setting for future work, investigation into areas which we feel have not been adequately examined. Our methodology has been the application of the Marxist-Leninist principles of dialectical and historical materialism. We have applied these principles to our experience and knowledge of the Canadian political economy, and to the present level of the development of political line in the movement. We consider this conference to be as a forum for the advancement of the line of the movement as a whole.
At any given period in the development of capitalism there exists of necessity the fundamental and universal contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The particular form that this contradiction takes in a specific historical period may alter according to the time, place and circumstance. Our view of the principal contradiction in Canada reflects what we consider to be the main characteristics identifiable in the Canadian political economy in this period.
It is the strategic goal of Marxist-Leninists to seize stat power and to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat. Therefore, the question of who controls the Canadian state is critical. We hold that the Canadian bourgeoisie is in control of the Canadian state. That is to say that, politically in Canada there is a national bourgeoisie which, through the State apparatus exploits the Canadian proletariat for its own profit and perpetuation. One clear example of this control was the blocking by the Canadian government of the attempted takeover of the Mercantile Rank by the Citibank of New York. The chief sectors of the economy which are monopolized by the Canadian bourgeoisie are banking, finance, and commerce, transportation, utilities, merchandising, construction, communication, and the state nationalized industries.
Of particular importance to the Canadian bourgeoisie is its monopolization of banking and finance, and its control of the infrastructure, the infrastructure being that sector of the Canadian capitalist economy which is most clearly integrated with state functioning.
We hold that there is some degree of political influence of American imperialism in the Canadian state. It is unclear the extent of that influence, but it results from the decisive economic position of the American monopoly bourgeoisie in Canada.
American imperialism exercises internal control over fundamental and key sectors of the Canadian economy, such as manufacturing, resource extraction, heavy industry, oil and natural gas, and mining and smelting. These areas represent the productive sectors of the Canadian economy. This control was acquired through American monopoly capital’s direct investment in Canada, the establishment of branch plants, and the internal generation and re-investment of surplus value. Our reading of the economic history of Canada indicates that there has been a division of control over the Canadian economy between the Canadian and American bourgeoisies.
It is this division of control which is the basis of an alliance between the Canadian bourgeoisie and American imperialism. This alliance operates internally in Canada and is characterized by an interdependence of interests. This alliance operates for the mutual profit of both partners through the exploitation of the Canadian proletariat. We therefore hold that the principal contradiction in Canada at this time places, the Canadian proletariat against its direct enemy, the combined force of the Canadian bourgeoisie in alliance with American imperialism.
The Canadian state is the front-line of the reactionary forces against the proletariat. Hence the first blows must be directed against the state. However, we hold that American imperialism will come charging to the defense of the Canadian state to safeguard the alliance and its economic investments, in the face of a proletarian threat to state power. We conclude from this that there will be a one stage revolution in Canada.
As American imperialism is a direct internal enemy of the Canadian proletariat the struggle against American imperialism is qualitatively different from the struggle against Soviet Social Imperialism. Unlike American imperialism, Soviet Social-imperialism is not an internal enemy of the Canadian proletariat although on an international scale it is the chief threat to world peace.
On the question of whether or not Canada is an imperialist power, we hold that some aspects of the Canadian bourgeoisie’s economic policies outside of Canada are imperialist in nature. Of particular note is Brascan in Brazil and the banks in the Caribbean. These imperialist features are consistent with the internal alliance between the Canadian bourgeoisie and American imperialism, and are not in contention internationally. We have not yet determined whether or not these features of Canadian economic activity internationally are sufficient to characterize Canada as an imperialist power.
As you have realized by now, we are in basic agreement with the line of the Red Star Collective on the analysis of the political economy of Canada. We agree with the methodology employed by the RSC which demonstrates the application of dialectical and historical materialism to the concrete conditions in Canada.
However, there remains a large question for us as to whether RSC’s blanket rejection of Canada as an imperialist state is correct. Also, RSC has failed to show why the Canadian bourgeoisie chose to allow American imperialism to acquire control over the industrial surplus-producing sector of the economy, seemingly against its long-term interests. And further, we feel that RSC has failed to articulate the political component in its assessment of the nature and extent of American control in the Canadian economy.
We now want to briefly comment on the lines of CCL(ML) and In Struggle!. The line of CCL(ML) reflects two serious errors. First in its formulation of the principal contradiction, the CCL(ML) mechanically applies the general description of an era, to the specifics of the Canadian situation without doing a concrete analysis of Canada. Consequently they fail to prepare the Canadian working class for a military intervention by the US, by underestimating its important economic control in the Canadian economy.
Also in its formulation of the secondary contradiction between the Canadian people and the two superpowers, particularly American imperialism, the CCL(ML) leaves the door open for developing a united front with the Canadian bourgeoisie against American imperialism.
Secondly, the CCL(ML) holds that because there is monopoly capitalism in Canada, the Canadian state must therefore qualify as an imperialist state. We agree with, the criticisms of RSC that the League has not demonstrated: 1) that having developed to the monopoly stage internally in Canada, by definition, this leads to imperialist external policies; 2) that there has been a merger of Canadian banking and industrial capital; 3) that there has been a decisive export of capital to the third world countries; and 4) that Canada is in serious contention with other imperialist countries to redivide the world.
Concerning the position of In Struggle!, we consider that the positive aspect of In Struggle!’s line is that it recognizes the role of both the Canadian bourgeoisie and American imperialism as enemies of the Canadian proletariat. We are critical of the line in so far as it claims that the basis of this alliance is “trade-off”, which has the Canadian bourgeoisie agreeing to allow American control of certain sectors of the Canadian economy, in exchange for an alliance with American imperialism in the external imperialist policies of the Canadian bourgeoisie. This theory does not seem to derive from any historical analysis of the pre-monopoly period in Canada or the United States. Further, given the change in the formulation of the principal contradiction by In Struggle!, we are unclear as to the relationship which In Struggle! sees between the external and internal character of the alliance.
Comrades and friends,
We came to this conference to participate in the struggle to advance the proletarian line on the path to the revolution. We see this as an opportunity for the lines put forward to be tested, among comrades. For it is through intense debate carried out in a comradely fashion, that lines are sharpened and the struggle advances. In such a debate, we must always keep uppermost in our minds that our purpose is to advance a concrete strategy for carrying out revolutionary practice in Canada today.
As Mao Tsetung said:
Marxist philosophy holds that the most important problem does not lie in understanding the laws of the objective world and thus being able to explain it, but in applying the knowledge of these laws actively to change the world.