Any analysis of the CPC(ML) as a political trend must begin with the Internationalists. Founded by Hardial Bains on March 13, 1963, at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, it was the Internationalists who “...dared to take matters in their own hands and depending on their own resources founded the party of the proletariat...the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist).” CPC(ML) Mass Line March 13, 1971.
Of course, it was the National Council of the CCM(ML) which actually declared the formation of the CPC(ML) in 1970, but it was “the revolutionary spirit of daring to struggle and daring to win” of the Internationalists which was (and is) the “sound foundation of the CPC(ML)” (Ibid. p.3).
The historical development of the Internationalists is divided by the CPC(ML) into four main periods. Between 1970-1971, these four periods were characterized as follows:
We moved from a small discussion group in 1963 to a disciplined anti-imperialist group in 1967 to a Marxist-Leninist youth and student movement in 1968 to the CCM(ML) in 1969 to the foundation formation of the CPC(ML) in 1970. CPC(ML) Mass Line August 5, 1970.
In their analysis one year later, the “slogans representing the various stages” of development were listed as:
1) March 13, 1963 – October, 1966: DOWN WITH BOURGEOIS HANGUPS
2) October 1966 – August 1967: SEEK TRUTH TO SERVE PEOPLE/NECESSITY FOR CHANGE
3) August 1967 – December 1969: ACQUIRE THE IDEOLOGY OF THE WORKING CLASS UPHOLD MARXISM-LENINISM MAO TSETUNG THOUGHT ORGANIZE TO CHANGE THE WORLD
4) December 1969 to date (1971): SMASH THE OLD TO BUILD THE NEW ADVANCE THE RESISTANCE MOVEMENT FORWARD BUILD THE THREE REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENTS CPC(ML) Mass Line March 13, 1971.
It is absolutely vital to note that further on in the 1970 analysis it is stated quite clearly that
The period of Necessity For Change led to the conscious adoption of Marxism-Leninism Mao Tsetung Thought as the theoretical basis of our movement. CPC(ML) Mass Line August 5, 1970
This coincides with the analysis that the “Marxist-Leninist Youth and Student Movement” was formed in 1968. This can only mean that in the period between 1963 and August 1967, the Internationalists were not guided by Marxism-Leninism. This being the case, it is logical to conclude that they must have been guided by some other ideology. This fact is fully verified by the CPC(ML)’s own analysis that
The basic feature of the slogan (Necessity For Change) was to change the cadres who have come forward in struggle from petty bourgeois individuals interested in revolutionary ideas and action in a detached and isolated manner and hostile to revolutionary discipline, into revolutionary cadres who consciously participate in revolutionary struggles and enthusiastically and on a voluntary basis come under revolutionary discipline. CPC(ML) Mass Line March 13, 1971.
Many would-be critics of CPC(ML) have reproached them for having petty bourgeois student class backgrounds. But this is not the point at all. Any communist movement will be composed of cadre from petty bourgeois and bourgeois class backgrounds during its initial stages, since it is the intelligentsia that supplies the defectors, the revolutionary intellectuals, who bring the communist movement into existence. The point here is not that the Internationalists/CPC(ML) came from petty bourgeois backgrounds, but that their point of view is “detached and isolated”, i.e. that they continue to carry a petty bourgeois rather than a proletarian viewpoint. The desire to change this situation, to transform one’s world view, to change classes, is very noble, but it is not a simple matter of good intentions.
To become a staunch and consistent Marxist-Leninist requires extensive, ongoing and disciplined study of the classics. This is always the basis of developing a firm and unbreakable grasp of the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism, but it is not the only necessary activity. We must also develop the ability to think independently, the ability to avoid gross mistakes, to learn from our mistakes, and on this basis to make objective criticism-self-criticism. That is, we must learn to apply the guiding principles of Marxism-Leninism in a comprehensive analysis of concrete conditions. Such application cannot be consistent without the guiding light of theory. And such study cannot develop an indestructible grasp of Marxism-Leninism if it is done in isolation from the development of the revolutionary workers movement and communist movement. As well, study can never lead to understanding if we turn to Marxism-Leninism only when we have a particular problem to solve. It is absolutely necessary to be as firmly grounded as possible in all aspects of revolutionary theory, and to constantly deepen and broaden that grounding. We must, as Lenin said, consult the classics continually in order to solve the wide range of problems posed by our own revolution. In a passage CPC(ML) is undoubtedly familiar with, Mao states that the Marxist-Leninist
...does not work by enthusiasm alone but, as Stalin says, combines revolutionary sweep with practicalness...With this attitude, one studies the theory of Marxism-Leninism with a purpose, that is, to integrate Marxist-Leninist theory with the actual movement of the...revolution... Mao Tse-Tung, Reform Our Study, SW Vol. III p. 22.
The CPC(ML) saw the solution to the problem of changing classes and of becoming Marxist-Leninists somewhat differently. In its 1970 analysis, the CPC(ML) remembers their solution to petty bourgeois carry-overs as being
...two practical measures: 1. Organized the most resolute cadre into a small and compact group based on revolutionary practice and criticism-self-criticism; and, 2. Initiated further mass work through a progressive paper and meetings to release the initiative of the members. Mass Line April 5, 1970.
By 1971, the CPC(ML)’s collective memory had been refined to give us the following account:
During the first period we defeated those who did not want to take things into our own hands, opposed building of the group on a revolutionary disciplined basis and generally upheld a passive attitude towards serving the people. During the second period we solved the problems of building the disciplined group and how to expand and build concrete foundations by opposing dogmatism, revisionism, castroism, and all shades of liberal bourgeois and imperialist ideas in our ranks. Mass Line March 13, 1971.
So we see that even though the Internationalists had not yet “acquired the ideology of the working class” in these first two periods, even though they could only have been guided by bourgeois ideology, by their own analysis could only have been petty bourgeois radicals – still, by some miracle, they were able to “release the initiative of the members” to oppose “dogmatism, revisionism” and so on. How, we ask, was it possible for these petty bourgeois radicals to oppose revisionism and dogmatism when they could not even have known what dogma was being revised? How was it possible for them to act from the standpoint of Marxism-Leninism when, by their own account, they were still operating from petty bourgeois outlook? This ’miracle’ could only have been accomplished in the Internationalists’ vivid imagination. We do not doubt for a moment that all those “liberal bourgeois and imperialist ideas” existed and continue to exist in the CPC(ML)’s ranks, but to lay claim to ’opposing’ such ideas before the Internationalists had ’taken up’ Marxism-Leninism can only mean one thing. Even before formally ’accepting’ Marxism-Leninism as their basis, the Internationalists assumed mastery of the fundamental principles of Marxism-Leninism, assumed themselves to be – what else can we call it – petty bourgeois ’communists’. The Internationalists were not in a state of transition between two world outlooks, but were in fact attempting to maintain both simultaneously.
An equally important point to note here is that it was during this period, when the Internationalists were petty bourgeois radicals by their own admission, that the ’principle’ of organizational solidarity above all else was first established in their ranks. As we will see, it is the fight to maintain this organizational solidarity that has preoccupied the CPC(ML) to this day, though they admit to it only up to August 1973. According to the CPC(ML) it was at this time that
The Party ended its emphasis on organizational work and other kinds of preparatory work and...has embarked on its two point programme of advancing the revolutionary mass movement and carrying out work on the theoretical front. PCDN January 2, 1975
Even if we were to accept this analysis, it means that it was not until ten years after they were formed and three years after declaring themselves the Party of the proletariat that the Internationalists ’embarked’ to study the science they had laid claim to all along. Again we must ask, on what basis could the CPC(ML) declare itself the Party, claim to represent the highest interests of the proletariat, oppose opportunism, revisionism, dogmatism and so on, when it had yet to apply, and therefore had yet to understand, the world outlook of the proletariat? How could the CPC(ML) have been guided by Marxism-Leninism, when in fact it completely lacked it? In fact it could not have been. In fact it was not guided by the ideology of the proletariat, but by the eclectic and opportunist outlook of the petty bourgeoisie. And in fact it was not formed as the Party of the proletariat, but was and is a party of the petty bourgeoisie. All this is self-evident even when we take the CPC(ML) at its word, and draw the logical conclusions it fails to draw.
Even from this brief excursion into their own historical analysis, we can see that the CPC(ML) had no conception whatever of the process of throwing off their petty bourgeois class view. In fact, as we shall see, they uphold and praise the ’revolutionary nature’ of the petty bourgeoisie, consciously bring that standpoint along with them into the working class, and all the while assume themselves to be ’genuine’ Marxist-Leninists. It matters little to them whether, by their own analysis, it was in fact impossible for them to have actually been Marxist-Leninists. The demands of consistency have never been of much consequence to the CPC(ML). This is shown quite clearly in the fact that in spite of their assumption of Marxism-Leninism, they also recognize a transition period, a period in which the Internationalists ’transformed’ themselves from petty bourgeois radicals into ’Marxist-Leninist’ radicals. This is a standard schizophrenic pattern for the CPC(ML): to stand by an analysis or position and simultaneously negate it. To determine where they actually stand, we must sort through piles of illusory self-acclaim and backslapping – their ’heroic history’ – and deal with the actual course of events. There was indeed a ’transition period’ in the CPC(ML)’s development, but not one of ideology. Rather, it was a transition between different forms of opportunism, of moving the emphasis of their activity from the petty bourgeoisie, which had been unsuccessful, to the working class, which had ’possibilities’. In order to understand how this ’transition’ led to the present CPC(ML), we must sort out the basic analysis that gave rise to it: the Necessity For Change.