EROL Note: Parts of this section are the original translation from the article in Mobilisation while other parts are written by Solidaire. The parts that are from Solidaire are in italics while the sections from Mobilisation are in regular text.
At the time that the document was written the workers’ movement was at a pause – few struggles, somewhat of a retreat after the Common Front strikes, etc. Such is no longer the situation. Workers’ struggles are numerous and expected to intensify.
An important factor is spurring the increase of struggles of workers and popular groups. This factor is the galloping inflation which continues to gouge purchasing power and to attack the standard of living of large strata of the population.
Another subjective factor influences the character of these struggles, notably, the revival of combativity in the unions, a revival provoked by the present economic situation.
THE PRINCIPAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STRUGGLES OF THE WORKERS’ MOVEMENT
These struggles demonstrate a resurgence of worker combativity. The workers refuse to accept the deterioration of their standard of living, and begin to struggle to maintain or increase their wages, their purchasing power, their working conditions, etc. This combativity sometimes has the result that the unions are outflanked by their base (last winter’s struggle in the clothing industry is an example).
This combativity is also shown by a certain demystification of the framework of bourgeois legality, as is testified by the increasing number of illegal strikes. New forms of struggle, as well as new ways of applying pressure have appeared in some areas (such is the case, for example, at Canadian Steel Foundries on the questions of health and safety). These new forms of struggle are, moreover, sustained by new forms of organisation (workers’ committees, “struggle committees,“ enlarged executives, etc.). One can also say that, in general, the struggles are more intense, even when they proceed within the traditional framework of business unionism (note the example of ’United Aircraft).
It should also be pointed out that the past year has marked the development of struggles and the appearance of a strong workers’ resistance outside of Montreal. Look at Joliette, Berthier, Drummondville, the South Shore, etc.
Certain elements of class solidarity have appeared, as is demonstrated by the existence of the “Committee of Solidarity with Workers’ Struggles” and the regional common fronts. Many of these regional common fronts were born under the impetus of regional union executives (which is a step forward in any case), but some of them have their roots in the rank-and-file (we cite again the case of Joliette).
All of these things are a manifestation of the progressive development of the workers’ movement.
Nevertheless, it is important not to submit to feelings of false optimism. The resurgence of combativity has so far reached only certain strata of the proletariat – heavy industry in particular, but also the public services. Several sectors of the economy have not yet been touched, namely, private services. Moreover, it usually remains sporadic, e.g. around a contract negotiation. After that, it declines again.
Such a situation nonetheless constitutes a fertile terrain for the development of class consciousness, all the more so because in fighting against inflation the workers are not attacking any one boss in particular but rather the whole capitalist class. However, the absence of a revolutionary workers’ party leaves a vacuum and has the result of slowing down the development of this class consciousness. Thus, the workers’ movement remains a prisoner of the bourgeoisie, and its combativity always ends up by being salvaged by the boss, the union, or by the Parti Quebecois.
In other words, in the workers’ movement, there exists the following contradiction: on the one hand the deterioration of the economic situation favours the combativity of the workers and represents a favourable terrain for the birth of a political class consciousness. But on the other hand, the absence of a solid and implanted socialist movement creates a vacuum and facilitates the recuperation of militant workers in the cul-de-sac of revisionist solutions supplied by the bourgeoisie. In this way their combativity finds an outlet, but at the same time it is turned away from the real interests of the workers. It will remain so as long as the revolutionary socialist movement has not made a solid link with the working class, so as to build a revolutionary organisation of the workers. Now more than ever, the link between the workers’ movement and socialist militants for the building of such a political force has become an urgent necessity.
Developing links with the working class is clearly a priority for socialist militants, and a central task towards the creation of a revolutionary workers’ party. In Quebec, this process, though in its early stages, is nonetheless advancing rapidly; in workplaces, working class communities, and schools, socialists are undertaking the work of organisation, agitation and propaganda.
At the same time, this work is in large part confused and unorganized. While political activity among the working class increases, the attempt to apply and develop revolutionary theory to guide these practices and clarify their political direction lags behind. On top of this, socialist militants are divided among numerous groups, often isolated one from the other, not to mention individuals working alone, without connection to any group. All of this slows down the development of an organized “socialist movement“; what exists being more a loose collection of groups and individuals with no common political position and direction.
Within the socialist movement in Quebec at present, various political tendencies exist, all in various ways attempting to build links with the working class. Their differing political conceptions and orientations have specific effects on how they are attempting to build these links.
On the one hand is the Regroupement des Comites des Travailleurs [the “Organization, or regrouping, of Workers’ Committees”], or RCT, an organization put together during the first half of 1974 by a number of militants from Cap St. Jacques after it [and Cap Maisonneuve] dissolved in the beginning of that year. It developed directly from that tendency in the Caps that had put the essential priority on the construction of workers’ committees in factories, as wide organisations of socialists and militant workers. It differs most obviously from other groups by its immediate attempt to build a more wide-scale group and
On the other hand are those groups [some deriving from Cap St. Jacques and Maisonneuve and some not] who have in common the explicit reference to the principles of Marxism-Leninism, and are attempting to base their development and activity on the application of those principles to Quebec. This does not mean that important divergences do not exist, however, notably between groups arising from the old “Workplace“ section of the two Caps [and who did not join the RCT] and the groups and individual militants organized around the newspaper En Lutte! [“In Struggle!”], among them militants from the “Education” and “Community” sections of the Caps.
These three “parts” of the socialist movement – the RCT, other groups from the “Workplace” section of the Caps, and En Lutte! – will be described in what follows, in an attempt to present a general idea of the political positions at present existing within the socialist movement. It is not an attempt to present all the various groups and organizations in any detail.
(Please note: In the presentation which follows, Solidaire does not pretend to be “objective” in any idealist sense (i.e. standing outside of the divergences that presently exist in the socialist movement in Quebec or unaffected by the youth and inexperience of the movement in general). The individuals in Solidaire and the group as a whole are closely linked with some of the groups in the second category mentioned above. We attempt to present a discussion of the state of the socialist movement as we and other people see it. This includes important but unequal criticisms of both the RCT and En Lutte!).
As stated above, the Regroupement des Comites des Travailleurs was developed by those militants in the two Caps who placed the No. 1 priority on building the workers’ committees. Their political approach is a direct development of the “empiricist” position developed inside the Caps (and discussed in the previous “Critical Commentary”). Their activity has been to develop workers’ committees in a number of factories and on this basis lead struggles on local, economic questions (working conditions, health conditions, etc.) as well as attempt to democratize the union structure. From this they have linked these committees together in the “Regroupement”. In both nature and size the RCT is thus distinguished from other groups.
THE PRINCIPLE LESSON OF THE RCT: MASS WORK
Many militants of the RCT have acquired in the course of their struggles a rich and valuable experience in mass work, especially considering the youth of Quebec’s revolutionary movement. We have much to learn from them about the formulation of demands, on the basis of the concrete preoccupations of the workers, that open the way towards working to develop the class consciousness of the workers. The same can be said for struggles to democratize union locals. On top of this, they show us the necessity to form broad groups of workers in the workplaces that can serve as a jumping-off point for a more effective intervention in workers’ struggles, and also as a place for political education.
ABSENCE OF DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN VANGUARD ORGANIZATION AND MASS ORGANIZATION
But it is incorrect to reduce the RCT to a certain number of mass actions led by some of its militants. Above all, the RCT is characterized by a specific conception presented as the way towards the development of the future workers’ party. Let us examine the principal characteristics of this conception.
For the militants of the RCT, the struggle for the construction of the workers’ party is made up of two principle tasks: mass work, centred on agitation and propaganda around economic struggles in the workplaces, directed towards the short-term goal of building a workers’ committee. This committee is seen as a broad grouping of militant workers and socialists, autonomous of the union leadership, which seeks to lead the economic struggle of the workers.
The building of a workers’ committee is the only organizational objective in the workplace foreseen by militants in the RCT. There is no question of the creation of groups of revolutionary workers, more limited and brought together on a clearer political basis: “it is out of the question for us, given the present stage of things, to promote organizations in the workplace founded on the acceptance of the historical principles of socialism.” (from “Les Comites des Travailleurs.” – The Workers’ Committee. Page 7)
Such is the first of the two conditions that must be realized in order to reach the future workers’ party according to the RCT. The second is the unification of these workers’ committees in a common organization. In other words, the workers’ committees are the basis of the future party. It is necessary simply to bring them together, propose a common political program and a party will be realized. To a certain extent, the RCT is itself seen as this second stage, in the sense that it is attempting to bring together the workers’ committees around a common political program.
In our opinion, it is politically incorrect to present the pre-conditions for the party in this way. It reduces the struggle for the construction of the revolutionary party to the work of building a mass organization around a minimum political agreement.
These two levels of organization are equally eseential. It is necessary to build mass organizations capable of defending the immediate interests of the workers. At the same time, starting from these struggles and organizations, we must construct a revolutionary workers’ party that can give political leadership. Nevertheless, one must not confuse these two levels of organization., and even less affirm that a mass organization will give rise to the party
The necessity to distinquish between these two levels of work is well presented in the document “Serve the People”:
Our critical appraisal of the struggle now shows us the following lessons. It is important to build mass organizations and struggle in the workplace. This task is based on the impossibility of transforming the union from the “inside”, through the official structures (through the general assemblies, the delegates, grievances, elections, etc.) A union local that has become a structure oppressing the workers can only be changed through the organization of militant elements, that is, their organization in autonomous structures that can direct the struggle, whether they are called workers committees or whatever. These organizational forms [1] have a mass character and are linked to the transformation of local conditions. The dominant aspect within them is clearly the economic and syndical. As a result, these organizations will change themselves in the course of the struggle, depending on the situation with regard to the union, and on the actions they themselves lead. Because of their mass character, they fluctuate and are subordinate to immediate, short and medium-term struggles. On the other had… it is essential that these mass organizations serve also as “schools of war”, schools of political class struggle. The political aspect of these mass organizations (and the struggles they lead) is often evident during the course of the confrontation. But it is necessary that revolutionary militants (giving leadership) be present, explaining the lessons of the struggle and determining the tasks that arise from it. And this must be done in different ways to workers with different levels of consciousness; particularly towards the most advanced elements, whose consciousness goes beyond trade-unionism and is more than just “progressive”, but which involves them directly in the process of building the revolutionary party...
We are evidently against the conception that makes the workers’ committees the “basic units” of “a political organisation of workers”. If a “political organisation of workers” is built on the base of local mass organisations, it will be built on the trade-unionist and defensive political base of these same mass organisations. This conception, put forward by the Regroupement des Comites des Travailleurs (RCT) mystifies the question of mass organisations by turning them away from their real function: the transformation of local unions and the development of economic struggles, and also the development of political class consciousness. The mass organisations that must be built are not and can never be the “basic units” of some such “political organisation.” They are instruments to transform, objectively and subjectively, a specific working class milieu...
THE RESULTS OF THE CONFUSION OF MASS AND VANGUARD WORK
The RCT is an undifferentiated grouping of socialist militants and combative workers: it is therefore characterized by a very uneven level of political development among its members. This characteristic of its composition means that the level of internal debate cannot go beyond the level of understanding of the least advanced workers in the RCT, otherwise these people might be lost. This leads the socialist elements to censure themselves, to evade political debate on basic political or strategic questions, and to avoid all reference to Marxist-Leninist theory for fear of “losing” people. Consequently, these questions cannot be debated openly because of the lack of a structure in which to discuss them. Nonetheless, these questions cannot fail to arise for all that...
As a result of this method of operation, and the absence of any structure of socialists as such in the RCT, there is no reference to Marxist-Leninist theory, a lack of any critical summation of their political work, and a lack of any clear political strategy.
From the beginnings of the RCT inside Cap St. Jacques, its leadership has refused any discussion of strategy and any criticism from other groups, on the grounds of avoiding “sterile political debate.” This has often led to a bureaucratic style of work, an example being the founding of the RCT itself; it was the unilateral decision of some militants to form the RCT, inviting some people to participate and leaving out others, that caused the final dissolving of the Caps (even though they had been going through a process of collapse for several months previously.)
The actual choice of militants invited to participate in the Regroupement indicated another characteristic of the RCT: its overwhelming stress on organizing the industrial proletariat, in factories, while leaving out the service sector, and thus most women working outside the home, and ignoring other bases for organising working people in communities, schools and so on.
Finally, the political positions of the RCT lead to an incorrect approach to the question of the unity of socialist militants. For us, working towards the unity of the socialist movement is a very important task, on the same level as linking with the masses and assimilating Marxist-Leninist theory. Such is not the case for the RCT. It is difficult for the RCT to develop this task since they make no distinction between the socialist movement and the workers’ movement (the RCT seeing itself as the expression of this workers’ movement). If one sees the grouping together of socialist militants as useless, since it supposedly slows down the process of joining with the workers in the workplace, what is the point of wasting time meeting and discussing with socialists outside of the RCT? What is more, such a position has led to a lot of sectarianism towards groups of socialist militants outside of the RCT. When such militants make certain criticisms of the RCT’s orientation, they are no longer seen as useful contacts...
The overall characteristics of the RCT are not an accident. On the contrary, they logically follow one from the other and represent a specific political orientation, which can be called right opportunism. The refusal to distinguish between mass organisation and vanguard organisation (and its corollary; seeing oneself as the more or less spontaneous expression of the mass movement); the refusal to distinguish between socialist revolutionaries and militant workers (and its corollary “workerism”); the absence of any concrete reference to the lessons of Marxism-Leninism; the evasion of internal political debate; the presence of a bureaucratic and manipulatory leadership – all these characteristics are those of a right opportunist line.
At the same time, an important distinction must be made between the leadership and general political line of the RCT, and many of the revolutionaries and militant workers that form its base. Among these people are those who are attempting to change various aspects of the RCT’s policy and action, some on the basis of Marxist-Leninist theory. These contradictions can only grow in importance. Above all, it is up to these militants to develop the critique of the RCT’s errors and incorrect approach, and change it.
Also there can be no question of denying the positive aspects of the RCT’s work-the realization that it is vital to build mass organisations in the workplace, and their important experience in doing so. Nonetheless, this remains only one aspect of developing the socialist movement.
Certainly, the political aim of these militants is the construction of a revolutionary workers’ party, but the political line of their organisation leads directly towards the building of a party that is not Marxist-Leninist, but is rather a wide organisation with a minimal political base, a reformist organisation.
After the formation of the RCT and the dissolution of the Caps, there remained a number of groups and individuals who had either been “left out” by the RCT or had refused to participate. In varying degrees, these groups have begun explicitly to use Marxist-Leninist theory and are attempting to base their practices on it.
In effect, with the definitive disintegration of Caps St. Jacques and Maisonneuve as socialist groups, some militants, specifically some from the “workplace” section of the Caps, refused to accept the disappearance of all structures of socialist militants. These militants, even though they wished to criticize and change radically the old structure of the Caps, decided it was essential to function as socialist militants, to guide both politically and theoretically the work of organisation and agitation among the masses. As a result these militants reorganized in groups of Marxist-Leninists.
This was not an easy process. On the one hand, those individuals not participating in the RCT were left isolated and disoriented in the wake of these Caps’ collapse, and a long process of discussion and reorganisation was necessary as several groups (“noyau”) of militants were reconstituted. At the same time, among those groups left intact but not participating in the RCT, the empiricist errors of the Caps had not disappeared overnight, even if they were seen as errors to be overcome. It has taken time for these mistakes to be understood concretely and efforts made to rectify them, both in theory and practice.
Whereas previously the structure of the Caps was such that the various groups of militants were in effect no more than structures for exchanging experiences, the militants attempting to reconstitute these groups did so as places where the work of organisation could itself be organised and directed and where Marxist-Leninist political education could be developed. In these groups, the essential point was seen by everyone as the real and concrete fusion of Marxist-Leninist theory with the practice of organisation and propaganda in the struggle and organisation of the masses...
It has become clear in these groups that the task of socialists is to build a revolutionary workers’ party. From this point of view it is not just a question of organising mass struggles in a particular workplace or industry against the bosses’ exploitation or the domination of business unions, but also the building of a working class vanguard, capable of developing the struggle for socialism. The practical application of this principle is only in its beginning stages, but it clearly differentiates the approach of these groups from the general line of the RCT.
At the same time, a good number of revolutionary militants have been engaged for several years in political work in working class communities and in schools and colleges. During the existence of the Caps, above all towards the end, a sort of rightist line (connected with the position that would found the RCT) prevented the development of this work. All work was seen in relation to the workplaces, while other types of political activity in fact were relegated to being technical supports for the “real struggle in the factories.” (Thus excluding not just community and educational work but also any work with service and other non-industrial workers, and consequently most women working outside the home.) This “workerist” conception of political work was opposed vigorously by numerous revolutionary militants who are now among the young Marxist-Leninist forces in Quebec’s socialist movement. These militants, whether they work with welfare recipients, in peoples’ day-care centres, in community groups, or in the student movement, will also participate fully in the building of a revolutionary party, participating in and leading mass struggles, and linking in a creative and revolutionary way Marxist-Leninist theory and the class struggle in Quebec...
Finally, among these numerous Marxist-Leninist groups, must also be included several groups involved in research, propaganda, analysis, or technical support (printing, distribution, etc.) who are also attempting to situate their work in the context of building a revolutionary workers’ party....
Within the growing number of groups in Quebec’s socialist movement attempting to build on the basis of Marxism-Leninism must be included the group producing the bi-weekly newspaper, En Lutte!, and the numerous groups that have developed around it (including several from the “Community” and “Education” sections of the old Caps).
The newspaper En Lutte! has existed for a year and a half, and the group of militants around it for two years. The paper attempts to present, through mass propaganda work, the struggles led by the workers, and it tries to diffuse a working class perspective on the problems faced by the working class. As well, the paper tries to develop the debate over political direction among the various groups of Marxist-Leninist militants. Through widespread distribution it tries to make links with politically advanced workers in a good number of workplaces.
The general political line of En Lutte!, and its practices, can be summarized as follows:
According to En Lutte!, the primary contradiction within the working class is that which exists between the high level of combativity of Quebec workers and their low level of class consciousness. Consequently, the priority to put forward is the ideological struggle, that is, all forms of political activity which encourage the development of the level of consciousness of the working class. Such is a basic condition for the construction of a political direction within the workers movement.
In other words, the priority at the present time is the linking with the working class on the basis of Marxist-Leninist principles and through a constant struggle to develop the level of political conscienceness of the workers. This priority takes various forms: concrete participation in workers’ struggles in order to bring out the political implications (agitation); the diffusion of revolutionary theory or of analyses intended for concrete application (propaganda); the grouping of combative workers on minimal bases or the slow transformation of advanced workers into revolutionary militants.
As far as En Lutte! is itself concerned, it adheres to all these forms of political activities, but claims to continuously devote the greatest part of its energies to agitation and propaganda work. Propaganda work is carried out through the newspaper En Lutte!, of which the editing, production and distribution takes up most of the time of En Lutte’s militants. Agitation is caried out by the active participation of many of its militants in the Committee of Solidarity with Workers’ Struggles (Comite de solidarite aux luttes ouvrieres).
The other task of priority, according to En Lutte! is the struggle for the unification of Marxist-Leninist militants. It realises on the one hand the need for ideological unity, that is, the need to arrive at a consensus on the basis not only of certain basic principles, but also on the beginnings of a strategic line. On the other hand organisational unity is also needed. That is, the grouping of different groups of Marxist-Leninist militants within an authentic organisation, capable of uniting under the same leadership the different tasks that must be assumed by Marxist-Leninist militants and of thus accelerating the process of linking to the working class.
At the present time there does not exist a revolutionary organisation capable of gathering together all of these tasks. There are only groups, each one of them more or less specialised in a few of these tasks (and En Lutte! considers itself one of these groups just as do the others). Such a situation perpetuates the confusion and the artisanal work-style, blocks the clarification of the strategic line, and slows down the linking process. That’s why the struggle for unity, for the creation of an organisation of Marxist-Leninist militants, is important. It’s important because, isolated and unorganised these militants remain completely incapable of facing reformist currents which tend to develop by taking advantage of new situations.
According to En Lutte!, this unity cannot be realised through any chance fashion. It must be carried out through a long process of debate, confrontation, and common practices of Marxist-Leninist militants. In addition, it implies a certain degree of precision of the strategic and tactical line. Finally, it must be carried out by an intensification of the process of linking to the working class.
What differentiates En Lutte! from the various Marxist-Leninist groups described previously, is its overwhelming stress on wide-scale propaganda and agitation, to the virtual exclusion of organising in workplaces. While most of the developing Marxist-Leninist groups outside of En Lutte! see the direct participation in the development of mass struggles as a necessary part of the creation of a revolutionary workers’ party, En Lutte! seems to ignore this question (despite disagreement from some groups close to the newspaper).
The essential criticism of En Lutte’s position is presented in the following excerpt from the document “Serve the People”:
We are conscious of the importance of organising the masses into an organisation which is not an abstraction or long-term idea, but which must have an immediate form. It is necessary for the masses to “learn about war by making war.” The elementary notions of organisation, of solidarity, and of unity must become living and concrete experiences for the masses. In other words, it is not enough either now or later just to broadcast general ideas and calls to action. It is necessary to take these ideas and apply them with the masses, to systematize the work and the struggle, to sum up experiences and political lessons from them. In the workplace it is thus essential to establish organisations of the masses in order that they will participate in struggle. Victory will not be so much the concrete result of any particular struggle (for example, a change in the union executive or an economic gain), rather it will be in the process through which the masses will have passed in order to organise themselves and participate in the struggle... The important thing is the necessity of organising the masses and their struggles and to ensure that the masses themselves, the advanced elements in particular, take control of their own destinies...
If it is essential to determine political objectives and an orientation, it is no less essential to develop correct tactics. As Mao says, it doesn’t do any good to talk about the other side of the river if we don’t see how to build the bridge in order to get there. But on the other hand, if we have only tactical perspectives we are like blind people groping in the dark....
THE MASS LINE
The mass line is a revolutionary principle consisting of two elements: (1) the linking with the masses, and (2) the leading of the masses. If the linking with the masses is underemphasized one falls into authoritarianism and bureaucratism. If the leading of the masses aspect is underemphasized, one falls into spontaneism, tailism, and opportunism. As Mao has stated: “However active the leading group be, its activity wil be reduced to the unproductive effort of a handful of people if it is not linked with the activity of the broad masses. But on the other hand, the activity of the broad masses which is not appropriately directed by a strong leading group cannot be maintained for very long, nor can it develop in a proper direction and raise itself to a higher level.” (On Methods of Leadership).
At the present stage, the building of a revolutionary workers’ party is the principal task for all militants. In other words, the priority is to put in place the conditions necessary for the birth of the party.
LINKING WITH THE MASSES
Linking with the working class, the proletariat, the masses in general, constitutes the first of these conditions. This joining has to be carried out on different terrains: the production or service companies, the neighbourhoods, households, schools, etc. Among these areas there are certainly priorities which remain to be identified more clearly, but nevertheless one basic necessity is clear; that this linking to the masses must be carried out wherever there are masses.
The linking must be made according to the general perspective described below, which is to develop the level of class consciousness of the workers.
The masses are engaged in struggle at the present time. Their struggles are principally economic struggles, struggles of resistance. To link oneself to the masses it is thus necessary to participate in economic and union struggles. But it is also and above all necessary to instill the consciousness that the struggle in the workplace is only a part of the class struggle, a struggle which has to be political. Militants must participate in economic struggles and at the same time conduct a political and ideological explanation.
What the above describes is a job of agitation and propaganda for militants. This work must go hand in hand with organisation work: on the one hand to bring combative workers together within wider groupings; on the other to develop, through the struggles, groups of revolutionary worker militants, and to gradually transform militant workers into Marxist-Leninist revolutionaries.
THE LINK BETWEEN THEORY AND PRACTICE
The linking with the masses must be carried out on the basis of Marxism-Leninism. If not it risks sinking to workerism, or if not that into dogmatism. What this signifies for militants is the constant necessity of the following:
– working to assimilate the principles of Marxism-Leninism;
– framing practices in the light of this theory (by means of political reexamination of work done, criticism and self-criticism);
– gradually developing, in the light of the developing practices, a strategic line.
Our belief is that it is necessary to begin carrying out this work of clarification immediately. But this work cannot be realised on an isolated basis. Its realisation, the slow learning-process of linking together theory and practice can only be accomplished in groups of socialist militants brought together around a common political understanding. At the present time these constitute the only forum where such questions can be debated. Does this necessity contradict the other necessity; linking oneself to the militant workers in one’s workplace? In our opinion, no. The work of political clarification which is carried out between revolutionaries is one thing, the participation in activities with others (including the explanation and diffusion of the results of such clarification) is another, and these two activities must be conducted side by side since they are complementary. To conduct the first without the second is to risk falling into theoreticism. To conduct the second without the first means falling into empiricism, i.e. bringing about the linking with the masses outside of the perspective of Marxism-Leninism.
THE UNIFICATION OF MILITANTS
The unification of revolutionary militants constitutes the third basic task. At the present time, those groups which relate are attempting to base their work.
The unification of revolutionary militants constitutes the third basic task. At the present time, those groups which are attempting to base their work on the principles of Marxism-Leninism are divided, scattered. It is impossible that their political work can continue for very long under such conditions. Also it is necessary to plan for the development of an organisation of militants which could undertake all of the current political tasks, and at the same time continue the work which aims at clarifying the strategical perspectives of the struggle. The construction of such an organisation would require the unification of the Marxist-Leninist groups which exist at the present time.
But the unification of these groups is not a simple matter of mechanically adding them up, nor is it a matter of rallying these groups around one of their number which claims to hold the correct line. It’s a slow process of coming together which would develop through confrontation, debate, and practices carried out in common between these groups. In this way the groups will be able to become acquainted with each other, to clarify their points of divergence and convergence, and to exchange mutual criticisms. In other words, the organisational unity of Marxist-Leninist militants comes only after their ideological unity.
One should not expect that the unification of militants will be a rapid process. There are obstacles preventing its rapid development:
The links to the masses are weak, although they are developing.
The proletarianisation of the Marxist-Leninist movement is not yet very far advanced.
The whole political line, as well as the analysis of the concrete conditions of the class struggle in Quebec are, at present, not far advanced; thus work is needed to perfect them.
There still exists a certain persistance of sectarianism between different groups of militants.
All of these obstacles indicate to us that the unity of Marxist-Leninist militants cannot be built in one day. Nevertheless, it is necessary that we start to work immediately on the realisation of this task. Moreover, if unity is a condition for the development of the linking to the masses, the reverse is also true: for the groups of militants, the acceleration of their process of linking to the masses is a condition for realizing their unity.
[1] These organisations can have a permanent character, which can create favourable conditions for the political development of more advanced workers, or they can be more short-term and linked closely to a particular state of struggle.