Browder’: S Revisionism’ & A Page Of Discussion Open To Memb Of The Labor-Progressive Party Duclos’ Criticism Answers Many Doubts » 4. ream Ever .since the publication in June of Jacques Duclos’ article on Marxist révisionism among American Communists, the British C olumbia Party, as elsewhere in Canada, hav discussion. It. is ~ significant that even now, before there has been any opportunity for col- lective opinion, there is’ almost spontaneous agreement with both Duclos’ criticisms and with the subsequent repudiation _ by the U.S. Communist Political Association of “Earl Browder’s Teheran theories. And it is im- possible to ignore the fact that there is a widespread sense of re- lief among our party members at having got an answer to all those unexpressed doubts and misgiv- ings that have troubled them during the past two years. Because of the nature of the question there is a special need for the fullest kind of discussion of its meaning and implications. But since my present contribution to such a discussion is under- taken without having had as yet the opportunity to take part in any organized debate, what I have to say now is more of ‘an ‘exploratory nature. And for that reason also, I would like the op- portunity of contributing further at a later date. There is no need here to go deeply into. the Duclos article itself. Our national leader, Tim Buck, fully summarized the French Communist leader’s criti- cisms of Browder in his import- ant statement in last week’s P.A. It is sufficient for my purposes to note that Browder’s analysis of the postwar perspectives as elaborated in his book “Teheran —Our Path In War and Peace” constituted, in Duclos’ words, “a notorious revision of Marxism.” What we should be concerned with is to what extent Browder’s revisionist theories influenced the Canadian party. In the be- ginning we betrayed a tendency to regard the American Com- munists’ mistakes as their exclu- sive problem. Then the pen- - dulum began swinging to the op- posite extreme where every weakness and mistake of the CPA was believed to apply equally to the Canadian party. But it is true, as Comrade Tim Buck points out, that Browder’s revi- sionism did become a part of the LPP program. And what we have to do now is find out how such basic errors could have erept into our ranks. William Z. Foster, whose single-handed fight against the Browder line was one of the main factors in the CPA national com- mittee’s return to a correct pol- icy, makes the point that the CPA’s revisionist policies did not spring full blown from the move- ment in January 1944 when the “new line” became the official Communist program. He main- tains that the rot of that revi- sionism went as far back in some cases as 1988, and were al- ready a part of everyday Com- munist policy by ‘the time Browder’s book “Victory and After’ apeared. If we adopt the same self- critical approach, I am convinced that we Canadian Communists ean also find examples of revi- sionist thinking in our own ranks prior to 1944. members of the Labor-Progressive e made t his development one of their chief topics of ALTERATIGNS NOT OBVIOUS For “alterations” of Marxism do not introduce themselves in any obvious way. They are ab- sorbed in ‘small, gradual doses, and we accept them’ slowly and almost unconsciously to the point where they become accept- ed truths. Further revisions of Marxism-Leninism are only pos- sible when the leadership and the membership as a whole lack a clear Marxist understanding. Communists do not live’ in a vacuum, but are constantly being subjected to the influences and methods of thinking of the capi- talists and their agents. Such cutside influences were especial- ly felt during the period of the war, when our fight for national unity brought us into contact with a,whole number of new and diverse elements who influenced our thinking in spite of ourselves. Undoubtedly such contacts, com- ing at s time when we had per- mitted our Communist vigilance tc relax, determined greatly our later acceptance of the Browder line. I am convinced that Browcer’s theories -would not lave been accepted either by American or Canadian Commun- ists had our opinions not already been conditioned for such a dras- tie change by the revisionist theories which had crept into our thinking months and even years before. Two brief examples will illus- trate my point. In 1939, facing certain world war, and in a sin- cere attempt to find allies for the labor movement, we forgot some of the conditions laid down by Dimitrov regarding .the united front and went “overboard” for Herridge’s New Democracy movement, landing up with such “allies” as “Iron Heel” Bennett’s millionaire brother-in-law and the notorious anti-Semite Nor- man Jacques. Even more revisionist, in my opinion, was the ‘dropping of the name .