sioni
ar Were masked successfully
: piece time. The followers of
hnigue oped to a high degree a
fi Bie Screening their opposition
Don matt M-Leninism by emphasis
feat... Of detail and methods of

Mlicatic
n,
ders of ant when a group of

MS adopter party, and mass organiza-

Aneta oo the bourgeois theory of

Sinilar tech

The §,
* rst osc. .
0 sh Of these revisionist tenden-

1 osure aa itself within the party
eNcieg j Which forced the other

h ag the open) was that rep-

ae he Canadian followers of

til policy Adhering ‘closely to the

df and cal Standpoint of Trotsky

ns fol the same tactics, his

0 ic Wers presented their op-
der... Petty-bourgeois theories

_ “teen of “leftist” demagogy.

| ,
| Trotskyite "Leftism"

Tis.

ition himself had carried on op-
€nin’s Policies for a decade

4 ae Revolution, At the
» Wledgeg Ussian Revolution he
but he that Lenin had been cor-

‘i before reverted to opposition
this, Lenin died. In a letter to
j M Decen ican followers, Shacht-
"that sing Mber 10, 1930, he explain-
eT of 1923 he had been a mem-
eleme 8anized bloc of heterogen-

S who agreed with each

nl. Only * ’
lies ‘1 their opposition to the

nor OL :
ie a Communist Party of the

\ Se Superficial appearance of
Y dem IS polemical writings,
he ¢ ciStrated an inability to
amental dialectics of the
Struggle. In opposition
Program of socialist con-

Cabital; € Soviet Union he cater-
Sg Ttio St hopes—and illusions—
ity” S that “the law of labor
Would render it impos-
SViet people to build up a

Py ot ,
Ft 22 th ) tivity. Lackin
fhe te dict VorKing Class, he ented
lange ‘Orship of the proletariat,
s me the poor and middle
[oni COulg Bhout the vast Soviet
Pte, stem a a new socialist eco-
Neat rong M the basis of a com-
ice ion . ecus conception of the
ighith Bu onomic laws he, in alli-

he On” | harin and the “right op-
Stalin Soviet Union, opposed

Unifie policy of building a

ae Socialist economy.

Stead that the peasants

© simple commodity

that he contradicted

Sa as “the ele-

Ons of Marxism con-

ment eVitability of capitalist
€r€ commodity produc-

€nin Continued, ‘“Marx-

co a society which is

hag commodity Production and

i Capitan intercourse with
akes ‘St nations, itself in-

“Tain 5... 0° Toad of capitalism

8€ of its development.”

Ss in the Soviet

Pro » a battle against
ch Seals to establish condi-
i, at eanit have facilitated the
Pid yStalinye | alism in the Soviet
ee was based firmly

a the line of struggle

N's life’s work; keyed

and continued streng-

Alliance between the

Xceptionalism,” they used
nique, :

proletariat and the poor peasantry,
neutralizing the middle peasantry and
eliminating every vestige of capitalism
and capitalist-class infiuence.

Unable to win popular support on
the basis of their policies, Trotsky and
his allied oppositionists tried to dis-
credit the plans for socialist construc-
tion by fomenting kulak opposition to
collectivization, the murder of party
leaders, e.g., Sergei Kirov, destructive
sabotage and planned disorganization.
Frustrated by the. revolutionary vigil-
ance of the workers, they turned to
the path of counter-revolution and
entered the service of the imperial-
ists. . .. When a leading U.S. Trotsky-
ite was sent to Norway in 1936 for per-
sonal consultation with Trotsky con-
cerning some questions about which
there were sharp differences within the
Trotskyite sect in the United States, he
returned to report that “the Master”
had shown very little interest in their
differences but had insisted that the
Trotskyites in North America should
show more interest in his plans “to
organize a counter-revolution against
the Soviet Union.”

The difference between the Cana-
dian followers of Trotsky and the other
oppositionists was that the Trotskyites
concentrated their attention upon op-
position to the policies being pursued
in the Soviet Union, with noisy, radi-
cal-sounding arguments to the effect
that “it is impossible to build socialism
in one country.” They aped Trotsky in
his transition to open counter-revolu-
tion with assertions that there is no
socialism in the Soviet Union, there-
fore the Soviet government must be
overthrown.

Right-wing Theory

The right liquidators in the Soviet
Union also had their organized follow-
ers in North America. The right oppo-
sition eventually set up an open party
organization in the United States and
Canada under the leadership of Love-
stone, the ex-general-secretary of the
Communist Party of the United States.
It sought an understanding with Amer-
ican imperialism. Lovestone and_ his
followers tried to justify their renegacy
by the pretence that the class-collabor-
ation policies being pursued by the
AFL bureaucracy and the right-wing
socialists mirrorred a foundamental
difference between North American
capitalism and capitalism as Marx had
known it. This came to be known as
the theory of “North American excep-
tionalism.’” Its essential argument was
that North American capitalism in its
imperialist stage was SO powerful that
by subordinating other capitalist coun-
tries, exploiting them as well as colo-
nial countries in its own interests, it
could prevent economic crisis in the
United States. American economy was
therefore, according to Lovestone, ‘“‘ex-
ceptional” in that it was immune from
the economic laws of motion of capital-
ism and, therefore, from the periodic
crises which Marx had shown to be an
inseparable feature of the economic
laws of the motion of capitalism.

Lovestone’s. supporters in Canada
were not all motivated solely by belief
in the theory of “American exception-
alism.” In the conditions of sharpening
police persecution and efforts at sup-
pression with the increasing difficulties
of extending the party’s public work,
some members of the Communist
Party, including some members of its

leadership, became receptive to the
idea of class collaboration. Starting .

with resistance to the mobilization of
mass public working-class action
against police terror, such people soon
sought to justify their passivity by the
arguments of “American exceptional-

ism.” It was a time in Canada when,
as Lenin had pointed out in the Russia
of 1902, “the fashionable preaching of
opportunism went hand in hand with
an infatuation for the narrowest forms
of practical activity.”

In Canada, as in other countries,
what appeared on the surface as two
rival oppositions were in reality but
the two wings of one political opposi-
tion, as was demonstrated when they
eventually merged their organizations.

At first, however, they appeared to
be in opposition to each other as well
as to the party. Maurice Spector, then
editor of The Worker, reported on the

Sixth World Congress of the Commun- ~

ist International to a public meeting in
Toronto in October, 1928. The content
of his report was such that, following
the meeting, a number of party mem-
bers headed by Beckie Buhay demand-
ed of the chairman that the matter be
dealt with by the Political Committee
of the party. The following day, to the
surprise of the other members of the
Political Committee, Jack MacDonald,
the general secretary of the party,
anticipated discussion of the question
by moving that an emergency meeting
of the Central Committee of the party
be convened immediately to investi-
gate the “political position of Com-
rade Spector.” When the emergency
meeting of the Central Committee con-
vened, MacDonald sprang another sur-
prise by producing copies of corres-
pondence between Spector and the
leaders of the Trotskyite organization
in the United States, elaborating plans
to split the Communist Party and es-
tablish a Trotskyite organization in
Canada. Exposed, and refusing to re-
pudiate the activities that he had car-
ried on secretly until then, Spector
was suspended by the Central Com-
mittee. In cooperation with heterogen-
eous elements and the police, he called
a public meeting at the Standard
Theatre and tried with very limited
success to launch a Trotskyite party.

MacDonald met the dissatisfaction
of the majority of the members of the
Central Committee at his failure to re-
port possession of the evidence against
Spector earlier by “explaining” that
the secretary of the American party,
Lovestone, had only recently come into
possession of the evidence by a pecu-
liar accident and had supplied it to
MacDonald because of their close per-
sonal cooperation.

Inner-Party Battle

In the public debates that were held,
as well as in the executive discussions,
the Lovestonites, of whom MacDonald
was the leader and main spokesman,
tried to win support for the theory
that Canadian economy, by virtue of
its close ties with United States econ-
omy, was immune to the danger of
capitalist crisis and, therefore, it was
wrong to base the line of the party
upon the prospect of economic crisis
and increasing radicalization of the
masses. A minority of the members of
the party leadership opposed that point
of view. They based themselves upon
the economic laws of motion of capital-
ism as revealed by Marx and the thesis
adopted by the Sixth World Congress
of the Communist International. To the
concrete question posed in numerous
public meetings—‘‘Can the perspective
‘of Canadian economy be determined
on the basis of the economic laws of
motion of capitalism revealed by
Marx?”—MacDonald and his Loveston-
ite supporters answered No!; the min-
ority answered Yes!

Conflict over that question dominat-

ed the Sixth National Convention of
the party. When Secretary MacDonald

called his supporters into a caucus to
prepare their slate for the. election of
the new Central Committee, it was re-

- vealed that despite the evident influ-

ence of the minority in the debates,
65 of the 78 accredited delegates were
MacDonald supporters. The result was
that the Lovestonites elected the Cen-
tral Committee of their choice. Con-
sidering it tactically wise, they elected
three members of the minority also:
namely, Buck, Smith and Bruce. When
the convention adjourned, it appeared
that the Lovestonites had won the
party.

Marxism Triumphant

Life, however — which in our case
means mainly the working class —
decided otherwise. The Lovestonites
had the votes in the national conven-
tion but the position of the minority
had corresponded with the basic ‘eco-
nomic and political realities. Despite
the frantic efforts of the capitalist
press and the stockateers to maintain
the illusion that Canadian economy
was thriving, signs that its contradic-
tions were acute were becoming evi-
dent. Side by side with reports of new
high peaks of profits, unemployment
was increasing also. Over-expansion of

_ industry revealed itself. Some new

plants never operated at capacity. The
comrades who had fought Trotskyism
and opposed the policies based upon
the theory of “American exceptional-
ism” continued their battle after the
national convention. The position of
the minority was supported by the
whole leadership of the Young Com-
munist League. The membership of the
party was recognizing that the minor-
ity was fighting for a correct Com-
munist position. With that recognition
support for the minority was growing
rapidly. As a result MacDonald found
his position so contradictory that, six
weeks after the conventjon, he called
a special meeting of the new Central
Committee (July 12, 1929). Right at
the opening of the meeting, he inform-
ed the Central Committee that, due to
the conflict within the party, his posi-
tion was untenable and he had there-
fore decided to resign. In the same

‘statement, he nominated for the office

of general secretary Tim Buck, who
had opposed Trotskyite tendencies
within the Central Committee since
Spector had first revealed them in
1925, and who had been the main
spokesman for the minority through
the pre-convention discussion and the
convention debates. All except three of
the members of the Central Committee
were ardent supporters of MacDonald
yet, after some perfunctory debate, his
resignation was accepted and Comrade
Buck elected general secretary. The

‘following: day, a carefully prepared -

statement over the name of MacDonald
and naming several members of the
Central Committee as being aligned
with him, appeared in papers edited by
his supporters, calling upon the work-
ers to.abandon the Communist Party
of Canada and establish a new organi-
zation.

It was evident that MacDonald’s
resignation and the election of a new
secretary had been carefully staged in
the belief that it would help to isolate
the minority and tend to encourage
members to follow MacDonald out of
the party. He underestimated both the
intelligence and the loyalty of the ma-
jority of the party membership. Within
a relatively short time, the organiza-
tion that he established and the organi-
zation established earlier by Spector
were compelled to join forces in an
attempt to maintain an appearance of
strength. Within a few years it dis-
appeared completely as an organized
political force. Be bao

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—FRIDAY MAY 14, 1971—PAGE