Co mmentary/Letters

By FRED WILSON

As Canada’s Communist movement
heads towards the important fall conven-
tion of the Communist Party, three key
issues of the party’s ideology and political
identity are being debated.

Should the party be based on the ideol-
ogy of “Marxism-Leninism?” Should the
party’s organizational principle be “dem-
ocratic centralism”? Should the party re-
consider its name?

When terms as laced with tradition as
these are up for debate, it is to be expected
that some are worried that the party may
be considering breaking with its revolu-
tionary socialist goals.

But no such break has ever been con-
templated by the party leadership which
has placed these issues forward for debate.
For example, if the name of the party were
changed, it would not imply for a moment
an abandonment of the goal of a com-
munist society, or the distinction of being
a “communist.” Democratic centralism
may not be the official designation of or-
ganizational principles, but the organiza-
tional unity and discipline necessary for
socialist goals will be clearly defined.

Of course, these questions are only the
most symbolic issues before the move-
ment. But they tend to be the decisive
questions because each represents many
separate issues that have to be discussed to
lead to the conclusions that can be repre-
sented in such evocative terms as “Marx-
ism-Leninism” and “‘democratic central-
ism.”

This certainly is the case with the term
Marxism-Leninism. The pre-convention
document presently before the party is
controversial because it purposefully
omits the term.

For some that can only mean that the
party is drifting away from a scientific
approach to social change, which is repre-
sented by Marxism-Leninism.

But the motivation for dropping this
term is precisely that it cannot be con-
sidered to represent a Marxist approach
that meets the rigours of theory and prac-

tice in Canada today.

It is an old axiom of Marxism that
theory is a guide to action, but practice is
the confirmation of theory. Our approach
to Marxis-Leninism can’t but take account
of the fact that real life experiences where
this theory was applied did not confirm its
basic tenets.

There is a point of view, of course, that
the tragedy that befell socialism in Europe
had little to do with theory, and was the
result of political opportunism and corrup-
tion. There is some truth in this, but in fact
the theory of Marxism-Leninism was very
relevant to the political practice of state
socialism in Europe.

Herein is an important point of defini-
tion. Marxism-Leninism can not be con-
sidered to be the same as Marxism, or even
the same as Leninism. During Lenin’s life
neither the term Leninism nor Marxism-
Leninism was ever used.

After Lenin’s death the concept of Len-
inism as a set of ideas concerning Lenin’s
teachings on imperialism, the strategy and
tactics of revolution, and the party were
presented to the world by Joseph Stalin in
his famous book “The Foundations of
Leninism,” published in 1924.

The term Marxism-Leninism was
brought into currency in the mid- 1930s at
a congress of the CPSU under Stalin’s
leadership.

Viewed historically, Marxism-Lenin-
ism is a particular expression of Marxism
developed by the CPSU and the interna-
tional communist movement after Lenin’s
death which corresponded to the political
model of state socialism that was built in
the Soviet Union and eastern Europe. As a
comprehensive set of ideas, Marxism-
Leninism is quite specific and can be
found easily in the publications of the
CPSU. The most notable is “The Fun-
damentals of Marxist-Leninist Philos-
ophy” published by the CPSU during the
1970s and again in 1985.

Because of the strength of the Soviet
Union and the Communist parties, Mar-
xism-Leninism was certainly the

CP opens debate on political identity

dominant application of Marxism over the
five decades from the *30s till today. But
it was not the only appreciation of Mar-
xism, and there were many Marxist criti-
ques of the practices of the socialist coun-
tries.

We know that the model of state soc-
ialism is today at a historic end. Can there
be any doubt that certain basic features of
the socialist theory that guided Com-
munist parties over these years have been
proven wrong?

One of these features, absolutely in-
tegral to Marxism-Leninism, was the idea
that capitalism has a “general crisis”
which began in 1917 and has deepened
ever since. This idea pre-determined the
present epoch as the transition to socialism
ona world scale, upon which the strategies
of the socialist countries and many
Communist parties were based.

This idea, which has been called “astro-
logical Marxism,” is not based in the writ-
ings of Marx or Lenin. But it presented a
view of social change, and the balance of
class forces in the world, that led to social
experiments and adventurism in the soc-
ialist countries. In the west, Communists
were endlessly predicting the next great
crisis of capitalism, even as the western
economies revolutionized production and
sprinted far ahead of socialism from 1970
onward.

That’s not to suggest that capitalism
doesn’t have unsolvable contradictions,
and many crises which deepen with time.
But the task for Marxists is to examine in
what way capitalism is stronger and how
it is weaker, and to make a real assessment
of our times to guide our action.

Two other basic ideas that are closely
linked to the concept of the general crisis
of capitalism are the dictatorship of the
proletariat and the vanguard role of the
party.

The dictatorship of the proletariat was
an idea introduced by Karl Marx, but it
underwent considerable development by
Stalin and the CPSU after Stalin. Accord-
ing to the textbooks on this subject, the

leading role of the party was a universal
characteristic of the dictatorship of the
proletariat. The party was the “core” of
socialist society.

Both of these ideological concepts con-
tradicted pluralism or the possibility of
losing power through a democratic pro-
cess. However, 1989 demonstrated vivid-
ly that political power, and even socialism,
can be altered by the people through a
democratic process.

That suggests that the struggle for
socialism will be a lengthy and compli-
cated process, and not a “straight arrow”
march ensured by a predetermined charac-
terization of future history.

Canadian Communists are not about to
soften their critique of capitalism, or to
give up on their goal of a socialist society.
That is why they are examining theory in
advance of their convention, to ensure that
the political program adopted will make
the party a relevant force for socialism in
Canada.

There is no question that the term Mar-
xism-Leninism is not very useful public
relations today. But neither is communism
a goal that many Canadians are about to
embrace in the near future. Public rela-
tions, while always important, is not the
primary factor that should weigh in the
balance.

Marxists can’t be satisfied with the
theoretical accomplishment of Marxism-
Leninism, because it doesn’t provide the
framework for a socialist revolution in a
country like Canada, or for the building of
a democratic socialist society that can
meet the needs and aspirations of
Canadian working people.

That is why it is time to move beyond
Marxism-Leninism, and for a new expres-
sion of Marxism to lead the working class
movement into the 21st century.

(in future editions of the Tribune:
Ben Swankey on democratic central-
ism; Maurice Rush on the name of the

party.)

Letters

Genuine democracy essential to the future of CLC

Dave Werlin is to be congratulated for his
courageous attempt to challenge the CLC
establishment at the recent Montreal con-
- vention. His demand for greater democracy
is well taken and indeed, is needed for the
betterment of the working class, including
unionists; so too is new leadership. ("Lead-
ership still the issue for the CLC," Tribune,
June 6, 1990.)

The slate system is the height of undemo-
cratic action. John MacLennan’s “Slate sys-

tem at odds with labour democracy,” (May
14) is a beginning but it doesn’t go far
enough. U.S. international union leaders use
it to ensure control of the unions, their well
paying jobs and their cosy relationship with
managements and government.
Democracy should be precisely that.
Werlin’s proposal to give labour councils
more power is a start in the right direction;
the Congress has never been favourable to
that suggestion. The CLC posts should be

open to all, from the workers to the shop
stewards to the local executive. Charges of

lack of experience are myths. People will be»

elected on their merits, not their ability to
control; women workers will be given an
equal opportunity to all positions and will be
encouraged to seek them.

And equally significant, the higher
salaries which U.S. business unionist leader
contend they must have in order to negotiate
with their business counterparts will be

Does Victoria apply another law to the NPA?

From a child development and an educa-
tional perspective, I agree wholeheartedly
with the Vancouver parents who have suc-
cessfully petitioned to have their November
and December, 1985-born children admitted
to kindergarten in September, 1990.

From a legal perspective, I am deeply
concemed as the action of the Vancouver
School Board is in violation of the new
School Act.

In May 1984, I and the other eight Van-
couver School Trustees were fired by the
Socred government for “breaking a law.”
We refused to submit a so-called restraint
budget in spite of the fact that the majority
of us had run and been elected in November,
1984 on a platform to end that restraint
program which was adversely affecting
Vancouver public school children.

The key question now is: will the present

school board be fired for “breaking a law?”
Or is there a different “bottom line” for the
Socreds?

The school board in May 1985 had a 5-4
COPE majority. The current school board is
overwhelmingly NPA or Socred “farm-
team” dominated.

John Church,
Vancouver

thrown to the myth can. Salaries should be
slashed in draconian fashion. The money
saved will provide jobs and services for the
membership. And there are more things that
could be done.

Werlin seems to indicate that there might
be hope in the task force. Government and
management take calculated steps giving
the illusion of action while they maintain
‘their positions. Commissions, task forces
provide time to stall. They permit the estab-
lishment to regroup, pay lip-service to the
critics and hope that in time that the criticism
will dissipate. What the task force will pro-
duce is unpredictable but one can suggest
that it will not be far reaching and thus one
should not hold their breath in anticipation.

Neo-conservatism is ripe for attack and
the CLC’s leadership is sitting on their
hands. If unionized workers wait too long
they will become part of the increasingly
unemployed masses and then what.

Foster Griezic,
Ottawa , Ontario

Pacific Tribune, July 2, 1990 «5