We have examined and exposed the League’s counter-revolutionary, social-chauvinist strategic line on Canada and Canada’s role in the world. It is clear that the League’s political line is not only not “correct,” as the League has always claimed for itself, but that it is a treacherous betrayal of the interests of the Canadian proletariat. This is entirely predictable, because the theory of “three worlds” can only lead to a counter-revolutionary strategy and cannot lead the proletariat and the peoples to victory in their struggle against oppression.
From the strategic line comes the tactical line. Stalin is clear that one does not use one analysis in order to formulate a strategy and another, different analysis in order to derive a set of tactics.[1] The League’s tactical line in the working class consists of a consistent plot to seize the power in the Canadian workers’ movement in order to force the Canadian working class through violence, threats and intimidation – to serve the interests of the labour aristocracy, the reactionary petty-bourgeoisie and the theoreticians of “three worlds,” and thus to serve the interests of the imperialist camp, whose very existence it of course covers for and denies.
From the beginning of the League’s existence the Bolshevik Union has consistently exposed that the League has an economist, right-opportunist, and trade-unionist political line and practice. It is no coincidence, then, that the League is Canada’s “franchised” dealer of the theory of “three worlds.” Lenin says: “It is perfectly obvious that social-chauvinism’s basic ideological and political content fully coincides with the foundations of opportunism. It is one and the same tendency.”(“The Collapse of the Second International”, LCW 21:242)
Social-chauvinism and opportunism have the same class basis, namely, the alliance of a small section of privileged workers with “their” national bourgeoisie against the class the latter is exploiting.
Opportunism and social-chauvinism have the same political content, namely, class collaboration, repudiation of the dictatorship of the proletariat, repudiation of revolutionary action, unconditional acceptance of bourgeois legality, confidence in the bourgeoisie and lack of confidence in the proletariat.... Social-chauvinism is opportunism in its finished form. It is quite ripe for an open, frequently vulgar, alliance with the bourgeoisie and the general staffs. (“Opportunism and the Collapse of the Second International”, LCW 22:112-3)
It thus becomes clear that the League’s social-chauvinist adherence to the theory of “three worlds” is precisely its opportunism in its finished form. The League’s adherence to the theory of “three worlds” is the finished form of its long-standing adherence to economism and trade-unionism which traces its roots back to its beginnings in the MREQ, the COR and the CMO and before that to the CAPS and the “CPC(ML)”. It is clear that the League’s class collaboration in its economist work, its repudiation of the dictatorship of the proletariat through its worship of the spontaneous struggle, the “confidence in the bourgeoisie and lack of confidence in the proletariat” which it has always displayed in its right-opportunist work within the masses flowers into a fully ripened form as “an open, frequently vulgar, alliance with the bourgeoisie and the general staffs.”
The existence of this corrupt stratum of labour aristocrats and social-chauvinists is linked directly with, and depends for its existence on, the imperialist system which it ardently defends. Lenin says:
Is there any connection between imperialism and the monstrous and disgusting victory opportunism (in the form of social-chauvinism) has gained over the labour movement in Europe?
“This is the fundamental question of modern socialism.” (“Imperialism and the Split in Socialism”, LCW 23:105) and answers affirmatively, that the struggle against this opportunism in the labour movement represents “the essence of Marxist tactics” (Ibid., p. 120). And in his definitive and fundamental analysis of imperialism, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, Lenin concludes:
The receipt of high monopoly profits by the capitalists in one of the numerous branches of industry, in one of the numerous countries, etc., makes it economically possible for them to bribe certain sections of the workers, and for a time a fairly considerable minority of them, and win them to the side of the bourgeoisie of a given industry or given nation against all the others. The intensification of antagonisms between imperialist nations for the division of the world increases this urge. And so there is created that bond between imperialism and opportunism.... The extraordinary rapidity and the particularly revolting character of the development of opportunism is by no means a guarantee that its victory will be durable: the rapid growth of a painful abscess on a healthy body can only cause it to burst more quickly and thus relieve the body of it. The most dangerous of all in this respect are those who do not wish to understand that the fight against imperialism is a sham and humbug unless it is inseparably bound up with the fight against opportunism. (“Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism”, LCW 22:301-2)
The stratum of labour aristocrats and proponents of “three worlds” bribed by imperialist superprofits thus work hand in glove with the imperialist bourgeoisie itself. The League’s class-collaborationist tactical line in the working class exists to serve the international bourgeoisie and comes directly from the theory of “three worlds.” This tactical line consists, basically, in struggling to seize the political power of the democratic and defense organizations of the proletariat, transforming them into “class struggle” organisations which will work towards the collaboration with the Canadian bourgeoisie and and American imperialism, fighting for a greater share of imperialist superprofits for the privileged upper stratum which the League represents, fighting to defend and preserve the imperialist system which is the source of these superprofits, beginning of course with the outright denial that an imperialist camp even exists in the world.
Lenin identified the economism in Russia during the period of the old Iskra as the tendency whose political essence was summed up in the programme: “for the workers – the economic straggle; for the liberals – the political struggle”. Its theoretical mainstay was so-called “legal Marxism” or “Struvism”, which “recognized” & “Marxism” that was completely devoid of any revolutionary spirit and adapted to the needs of the liberal bourgeoisie. Pleading the backwardness of the mass of workers in Russia, and wishing to “march with the masses”, the Economists restricted the tasks and scope of the working-class movement to the economic struggle and to political support for liberalism; they set themselves no independent political or revolutionary tasks. (“Socialism and War’’, LCW 21:331)
In the epoch of imperialism and proletarian revolution, however, when economism becomes imperialist economism, it is entirely predictable that certain sections of the opportunists will seek an alliance not with the liberal bourgeoisie but with the most reactionary sections of world finance capital.
The League, in using its tactical line to enforce the revisionist theory of “three worlds” upon the Canadian proletariat and force it into a path of class collaboration, is not just trying to make it collaborate with the liberal bourgeoisie, as economists have historically done. By using its infiltration into the masses to enforce the theory of “three worlds”, the League is trying to force the Canadian proletariat into a collaboration with the most reactionary sections of world finance capital and its lackeys.
The theoreticians of “three worlds” are particularly fond of alliances with the most reactionary and fascist imperialist and comprador butchers in the world. In the imperialist countries of the so-called “second world”, it is the most militaristic and jingoist representatives of the bourgeoisie who are the least isolationist and the most enthusiastic for a direct military confrontation with the Soviet Union. It is the world’s most powerful arms tycoons and their bloodthirsty militarist lackeys who would most enthusiastically cheer the idea that a world war is “inevitable” and thus demand that their countries pour all of their energy into a rapid arms race so as to come out on top of this supposedly “inevitable” world war. In the so-called “third world”, it is the comprador bourgeoisies most tightly linked to US imperialism which would most eagerly drag their people into taking the side of the US bloc in an inter-imperialist war.
The theoreticians of “three worlds”, like the warmongering generals in the so-called “second world”, would demand the crushing of not only proletarian revolution in these countries but also even many militant economic and reform struggles on the grounds that they threaten the strength of the so-called “second world” in its struggle against “the main danger, the Soviet Union.” And the theoreticians of “three worlds”, like the fascist comprador butchers of the so-called “third world”, would demand the crushing of democratic and liberation movements in these countries on the grounds that these threatened the unity of the so-called “third world” and the so-called “second world” in the face of this supposedly “inevitable” war.
The League’s attempt to seize the political power of the democratic and defense organisations of the proletariat, then, is not just the usual social-democratic opportunist attempt, such as that by a liberal and indecisive group like In Struggle, to seek the careerist hegemony of the petty-bourgeoisie over the Canadian working class. The League’s struggle to seize the political power of the trade unions is nothing less than a fascist plan for a takeover of the workers’ movement in order to force the Canadian proletariat to serve the interests of the most reactionary sections of world finance capital.
Because the League’s political interests lie with the most reactionary sections of world finance capital, it should come as no surprise that its tactics in the working class movement in Canada have moved quickly and steadily in the direction of fascism.
The Thirteenth Plenum of the Executive Committee of the Communist International defined fascism as “the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialist elements of finance capital.” (Georgi Dimitroff, The United Front, Proletarian Publishers, San Francisco 1975, p. 10) A group which has festered amongst the discontented petty-bourgeoisie, benefiting from the superprofits of imperialism, to enforce the politics of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialist elements of world finance capital upon the Canadian working class, is a group which is at its base a tool of world fascism and which will most predictably itself use fascist techniques to enforce the will of the imperialists upon the Canadian working class.
The fact that the League claims to be Marxist-Leninist does not immunise it from social-fascism (socialism in words, fascism in deeds) any more than this immunises it from opportunism, economism, social-chauvinism, or any other form of bourgeois ideology. “...We judge people not by the brilliant uniforms they don, not by the high sounding appelations they give themselves, but by their actions, and by what they actually advocate.” (Lenin, What Is To Be Done, Peking, p. 9) The League’s actions are a reflection of what it actually advocates. The reign of terror which the League is organising against the communist movement in Canada and against the working class is a reflection of its strategic political line.
Dimitroff, the General Secretary of the Communist International during the period of the fascist offensive, reminds us of the honey-coated words and appeals which fascism makes to the positive political instincts of the masses.
What is the source of the influence of fascism over the masses? Fascism is able to attract the masses because it demagogically appeals to their most urgent needs and demands. Fascism not only inflames prejudices that are deeply ingrained in the masses, but also plays on the better sentiments of the masses, on their sense of justice, and sometimes even on their revolutionary traditions. Why do the German fascists, those lackeys of the big bourgeoisie and mortal enemies of socialism, represent themselves to the masses as “socialists,” and depict their accession to power as a “revolution”? Because they try to exploit the faith in revolution and urge toward socialism that lives in the hearts of the mass of working people in Germany.
Fascism acts in the interests of the extreme imperialists, but it presents itself to the masses in the guise of champion of an ill-treated nation, and appeals to outraged national sentiments.
Fascism aims at the most unbridled exploitation of the masses, but it approaches them with the most artful anti-capitalist demagogy, taking advantage of the deep hatred of the working people against the plundering bourgeoisie, the banks, trusts and financial magnates, and advancing those slogans which at the given moment are most alluring to the politically immature masses. In Germany: “The general welfare is higher than the welfare of the individual,” in Italy: “Our state is not a capitalist, but a corporate state,” in Japan: “For Japan without exploitation,” in the United States: “Share the wealth,” and so forth. (“Make the rich pay”? – editors’ note)
... It is in the interests of the most reactionary circles of the bourgeoisie that fascism intercepts the disappointed masses who desert the old bourgeois parties. But it impresses these masses by the severity of its attacks on the bourgeois governments and its irreconcilable attitude to the old bourgeois parties.
Surpassing in its cynicism and hypocrisy all other varieties of bourgeois reaction, fascism adapts its demagogy to the national peculiarities of each country, and even to the peculiarities of the various social strata in one and the same country. And the mass of the petty-bourgeoisie and even a section of the workers, reduced to despair by want, unemployment and the insecurity of their existence, fall victim to the social and chauvinist demagogs of fascism.
Fascism comes to power as a party of attack on the revolutionary movement of the proletariat, on the mass of the people who are in a state of unrest; yet it stages its accession to power as a “revolutionary” movement against the bourgeoisie on behalf of “the whole nation” and for the “salvation” of the nation....
But whatever the masks which fascism adopts, whatever the forms in which it presents itself, whatever the ways by which it comes to power –
Fascism is a most ferocious attack by capital on the mass of the working people;
Fascism is unbridled chauvinism and annexationist war;
Fascism is rabid reaction and counterrevolution;
Fascism is the most vicious enemy of the working class and of all working people! (Ibid., pp. 13-15)
Thus it is not the Marxist-Leninist mask of the League which must influence us in our understanding of the fascist nature of the League. Fascism is hypocrisy; fascism appeals to the better sentiments, even the revolutionary sentiments, of the masses; fascism calls for “socialism” and for “revolution”; fascism “seizes power,” although by military coups rather than by socialist revolution. Fascism uses all of the appeals of “anti-capitalism,” “taking advantage of the deep hatred of the working people against the plundering bourgeoisie.” Fascism flaunts its opposition to all the other bourgeois parties. Fascism promises higher wages and better living conditions, and lures the masses into following its parties as part of its supposed struggle against “the capitalists.” Fascism is chauvinist, relies on nationalism and nationalist sentiments; fascism follows no particular international blueprint but adopts the techniques which are needed to appeal to particular strata at particular times in history.
The League does all of these things. It calls for “socialism” and “revolution,” but it means by these things the violent and hegemonic coups which it engineers within the defensive organisations of the working class rather than the organisation of the working class itself for socialist revolution. The League could never win the working class to its ranks on the basis of the ideological influence of its political line, since the advanced workers would soon perceive that the line of the League is not in their immediate or fundamental interests; thus it must force itself on the working class by more direct methods. The League bases its appeal on its militant economism, “class against class,” promoting the struggle for better working conditions as revolutionary and appealing to the anti-monopoly instincts of the oppressed masses in order to realise the interests of the petty-bourgeoisie. The League proudly declares its opposition to “all the bourgeois parties,” in the most simplistic and infantile ways. The League is nationalist and chauvinist; it combines Canadian nationalism and Quebecois nationalism with chauvinism towards Canada’s Native people and a disgusting racism towards the immigrants in Canada, particularly in Quebec.
An important area from which the League has attempted to recruit its petty-bourgeois following is among the ranks of the naive and discontented youth. Dimitroff states:
Fascism grasped the very acute need of the youth for militant activity, and enticed a considerable section of the youth into its fighting detachments. Seeing no prospects for the future, large sections of the youth proved to be particularly receptive to fascist demagogy, which depicted for them an alluring future should fascism succeed. (Ibid., p. 23)
It is not, of course, that the League attempts to win over the discontented youth on the basis of Marxism-Leninism. Rather, it attempts to win them over with a thicker dose of demagogy that it even dares to try among the more adult sections of the population. Starting out with its basic assumption that the League is the only possible Marxist-Leninist alternative in Canada, the League appeals to youth with its basic empty slogans and a subtle appeal to the popular petty-bourgeois youth culture. The League attempts to win these people to its ranks on the basis of emotional appeal, using its flashy red-pink banners to whip up large demonstrations which serve no political purpose except the exposure of naive and primitive elements to the police photographers who are always present wherever the League convenes. Instead of seeking to rally a core of professional revolutionaries who are steeled in Marxism-Leninism, the League is trying to gather together a broad mass base of elements who are united by their blind faith and emotional stake in what the League claims to be offering them.
Fascism is extremely male chauvinist; and the League has made particularly concentrated attacks against the women workers of Canada by attacking their mass organisations, as we will be showing.
None of these facts about the League in and of themselves, of course, makes the League fascist; opportunists can be “merely” economist, chauvinist, nationalist, racist, revisionist; opportunists can “merely” make demagogical appeals to youth. Even the support of the League for imperialism’s annexationist wars, which is another indispensable component of fascism, does not determine with finality that the League is an organisation built to visit a fascist reign of terror in the working class movement. But when we combine all of these facts about the League’s political line with the fact that its support for imperialist annexation is actually a support for the most openly reactionary and fascist sections of the world bourgeoisie; that the League has set out from its beginnings to block physically the dissemination of communist ideas into the working class movement, and to use the organised muscle of the lumpen petty-bourgeoisie to interrupt and sabotage the struggle to build the proletarian party; that the League visits terror and threats within the mass organisations of the working class that it manages to penetrate, seeking in the long run to smash and destroy the Canadian trade union movement and demand its capitulation to the absolute power of Leaguites in the unions for the collaboration with the Canadian bourgeoisie; that the League responds to political criticism by publishing the names of working people who are sympathetic to communism, thus exposing them to the police; that the League seeks to destroy every democratic or mass organisation which it cannot control; that the League removes, wherever it can, the conditions of bourgeois democracy which are so important for communists to do their political work of winning the vanguard of the proletariat to communism; that the League spreads confusion and anti-communism wherever it goes by its methods of work – when we combine all of these facts, we begin to see that the League is not just opportunist, is not just a deviation from Marxism-Leninism. The League is an organized counter-revolutionary band of the most reactionary kind: socialism in words, fascism in deeds.
We cannot now predict whether or when the Canadian and American bourgeoisies are likely to attempt to set up an open and complete fascist dictatorship. Nor can we predict whether it will choose to do this by means of a mass movement such as the Nazis, and whether they would choose the League for such a purpose. However, it is our duty to be vigilant and we consider that the League is one possible vehicle for such a move. Also, we cannot rule out the possibility, aside from the question of the League’s potential as a fascist mass movement, that the League will be taken over directly by the police, because its political line is fairly easy to memorize and repeat, and intelligent questioning or discussion of it internally is forbidden. But in general, the danger which the League poses as an organisation for fascism does not lie in the area of directly seizing the state apparatus in Canada in order to be the political party of the most reactionary sections of finance capital, as were the Nazis in Germany or the fascist parties in Italy and Spain. Its political base is much too weak. The principal danger at this time of the League is twofold: in the threat which it poses to the struggle to reconstruct the party and win the vanguard of the proletariat to communism, and in the threat which it poses to the ability of the working class to organise defensively in order to protect itself from the daily onslaughts of capital. Here is where its social-fascist reign of terror is directed: against the working class, particularly its vanguard, and against those communists who are trying to bring about the fusion of Marxism-Leninism with the vanguard of the proletariat. Here the threat is physical and immediate.
The first step in the League’s tactical line of enforcing the will of the most reactionary sections of the world bourgeoisie upon the working class, then, is to seize the political power of the democratic and defense organisations of the proletariat in order to enforce a reign of terror and fascist rule upon them, to force them to collaborate with Canadian imperialism, to crush the political struggle of the working class in Canada so that such struggle does not interfere with the job of the working class to “prepare for the inevitable war” as part of “preparing for revolution” – and to destroy these organisations where they cannot be controlled in the interests of the most reactionary sections of the bourgeoisie.
Let us continue, then, with an analysis of the League’s scheme for “factory cells.”
In factory after factory, the League has set up “factory cells” made up of Leaguite implantationists. From its beginnings the League had plotted to smash and dissolve as many other economist and opportunist groupings in Canada as possible in order to gather all of Canada’s revisionists, trade-unionists, spontaneists, anarcho-syndicalists and implantationists under one banner so that they could most effectively be used to sabotage the socialist revolution and engineer a traitorous, class-collaboration with the Canadian bourgeoisie and American imperialism. Thus, since the beginnings of the League in December 1975, it has rallied the most consolidated revisionists and opportunists to its banner, elements so revisionist that even the League refused to consider their groups as a part of the “Marxist-Leninist movement.”
The League has always presented the question of “factory cells” as being at the heart of its political line. The League quotes Lenin – without giving a reference, because after all the League does not want to encourage “intellectualism” among “its” masses[2] – as saying:
Factory cells are particularly important to us... for the large factories.. .contain not only the predominant part of the working class as regards numbers, but even more as regards influence, development, and fighting capacity. (The Forge 2:22, p. 8) (reference given: “Letter to a Comrade”)
What the League does not explain is that for Lenin these factory cells were made up of workers, not implantees, not the petty-bourgeoisie and labour aristocracy fighting to maintain its influence over the working class and its privileges with respect to the working class. For Lenin, these factory cells consisted of workers at the workplace who had been won to communism on the basis of serious all-round communist propaganda and agitation, accomplished during the first stage of building the communist party; not petty-bourgeois militants sent into the factories to set up “factory cells” as substitutes for the advanced workers. But such distinctions are not important to the League; they are mere “intellectualism.” “Factory cells set up by the League group together the most conscious and devoted men and women workers of each factory. There are no divisions of any kind; all workers are members of the same class.” (The Forge 2:22, p. 9) And who, of course, are the most “conscious and devoted men and women workers of each factory”? Our “conscious and devoted” petty-bourgeois Leaguites, demanding the capitulation of the Canadian working class to their divine hegemony and leadership.
In fact the League states that these “factory cells” are not regroupments of workers won to communist consciousness through the work of the party. League “factory cells” in Canada are artificial creations of the League.
The factories will become the fortresses of the League and later of the Marxist-Leninist communist party. To this end we must send Marxist-Leninist militants into the plants to do communist agitation-propaganda and organisational work; the virtual absence of communist workers in Canada makes such measures necessary... .Under current conditions, it is important to send some militants of the organisation into the factory in order to promote, by their work of agitation and propaganda, by their direct participation in struggles the creation of factory cells. (Statement of Political Agreement, p. 69, 79)
So the League sends its petty-bourgeois implantees, the ones with the most consistent history of revisionism and economism, into the workplace to set up “factory cells, a principle of Marxist-Leninist organisation.” This “principle” has to be faked; since at this time there is a “virtual absence of communist workers” to form the true factory cells of which Lenin spoke, dummy “factory cells” will have to stand in for the while.
The function of the League’s “factory cells” is the seizure of power over the spontaneous struggles in the workplace by these bribed agents of imperialism, the Canadian proponents of the counter-revolutionary theory of “three worlds”.
Factory cells be the leading centre in the struggle of the workers to take their unions in hand and transform them into real instruments of class struggle. This is how the unions will become powerful arms that will actively struggle for socialism under the direction of the communist party. (The Forge 2:22, p. 9)
“Socialism” for the League, as we will be showing, is that supposed state of bliss which is achieved when the League has succeeded in winning for the Canadian working class an all-round wage increase of five kopeks onto the ruble. To achieve this “socialism,” the League thus struggles to seize the political power from the incumbent union bureaucrats and transform the unions into “class struggle unions” under the direction of the class-collaborationist social-fascist “CCL(ML).”
The League’s plans for the Canadian trade-union movement are qualitatively different from the plans of the normal range of opportunists and social-democrats such as In Struggle. The social-democrats generally seek to undermine the class organisations of the workers from within, claiming to uphold Marxist ideology and generally being willing to go along with the workers’ traditions and discipline within these organisations in order to maintain them at the level of reformism and ensure that they do not break away from servicing finance capital. Fascism, on the other hand, “shatters the class organizations of the workers from without, opposing their whole basis, and putting forward an alternative ’national’ ideology.”[3]
The League infiltrates into the class organisations of the workers as implantees and demands that the incumbent bureaucrats be immediately overthrown and replaced by its own “class struggle” bureaucrats. The League has a formula for accomplishing this, summarised in its easily memorised “class struggle” platform which consists of nothing but militant economism and reformism with a socialist slogan or two tacked on to the end.
The League makes no pretense of seeking this leadership on the basis that the majority of the workers in these unions are rallied to Marxism-Leninism. In fact, as we will be showing, it is very important to the League’s basic tactical line that the workers remain strangled by bourgeois ideology while these Leaguites are ascending to leadership. This “class struggle platform” is alleged to be the true answer to the fundamental interests of the proletariat. The union becomes a “class struggle union” when the League leadership is elected. Perched in this post of power, the League is now in a position to manoeuvre the unionised workers in whatever direction may be needed by the reactionary sections of world finance capital and the theoreticians of “three worlds.”
This is the political goal of the League in Canada: the “seizure of state power.” It states:
Today, it is the political struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie, the struggle for state power, which is primary. It is only through the political struggle that the revolutionary transformation can be brought about. It is the political struggle against the Canadian bourgeoisie which must preoccupy us above all. (“Response to May First”. Canadian Revolution 6:40)
Now. it is an axiom of Marxism-Leninism, and of the Canadian Marxist-Leninist movement, that the proletariat cannot successfully “struggle for state power” until it is guided by its own party. That is why building the party is the principal task of Marxist-Leninists. But the League already sees itself as the party of the proletariat, and has always so seen itself. It was merely intelligent enough to know that it could not so announce itself immediately but had to wait a polite amount of time before it declared itself the party, just as the Bainsites (The “Communist Party of Canada [Marxist-Leninist]”) had waited a certain polite amount of time before so declaring themselves. The League understood quite well that the movement would not yet be ready to hear the news that it was the next party of the proletariat. That is why its founders created the League – to serve their purposes during the waiting period.
We consider that due to the concrete conditions of our country it is not possible to form the party immediately. It is for this reason that we created the CCL(ML).... (The Forge 1:2. p. 9)
Since the League has always seen itself as the party of the Canadian proletariat, “struggling for state power” at this point in history presents no problem for the League.
The League’s “struggle for state power” of course is not mere “vulgar economism.”[4] It is a “political struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie.” But the League makes no distinction whatsoever between bourgeois political struggles and proletarian political struggles. Lenin says: “There are politics and politics.”
Economic struggle against the government” is precisely trade-unionist politics, which is very, very far from being Social-Democratic politics. (What Is To Be Done?, Peking, p. 80)
For the League, any struggle for democratic rights or to replace the union bureaucrats with Leaguites is a “political struggle.” Here are the two examples they give of the “political struggle for state power”:
Struggle against the reformist trade union bureaucrats and for revolutionary class struggle unions.... a clear-cut political struggle against Quebec’s national oppression and for definite political rights. (Canadian Revolution 6:40)
In fact, for the League these reform struggles are the most important things they do.
In taking part in the political struggle for reforms, we seek to clarify the goals of these struggles and to lead them openly against the bourgeoisie and its state. Initiating and leading directly political struggles against the enemies of the proletarian revolution is what is most important for us. (Statement of Political Agreement, p. 69)
So what the League has plotted is to be the political party which will seize “state power,” bourgeois political power within the structure of capitalism. The League’s plot is the seizure of power by the petty-bourgeoisie to demand hegemony over the defensive struggles of the working class.
Within the workplace the League is conscious of preventing the dissemination of communist ideas. Only The Forge and a few other simple texts are permitted in these “factory cells.” Everywhere the League raises to a principle the isolation of “its” masses from the other ideas which are developing in the Canadian Marxist-Leninist movement. It demands that the working class be won to “communism” by adoring and admiring the excellent job the Leaguites are doing as “leaders” of these spontaneous struggles to a high degree of militancy, “class against class.”
What then is the actual relationship between Leaguite leadership in the “political struggle for state power” and the struggle to win the working class to proletarian ideology?
The League’s “struggle for state power” takes place while the workers are still strangled by bourgeois ideology. It is the struggle of the petty-bourgeoisie for political positions within the bourgeois state apparatus and its success is based on the designs of the League to keep the working class as backward and ignorant as possible.
Lenin says:
How can state power in the hands of the proletariat become the instrument of its class struggle for influence over the non-proletarian working people, of the struggle to draw them to its side, to win them over, to wrest them from the bourgeoisie?
First, the proletariat achieves this not by putting into operation the old apparatus of state power, but by smashing it to pieces, levelling it with the ground (in spite of the howls of frightened philistines and the threats of saboteurs), and building a new state apparatus. (“The Constituent Assembly Elections and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat”, LCW 30:264)
And Stalin says:
The dictatorship of the proletariat is not a mere change of personalities in the government, a change of the “cabinet,” etc., leaving the old economic and political order intact. The Mensheviks and opportunists of all countries, who fear dictatorship like fire and in their fright substitute the concept “conquest of power” for the concept dictatorship, usually reduce the “conquest of power” to a change of the “cabinet,” to the accession to power of a new ministry.... It is hardly necessary to explain that these and similar cabinet changes have nothing in common with the dictatorship of the proletariat, with the conquest of real power by the real proletariat.... While the old bourgeois order is allowed to remain, their so-called governments cannot be anything else than an apparatus serving the bourgeoisie. ... The dictatorship of the proletariat is not a change of government, but a new state, with new organs of power, both central and local; it is the state of the proletariat, which has arisen on the ruins of the old state, the state of the bourgoisie.
The dictatorship of the proletariat arises not on the basis of the bourgeois order, but in the process of the breaking up of this order.
... The dictatorship of the proletariat is a revolutionary power based on the use of force against the bourgeoisie. (Foundations of Leninism, p. 44-5)
But the League has no qualms about revising the Marxist conception of “state power”, which, as Lenin says, is “the basic question of every revolution.” (“The Dual Power”, LCW 24:38) For the League, the revisionist conception of the struggle for political power in the bourgeois state apparatus is a perfectly legitimate way of winning “state power“ on the backs of the working class. Then, perched firmly on the backs of the Canadian proletariat, the League would be in the perfect position to collaborate with and make deals with the Canadian bourgeoisie, to struggle to win superprofits for a layer of the working class and to ensure the cooperation of its followers with the intrigues of the Canadian imperialist bourgeoisie in the world in contending for those superprofits. Entrenched in its “class struggle unions,” in its “class struggle organisations” of daycare centres and food cooperatives, the League would be in the political position under imperialism to force all those working people who had not already fled the League’s reign of terror and fascism within these organisations to collaborate with the Canadian bourgeoisie both on the economic and the political level. On the economic level, no victory of the working class under capitalism is a true victory; Marx says, “victory goes necessarily to the capitalist.” (“Wages of Labour”, MECW 3:235) Any economic struggle under capitalism which is not led in the perspective of a correct revolutionary strategy, of a correct all-round understanding of the class forces of the society and the proper way to utilise contradictions towards the socialist revolution, in the perspective of building the party of the proletariat, and is instead led in the perspective of restricting the proletariat to trade-unionism, the bourgeois politics of the working class, becomes a struggle led in terms of class collaboration. “The economic struggle for the proletariat, the political struggle for the bourgeoisie,” is Lenin’s phrase to summarise the class-collaborationist ideology which is economism. On the political level, the League’s best friend is the Canadian bourgeoisie, struggling for its share of the pie in the world imperialist jungle.
We can thus well imagine what the League would do, perched in a position of “state power” in some union where the workers wanted to refuse to ship some armament needed by the Canadian bourgeoisie in a struggle against a liberation movement in the so-called “third world.” If Canada had sent armaments to Mobutu in Zaire as France did, and class-conscious dock workers in Canada refused to load the armaments onto ships bound for Zaire, what would the League have done? It would have denounced the workers for being “counter-revolutionaries” and praised the bourgeoisie for building “unity” with the so-called “third world.” What would the League do if Canadian workers opposed an inter-imperialist war involving Canada? The reader can well imagine. But more important than the League’s denunciation or praise, what would happen if some League implantees had been able to “seize state power” in the dock workers union and turn it into a “class struggle union”? What would happen to workers who opposed the League’s class collaboration? They would no doubt be treated like any other “counter-revolutionary” and be “liquidated”. This is what fascists do to the working class – they ally with the most reactionary sections of the bourgeoisie and attempt to destroy class-conscious workers and communists in order to keep the mass of workers under the yoke of the bourgeoisie. This is the concrete reality of the League’s “united front” against the superpowers.
The League thus depends for its very political existence upon its hopes for a backward and ignorant working class. That is why the League seeks to seize “state power” first and “win the workers to communism” later. Winning workers to communism, during the first stage of party-building in which we find ourselves now, is put forward as something Leaguites should “also” do while they are busy “struggling for state power.” Thus:
It is the political struggle against the Canadian bourgeoisie which must preoccupy us above all. Ideological struggle is important, TOO, in order to break the stranglehold of bourgeois ideology on the proletariat. (“Response to May First,” Canadian Revolution 6:40)
The cell participates in all the class confrontations, all economic struggles. It defends the just demands of the workers and struggles to give the movement a revolutionary political orientation. It struggles at all times to give a clear direction to spontaneous struggles against the bourgeoisie and its state and for socialism.
It ALSO struggles to free the workers form the grip of reactionary bourgeois ideologies like reformism, narrow nationalism and great-nation chauvinism. (The Forge 2:22, p. 8-9)
Spontaneous struggles for socialism! But why not? Leaguites can do anything! Proletarian ideology is portrayed as the icing on the cake; it is the leadership of the Leaguites which will make these struggles “struggles for socialism.” A study of The Forge reveals with monotonous regularity that “socialism” is an idea which is tacked on to the end of the League’s messages about the “struggle for state power.” The idea the League repeatedly conveys is that “socialism” is the product of the leadership of Leaguites in the daily factory struggles. The League repeatedly portrays these struggles as “victories” and “exemplary” struggles, even when the struggles themselves have proved principally that the working class cannot achieve victory in the economic struggle against the bourgeoisie while capitalism still oppresses it.
Throughout the meetings, speakers touched on the many aspects of the crisis such as layoffs, wage controls, and repression and brought out the need to fight class against class and to unify and coordinate our struggles. They also pointed out the key role communists of the League have played in giving correct political direction to their struggles.
Finally the League representative insisted on the necessity of building a Marxist-Leninist Party to lead our struggles on to victory, to overthrow capitalism and set up socialism. (The Forge 2:20, p. 7)
But if we lead the struggle class against class and if we rely on Marxist-Leninist theory to guide us, nothing can hold back our long term struggle to turn this union, vital to the whole workers’ movement, into a real class struggle union and a solid bulwark in the fight for socialism. (The Forge 2:16, p. 11)
... We must build an authentic communist party which will lead the struggle to totally transform our unions into what they should be, real fighting instruments for the struggle for our rights and for socialism. (The Forge 2:14. p. 11)
We do not wish to convey the misimpression that the League mentions “socialism” at the end of every article about strikes and unions. Many simply finish off with discussions of “our basic rights” which these Leaguites can generously win on behalf of the working class. The “dictatorship of the proletariat” is almost never used in these contexts, but is usually saved for the “theory” page which brightens The Forge from time to time. But the League’s line on how to achieve socialism is clearly contained in its conception of “factory cells” and “class struggle unions,” as well as is its plots to “struggle for state power.” The Party of Labour of Albania describes these revisionist intrigues thus:
The reformists and modern revisionists, with their anti-Marxist “theories,” are striving to prove that present-day capitalism can be transformed into socialism by a peaceful road, by means of reforms, by extending bourgeois democracy and its institutions, by gradually occupying important economic and political positions in order to later seize the whole power and ensure the transition to socialism…The political essence of these theories is the fight against the Marxist-Leninist theory of the revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat, the preaching of the integration of capitalism into socialism.
... According to them, the revolutionary situation can assume the form of a chain of partial crises, reciprocally connected, extended in time and comparatively independent, where each of these leads to the occupation of specific positions, and taken together, they give us the revolution.
Thus, the modern revisionists see the revolution as a simple evolutionary process, as the totality of reforms. According to them, the demarcation line between revolution and reforms has disappeared. In the present-day conditions, they say, democratic transformations and “structural” reforms are becoming stages on the road to socialism, forms of the approach towards and transition to socialism. (“The Objective and Subjective Factors in the Revolution”, Albania Today. No. 1 (8), 1973)
And Lenin says:
The revisionists regard as phrase-mongering all arguments about “leaps”... They regard reforms as a partial realisation of socialism. (“Differences in the European Labour Movement,” LCW 16:349)
These elements were able to gain control of the labour movement only by paying lip-service to revolutionary aims and revolutionary tactics. They were able to win the confidence of the masses only by their protestations that all this “peaceful” work served to prepare the proletarian revolution. (“Opportunism and the Collapse of the Second International,” LCW 22:111)
But the League’s path to ”revolution” is exactly that – the achievement of “socialism” through reforms.
The League commits itself, from its creation, to participate in the daily struggles of the working class with the aim of linking them to the political struggle for socialism. (The Forge, Special Issue, Nov. 1975, p. 1)
In taking part in the political struggle for reforms, we seek to clarify the goals of these struggles and to lead them openly against the bourgeoisie and its state. (Statement of Political Agreement, p. 69)
Communists aren’t afraid to confront their political line with concrete practice, to submit it to the collective experience of the masses and thus prove its correctness. While participating in and providing direction to factory struggles and by defending the daily interests of the masses of workers, communists point the road to total emancipation. (The Forge, 1:6, p. 7)
The League “points the road to total emancipation” in exactly the same way as does the revisionist party of Canada.
The Communist Party links the struggle for reforms with the revolutionary transformation of society. ... In the daily struggles of the workers the Communists see the socialist future of the working class. The Party seeks to win leadership of the majority of the working class by advancing its policies in the daily struggles for the immediate needs of the working people and by pointing out the lessons to be learned from these struggles. (The Road to Socialism in Canada: The Program of the Communist Party of Canada, p. 43, 66)
A worker who wrote to the Bolshevik Union did not call the League’s work “implantation”; he called it “infiltration.” (Lines of Demarcation 3-4. p. 124) This worker had just emerged from a long and bitter defensive struggle in Kitimat. B.C. His response to this struggle was to congratulate the Bolshevik Union for underlining “differences between fighting a strike and fighting a revolutionary struggle. With the extent of my knowledge I am in agreement with your essay.”
The League’s infiltration of the Canadian working class has a goal. Leaguites are careerists, but careerisim is not the principal purpose which the League exists to serve. The goal of the League is to cement and finalise the inseparable relationship between opportunism and social-chauvinism which Lenin identified as having “the same political content, namely, class collaboration, repudiation of the dictatorship of the proletariat, repudiation of revolutionary action, unconditional acceptance of bourgeois legality, confidence in the bourgeoisie and lack of confidence in the proletariat.” (“Opportunism and the Collapse of the Second International,” LCW 22:112) Its goal is to represent the inevitable tie between imperialism and opportunism which Lenin explained as “the fundamental question of modern socialism” (“Imperialism and the Split in Socialism,” LCW 23:105): and, more, to cement the fundamental tie between counter-revolution and fascism in Canada and the most reactionary sections of finance capital throughout the world. The League’s goal is to visit fascism upon the Canadian working class.
We will now examine some of the practical results of the League’s tactics within the working-class movement in Canada.
Despite the fact that the League has long recognized the crucial importance of the unionised industrial sectors in its strategy, its greatest successes in controlling and smashing the class organisations of the workers have not been here. Often the League has difficulty penetrating. Contrary to the mythology which the League likes to promote, this is not due to the alleged anti-communism of the working class. For example, about a year ago the labour bureaucrats at Quebec Steel sought to have the League’s petty-bourgeois implantees expelled from the union for being communists. The workers rejected this anti-communism of the bureaucrats and voted against the proposals of the union leadership. However, after a period of activity in the union, the League became so scorned by the workers that they threw up a picket line to prevent the League implantees from going to work. This was specifically a lockout against the League; other workers who claimed to be communist were not prevented from entering.
When the League is driven from an organisation of the working class, it immediately screams “anti-communism,” “economism” and “reformism.” For the League, the only legitimate alternative to the sell-out union bureaucrats is Leaguite power and control in the unions. What the League does is to vulgarly transform the essential tasks of communists – that is, preparing the working class to seize the power of its own unions and transforming them into fighting revolutionary organisations on the basis of Marxism-Leninism – by demanding that the union capitulate to hegemony of the League and to see all attempts to oppose this as “anti-communist attacks.” Stories of these “anti-communist attacks” in the unions are quite frequent in The Forge. By demanding that the workers recognize them as communists, the League sows anti-communism as faithfully as any other fascist organisation would consciously attempt to do. The League reinforces the bourgeois myth that communists are dictators who try to bludgeon the masses, force them into submission, and silence them through coercion, rather than winning the masses to scientific socialism through persuasion and ideological influence.
The League’s “class struggle platform” is a formula to seek control over mass organisations and, where control cannot be won, to smash them. An example of the League’s smashing of a mass organisation is its activity in SOS Daycare. This network of cooperative daycare centres once functioned as an important service for working people, particularly women, enabling them to obtain low-cost day care so that they were able to work and support their families. This kind of organisation proved easier to infiltrate and take over than an ordinary industrial union, because it was easier for the petty-bourgeoisie to seek membership in it. The League railroaded through its “class struggle” platform in SOS Daycare locals and terrorised those parents who would not go along with the League’s plans, threatening them and threatening their children. Scores of parents fled and now SOS Daycare is in the contented hands of Leaguite parents. It is now supposedly a “class struggle” organisation whose militants carry flashy banners and raise reformist demands loudly enough that they are given television coverage. The League can therefore brag about the success of its political line and about the “economism” of other groups which allegedly abandon the “class struggle.” Leaguites are now being encouraged to have children so that SOS Daycare will be ensured of membership over the coming years.
SOS Daycare is perhaps the League’s most infamous “victory.” The Association pour la Defense des Droits Sociaux, a democratic organisation of welfare recipients, has been more successful in resisting the attempts by the League to seize power of it and destroy it. A year ago this organisation took steps to democratise itself by adopting the traditional rules and regulations of a trade-union type organisation. Whereas previously all militants within the organisation were allowed to vote and hold responsible positions, including petty-bourgeois infiltrators, now only actual welfare recipients had this right. The League fought this democratisation because it was beginning to lose all ideological influence in ADDS and so could only count on organisational wheeling and dealing. Because of its opposition to the democratisation of ADDS, a movement arose to expel the League. A local controlled by the League had already previously been expelled because it had completely stopped functioning in the interests of welfare recipients and mainly did propaganda for the League.
But the League has refused to be budged. Demonstrating its utter contempt and hatred of the masses, it has organised itself against the masses of oppressed welfare recipients in order to play the role of welfare agents[5] and insist on its “class struggle” leadership of ADDS.
Women on welfare who refused to capitulate to the League’s demands have been threatened to have their legs broken. Others who worked in ADDS who were developing a sympathy for Marxism-Leninism, and beginning to participate in communist study circles, had their names quickly published in a League brochure. Perhaps the League’s attempts to expose these working people to the Canadian police is an example of the unity of the League with the “second world.”
In ADDS the League opposed a “day of study” which was being called by welfare recipients to discuss the role of the petty-bourgeoisie in ADDS. The attempt of these oppressed people – mainly oppressed women – to study and acquire political knowledge about the world was a mortal threat to the League, whose tactics can only succeed if the workers are restricted to the level of their most narrow immediate struggles. The League could not allow one day for study; it knew that the question of the expulsion of the League was on the agenda.[6]
The deep rift which exists between the masses and the League is graphically demonstrated by the incident in which a Leaguite walked in, uninvited, to an ADDS local meeting to spy and intrude. A welfare recipient expressed the opinion that the Leaguite leave. She refused. The question was raised for a vote and the local voted decisively that the Leaguite leave. She still refused. The welfare recipient then threatened to eject the Leaguite by the hair physically. For the League, no doubt, this was another of the many “anti-communist attacks” to which it is subjected – and, no doubt, one initiated by the “counter-revolutionary Bolshevik Union.”
Everywhere the League stands with a squad of trained goons and thugs to prevent the dissemination of literature – whether it is authentic communist literature or opportunist literature which competes with the League. Almost two years ago the Bolshevik Union was physically threatened for attempting to set up a booktable on the sidewalk outside of a League event. The League’s sense of private property is very strong indeed: that evening, this was its city. This incident occurred during a time when the League still formally considered the Bolshevik Union in the Marxist-Leninist movement. The Bolshevik Union has since been threatened on a number of other occasions in a similar fashion; even when we position ourselves a block away from an event, and even when the League is only one co-sponsor to an event among several mass groups, the League’s goon squad is there to prevent the dissemination of communist propaganda and to remove the conditions of bourgeois democracy which the police are still allowing in progressive and working-class milieus. Its work is to create an environment in which the dissemination of communist propaganda is made as difficult as possible and the struggle to rally the vanguard of the proletariat to communism is made as difficult as possible. It is not difficult to imagine what the League would do to workers who attempted to hang up wall posters after a revolution.
In Struggle has also received many of the same threats and intimidations from League gendarmes. In Struggle is an opportunist social-democratic formation which continues to defend the League as “communist” all the while the League plots to destroy the class organisations of the workers and uses police clubs to enforce its monopoly rights over its audience. In Struggle’s continuing flirtation with this social-fascist formation has endured not only the threats of violence against In Struggle for distributing its newspaper near metro stations, but also a recent incident in which the attempt to distribute the In Struggle newspaper resulted in a brawl with three people hospitalised. But the League’s history of threats and intimidations against In Struggle dates to before the time that the League decided that In Struggle was no longer in “its” movement. In Struggle’s continuing policy of Christian peace, love and brotherhood to the social-fascist League – while demarcating against the Bolshevik Union – is consistent with the historical tendency of social-democracy to choose an alliance with fascism rather than ally with communism against the threat of fascism.
Thus it can be seen that the League’s threats and attacks against the Bolshevik Union and its sympathizers will not be the last danger which the League poses to the struggle to build an authentic communist party in Canada. The League will do the dirty work of the theoreticians of “three worlds” wherever it sees a danger posed to the absolute social-fascist authority which it trys to establish. We can predict that unless the League is nipped in the bud, no group, and no workers’ organisation, will be immune if it does not capitulate absolutely to the demands of the League for control.
The League’s reign of terror against the working class can only be described as fascist. Even the economic struggles of the workers for reforms are threatened if the proponents of “three worlds” decide that such a struggle threatens the unity of the “second world” with the “third world” against Soviet social-imperialism. The League would freely smash the attempts of the working class to defend itself economically if it decided that this was what was needed in order to best serve imperialist reaction. True to its fascist colours, the League appeals to the positive “anti-imperialist” sentiments of the masses but will even sell them out on the level of their immediate interests when necessary; but it does not offer them communism. Instead it tries to trick them with gaud, flash, authority, and appeals to emotion and blind faith.
The League is an able agent of the counter-revolutionary theory of “three worlds” in Canada. The League has plotted its tactics in order to implement the theory of “three worlds” on the backs of the working class and to crush the resistance of the working class to it. No authentic party of the proletariat in Canada can be built without the defeat of the theory of “three worlds” and its local social-fascist agents. The Bolshevik Union has always struggled and will continue to struggle to expose ideologically the political line and practice of the “CCL(ML),” but it is the Canadian proletariat, in the course of the struggle to build its own independent political party, which will dig the grave of the League. The wrath of the masses in Quebec Steel and ADDS are only the beginning.
[1] This obvious truth makes a mockery of In Struggle’s cowardly centrist line that the theory of three worlds must be rejected but only as a “strategic concept.” In Struggle never says precisely what it means by this, of course, but upon questioning its cadre will tell you that the theory of “three worlds” has certain uses as a tactic. In other words, In Struggle analyzes the world in one way for its fundamental strategy (end the wage controls) and in another way for its daily tactics (ally with the Canadian bourgeoisie to defend national interests).
[2] Part of the League’s plot to seize hegemony in the Marxist-Leninist movement and the working class has been to impose a thoroughgoing ignorance of Marxism-Leninism among its followers in order to build for a blind following appropriate to a neo-fascist movement. Thus the League has launched bitter attacks against those who have sought to investigate or criticise its "correct political line" as “intellectual-ists”, “right-opportunists,” and hence – obviously – the main danger in the struggle to build the party (i.e., the League).
Thus the argument is unveiled:
“Right opportunism constitutes the principal danger, the principal obstacle to the development of communist work among the masses at the present time. The League is not invulnerable to right opportunism. That’s why at its First Congress a resolution was unanimously adopted to wage a determined fight against this danger. But right opportunism is not always easy to identify – it takes various forms. Very often it takes the form of vulgar economism while at other times it takes a more disguised form. This article will deal with one of these hidden forms which right opportunism takes in the Marxist-Leninist movement – intellectualism.
“... Intellectualism is nothing but a masked form of right opportunism. We must use Marxism-Leninism as an indispensible tool in our struggle against all forms, both masked and open, of right opportunism within the Marxist-Leninist and the workers' movements. Because it is only by struggling against right opportunism in a consistent way that the victory of the Canadian proletarian revolution will be assured.
“... Intellectualists start to put into question the correctness of the political line which they think they've assimilated well. They've read the line several times, studied it attentively and often consulted it but have never been able to put it into practice. Instead of questioning their own weakness intellectuals show their individualism by putting forward that if they can't apply the line then no one can. They arrive at the conclusion that the line itself is incorrect.” (The Forge 1:24, p. 9)
Message: The League has the correct political line. The job of all who rally to the League is to memorize (“assimilate”) this correct political line by “reading it several times.” This line is not up for debate outside the League because everyone who wants to debate it is either an “intellectualist right-opportunist” or a counter-revolutionary. This line is also not up for debate within our organisation because this would be “intellectualism.” Only the petty-bourgeoisie would want to take up a discussion of our political line. The proletariat is dumb and will hence follow it without question. If you seek to question our line you show your own weakness as a petty-bourgeois intellectual and this “weakness” must be rectified. We “rectify” these weaknesses by helping you to engage in more “practice among the working class” – i.e., trade-unionism, which will keep you far too busy to study Marxism-Leninism and think about questions of revolutionary strategy. When you are sufficiently up to your neck in trade-unionism it will no longer occur to you that our “correct political line” is incorrect. And if you cannot put our “correct political line” into practice – i.e., if you cannot parrot it convincingly in the context of placing yourself in charge of the spontaneous struggle of the proletariat – then this is your own “petty-bourgeois individualism”, not our weakness as the next party of the proletariat, because our “correct political line” descends from heaven and can never be brought into question.
[3] R. Palme Dutt, Fascism and Social Revolution: A Study of the Economics and Politics of the Extreme Stages of Capitalism in Decay, Proletarian Publishers, San Francisco, 1974, p. 175.
[4] “Economic struggle is, obviously, the battle on the economic plane, the ’guerilla warfare’ between capitalists and workers over working conditions, wages, etc. Though crucial, only vulgar economists would assert that this form of class struggle, waged spontaneously every day by the working class, is the primary form of proletarian class struggle in the fight for socialism.” (“ Response to May First,” Canadian Revolution 6:40)
[5]We refer readers to the bilan (evaluation) of the nucleus that worked with In Struggle in ADDS (and subsequently rallied to the Bolshevik Union's criticisms of economism). This bilan explains in detail how opportunists in ADDS objectively play the same role as welfare agents. Excerpts of this bilan are published in Recueil no. 3 of the Bolshevik Union, and the complete article will appear as a pamphlet soon. (Available only in French.)
[6] After the original publication of our pamphlet in French, the League was expelled from the ADDS by an overwhelming majority.