The Immediate and Most Urgent Necessity is the Elimination of Capitalism and the Establishment of Socialism

New Years Message of the MRC, released December 31, 2007

Comrades,

One of the most important challenges that has presented itself to the MRC during the past decade is the need to raise capacity to a new level, both in terms of theory and practice. The MRC was forced, on the basis of its own experience, to examine how a revolutionary organization should function. It theorized on issues of the right to conscience, the essence of democratic centralism and issues of the internal life of a communist organization. While it did not discover anything particularly new, the MRC made the principles that were rediscovered its own; they are not just words on a page but things that have been reaffirmed on the basis of its own experience.

Now there is a new challenge: how to build unity with other revolutionary individuals and organizations that come from different political tendencies and have different notions of organizing, to create a genuinely revolutionary organization in Canada? The answer to this question is that it is done by being political, by arguing on the basis of experience and logic and not on the basis of dogma. After all, Lenin did not have any authority on which to base the Bolshevik Party, but millions accepted his logic based on their own experience. We have an advantage. We have a hundred additional years of experience, both positive and negative, to help us make our case.

At the same time, to say that there is an overgrowth of ideology in our society would be an understatement. For every problem created by the capitalist system, the bourgeoisie inundates us with dozens of “experts” and their “solutions” to those problems, all of which have one thing in common – they preclude the necessity or possibility for the revolutionary transformation of society from capitalism to socialism and communism. These “solutions” permeate the entire society.

In response to the devastation of the environment, there are David Suzuki, Al Gore and a host of others advising us that the world is coming to an end. The problem is so urgent and so huge, they say, that it transcends classes and class struggle. The end of humankind is so imminent that we don’t have time to discuss the source of the problem or to look for real alternatives. Instead, we should be satisfied with generalities and superficialities – the problem is human beings, technology, modern expectations, consumerism and so on. The “solutions” presented range from reliance on the market to convince capitalists that environmentalism is profitable to individual actions like recycling and carpooling.

In response to the numerous humanitarian crises in Africa there are the likes of Stephen Lewis and Romeo Dallaire who eloquently describe the enormous human suffering on that continent and then call for the capitalists and imperialists to intervene more energetically to alleviate that suffering. Lewis suggests that if those who are raping and plundering Africa would just reinvest one or two percent of their ill-gotten loot in pharmaceuticals the AIDS epidemic in Africa would be stopped. Dallaire calls on those who are arming African warlords and fomenting genocides to invade Africa in the name of humanitarianism and thereby bring peace to that troubled continent.

In response to the problem of war every irrationality is promoted, from calling on people to love one another to suggesting that Anglo-American troops should be removed from Iraq and put where they are really needed, in Darfur and Myanmar. Illusions are created that the problem of war results from bad individuals (either George Bush or Saddam Hussein depending on the particular perspective) and the “solution” is to elect some peace-loving people in Washington, Baghdad or some other capital. Jingoism has become so rampant that it is even suggested that everyone must support “their troops” regardless of whether or not they agree with the mission of those troops.

In response to the problem of poverty - without which capitalism could not exist - we are given all kinds of “solutions”, such as increasing the minimum wage, changing the welfare system, and every other kind of reformism.

In response to the crisis confronting the trade union movement (a crisis engendered by the establishment of the Liberal-Labour Alliance during the 1940s and 1950s and exacerbated by the adoption of neo-liberalism in the 1990s) there are experts suggesting that the solution is for trade unions to return to their traditions of militancy of the 1960s and 1970s, to build links with communities and so on.

In every case, when one argues that the real problem is capitalism and imperialism and the real solution is to overthrow them, one is met with protests, claiming that these problems are extremely urgent and people simply cannot wait for revolution to occur; they must act immediately. We are scolded that while we are busy dreaming, people are really suffering.

Canadians have been hearing these things for the past 40 years but what have these advocates of immediate action achieved? The environmental degradation continues to escalate. The humanitarian crises in Africa continue to grow. War has become permanent, “war without end” as the Bush administration crows. The gap between rich and poor continues to widen and poverty is growing not just in relative, but also in absolute terms. Clearly, the short-term, immediate approach is simply not working. To paraphrase Marx, if capitalism could overcome these problems it would no longer be capitalism.

It is the view of the MRC that any analysis which does not recognize capitalism and imperialism as the source of all of the world’s most urgent problems is useless and will lead to no real solutions. Actually such analyses are worse than useless because they not only lead down dead end paths and waste massive energies and resources, but they are used to block the way forward toward genuine solutions.

At any particular point in history, the social and political problems confronting human beings are a direct consequence of the way in which the economy is organized. It cannot be otherwise unless one wants to abandon science and adopt the superstitious trappings of religion. The problems that exist within capitalist society are therefore a consequence of capitalism itself. The question is whether or not those problems can be resolved within the capitalist system. There is no need to duplicate the volumes of writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin and others arguing that this is an impossibility. That work has already been done and the conclusions of Marxism on this score are indisputable. Even Samuelson, a Nobel laureate in economics and an architect of neo-liberalism, has admitted that if we concede that land is finite (which he, being a theoretical rather than a practical economist, apparently does not) then the conclusions of Marx are inescapable and capitalism cannot overcome its inherent contradictions.

This is not to say that socialism will be a problem-free nirvana. It will also be confronted with problems that emerge out of the way in which production is organized, problems which can, ultimately, only be resolved through the transformation of socialism into communism, into truly classless society. Communism will also have its own inherent problems, primarily those posed by the fact that land, despite Samuelson’s musings, really is finite, at least as long as we remain a planet-bound species, while the material, cultural and spiritual needs of human beings are limitless.

What is the Immediate Problem?

No matter which problem we are confronted with, the source of the problem always comes back to the capitalist system, itself. Therefore, the immediate problem is not how to end environmental degradation, poverty and disease or war, but how to end capitalism. This cannot be considered a long-term goal; it is the most urgent and immediate problem confronting humanity. It cannot be put off for a future day because we are weak, divided and lack the necessary resources to do the job, while today we confine ourselves to so-called “achievable” goals.

There is no doubt that we - meaning the revolutionary, anti-capitalist forces - are weak, divided and lacking in resources, both human and material. But just because we aren’t prepared or sufficiently strong does not alter the nature or immediacy of the problem, which is to eliminate capitalism and usher in socialism. So, we can either waste our time bemoaning our sad state of affairs or get busy transforming our own situation. After all, we are talking about transforming all of human civilization; if we can’t even transform our own situation we aren’t of much use to the working class or society.

What is the first step in transforming our own situation? History has taught us that the first step is to build a national revolutionary organization, a centre of revolutionary thought and action. That is the first and indispensible tool in transforming our present situation; without that tool it is meaningless to talk about developing programs, training cadres, building links with the working class or any of the thousand and one other things which we absolutely need to accomplish if we are to successfully overthrow capitalism. Those who claim that such a national organization already exists (i.e. theirs) are deluding only themselves. If such an organization already existed then the movement would not be in the sorry state it is in today and there would be no need for this discussion.

What is the Basis of Unity?

The first issue that must be considered whenever the establishment of a new organization is being considered is: What is the basis of unity? If this question is not dealt with in a profound manner then nothing lasting will emerge and whatever centre may be established will not be revolutionary and, as such, will be worse than useless.

Since at least the 1960s, Canada has been plagued with the concept that the basis of unity of a revolutionary political organization should be a document, a statement of long and short-term aims and objectives of the organization and/or a policy platform. Experience has proven the futility of this approach. The drafting of a declaration of long and short-term aims and objectives invariably leads to disunity rather than unity because everyone involved is certain that if their views are not followed the organization will not succeed. Furthermore, this approach disenfranchises future members, preventing them from shaping the form and content of the organization. This is not to say that such a document plays no useful purpose; only that establishing it as the basis of unity is putting the cart before the horse.

The same is the case for a program of action or a policy platform. First, without a revolutionary political organization and all that that entails, how is it possible to draft a useful program of action? The best that can be hoped for are some general, feel-good polices that essentially say that we stand on the side of the angels and if the workers will only support us we’ll solve every problem. At worst, such a program will serve as a basis for splitting with those who don’t agree with one or another policy. Once again, a useful political program can only emerge on the basis of years of practical activity which is systematically raised to the level of theory. Political programs cannot be reduced to a series of policy objectives in the way that bourgeois parties do. The political program of a revolutionary organization must be designed to achieve specific political and organizational objectives; that is, it must serve the strategy and tactics of the organization, rather than form the basis of strategy and tactics. It is a tool, not a basis of unity.

Documents of either type must reflect the current concerns of the organization in a living way. In other words, they should sum up and consolidate the theory and practice of the organization at a particular point in time. Then they can serve as a guide for further action. However, to serve such a role they must remain impermanent and changeable; only an organization which is dead will be reflected in any such document. Making either type of document the basis of unity of the organization necessarily means that the organization will be still-born.

Another, and much more pernicious concept which has plagued revolutionary organizations, is the thesis that the basis of unity is ideology. This thesis emerged in a big way during and after the great polemics in the communist movement of the late 1950s and early 1960s. It is important to understand that the polemics in the communist movement arose on the basis of a de facto split which was based on political differences between and within various communist parties, first and foremost on what attitude to take towards imperialism and revolution, but also on other, less principled issues. As subsequent history has proven, the differences were not always ideological differences as parties on both sides of the debate have ended up conciliating with and collaborating with imperialism. While the polemics began with the principled criticism of the positions being adopted by Nikita Khrushchev and his followers, it soon degenerated into a power struggle between two opportunist factions (led by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Communist Party of China) bent on using the international communist movement to further their own hegemonic ambitions. To a large extent, so-called ideological differences were used by parties on both sides of the polemics to cover up their actual practice. In any event, the main consequence of the polemics was to raise the issue of ideology as the basis of unity of the international communist movement and to split the communist movement on that basis. Afterwards, it did not matter what any particular party actually did or did not do; all that mattered was which side of the “ideological” debate it was on. In other words, ideology became the basis of splitting, not the basis of unity of the communist movement. That process has continued down to this day, with “ideological differences” being used to justify splitting when the most urgent necessity for the revolutionary and communist movement is to unite politically against capitalism and imperialism.

While it seems intuitive that organizational unity must be based on ideological unity, this is only because we are bombarded with bourgeois ideology every second of every day. The concept of putting ideological unity in first place is actually a religious concept which has no place in a revolutionary organization. It is a form of philosophical idealism which considers ideas to be primary and matter to be secondary, a reflection of ideas. Assigning primacy to ideology rather than politics will destroy any political organization, even bourgeois political organizations.

In practice, unity on the basis of ideology violates both democratic rights and the right to conscience within the organization. Ideological purity is demanded of the members and, just as in the Catholic Church the Pope interprets and arbitrates the will of God, in a political organization where the basis of unity is ideology, the leadership determines what/who is ideologically correct and what/who is not. Individuals are expelled or worse on the basis of the ideas that they express. How can a movement dedicated to the overthrow of class society, the elimination of all rank and privilege and of all forms of arbitrariness tolerate such a practice?

Does this mean that ideological unity is irrelevant or undesirable? No, of course not. Some level of ideological unity is a precondition for two individuals to get together to discuss the possibility of building a revolutionary organization. The issue is that ideology cannot be made the basis of unity of an organization. The basis of unity of a political organization can only be politics. Ideology must serve politics and not the other way around. In other words, the degree of ideological unity required at any particular time must be determined by the political objectives at that time. Furthermore, it is important not to expand the need for ideological unity any further than necessary. In some sense, ideological unity, like truth, is relative and, ultimately, unobtainable. No two individuals have the same sets of experience or the same thinking processes. So, some degree of difference will exist even if they are looking at the same data. The level of experience, analytical skills, education and many other factors also contribute to differences between individuals. To expect ideological unity on more than a small set of ideas is unrealistic and, generally, unnecessary.

Furthermore, strict ideological unity can be extremely detrimental to the health of an organization. If everyone agrees on everything, how can an organization grow and respond to changes? By their nature, human beings have an imperfect understanding of reality. Learning is primarily a social, not an individual, experience and understanding expands through the exchange of ideas and the sharing of both experiences and analysis. An organization which insists on ideological unity as a starting point, rather than as a long-term and ever elusive objective, dooms itself to intellectual paralysis and dogmatism, to formulistic regurgitation of phrases and formulations. Such an organization can never hope to overthrow capitalism, let alone the bourgeois ideology that capitalism gives rise to.

The basis of unity of a revolutionary organization must be an agreed-upon political goal. Since the political purpose of a revolutionary organization is the overthrow of capitalism and its replacement by socialism, that should be the basis of unity. Given the overwhelming pressure against revolution and socialism from bourgeois society, that is not such a small issue of agreement, after all. Those who demand more are really saying that they don’t really believe a person’s motives and that they should prove their commitment to revolution and socialism by reciting some liturgy. The proof of one’s commitment to revolution and socialism is not proven by a person’s knowledge of the writing of Marx or Lenin or some other leader; nor is it proven by the ability to parrot some phrases. Rather, it is determined by the person’s deeds; and whether those deeds are modest or heroic in scale is also not an issue. Revolution is not an individual act, despite the propaganda of bourgeois romanticism. Revolution is a social act, the act of a class. Within that, individuals play a role and make whatever contribution they are able to make. So the basis of unity should be expanded to reflect the importance of actions over words – the basis of unity of a revolutionary organization should be agreement with the principle of the revolutionary transformation of capitalism to socialism and participation in the work to make that goal a reality. That was the basis of unity that Lenin proposed for the Bolshevik Party a century ago and it led to the greatest revolution the world has yet witnessed. Can we say that the needs of the Canadian revolution are greater?

The Challenges We Face

This should not be interpreted to mean that the MRC believes that a party of the Leninist type is no longer needed in Canada. In fact, we are convinced that no other type of party will do. However, we are also acutely aware that the authority of Marxism-Leninism has been seriously undermined to the point that it essentially has to be re-established from square one. Demanding unity on the basis of Marxism-Leninism will only ensure that the work never gets off the ground. We cannot simply insist that others should accept Marxism-Leninism as the basis of a new party; rather, we will be forced to argue for those principles on an ongoing basis using logic and the experience of the Canadian working class. Furthermore, the same necessity exists even within those parties that call themselves Marxist-Leninist, as our own experience teaches us. Just because a party calls itself Marxist-Leninist does not guarantee that the content of that party will be Marxist-Leninist; there is a need for continuous renewal on the basis of solving the concrete problems facing revolution. If our experience has taught us anything it is that nothing can be taken for granted and that there is no substitute for being political. In other words, instead of trying to convince others of the truths of Marxism-Leninism, the Marxists-Leninists should put their theory into practice and actually provide coherence and leadership to the revolutionary movement.

We face a number of specific challenges in the immediate period. The first and most important challenge is to unite the anti-capitalist forces in Canada on the basis that there is no alternative to revolution. This is no small challenge given the entire history of Canadian Exceptionalism and the Liberal-Labour Alliance. However, we have the good fortune of living in the period when the Liberal-Labour Alliance is revealing its true nature and the “alternatives” flowing from that alliance are being discredited.

The second task we face is to work with those who agree with the necessity for revolution, to create an actual revolutionary organization to make such a revolution a reality. Once we succeed, that organization will face a whole host of challenges concerning the form and content of a revolutionary organization. However, once such an organization is established, those who are looking for an alternative will have somewhere else to turn rather than the bankrupt “solutions” of the bourgeoisie. That will give us the base and the momentum we need to carry the day on the other questions as well.

In the final analysis, no one gets to choose the circumstances in which they find themselves. They only get to choose whether they can live with those circumstances or whether they must work to change them. It is the work to change the world which invigorates and energizes communists and revolutionaries; it is the struggle which gives us life. In this spirit, the MRC wishes all of our comrades and friends health and every success in their work in the New Year.

Back to Modern Communism