(Critiques of) the PCR-RCP Programme

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

The programme of the PCR-RCP is, in my estimation, a document of significant interest. Of the communist parties in Canada, they are certainly the most publicly militant, they are likely the fastest growing, and arguably the most batshit (they hold the "the universality of prolonged people's war"). They are a successor to En Lutte!/In Struggle!, which included among its founders former FLQ militant Charles Gagnon.

A while ago, I was engaged in reading the Programme with those sympathetic to the party, and wrote some critical notes for discussion:

Critiques / concerns regarding the programme of the PCR/RCP:

To begin, I want to state unequivocally that these critiques are voiced in a comradely spirit, and in a belief that I share with supporters of the PCR/RCP a sincere commitment to a classless, stateless society based on the full realization of humanity’s species-being and the principle of “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need”. I’m also writing critiques / concerns, and not a thorough review. There is much in the programme that is laudable, insightful, and accurate – and I won’t be dwelling on any of it.

For simplicity sake, I’m going to begin by noting various smaller and less immediately “central” issues that, taken individually, may appear simply as issues of translation, semantics, or only minor concern. However, I’m of the opinion that in coming around to what I see as the “primary contradiction” (that’s a joke – I’m using it here in the conventional sense) within the programme, these ostensibly smaller matters will reveal themselves as aspects of an overall theoretical problem. In short-term work, a great deal of this theoretical problem may prove irrelevant – but in the broad strategic view, I believe that it will, in practice, lead to a growing chasm between the party and the class.

First, there is a tendency of the programme to slide from historical materialism into Great Man-ish hagiography. Articulations such as, “Marx and Engels, the founders of communism” fly in the face of Marx’s own notion of communism as “the real movement” – found in the movement of the masses, rather than founded by philosophers. To suggest Marx “laid the solid foundations that enable the proletarian movement to move forward” is a particularly dangerous formulation, suggesting a “Marxology” of close-readings to search for truth. While Marx adeptly analysed and articulated the conditions of developing global capitalism, and is therefore an incredibly valuable read, it remains unfortunately necessary to guard against this idea of Marx-as-special-if-not-infallible-genius. Similar instances of ripping Great Men from their context appear in regards to Lenin and Mao – significant verbiage is spent extolling their contributions, which would be better spent in exploration of the context from which their insight emerged.

Secondly, this sort of thinking rears its head again in a self-aggrandizing appraisal of the PCR/RCP itself. The programme is liberally peppered with the language of absolute certainty which is more befitting of a Christian tract than a living document for proletarian struggle. Right off the bat, the programme states, “The Programme of the Revolutionary Communist Party presents the strategic plan for the Canadian proletariat . . .” (italics mine). The thing is, this is at best an aspirational statement. Already, the party is preparing to make revisions to the programme on account of its failure to correctly grapple with the colonial situation in Canada and Quebec. It would be the utmost hubris to imagine this is an isolated instance. Even imagining (and this is almost certainly not the case) there are no errors in any aspect of the programme currently, it will inevitably have to adjust itself to a fluid situation. In any case this sort of wording occurs repeatedly, e.g. “Because [the PCR/RCP] represents the fundamental interests of the working class”. Some of these cases could be easily corrected simply by introducing a sense of appropriate humbleness – e.g. “Because the PCR/RCP aims to represent the fundamental interests of the working class” would suffice to strip such statements of what reads, at best, as posturing, and, less charitably, as blind faith.

Thirdly, the programme doesn’t properly grapple with capitalism as a totalizing system and the constitution of working class subjectivity. The programme essentially grapples with the reproduction of the working class not at all – an omission that is particularly glaring in its third section, concerning capitalism writ large, and in the eighth section, concerning women. It’s difficult to quote appropriately from the programme to illustrate this lack, since, obviously, one cannot quote what’s missing. The explanation of the capitalist factory, however, is illustrative:

"The capitalist factory is nothing but a prison where workers are exploited to the hilt in order to make profits for their bosses. These workplaces cause mental illness and injuries to workers. Workers do not have the right to express themselves; they must simply perform the tasks they are paid for. In such a context, they cannot be excited about their work and must act as mere robots, otherwise they will crack psychologically. For capitalists, a harmed worker is nothing more than a broken piece of machinery. It is only a matter of replacing him or her through a mere increase in expenditure. The “murder” of a worker that died on the job is nothing for a capitalist because he or she can be replaced by hundreds of thousands of unemployed."

There are certainly gestures here in the correct direction, but they are not (here or elsewhere) followed through upon. For example, as Marx puts it in his 1844 manuscripts, “the life which [the worker] has conferred on the object confronts [the worker] as something hostile and alien.” This aspect of production, in which the working class materially produces the conditions of its own estrangement is absolutely essential to understanding class. The factory is not “nothing but a prison”, or, rather this is true only insofar as we understand prisons as a peculiar sort of factory. It is not simply the coercive activity of the bourgeois and its state that produces workers-as-workers, but the labour of workers themselves. Alienation is not simply drudgery, inability to be excited, or the compulsion to “act as mere robots” – again, Marx’s writing on Estranged Labour discusses this quite eloquently.

This becomes particularly important in understanding the “affective labour” / “caring labour” of the private sphere, “leisure”, “social life”, etc. The programme’s chapter on women concerns itself with “women participating massively in the labour force”, and suggests that “patriarchy, as a social relationship, does not play a decisive role anymore in the social organization of capitalism.” Bluntly, this is wrong, and fails to grapple with the role of reproduction in class constitution. There is the obvious meaning of this – literal biological reproduction, which remains quite obviously de jure subject to extensive regulation and de facto management at a variety of levels – but also sexuality, emotional work, etc. That binary gender is literally stamped on birth certificates, that gender expression is a site of regulation and control, that in its global expansion capitalism has violently supressed the variety of gender expressions among colonized peoples, etc. is not simply “the muck of ages”. Such an explanation flies in the face of any sort of historical materialism – capitalism has massively transfigured and transformed gender, not simply inherited it. While capitalism may have swept away (or be in the process of sweeping away) pre-capitalist patriarchy, it has imposed everywhere a particular “capitalist patriarchy”, with a concrete material genesis. This has been traced in some detail by, among others, Silvia Federici, so I’ll spare words and highly recommend her thorough investigation (which also explores, to a lesser degree, colonialism and racialization), Caliban and the Witch.

As a brief aside, as regards patriarchy, the the suggestion that all pre-capitalist s*ocial forms were patriarchal and gender binarist is demonstrably factually incorrect. Understandings of sex/gender/gender role have varied enormously across cultures. The way this is framed in the programme is a sloppy retreat to Eurocentric Hegelian idealism.

All of these issues, however, come to a head in the programme’s greatest weakness – substituting the agency of the party for the self-activity of the masses. Bizarrely, there seems to be a sort of half-consciousness of this, in that the programme says explicitly, “The party has no pretense of substituting itself for the masses.” Or, for example, when the programme states “The role of the party is to help the broad masses in assuming leadership of their own struggle. By doing so, the masses will also learn to assume leadership of the whole of society. In regard to mass organizations that are not under the full tutelage of the state, the party must wage fierce struggle to extend workers democracy within those organizations, to crush the bourgeois line, to help the proletarian line to triumph . . .” it is almost certainly on the right track. However, this sentence ends, “. . . and at some point to gain control of them.” One is forced to question which is the priority of the PCR/RCP – the masses assuming leadership of society, or the party assuming leadership of the masses.

The programme draws another division between the armed working class ("arming of the masses and constitution of proletarian militias") and the "permanent red army" under control of the party. Insofar as the programme maintains that "political power grows from the barrel of a gun", a more or less similar question is raised again - does the PCR/RCP envision political power in the hands of the masses, or in the hands of the party?

Early on in the programme, elements of the state ("big bureaucrats of the federal, provincial and municipal public offices; the high brass of the army and of the police forces; diplomats; political leaders and organizers; leaders of the big trade-unions integrated to the state apparatus") are correctly identified as sharing fundamental interests with the capitalist class. It's also correctly noted that it is these same elements - in red drag, "this new bourgeoisie . . . integrated within the very heart of the state apparatus and of the party" - will act to restore capitalism. And yet, the solution to this problem isn't taken on in a structural or materialist fashion - it is made a matter of advocating the "correct line" - as though magic words could transform classes! The PCR/RCP sees the capitalist restoration at its very heart, but refuses, as it were, to toss the ring into the fires of Mount Doom.

I'd love folks' thoughts on both the programme, and my assessments of it. Anyone?

A note: I've heard that the programme is slated for revision in the near future - but, none the less, the version currently being circulated, discussed in reading groups, etc.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I know "bumping" is bad etiquette, but I'd love to get some traction in this thread. The PCR are hosting their "Canadian Revolutionary Conference" in my town later this month, and it would be nice to be . . . intellectually prepared to struggle with them.

[Blungey McGrues]

Hi comrade, I just happened on this critique . I am a new supporter of the PCR-RCP .. give me some time and I will try to give a proper response to this critique.. I am currently still working my way through the entirety of the program , but I will say right off the hop one of the first things I noticed also was "Marx and Engels , the founders of communism" . I had planned on giving my own criticisms and passing them along, hopefully to be considered in the revision of the document. Thanks for taking the time and Ill get back to you as soon as possible.

[Freeloader]

“Marx and Engels, the founders of communism”

I sort of see where you are coming from in your criticism of this statement. However there is truth to it, Marx and Engels are the founders of modern communism as a distinctive political theory. Distinguished by the communist manifesto. There were of course communistic tendencies and movements throughout human history but communism as a stateless, classless society devoid of private property achieved through and by the revolutionary struggle of the working class in the overthrow of the bourgeois is distinctly Marxist. In Short Non-Utopian communism is Marxist.

laid the solid foundations that enable the proletarian movement to move forward” is a particularly dangerous formulation, suggesting a “Marxology”

Again perhaps there is a danger of belittling the proletariat, but this statement has truth. In that Marxism is extremely important by its role in the revolution as a guide to action, and holds many of the lessons of the past workers struggles. For example from the Paris commune where thousands were slaughtered Marxism clarified many of its positions, as a direct result of the workers movement, and in turn this serves as lessons for us today paid for in blood. Marxology? Is this not another word for Marxism or Marxian.

Marx-as-special-if-not-infallible-genius

I think there is a problem that arises with Marx lenin et al. as infallible, especially in debate within revolutionary circles and outside. The main problem is the case of Marx said"XYZ" therefore this is axiomatically the case. It develops uncritical dogmatic attitudes which is unhealthy for revolutionaries and also goes over the heads of people who are new to the ideas and the movement. That being said, in my opinion, if genius has any meaning then marx and lenin were genius's.

“The Programme of the Revolutionary Communist Party presents the strategic plan for the Canadian proletariat . . .” (italics mine). The thing is, this is at best an aspirational statement.

Its difficult to know from an outside perspective, but what might really be the case here is a political question rather than just a case of presentation. The question of whether the RCP is a vanguard party leading the proletariat. In context with your previous issues could this really be the concrete issue you have with the party?
What is more important in my view is its strategy, i.e. its perspectives and the tasks ahead, for example are they utopian or over optimistic are they divisive within workers organs etc etc.

The role of the party is to help the broad masses in assuming leadership of their own struggle. By doing so, the masses will also learn to assume leadership of the whole of society. In regard to mass organizations that are not under the full tutelage of the state, the party must wage fierce struggle to extend workers democracy within those organizations, to crush the bourgeois line, to help the proletarian line to triumph . . .” it is almost certainly on the right track. However, this sentence ends, “. . . and at some point to gain control of them.” One is forced to question which is the priority of the PCR/RCP – the masses assuming leadership of society, or the party assuming leadership of the masses.

The way that you have quoted , regarding mass organizations doesn't seem to mean what you imply. That is "..to gain control of them", is ambiguous whether it refers to the party controlling the mass organization or whether it means the independent proletariat. If its to turn the workers organizations in to the arms of the party this could be a great thing, but this depends on the means to which this is achieved. Approaching a Trade Union with the intention to "take it over" for your party is manipulative and does show a lack of faith in the working class. However to win over members of workers organizations on a political basis to marxist ideas, to recruit members to your party and to have that organization affiliate to your party is the correct approach. However affiliation is not necessarily control.

The programme draws another division between the armed working class ("arming of the masses and constitution of proletarian militias") and the "permanent red army" under control of the party.

I think its clear that the RCP see itself as having full political power and that it will also see this as equal to the proletariat having power since it sees itself as the vanguard of the proletariat. Whats not made clear is that the relation of militias to any official revolutionary army and who holds power(arms) is relative to the revolutionary process. If for example there is a civil war the militias may be technically more powerful but divided on factional lines, anarchists, social-democrats, nationalities etc. During the struggle of power with the capitalist state , there will inevitably be an internal struggle on the side of the revolutionaries for influence and power. The problem then is that the RCP sees itself as a painting on the wall, leading the revolution with everybody smiling. It has already declared itself the sole and only leader of the revolution and communism. Which i think gives your criticism of "aspirational at best" credit.

It's also correctly noted that it is these same elements - in red drag, "this new bourgeoisie . . . integrated within the very heart of the state apparatus and of the party" - will act to restore capitalism. And yet, the solution to this problem isn't taken on in a structural or materialist fashion - it is made a matter of advocating the "correct line" - as though magic words could transform classes! The PCR/RCP sees the capitalist restoration at its very heart, but refuses, as it were, to toss the ring into the fires of Mount Doom.

In some ways its impressive that the issue has been noted. It has been demonstrated from russia to china to workers unions that "red Bourgeois" often find there way into workers organs, whether this is a significant party or significant union. "Advocating the party line" is to me reactionary. It predicts with good reason bourgeois elements and resorts to accommodation without any real challenge. For me a real solution to bourgeois elements is true workers democracy, For the dictatorship of the proletariat. With the abolition of bureaucracy through frequent and non career based rotation, average workers wage. etc. But it also means that the internal mechanism of the party must be open to debate and to the easy recall of leading members by ordinary members. It should also mean more than party, there are many tendencies within marxism, socialism , communism these should all be represented. This would mean that the bourgeois does not have a monolithic structure that they can mingle into. It would be more likely that they form and aggregate around social-democratic groups, openly. The enemy is easier to fight if you can see him, and forcing them into the shadows doesnt actually do any good. Additionally the workers state could constitutionally prohibit capitalist relations, setting any lingering counter-revolutionary elements to stand openly against the revolution and the constitution fought for.
Additionally its not with words that classes are transformed but through their relation to the means of production. The capitalist is no longer a capitalist when he no longer owns the means of production and cannot operate in a market economy. So long as socialism is developed the capitalist elements wither away along with proletarians. No need for any tossing, especially based on strict class lines. Since after all there may be genuine sympathetic elements from other classes. After all marx, engels and lenin were not proletarians.

FYI . This is my 2 cents, im not from canada, not a member of the rcp, nor a maoist.
In praise of the document not many revolutionaries are brave enought to state that they are in favour of dissolving the current army and police forces, partly because many seem more in favour of reforms. And the question of armed struggle is important, but i dont think it is dealt with in a serious way. Does the RCP have a secret armed wing preparing for the armed uprising , preparing with military training and arms?

[John Nada]

The PCR-RCP communique on the conference: http://www.pcr-rcp.ca/en/archives/1872

Traditionally the left seems to focus on entering preexisting workers' movements, which in the 1st-World is unfortunately dominated by the labor aristocracy and labor bureaucracy. This seems to lead to trade-unionism and sectional interests, rather than one representing the proletariat and laboring masses as a whole. That proposal for a new workers' movement is interesting. Even in an area where the workers' movement is apparently weak by Canadian standards(still is stronger than much of the US).

Also they investigate the Canadian national question in dept. For example, I didn't know there was a Black Nova Scotian nation(as opposed to black national minorities). Not only was it closely tied to early resistance in the US Black-Belt, but even had a BPP-inspried organization: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_United_Front . And rather than lump Indigenous peoples together, actually identify each nation.

For some reason, the US left seems far behind on the national question. Mostly it's basically viewed as just a problem of racism alone. Prevailing view seems to be that the US is a nation-state with national minorities, rather than a multinational state. Some orgs might bring up the Black-Belt, Aztlan, Puerto Rico and (more rarely)Indigenous nations(often lumped together racially rather than viewed as multiple nations like the Navajo, Sioux, Cherokee, Inuit, ect.), but almost more to stick to Comintern orthodoxy than concrete practice. Perhaps it's due to A.Much of the left being centered in a few major cities, mostly colleges B. There's no equivalent of Quebec.

Also I like how the strategy of revolution is seriously debated. Most 1st-world orgs beat around the bush, and either have a "wait for the apocalypse" strategy, lengthy legalism with a possible insurrection in the future or no strategy, with varying degrees of honesty and posturing. Discussing the universality of people's wars is a risky but much needed debate.(I happen to agree with it).

Valuation of volunteer work, performed outside regular working hours; as production increases and when the situation allows it, vigorous implementation and generalization of distribution of the fruits of production to “everyone according to his needs” rather than “according to his work;” transformation of all social activity into volunteer work allowing free expression of creativity and emancipation of each individual; reduction of mandatory work until its complete elimination.

Wow. Going straight to "each according to her needs" rather than "according to her work". Communist measures.

The programme draws another division between the armed working class ("arming of the masses and constitution of proletarian militias") and the "permanent red army" under control of the party.

think its clear that the RCP see itself as having full political power and that it will also see this as equal to the proletariat having power since it sees itself as the vanguard of the proletariat. Whats not made clear is that the relation of militias to any official revolutionary army and who holds power(arms) is relative to the revolutionary process. If for example there is a civil war the militias may be technically more powerful but divided on factional lines, anarchists, social-democrats, nationalities etc. During the struggle of power with the capitalist state , there will inevitably be an internal struggle on the side of the revolutionaries for influence and power. The problem then is that the RCP sees itself as a painting on the wall, leading the revolution with everybody smiling. It has already declared itself the sole and only leader of the revolution and communism. Which i think gives your criticism of "aspirational at best" credit.

Having separate militias and revolutionary army isn't usual. This was the case in China and Vietnam. A contemporary example of this is the YPS(-J) and the HPG/YJA-STAR in Northern Kurdistan.

It's also correctly noted that it is these same elements - in red drag, "this new bourgeoisie . . . integrated within the very heart of the state apparatus and of the party" - will act to restore capitalism. And yet, the solution to this problem isn't taken on in a structural or materialist fashion - it is made a matter of advocating the "correct line" - as though magic words could transform classes! The PCR/RCP sees the capitalist restoration at its very heart, but refuses, as it were, to toss the ring into the fires of Mount Doom.

In some ways its impressive that the issue has been noted. It has been demonstrated from russia to china to workers unions that "red Bourgeois" often find there way into workers organs, whether this is a significant party or significant union. "Advocating the party line" is to me reactionary. It predicts with good reason bourgeois elements and resorts to accommodation without any real challenge. For me a real solution to bourgeois elements is true workers democracy, For the dictatorship of the proletariat. With the abolition of bureaucracy through frequent and non career based rotation, average workers wage. etc. But it also means that the internal mechanism of the party must be open to debate and to the easy recall of leading members by ordinary members.

That's all in the maximum(or is it minimum for an advance capitalist country?) program: http://pcr-rcp.ca/old/en/programme/9/

The problem is during the transition to communism, before the final victory, people will still have some of the old "habits" from capitalism. Even if previously some revolutionaries were committed, lingering productive relations and elements of the older superstructure can reinforce capitalist ideology. This could lead to the emergence of a new bourgeoisie which might restore capitalism, even pretending it's to "reform" socialism. Cultural and even political revolution(s) might be necessary. The construct of socialism should be viewed as a dynamic process and not a one on-off thing.

In praise of the document not many revolutionaries are brave enought to state that they are in favour of dissolving the current army and police forces, partly because many seem more in favour of reforms. And the question of armed struggle is important, but i dont think it is dealt with in a serious way. Does the RCP have a secret armed wing preparing for the armed uprising , preparing with military training and arms?

Let's assume no. Even admitting it in the US, where it's almost legal, is insecure. Security culture is important.