We are publishing three documents (see the Annexes following this introduction) that circulated within the ranks of the RCP last year and that served as fodder for a campaign aimed at tarnishing the reputation of the Montreal section − the Party’s historical center and its most populous and active cell in Canada −, a campaign put together by the right-opportunist clique in control of the Central Committee before the recent split, and who is now behind the website pcrrcp.wordpress.com.

These documents were prepared by the three protagonists who were resolutely ejected from the Maison Norman Bethune this past March 4th, and that we qualified as “hostile elements” in the statement published a few days after the incident. Here it is to be noted by way of clarification that these three elements were designated and treated as such not because of political or ideological disagreements, as per a rumour within the Montreal far-left (some indeed trumpeted on about persecution of “dissidents” in an impetus of caricatural anticommunism), but rather because of the sabotage efforts they constantly waged for months, efforts including harassment, intimidation, policing, manipulation, calling for physical violence against a comrade, spreading of rumours and peddling lies, of which the most serious was a completely fabricated sexual abuse affair. Let us recall that this last accusation against a Montreal member has been rebutted by the supposed victim in an unequivocal letter that she transmitted to the Montreal members of the Central Committee, a letter in which she asserted “having nothing to reproach the comrade in question” and in which she “demands that he be absolved of all suspicion”. She equally requested that “her name and life no longer be used” as fodder for a political crusade with which she has nothing to do, which she correctly describes as “indecent”. For these reasons, we reaffirm without hesitation that the treatment reserved for these three protagonists this past Marche 4th was more than justified.

The first of the three hostile elements, “A” is a former comrade who worked with the Montreal section during a very short period − at most a few months in 2014 and 2015 − before leaving by his own will. The other two elements, “B” and “C”, are former activists of the Ottawa section who moved to Montreal in the autumn of 2015, and who refused to join the Montreal section, preferring to associate themselves with “A” in the pursuit of fractional activity and of the above-mentioned endeavor of provocation and sabotage. Many months before this past March 4th, the Quebec District ceased to consider them as members when their refusal to participate in the Party’s activities became clear.

The three documents were mainly written for the members and supporters of the Party outside of Montreal. They consist in a series of virulent attacks against the Montreal section and explicit calls to struggle against them and break from them. In the third text, the author pompously ensures his readers that the “monsters” making up the RCP in Montreal will be “annihilated”. The attacks are for the most part slander, insults and unfounded accusations. The documents also contain an abundance of anti-Marxist theses and of rightist positions contrary to the RCP’s program and line.

It is important to note the Central Committee’s clique of right-opportunists gave credit to these calumnious and schismatic pages and used them to throw discredit upon the Montreal section, to wipe out its influence and to completely and definitively chase it from the leadership of the Party − allowing the opportunists to fully seat its authority and become the unique leading center of the RCP. Let us recall as well that the Central Committee’s opportunists, without the least hesitation, took up the defense of the three hostile elements after the March 4th episode, to the point of reclaiming, a few hours after this event, the definitive revoking of membership of four Montreal members, identified as responsible for the three protagonists’ ejection from the Maison Norman Bethune, which they qualified as an “assault” against “two supporters” and “one sympathizer”. At this moment it became clear that the Central Committee’s clique of opportunists and a segment of its supporters − namely the activists of the Ottawa section − were closely collaborating with the three hostile elements (opportunists even more uninhibited than themselves, operating in parallel to the Party’s internal activity and employing other means), and therefore themselves participating in the fractional maneuvers. This untenable situation finally led to the events of last spring and to a schism between the Quebec District and the rest of the organization.

We decided to publicize these three documents, not only to give an idea of the climate within the Party before the split − and of the fashion in which the revolutionary line’s adversaries preferred spreading intrigues and conspiracies instead of honestly waging line struggle, respectfully towards democratic centralism −, but also, and especially, since many of the attacks against the program and the historical practice of the RCP, as well as many of the conceptions contained in these three documents are similar if not identical to the positions defended by the Central Committee’s clique of right-opportunists. Moreover it is no coincidence that the clique still today considers the three hostile elements who drew up these documents as comrades and as members of the organization they lead. (The three con artists are indeed behind the recent founding of an organizing committee of the opportunist-RCP in Montreal and of an organization called “ROAR”). As such, we believe that the reading of these three documents (or of the excerpts we chose) should help our supporters and all those who are interested by the ongoing debate to better grasp the content of the opportunistic line and to better understand in what way it differs from the Maoist and revolutionary line of the RCP.

1. I wanted to join a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist organization

It is this 98-page (!) essay, penned by con artist “A”, which kicked off the sequence of documents attacking the Montreal section of the RCP and fighting the revolutionary line in the Party. It is also this document that contains the sexual abuse frame-up against a Montreal Party member.

It must be made known that the Central Committee’s opportunist clique, fighting to strengthen its authority and to consolidate its position in the Party, used this text to galvanize its supporters and to demonize the Montreal section in the eyes of the whole membership, aiming to erase the Montreal section’s influence and to remove it once and for all from leadership. The opportunist clique endorsed the content of this document and conferred it validity sufficient to allow it to arrive at its ends. During a period of several weeks, a period marked notably by the holding of our last Congress, the document moved freely within the Party, all the while being deliberately withheld from the Montreal section. The Central Committee’s opportunist clique, who, by its own admission, had been handed the document two weeks before the Congress, intentionally omitted to transmit a copy to Montreal cadre before the holding of the Congress, and then continued to refuse to transmit it for several weeks. At the time of Congress, a significant number of members were already aware of the accusations and criticisms contained in the documents; the Montreal section’s members however were informed only once the pawns allowing the opportunists to make gains were already in place. We know that the Ottawa section’s activists − the largest section of the opportunist-RCP at the time of the Congress − directly participated in this maneuver by translating the document. As if all this were not enough, the circulation of official documents coming from the Montreal section, documents intended to be read by the whole membership of the Party before Congress, was intentionally obstructed by the Central Committee’s opportunist clique, such that many members from outside of the Quebec District only got their hands on the documents one or two day before Congress, or worse, only once arrived! It goes without saying that such scheming constitutes an infraction to the democratic centralism of a communist party.

The Central Committee’s opportunist clique, who, in one of its statements, dared to claim that Montreal activists had sabotaged its investigation into sexual abuse allegations, while it itself postponed the process of investigation by refusing for weeks to share the document containing this accusation with Montreal CC members. This illustrates how the opportunists were much less interested in actually resolving this accusation than they were in making the political gains it would earn them through discrediting the Montreal section. They shamefully exploited this false accusation of sexual assault in order to attain their goals. The Montreal leaders, when they found out about the accusation, immediately took action and contacted the person designated as victim in the document, which allowed them to confirm the fact that it was a pure and simple lie.

Before commenting the document itself, we deem necessary to put it into context by briefly revisiting the author’s participation and by setting the record straight concerning his implication in the RCP. “A” was an active member of the Montreal section for at most a few months − namely from the end of the month of September 2014 up until April 2015. During this period he was mainly active in the Revolutionary Student Movement (RSM). We cannot associate “A” to any serious activist experience preceding or following his taking part in the RSM. Despite his lack of experience “A” had, from the start, a narcissistic attitude and displayed a disconcerting dogmatism. He tried to impose himself as the unique interpreter of the truths of Marxism, using, among other things, his status as engineering student to give himself credibility. Very quickly, he began to exhibit feelings of hostility towards the RCP’s Montreal section, to the point even of proposing to a few comrades that they join him in a pursuit of liquidating the section’s leadership. At a given time, during an informal meeting, he began delivering petty and bureaucratic attacks against a comrade who had recently begun participating in the RSM, threatening her with expulsion under the pretext that she defended “TERF” (trans-exclusive radical feminist) positions. Troubled by this disagreeable episode, this comrade decided to cut ties with us. “A” was met with criticism for this bureaucratic style of work by his Montreal comrades. Unfortunately, he refused to self-criticize and preferred to leave the Party and exclude himself from its work. “A” thus began writing his essay − a venture which, in light of the facts stated here, seems to have been principally motivated by his desire for revenge.

It is difficult to correctly describe a document as strange as it is delirious. Penned in the style of a self-loving bourgeois politician’s autobiography, the text boasts the supposed individual exploits of the author, revisiting the history of the RSM-Montreal’s development in 2014-2015 to illustrate the way in which he claims to have been at the root of the accomplishments − be they real or fantasized − of this organization. In fact, the text exhibits nothing less than the disproportions and the breadth of the illusions of a megalomaniac. Behind his disguise as a brilliant theorist and unmatched organizer is simply a petty-bourgeois with a frustrated pride, condensing in his person vices as common to his social class as they are irritating to the proletarian masses and communist revolutionaries: pedantry, self-absorbedness, and childishness.

In addition to serving as a vehicle for this self-glorification, the document aims to smear the reputation of the RCP’s Montreal section, using fallacious accusations and misrepresentations of intentions against activists, using dishonest accounts, distorted narratives, and horrifying extravagances. Some propositions are so absurd that we are in a position to sincerely wonder how the document could have been taken seriously by the opportunists of the Central Committee. Indeed, reading the text is supposed to bring one to believe that the RCP in Montreal is a sort of misogynous sect intended to sate the sexual desires and thirst for power of pedophilic “patriarchs”… nothing less! The author attempts to demonstrate the existence of a plot orchestrated by these “patriarchs”, aiming to eject him and to destroy the entirety of his work. The document finally calls for the liquidation of the Montreal section, through either a split or the expulsion of most of its members.

The author completely skews the positions defended by Montreal, affirming for example that the section leadership is only interested by “the general extraction of surplus-value” and that it does not recognize the existence or importance of phenomena such as sexism, homophobia, racism, etc. This is far from being the case: Our Party recognizes and fights all the forms of oppression and discrimination suffered by the proletariat. What differs us from the opportunists is the way in which we apprehend these phenomena. Indeed, what the opportunists refuse to support is our rejection of the conceptions of postmodern ideologues and of other followers of identity politics, for whom each contradiction among the people, every one of the bourgeoisie’s tools for the weakening and dividing of the working class, is its own autonomous system of oppression, for whom each system is equally structuring of society, for whom the sum of these systems superposes itself on capitalism − the latter being reduced, for these ideologues, to a simple “oppression” among others, instead of being a mode of production to be done away with through revolutionary struggle.

All of this is intertwined, in the most pretentious way possible, with mediocre theoretical contributions and bizarre comments the irony of which only the author seems to perceive − despite his affirmed wish to be understood by the masses. The theses advanced by the author are at best uninteresting, at worst completely false, most of them displaying a nearly total misunderstanding of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.

Amid this strange mess, it is nonetheless possible to discern certain conceptions that, even if they appear here in a particularly crude manner, are characteristic of the right-opportunism that we are fighting. We find for example the implicit abandonment of the proletariat as a revolutionary subject to the profit multiple identities linked to specific oppressions; the idea that only the direct experience of a form of oppression allows one to correctly understand it; the idea that a part of the proletariat can have an interest in the oppression of another, etc. − all theses that are anti-Marxist and strongly teinted by postmodernism. The author himself embarks in a nearly total redefinition of the concept of proletariat, going so far as saying that “proletarian oppression” is sometimes “entirely defined by specific oppression”, or furthermore that “class can become, under certain conditions, equal to gender, race, or any other characteristics that one group of humans might find in another and allow it to reproduce itself on a material basis.”

The right-opportunists’ way of conceiving of Party-building as requiring the establishment of mass organizations with a lower basis of unity finds its perfect illustration in the narrative and explanations of the author. The latter makes, without realizing, delectable revelations on the way in which he goes about adapting the RSM’s line and defining proletarian feminism as a function of the dominant ideological tendencies within the student far-left instead seeking out correct positions, perfectly exemplifying the opportunistic mode of recruitment and construction that we contest. He thus exposes the way in which he prefers first and foremost the recruitment of representatives of these various tendencies (one queer feminist, one radical feminist, etc.), and representatives of different identities, without worrying about whether they are proletarians or people who desire to struggle for the proletariat’s emancipation, all this in the sole motive of obtaining credibility in the eyes of academic activists.

The criticism of the organization of combative demonstrations − such as those of the RCP in Montreal on Mayday − as representing a form of adventurism and cutting ourselves from the masses is particularly revelating. Indeed, for the right-opportunists, the adopting of forms of struggle outside of the framework tolerated by the bourgeoisie, the act of confronting the enemy − in other words, the reconciliation between words and deeds − are to be avoided. The author goes as far as saying that the Montreal activists of the RCP are “isolating themselves in paramilitary institutions in the goal of overthrowing the government without the support of the masses”. It appears we do not share a common definition of “military”! The author also emits strong skepticism with regards to the possibility of waging Protracted People’s War in an imperialist country such as Canada and tries to ridicule the theoretical contributions historically made by the RCP on this primordial question. All this clearly illustrates the rejection of revolutionary action that characterizes the right-opportunism prevailing de facto in imperialist countries.

Excerpts from the text

Being that I wanted to join a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist organization is a particularly lengthy essay, we selected a few excerpts and classified them in different categories, in order to allow those who lack the courage, patience or simply the time to read it in its entirety to obtain an idea of its content. Allow us to forewarn our readers that the thinking of the author is at times difficult to grasp because of the style in which it is written and since it is not always coherent. Let those who intend to apprehend the essay in its entirety be warned that it is an arduous read!

A) SHAM SELF-CRITICISM/PETTY-BOURGEOIS NARCISSISM

On the author’s herculean efforts: “I am at the source of many serious deviations within the RSM, which I started at the beginning of its refoundation. Even before re-founding the RSM, I began by normalizing through my personal practice a rhythm of work which would have been unbearable for most students. I never hid how I was able to attain this rhythm, by putting twenty hours of work per week in my revolutionary engagement. My graduate studies are currently funded by the state, which is a luxury most students don’t have or only to a small extent.”

“Along the same line of reasoning, I tried to resolve the contradiction between francophones and anglophones by translating as fast as possible all the documents that had to be translated. I used to check every evening if there were new articles to translate, which I would usually do the same evening, at a rhythm of 15 minutes per page. I set the bar extremely high for others. I accustomed people, especially the anglophones, to this kind of performance, putting enormous pressure on the bilingual people who were relatively few in the RSM. This action could have contributed to make believe to the Anglophones that this performance was reasonable when it was not.”

“I should have, as soon as I saw signs of this disdain towards those questions and the considerable loss of reputation that would ensue for the RSM if it followed the implicitly cis-sexist line of the RCP, called to bombard the headquarters. One of the reasons why I didn’t contact the rest of Canada earlier was my pride in having without a doubt been the main driver and organizer of the most spectacular development of a mass organization.”

Some confessions: “I voluntarily kept hidden the sexist, anti-queer and anti-trans deviations in Montreal in order to keep the glory and prestige of eventually having corrected them all for myself. I only began discussing these problems once it had become a threat to the whole pan-Canadian organization and I would clearly be made responsible for this problem.”

“We watched the movie Laurence Anyways by Xavier Dolan, in which we saw the story of a coming-out of a trans woman in Québec in the 90’s. I thought it would be enough to explain how these liberation struggles are important and relevant to all proletarians. As such it wasn’t really negligence on my part so much as hubris. I wanted to impress English Canada and prove the superiority of our practice in Montreal. With regards to building LGBTQ**2S power in our organizations and the consolidation of members, it was however a complete failure.”

On the author’s skills of seduction: “As you may know, members of RI began to poach in the RSM, the PCR’s front yard. The thing is that it wasn’t RI that started, it was myself. At this time where I was overflowing with social energy, it seemed to be a good idea to invite myself to the birthday of woman with whom I became Facebook friends after attending a workshop that she gave on transformative justice. I started poaching in her friend group. She later told me I was close to bringing them to my side. They had been particularly interested by my authenticity, what the petty bourgeoisie within the party call my rigidity and that this same petty bourgeoisie will surely explain with bourgeois psychiatry.”

B) POSTMODERN/ANTI-MARXIST CONCEPTIONS:

Specific oppressions and the redefinition of the proletariat: “The white proletariat which continues to do nothing in the face of white chauvinism and keeps benefiting from it, as a mass, through multiple privileges take part in the exploitation of racialized proletarians.”

“How can the proletariat acquire a distinct consciousness of the class oppression that afflicts them when for a good number of them, the extraction of surplus-value, in itself, isn’t their biggest worry?”

“For proletarians who are living specific oppressions, it can be the case that their proletarian oppression is entirely defined by their specific oppression.”

“The exclusion of Black people from white areas kept going well after the abolition of slavery and goes on to this day in the US, which makes their exploitation by the bourgeoisie easier. It is their exclusion from white society that produces their condition as proletarians.”

“The fact of being racialized can be concretely more significant than any amount of money lying in a bank account. Why are police forces so suspicious when they see a racialized person inside a big house or a luxury car, if it isn’t because of the properties that matter?”

“It’s not that there doesn’t exist a normatively-able, cis-heteronormative, white proletariat. But on the other hand, it would be difficult not to come to the conclusion that in reality, this faction is oppressed precisely because it was forced to live, because of the laws of the market, with the living conditions of the more oppressed other sections of the proletariat (of course, the free market will never remove completely those privileges).”

“Imagine instead that this is a global communist world where capital has been abolished, where no one is forced to work. A handful of men at their leisure provide all the means of subsistence for this society. Science and technology have advanced to the point that a group of geeks take care of machines and exploits others in all other specific work to be done in society. Has class society disappeared? This isn’t a nightmare invented in the mind of a single man, subjectively. It is the hell that could become reality if socialist revolution isn’t done properly. It is a materially possible world, still at an embryonic stage. Social class can reflect itself in aspects of human beings that they may not be able to part with. Class can become, under certain conditions, equal to gender, race, or any other characteristics that one group of humans might find in another and allow it to reproduce itself on a material basis.”

“The study of those concrete aspects and their interrelation, this is what Marxism is about.”

“It’s simple to understand: the history of revolutionary organisations is not exactly bright when it comes to understanding the oppressions that affect the proletariat. This is because for decades, political power in communist organisations has been monopolised by people who have had material incentives to betray its other members. These organisations have always been at an internal or external political reconfiguration away to liquidate itself. Proletarians living specific oppressions are right to not involve themselves in these organisations: the threat of the creation of a new class society is a concrete one. This new system of antagonism could be worse than the previous one because in this new system social status can not be bought.”

“My understanding of identity politics is that they represent the unionism of specific oppressions. It has the same goals, the same practices, the same weaknesses, and our attitude towards groups defending those specific oppressions must be the same as the one we have towards unions.”

On the various types of political power: “It’s not the state that creates political power. The state serves the purpose of managing the material contradictions within society, it constitutes itself as a supreme political power above the different factions of society. […] The political power of a group of people can become so strong, that not only will it not require repression to persevere, but it won’t need state power to exist.”

“The good working conditions came directly from patriarchal political power, which didn’t need the state to exist.”

“But patriarchy is a special political power: it is usually so strong in a given society that it does not need to be explicit to be applied. Men as a social category are the winners in this situation by taking advantage of the benefits it gives them.”

There is no longer an industrial proletariat in Canada: “Let’s look at what industrial branches remain in Canada: the petroleum industry, aeronautics, smelting and mining… none of these branches employ a significant part of the proletariat.”

It is justified to criticize the thesis of the extinction of the State: “The promises made to anarchists about the end of the state following the dictatorship of the proletariat would make no sense if they weren’t coming from people thoroughly convinced that there are no material bases for political contradictions once the task of building socialism has been achieved. It is in fact very difficult to defend this position among the masses, and often a justified criticism against the communist movement in general.”

C) RIGHT-OPPORTUNISM:

Opportunist recruitment: “We counted on one the one hand to attract those people claiming to be radical feminist that weren’t brandishing that flag because amongst themselves, certain queer feminists didn’t treat that sort of subject. We counted on the other hand to attract the people that demanded more queer feminism because of the assessment that radical feminist theory is transphobic in its very foundation, but that would like to have within its revolutionary student political group certain demands of radical feminists that were well founded.”

On the adventurism and militaristic deviations of the RCP in Montreal: “Members of RI do not fetishize Montreal, unlike party members outside of Montreal, and correctly understand that the RCP’s practice is a mix of tailism of the worst practices from the Montreal anarchist movement and a militarist adventurism.”

“We can never rupture with anarchism if our strategy is to isolate ourselves within paramilitary institutions in the goal to topple the government without mass support. Apparently all attempts to demolish ruined coalitions that inhibit the road to revolution are either an idea vowed to fail, either a politics that doesn’t represent the interest of the party. The only thing that is important to the party, is to fight the police when they are at their strongest: when they attempt to master some hundreds of people that protest. It probably what was retained of Mao in Montreal: we need to fight the enemy when they are strongest, by relying on the weakest fractions of the masses.”

“Also, the conscious of people in the restaurants around us that suffered the shots of anti-riots had well evolved. If is why after this great battle against the bourgeois State, worth more than any leaflet or political discourse that the party or and mass organisation could have proffered before the masses, literally nobody was interested in the party for the following months. However, we needed not conclude to a strategic failure that was to create riots on Mayday, even if it had been many years that this type of adventurism had only allowed for comrades to arrest and some external anticapitalists. No, we would have to wait years before the change in ideology amongst the people is done. It we hadn’t seen any fruits from our battles, we had to place our confidence in the judgement of the three in charge.”

Criticism of the RCP’s rejection of economism in Montreal: “The very idea to rely on the masses to wage the revolutionary political struggle is absent in Montreal. In their bizarre distanciation of economism, those cadres have decided that we must implicate ourselves in none of the struggles that can be won realistically without a complete collapse of the bourgeois State. They imagine themselves that the masses will realize their potential without having seen any gains in their lives before the Grand Soir.”

Subsitution of revolutionary action by the forms of struggle tolerated by the bourgeoisie: “At each meeting following this up to the 4th congress, when I had given example of campaigns not forcibly related to struggles against the bourgeois character of the State, but against the injustices that the proletarians lived and that could help accumulated our forces as a mass organisation, I had always cited as an example the struggle to have non-gendered bathrooms. This example had always been understood as a proletarian issue for the members of the RSM.”

Casting doubt on the possibility of waging PPW in an imperialist country: “The operations that were lead in China cannot simply be reapplied within imperialist blocs. We only have to read texts such as “Why is it that Red Political Power can Exist in China” to conclude that we would need major innovations to be able to wage a PPW within an imperialist country, totally controlled economically, politically and ideologically within capitalist hegemony. The RCP theoreticians on the PPW have clearly never read this first text published by Mao on this question. This text is quite accessible to the majority of proletarians, is very short and written in a very readable style. The will of certain members proposing concretely the PPW in an imperialist country to sincerely aim for a victory for socialism, without trying to answer to those concrete problems to which the PPW will face, is for the least questionable.”

D) QUEER FEMINISM:

The theory of male/female brains might be true: “Maybe gender is or isn’t inscribed in the brain, maybe when the relations of power and oppression related to gender will be eliminated, there wouldn’t be any chemical of morphological difference between the brains of human being according to their gender: whatever it is, the gendered division of labour and the inequalities of power have to be eliminated.”

The existence of women-only spaces such as washrooms is a consequence of cis-sexism and transphobia: “A strict TERF is strictly for the creation of non-mixed spaces in which it would be required to be at once a woman and to be designated a woman at birth, but this person wouldn’t be cissexist or transphobic, with the exception of the creation of this space. Of course, we would convene that this strict definition encounters difficulties: what do we do with people born with vaginas that don’t have one anymore for diverse reasons? Are they less of a woman? But let the TERFs take care of their internal contradictions. The real question that we must ask ourselves is: do this kind of TERFs exist? It is never difficult to find cissexism and transphobia with these people, after all it is cissexism and transphobia which is at the source of the creation of these spaces. In all the readings I had done that take a defense of these type of non-mixed spaces, it was evident.”

E) BIZARRE/COMICAL:

On the relation between cats, poutine and anarchism: “We must look at the world as it appears to us to understand why people don’t follow us. You ask why there are so many anarchists and why the marches in Montreal are so big? Let’s look at what surrounds us in Montreal and what the masses bring forward unconsciously: their cats. In Montreal, cats are no fatter than in the rest of Canada, but they are very different: In Montreal we feed them with poutine. It is an ancient practice that developed from cultural conditions distinct to Quebec. Poutine has a special effect on the odor of cats, which compels their masters, without them knowing, to take to the streets and shout slogans. Cats being anarchists, as we all know, this odor can be determined to be the cause of the dominant presence of anarchism. It isn’t something we can spontaneously reason out; we are born into it.”

“These strange behaviors in the masses of Montreal can be explained by the unconscious processes done by the Digestive Apparatuses of the State: let’s forget that what the masses have seem from MLM in Montreal has been awful. It is the direct support of government subsidies in potato, gravy and cheese curd production that is responsible for the lack of enthusiasm by the masses for MLM.”

On MLM robots: “But those people are afraid. We need only look at cinema. In the bourgeois imagination, the fear of zombie hordes is a strong one. In fact, it is only second only to robot armies. The very idea of having a party, like an iron fist, that would without mercy crush the bourgeoisie, and that would have the information to accomplish its goals by being connected by infallible lines of light-speed communication is sufficient to create the worse propaganda campaigns. Imagine on top of all this the arm and these lines of communication connected by a dedicated structure able to calculate the optimal path to liberation.”

“The biggest fear of bourgeois trash is an army of robots. Their biggest fear is an army of robots bred by the science of revolution. An army of robots that have grasped the science of revolution and will speak of building a party. By speaking of party building, they will be speaking of a revolutionary, antirevisionist communist party. By asking them what truths state party thought, they’ll say Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.”

Petty-bourgeois tears: “Nonetheless, after everything that happened in the party, after the fall from up high, I had decided for a brief moment that I would abandon revolutionary politics because I could not see how I could contribute to socialist revolution. It seemed impossible to me. […] I will never forgive those who made me lose, even for a moment, my revolutionary faith.”

2. When One Must Divide Into Two: A Maoist’s analysis of the PCR-RCP’s politics and practices within Montreal

This document was written by “B”, one of the two Ottawa activists to move to Montreal in autumn 2015. It is to be noted that “B” never participated in any way in the RCP in Montreal, since he excluded himself from the Party’s activity immediately upon arriving in this city.

The document was written with the explicit intent of inciting the Party’s members to split from the Montreal section and to found a new organization which would no longer be called the “RCP”, a name which he argued had to be discarded given the supposedly awful reputation the Party in Montreal. The result of the latest Congress having been unsatisfactory in the eyes of the author, he concludes by calling for the holding of a special Congress to put this split into effect.

The document is a continuity of I wanted to join a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist organization, which the author directly refers to in the first paragraphs. He also strongly recommends Party members to read it, presenting it as a complete and penetrating criticism of the Montreal section’s practice and political line, as well as a brilliant essay containing “very profound theoretical discussions on Maoism” and on the “logistics of PPW”.

Similarly to in “A”‘s document, the author begins his presentation with a sham self-criticism essentially setting the stage for his attacks against the Montreal section. Revisiting the autumn 2015 episode in which he had been sent by the bureaucrats of the Pan-Canadian Coordination Committee of the RSM − some of whom are today part of the opportunist clique of the Central Committee − to investigate on the Montreal RSM in order to determine the breadth of “TERF ideology” in the city, the author insists that he minimized the problem in his report and that he had been fooled by Montreal activists.

The documents continues with a repetition of many of the accusations and criticisms contain in “A”‘s document, combining them with the results of his own observations and his own “investigations”. The Montreal section appears not only dominated by “TERF”s, but also is “sectarian” and completely detached from the masses (who, incidentally, are identified here as university students). The author deplores the fact that his comrades and himself should have so long succumbed to the illusion that the RCP was a respectable force in the “Montreal Left”. He recounts how he “investigated” among various activist groups − radical feminists, queer feminists and anarchists at UQÀM, the IWW and Trotskyites − only to discover, horrified, that the RCP’s Maoists were not at all appreciated by the “Left”, and to conclude that the practice and line of the members of the Party’s Montreal section were therefore necessarily bad. So it was that the author − who, strangely, had not yet come into contact with the omnipresent anti-communism in universities and of intellectuals in imperialist countries! − evaluated the activity and political line of a communist party according to the judgments of reformists, revisionists and other followers of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideological currents, eloquently revealing the opportunism in which he bathed.

3. Concerning the February 1st ultimatum

This pompous statement was published by “A”, the author of I wanted to join a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist organization, on the wall of his Facebook account. With it he declared an ultimatum to the ensemble of the Party, following which what he refers to as his “manifesto” will be made public.

The author, for whom the struggle against the Montreal section was not advancing quickly enough, calls upon the “top brass” of the organization (the opportunist clique of the Central Committee), insists they do everything possible to “minimize delays”, hoping, by his pressure, to accelerate the expulsion of the Montreal section − leading the “monsters” that are its members to be “destroyed”.

“A” also affirms he was offered, by one of the “top brass” of the organization, that his essay be published in the form of a book (it is to be wondered what editor would have accepted this compilation of blather!). Many months later, it seems the “top brass” changed their mind. Indeed, until this day, I wanted to join a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist organization has not been published in any way or on any platform, probably to the great dissatisfaction of its author… After having shamefully taken advantage of a splittist text filled with lies and dubious theses to their own ends − ends of winning total leadership of the Party and of neutralizing the Montreal section −, the opportunist clique of the Central Committee, which “A” and the two other hostile elements now must obey, apparently decided they were better off not publishing it. After all, there are good reasons to believe they do not wish to be publicly associated to as mediocre a text, despite their sharing a good number of the opportunist conceptions contained in it. Unfortunately for them, the fractional maneuvers they lowly undertook have now been unveiled.


* * *

ANNEX 1: I wanted to join a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist organization

A manifesto for the creation of a first Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Party by “A”

It has been more than two years now since I got into contact with the Revolutionary Student Movement – Montreal (MER – Montréal), during the preparation for the MER-RSM’s third congress. For many years, I had considered myself an orphan communist, feeling uncomfortable within the most other left-wing tendencies.

The capitalist system in which we live is nothing but the alienation of the work of the toiling masses and of their society. The masses dream, more or less explicitly, of nothing but the socialist revolution. As such, I had to be a revolutionary and so acknowledged the necessity as revolutionaries to organize ourselves in order to constitute the vanguard and give a political direction to the rebellious movements against bourgeois order. It also seemed crucial to me that such an organization tie itself to the masses in a comprehensive and conscious way: that this organization form a party working with infallible loyalty to the advancement of socialist revolution.

Today, I am ashamed to have defended an organization, the Revolutionary Communist Party (PCR-RCP), which not only does not promote MLM among the masses, but also works in effect to associate MLM to the most reactionary tendencies. As such, this letter is addressed to all the members of the RCP to denounce this situation and expose the problems I have clearly identified. I am not limiting myself to the members of my own cell because evidently, these problems are the result of dynamics that encompass the whole party.

But before moving further with my criticism, I must make my own self-criticism of my attitude towards the party. I have committed a number of mistakes before joining it and afterwards. I don’t expect this presentation of my self-criticism will be sufficient on its own to prove that I am on the way to not repeating those mistakes. That is why in fact I am writing this criticism: to discuss my evolution in my understanding of Marxist-Leninist-Maoist theory.

For a year I did active militant work, following years of self-educating about communist theory. I spent a year going from the abstract to the concrete, it was passed the time to make it from the abstract to the concrete, to synthesize the lived experience and to toil on the practices I need to change in order to better contribute to the historical task that the proletariat, armed with Marxist-Leninist-Maoist science, is giving itself: the socialist revolution and its program of true emancipation for all.

So I had to write this text. There was no use doing politics if I couldn’t proceed.

I asked myself how it was possible for the party to be so prompt at sabotaging itself. I came to the conclusion that there is a good number of people within the party who are in reality anti-Marxist, anti-Leninist and anti-Maoist, especially in Montreal. So I decided to develop my text along these three milestones of MLM science, by using as a title each of the slogans that highlight the differences between the RCP’s practice and MLM practice. For each section, I begin with theoretical fragments of each of those stages. I then make my criticisms according to each concrete manifestation of anti-MLM deviations. I also try to render the text as readable as possible for people who don’t MLM well.

In hindsight, this was a good way to structure the text in the sense that there was more than enough material and it was covering all of MLM, but it was also constraining. There is a central axis, but it constantly needs to be made explicit, which made the text much too long. More work would have been required to make the text accessible for the masses, although it will do for the needs of the party. It is definitely not an exercise in vulgarization. To make reading easier, I gave examples for each passage that could be too abstract. I got good feedback for those examples, but it made the text even longer. Especially given that, with the theoretical level I witnessed in Montreal, we are starting from zero.

You will also notice that the treatment of the three milestones strays away from the orthodox treatment of MLM by the RCP, in that I don’t treat them as stages, but more as facets of the same cohesive theory that forms anti-revisionist communist theory. This separation between Marx, Lenin and Mao has its pedagogical use, but it gets taken too far. Marx, Lenin and Mao always held essentially the same message, but applied to different contexts.

I don’t claim any originality however in the way I treat those ideas.

I must thank the people who criticized this text and suggested revisions. I especially appreciated their contribution, considering all the stories that happened within the party and the cultural differences amongst us. I must also thank the translation team which gave its time generously. I thanked you before the text was translated, and I wasn’t disappointed: I am quite satisfied by the result.

I also need to give a trigger warning about the content. There will be frank discussion about most of the oppressions you know about. Those who know me know I don’t put gloves on when doing politics. While this style of discussion is generally appreciated among the masses, it is worth making a trigger warning. There are no graphic descriptions, but I talk about violence that can be extreme towards specific members of the party, especially patriarchal abuse, transphobia and psychiatry. In particular, the section on Marx contains a detailed account of everything that happened in Montreal in sub-section on “Montreal Exceptionalism”.

I expect that many trans people within the party will find that my text is too dry and takes much of the subjectivity away from their experience. For example, I talk about the right to gender identity self-determination as a democratic right. I also describe trans people as a material, social fact. This text wasn’t however written to discuss the trans liberation struggle on its own, but of the fact that it forms part of the proletarian struggle. I take this approach to combat the reactionaries who disguise themselves as communist, and not to lead the trans liberation struggle itself.

I also describe TERFs as being by definition people inspired by Radical Feminism (radfem) and who oppose trans reality in principle. I had this discussion with a trans person in the party, who instead defined TERF as any form of cis-sexism, that is, any reaffirmation of the gender binary. In my view, a typical patriarchal macho who hates radical feminists and reinforces the gender binary isn’t TERF. A person who adheres to proletarian feminism while also clinging to the radfem idea that men and women constitute social classes but is cis-sexist, isn’t a TERF. They rather have certain aspects of their ideology that are patriarchal. I will use my definition of TERF in the text.

I will gladly accept all anti-oppressive criticisms on this topic. Trans people in the party are better placed to discuss theory on it. It’s their power that counts in the end, not my own theorization.

On another note, I chose to change my way of feminizing my writings. I used to put in French all gendered-suffixes as upper-case letters. I found all these additional vowels heavy on re-reading the text, so I decided to feminize everything. It makes up for masculinising everything. For now, the English language holds this advantage, we can only hope that in the future the French language will be modified by the struggles of our comrades. (Translator’s note: This is relevant to the original French language version).

Sitting on my laurels: my self-criticism

I am at the source of many serious deviations within the RSM, which I started at the beginning of its refoundation.

Even before re-founding the RSM, I began by normalizing through my personal practice a rhythm of work which would have been unbearable for most students. I never hid how I was able to attain this rhythm, by putting twenty hours of work per week in my revolutionary engagement. My graduate studies are currently funded by the state, which is a luxury most students don’t have or only to a small extent. This implies that most people who will be able to follow this rhythm are people who either aren’t studying or aren’t working. By definition, people in leadership positions in our organization would inevitably come from the petty-bourgeoisie.

Along the same line of reasoning, I tried to resolve the contradiction between francophones and anglophones by translating as fast as possible all the documents that had to be translated. I used to check every evening if there were new articles to translate, which I would usually do the same evening, at a rhythm of 15 minutes per page. I set the bar extremely high for others. I accustomed people, especially the anglophones, to this kind of performance, putting enormous pressure on the bilingual people who were relatively few in the RSM. This action could have contributed to make believe to the Anglophones that this performance was reasonable when it was not.

During the RSM’s refoundation, I promoted voluntarily an exaggerated anti-intellectualism. Mixing up my own optimal learning trajectory as a cadre, after having read a good dozen Marxist books with relatively little practice, I issued a call for no promotion of reading to be done within the RSM, only practice. The intention was to put theory in practice (i.e. having a praxis) and seemed like an adequate response to a tendency within the party to only contemplate the writings of bourgeois intellectuals and explain why they deviate from the RCP’s conceptions on revolution. The means taken were inadequate however for the other RSM members. This kind of attitude actually amounted to complete disdain towards the efforts undertaken by revolutionaries to educate theoretically the masses in the last 175 years, and in often very difficult material conditions.

For this same reason, I never really thought to educate myself on proletarian feminism. I remained satisfied of knowing a few important practical facts on proletarian feminism, rather than really understanding the roots of its politics, its ideology and its goal. I was to a large degree influenced by radical feminism before joining the RSM and then the RCP, and even if I was able to recognize that radical feminism was logically transphobic, instead of really rejecting radical feminism, I only juxtaposed the best of proletarian feminism on the question of trans liberation without really making a break with radical feminism.

Following this, I told myself that radical feminists, by witnessing the typical least problematic practices called for by radical feminists, (for example, child care for militant parents), that radical feminism would disappear by itself to rally proletarian feminism. It was as absurd as thinking that the transphobia and cis-chauvinism inherent to radical feminism would disappear on their own through child care services, and potentially a critical discourse on prostitution, all the while guaranteeing and claiming that we could welcome radical feminists while being trans-inclusive.

When my mentor (if you don’t know who she is, think about an experienced woman in the RSM from the north shore of Montreal who also made a lot of trips to English Canada for the party) told me the reasons why she was leaving the organization and that she would write down her criticisms, I preferred to tell her that the recent successes of the RSM would inevitably change the make-up of the party and force a debate, in which the party comrades would necessarily adopt a correct line. I added that she wouldn’t have to write her critique. In this manner I obstructed the development of a self-criticism of the party, even if I knew she was perfectly right.

I voluntarily kept hidden the sexist, anti-queer and anti-trans deviations in Montreal in order to keep the glory and prestige of eventually having corrected them all for me. I only began discussing these problems once it had become a threat to the whole pan-Canadian organization and I would clearly be made responsible for this problem. I realized this when a trans woman began her coming-out within the RSM. However, let us be clear, in no circumstances is it acceptable to make transphobic remarks or present theoretical justification to this transphobia within a revolutionary mass organization. In fact, nowhere are such remarks acceptable.

This mistake was even more serious given that, since the re-foundation of the RSM, I had taken all the precautions to ensure that trans, queer and women’s liberation struggles were respected. I reached out from the beginning to interested members of those social categories to come join the RSM and/or give workshops on specific issues relevant to them. We watched the movie Laurence Anyways by Xavier Dolan, in which we saw the story of a coming-out of a trans woman in Québec in the 90’s. I thought it would be enough to explain how these liberation struggles are important and relevant to all proletarians. As such it wasn’t really negligence on my part so much as hubris. I wanted to impress English Canada and prove the superiority of our practice in Montreal. With regards to building LGBTQ**2S power in our organizations and the consolidation of members, it was however a complete failure.

I should have, as soon as I saw signs of this disdain towards those questions and the considerable loss of reputation that would ensue for the RSM if it followed the implicitly cis-sexist line of the RCP, called to fire at the headquarters. One of the reasons why I didn’t contact the rest of Canada earlier was my pride in having without a doubt been the main driver and organizer of the most spectacular development of a mass organization. I thought that the fact that people who were fighting against anti-people reactionaries in India and the Philippines would fight throughout all the aspects, including against the trans-exclusive radical “feminist” propaganda that is used over there originating from the imperialist First World. I had complete certainty that if a group of people were openly supportive of proletarian feminism and the latter opposed cis-chauvinism, this group of people would oppose cis-chauvinism. But we can only trust actions, not labels.

I blamed the members of the women’s committee instead of the men within the RSM for their cis-chauvinist practices, even though it was clear the latter were responsible for buiding an ideology against proletarian feminism, which they allowed themselves to call proletarian feminism. Even though I knew they were lying about our adherence during the 4th congress to LGBTQ**2S- inclusive practices, and that these members had had the chance to express themselves in debates which lasted hours about who we would allow or not within our organization, I kept a superficial analysis of the forces at play. It was obvious however that it was the men who first and foremost wanted to fight proletarian feminism. I preferred however to blame the newly-recruited women instead of blaming the people I had struggled with for months, because I was too attached to the idea that if we had had such an amazing success, it was because the attainment of an anti-oppressive praxis was practically complete among the older members. Although I’m not responsible for their manipulation as human shields by the patriarchs in the party, I am certainly responsible for having fired at them while knowing they had been lied to.

Ironically, when I joined the RCP afterwards, I waited before issuing my criticisms to those professional ideologues who don’t stop repeating what they learned in their social sciences classes. I had already made a class analysis of this type of people, who have the luxury at the end of their teen years to venture into studies that have no employment guarantee after having spent full-time years not working to sustain themselves. I knew this type of decision was always the product of considerable material privilege, the manifestation of belonging to the higher strata of the petty-bourgeoisie. But in this context, I didn’t act according to analyses that were still correct, wasting precious time.

I always took for granted our adherence to the project of having a pan-Canadian revolutionary student movement, although I should have informed myself about the opinion of party members in Montreal on the topic, as some stood against the development of a strong pan-Canadian mass organization with an autonomous existence, instead favouring a weakly pan-Canadian mass organization in effect subjugated to local party cells. I should also have informed myself about comrades’ opinions on the RSM’s practice and their comments before formally joining the party. In no circumstance should I have taken for granted that these so-called comrades approved of our initiatives, even if they led to an unprecedented success. I would have learned that in the Montreal cell, there is little innovation or learning from our mistakes, and even less listening to other people’s advice, especially not from youth active in the field.

This would have allowed me to formulate my criticism much quicker, and before the contradictions within the RCP made the situation degenerate. Contrary to what I thought implicitly, in a revolutionary organization, good ideas don’t spread on their own, we have to make incisive criticisms of bad practice and bad theory. I could have simply applied what I had learned at school in terms of teamwork management.

If there is one principle that can summarize my self-criticism, it’s that we need to reaffirm our principles, our successes. Only good principles can lead us to revolution, while previous successes can always be reversed.

Proletarians of all countries, unite!

For a whole category of people to be able to effect political change in its favour, it has to unite around a political project. This unity cannot however be proclaimed in the abstract. It must be built progressively, with the parts of this whole recognizing their contradictions and managing to overcome them. Any social group unable to comply with this process will fail in its objectives: their opponent will be able to take advantage of the divisions within the movement to destroy it piece by piece. This remains true whether we are talking about the bourgeoisie in its struggle against the proletariat, or the proletariat in its struggle against the bourgeoisie.

The bourgeoisie has set up its own means to resolve its internal contradictions. Its most powerful tool is the bourgeois state, which exists in part to ensure that the laws of the market won’t destroy the industrial infrastructure of the various capitalist forces. This state can acquire different flavours according to the era and its requirements. Depending on its hold over the political activity of the proletariat and the latter’s capacity to resist, the bourgeois state can take up a welfare, neoliberal or fascist form.

So it is not a coincidence that one of the objectives of building a revolutionary communist party is the resolution of contradictions within the proletariat. These contradictions don’t exist in isolation, if the majority of the people who live those specific oppressions are proletarian, then reciprocally those specific oppressions take on a proletarian character. To go over those questions is no easy task: there are a good number of those contradictions. Sexism, racism, the oppression of the LGBTQ2S** communities and ableism are a few of those contradictions that obstruct the unity of the proletariat.

Let’s take the example of sexism. For proletarian women, proletarian men who sexually harass, denigrate or don’t take seriously the opinion of women, act exactly like bourgeois men. From their point of view, there cannot be a practical difference between proletarian men and bourgeois men. Those two groups use sexism to secure their own political power. The consequences of such attitudes have always been serious for proletarian men: by continuing to preserve the meager power they can share with their bourgeois counterparts, the latter can continue to rule freely because the proletariat will never be able to unite under those conditions.

We can bring up other examples. The white proletariat which continues to do nothing in the face of white chauvinism and keeps benefitting from it, as a mass, through multiple privileges take part in the exploitation of racialized proletarians. Cis-hetero proletarians who keep holding up the cis-hetero identity as a universal norm create a world in their image in their workplaces which comforts them but exclude an important fraction of their comrades along the way. Even more obvious maybe is the question of ableism: by oppressing their comrades over this or that capacity or handicap, proletarians are only imposing on themselves the false discipline that the bourgeoisie needs to keep its employees in check.

The struggle against the specific oppressions of the proletariat is not divisive: to the contrary, it’s the indifference towards them that is divisive. How can the proletariat acquire a distinct consciousness of the class oppression that afflicts them when for a good number of them, the extraction of surplus-value, in itself, isn’t their biggest worry? How can the proletariat take on a merciless class struggle when entire sections of their sufferings, as proletarians in struggle with the bourgeoisie, are ignored, either for opportunistic marginal gains or even for the personal gains of certain privileged elements?

The answer is simple: it’s impossible. The political unity of the proletariat is impossible as long as the specific oppressions of the proletariat are ignored.

But, as terrible as the consequences of oppressions within the proletariat on its political unity may be, they are only the immediate consequences. The very idea of a socialist revolution is discredited among the masses when revolutionary organizations ignore the specific oppressions of the proletariat. This is even worse for communist organizations, which claim this or that school of thought as a synthesis of past experiences of class struggles: in this case, the very idea of a science of the class struggle is discredited. Revolutionary ideology is threatened by the ignorance of the consequences of specific oppressions within the proletariat.

It is very common to see people from Ottawa and Toronto criticize the people who hold up identity politics to defend their oppression. Since most people belonging to organizations tied to the RCP, to my knowledge, also hold multiple oppressions, I won’t claim to pass any judgment on the debates that have taken place. My understanding of identity politics is that they represent the unionism of specific oppressions. It has the same goals, the same practices, the same weaknesses, and our attitude towards groups defending those specific oppressions must be the same as the one we have towards unions. This question has been well understood since Lenin’s time, and the appropriate response is obvious: but we still need to apply it. Let’s be clear about one thing: everyone from Ottawa and Toronto who visited Montreal have admitted to me regretting the presence of those forces upholding identity politics.

One divides into two

While the necessity to understand contradictions among the people from the perspective of unity towards a revolutionary project, this preoccupation can only be superficial for any party seeking to advance towards socialist revolution. The reason is simple: those are only general truths about politics. The bourgeoisie uses this kind of method all the while pushing its own interests. The logic proper to proletarian politics must then base itself on something else than the pragmatic necessity of class unity. To understand the logic of what constitutes proletarian revolutionary politics, communists must understand what the proletariat is.

For Marxists, the proletariat is defined as the class that produces commodities to be sold in the market, defined in opposition to the bourgeoisie, the class owning the means of production. The latter buys goods, transforms them by acquiring labour force (from among the proletariat), and sells them back on the market with a profit. I think we all agree at this point.

Now let’s examine how the proletariat came to being, because we can’t understand something if we don’t understand its motion. Clearly, it’s not among market relations that we must look for the origins of the proletariat, whatever some people might say. There still remains a tendency among certain Marxists who take the proletariat as a given, born into the world as it is instead of being a historical and material construction. That would amount to saying that capital began to form itself the day when, somewhere, someone lazed off and didn’t accumulate enough goods, finding themselves in perpetual disadvantage compared to others. The more industrious person would then have improved their means of production, lowered their costs and flooded the market, leading the lazier person to ruin for being unable to compete with the new means of production. The proletariat would consist of the children of this lazy person, carrying with them the original sin of laziness. Of course, none of the Marxists who refuse to see the proletariat as a historical and material construction recognize the consequences of their idealism. As if by coincidence, it’s often white cis-hetero males who proffer these absurdities.

For proletarians who are living specific oppressions, it can be the case that their proletarian oppression is entirely defined by their specific oppression. They would define themselves by their specific oppression above being proletarian. Nevertheless, those oppressions don’t exist in a vacuum. Oppression doesn’t appear simply because violence is part of a so-called human nature, pre-existent to its material realization. There is always a material incentive to violence.

The term material must be conceived as something much broader than the economic fact, than the exchange value of commodities or the means of production around us. One of the most material forces most neglected by people calling themselves Marxists is the question of political power. It is rather ironic, considering the emphasis that most Marxists have put on the state. It becomes even more ridiculous for people striving to follow the road paved by Marx and Engels when they end the Manifesto for a Communist Party with the famous “Proletarians of all countries, unite!”

It’s not the state that creates political power. The state serves the purpose of managing the material contradictions within society, it constitutes itself as a supreme political power above the different factions of society. It is also its most refined expression, the most complete construction of the aspect of political power most likely to be challenged by the masses. This explains why the state takes so many different forms across history. Though its repressive power may be the element striking the most fear among us revolutionaries, its ideological power cannot be neglected either. It is in fact the expression of a political in good shape to be mostly relying on one’s ideological power. Those two powers remain however very difficult to completely dissociate. We can say for example that the police has the main goal of protecting the bourgeois state from the proletariat, but it also has an ideological goal, that of creating the illusion of a civil society. Psychiatry has the main goal of ensuring a certain norm in which people can recognize themselves, but it also has the repressive aspect of controlling people’s bodies and minds.

The political power of a group of people can become so strong, that not only will it not require repression to persevere, but it won’t need state power to exist. The promises made to anarchists about the end of the state following the dictatorship of the proletariat would make no sense if they weren’t coming from people thoroughly convinced that there are no material bases for political contradictions once the task of building socialism has been achieved. It is in fact very difficult to defend this position among the masses, and often a justified criticism against the communist movement in general. It is better to be honest and to talk about the necessity of a proletarian state for both building socialism and resolving contradictions among the people.

So the real question is then, how did capitalism achieve a hegemonic form of power? In particular, how did the European nations become the first to undergo this transformation and go on to dominate the rest of the planet? There are certainly purely natural or technical phenomena that took place, such as the transmission of science from East to West and the Black Death, which seriously weakened feudal power in Europe. But we are generally in agreement to say that all of this was part of a long process, whose central dynamic was primitive accumulation, one of the most violent processes that happened in history. It was through the extortion of territories and resources and forced displacements of population, first in the Americas, then in Africa and in a proportionately smaller extent in Asia that the European nations became powerful. The more a European has taken part in this process, and over an extended period, the more it became powerful.

European nations had never had the power to subjugate such large territories directly. They had concluded agreements with other nations, often weaker ones, to achieve it. It was by taking advantage of the weaknesses of nations on other continents, and by gradually accumulating loot that this conquest took place. This process was never achieved through the application of the laws of the market, quite the contrary. It was only after the hegemony of the main European powers had become practically unbeatable that capitalism imposed itself as universal.

Unless of course that you literally consider the slave trade as the simple exchange of commodities. Slavery was ended after civil war that bore great human and material losses in the United States, but that did not necessarily give way to the free competition of labour power commodity. The racist politics did not disappear, they took on a different form to conform to industrial capital after its defeat of the slave-owners’ capital. The exclusion of Black people from white areas kept going well after the abolition of slavery and goes on to this day in the US, which makes their exploitation by the bourgeoisie easier. It is their exclusion from white society that produces their condition as proletarians.

It becomes easy afterwards, and after having read the writings of Black people on the subject, to get an idea of the motion that allows the exploitation of the proletariat. However, it is only by observing gradually the movement of social phenomena in the present that we can set out laws for their appearance. The fact of being racialized can be concretely more significant than any amount of money lying in a bank account. Why are police forces so suspicious when they see a racialized person inside a big house or a luxury car, if it isn’t because of the properties that matter?

One example on the question of gender parity, at the present time, can illustrate the process of proletarianization that can take place even in the most liberal conditions. At the university where I am studying, we are currently undergoing a big transition, in which we are fast approaching gender parity. Every new school year, the school demographics change shockingly, but positively of course, with the inclusion of more and more women. In my program in particular, my cohort had perfect parity many years ago; this year, I taught a cohort that had mostly entered in 2014 and had significantly more women than men.

Another phenomenon took place shortly after the transition began, when I graduated, that had never happened in that program before: the appearance of generalized precariousness. Literally, after six years in which we starve ourselves of revenue and in which we attempt to become the best employees of the bourgeoisie, we have to choose between three options: continue studying, be unemployed or succeed in finding a job with hard work and unpaid hours (I am talking about common unpaid labour, not in the Marxist sense of exploitation). Many people have to work in grocery stores or restaurants in order to survive while looking for a job, often for more than a year. Before, the norm was full employment with unequalled working conditions.

The more advanced gender parity reaches in a given program at my university, the more precariousness is advanced. It’s simple: my profession is turning closer and closer into the ideal of the free market, which was never the case before. There is however a rupture between generations with regards to explaining the lack of women in engineering.

The older generations will refer to an inherent form of machismo within the engineering profession in general that refuses to accept women into the profession. This machismo would have taken its ultimate form in Marc Lépine (translator note: the perpetrator of the Polytechnique massacre), who would have distinguished himself through the means he had taken more so than through his desire to shut women out of the profession.

But for the women who are currently studying in engineering schools, the barriers are described differently. It was rather that a good proportion of their former schoolmates in high school did not perceive themselves as future engineers. The youth attribute this problem to the education system, which insidiously discourages young women to take interest in natural sciences. But engineering schools are putting a lot of resources into recruiting women, and their success is staggering.

No need to be very old to fit into the first category. One would only need to be old enough to remember December 6 1989 and the killings at Polytechnique in which 14 women were shot to their death because they were women. The majority of women who weren’t born during this shooting, who now constitute the majority of students at Polytechnique, don’t think of the shooting when they think about Polytechnique. Even in the case of women who experience patriarchal oppression specifically. It’s too far removed.

In the last instance, is it patriarchal ideology that manifests itself to lower work conditions and wages in this profession? No, it’s free competition. The proof is that engineering is still considered a masculine profession, and I even suspect that you don’t believe what you just read. It’s true that you have to see it to believe it. The conclusion is that men have historically had (and still have) a material incentive to exclude women. This could accomplished as a daily routine, no need for the state to enact laws. The laws restricting women from freely practicing engineering have already been abolished long ago. The good working conditions came directly from patriarchal political power, which didn’t need the state to exist.

It so happens that I met a communist who signed up to the same program as I did, at the same university, years ago. No one among my former schoolmates, man or woman, makes as much revenue as he does. He is an elevator reparator, of which there aren’t many women. The cause to effect relation is immediate. How else can we explain the market’s condition when we look at the difference between the obstacles to go over to reach the profession?

It doesn’t mean that engineering has become proletarianized, but there is an undeniable tendency to proletarianization. The free market, free competition, haven’t created the basis or exploitation, it was the exclusion of a whole category of people. The free market is only one mode of the exploitation of proletarians. What about the women who could have become professionals but weren’t able to because of formal or informal exclusion? They were exploited as proletarians. The more engineering becomes feminized, the more its professionals will become exploited.

It’s important not to eliminate from our mind the abstract form of the proletariat, that of being free from a liberal perspective and producer of the surplus-value. To not hold it would be to deny reality. It is important dynamic of reality, the most important in fact, or else one can’t be said to be a Marxist. It’s not that there doesn’t exist normatively-able, cis-heteronormative, white proletariat. But on the other hand, it would be difficult not to come to the conclusion that in reality, this faction is oppressed precisely because it was forced to live, because of the laws of the market, with the living conditions of the more oppressed other sections of the proletariat (of course, the free market will never remove completely those privileges).

Why do we maintain this central thesis of Marxism, which is that the development of the means of production is the motor force of history in the last instance? It’s because the power relations between social classes, concretely, can always be reconfigured in order to give way or take territory according to this or that ephemeral condition, unlike the development of the means of production which is a long-term tendency, hard to turn around. The political power of an interest group can be liquidated much more easily than means of production because the latter serve the whole of society, even in the most inequitable of societies. The class struggle is a war, and wars are won by mastering logistics. Without having a base in social activity, in other words in the economy, no political force can impose even a shred of power. It’s not by a reification of technological development that Marxists are materialist, but by their methodology of investigating reality, their way of revealing the essence, strata by strata, by considering each strata from the inside, from the outside, and in its relation with the other strata. When all the strata of reality have been removed, we realize that the last strata remaining to be removed is always the development of productive forces. But because this fact is universal, it won’t really have any influence on our political decisions: and so as Marxists we have to preoccupy ourselves with the other strata.

But certain people self-identifying with Marxist thought skewer this reality, to say that because in the last instance the economic sphere determines the political and ideological spheres and that it is through the ever deeper study of the economic sphere that we will be able to orient the political work necessary for the revolution, then we only have to worry about the extraction of abstract work. Very often, these are very privileged professional ideologues who literally work for the state. One could retort that this is only an elaborate justification to not do any work on their role in the specific oppressions of the proletariat. That is obviously absolutely true, but for means of entertainment I will take up their rhetoric.

These ideologues, as merchandise, reveal themselves to have a double nature: they have a use-value and an exchange-value. Their exchange-value is of course the value of their labour power, although these days those ideologues are nearly willing to work free of charge for academic institutions in order to produce their use value: indoctrination of the masses and removal of their revolutionary consciousness. This is another example of how the price of merchandise does not always correspond to their value. Luckily their exchange-value is a global fact that depends mostly on who owns the money, as it has no use-value for the proletariat.

We would have at least thought that these merchandises (ideologues) would have shown social utility by studying how production, circulation and reproduction of the capitalist economy evolves with time. There is much to say about those processes that reflect the material historic movements to which we see the consequences in the news.

Let us think about the question of currency. The use of American money all over the globe, notably in countries dominated by imperialism, particularly for important resources like oil certainly has impacts on political events. The national control of currency is certainly a current topic in the news: for example, the debacle around the Eurozone and Greece.

Another important example would be the link between the two important departments of production: the means of production (department 1) and the means of consumption (department 2). The unbalances between theses departments allows us to predict where crisis will happen. Furthermore, capitalists are generally incapable of predicting theses crisis, only seeing them after the fact, after the brutal signals of price and rates of profit. We would be able with theses analysis to better target our propaganda. Because we must say it, the exploited proletariat in imperialist countries rarely are a part of department 1. Let’s look at what industrial branches remain in Canada: the petroleum industry, aeronautics, smelting and mining… none of these branches employ a significant part of the proletariat. It would be dangerous for the bourgeoisie to have a support base in factories that is responsible for machinery and buildings worth billions of dollars. These are arguments of an economic nature but that have important political repercussions for revolutionaries.

But our professional ideologues cannot apply themselves to this. As use-value, the communication of their studies on the material world consists of platitudes on how the capitalist system is doomed to fall and inherent to its structure. The mention of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall is of course a classic, but there are subtler variants of this process of escape from reality in the production of use-value for the ideological apparatuses of the State. The most common one at the moment is the idea that the 2008 crisis was different form the others, that it was a crisis of over production of capital. For them, capitalists are literally in crisis because they have too much capital. Don’t even try to understand.

The example of engineering is an example of when liberal factions within the bourgeoisie realised that it made no sense not to exploit women’s intellectual capacities. Here, it is the liberal equality that is favored to increase the number of people in a profession to encourage it’s proletarianisation, which is what the bourgeoisie desires. But social classes can also appear by creating distinct structural oppression, where it isn’t the quantity of people oppressed that matters, but their quality that allows them to be isolated. These social classes can appear outside of capitalism as well.

Imagine a society without a process of accumulation, that lived for a long time in isolation from the outside, essentially in the same way from generation to generation. In this society a group of people has united and succeeded in imposing its power and order due to its control over the economy. We will image that the way to divide class here is through gender. Without loss of generality, we will say that men dominate over women in this society, and that in this society there is a strict division of labour and no way to escape from this cissexist framework. It could be different but I never said my choice was arbitrary. In this society, men in a conscious manner select their successors on the basis of them not having a uterus. The others are considered women and will carry children. In any case, in this society men have total control over women. Any opposition is eliminated.

This is not about “primitive” tribes that exist in a backwards place. Imagine instead that this is a global communist world where capital has been abolished, where no one is forced to work. A handful of men at their leisure provide all the means of subsistence for this society. Science and technology have advanced to the point that a group of geeks take care of machines and exploits others in all other specific work to be done in society. Has class society disappeared?

This isn’t a nightmare invented in the mind of a single man, subjectively. It is the hell that could become reality if socialist revolution isn’t done properly. It is a materially possible world, still at an embryonic stage. Social class can reflect itself in aspects of human beings that they may not be able to part with. Class can become, under certain conditions, equal to gender, race, or any other characteristics that one group of humans might find in another and allow it to reproduce itself on a material basis.

If you are still unconvinced, just look at the genocide in Rwanda. This genocide consisted of the deliberate massacre of the Tutsi minority by the Hutu majority, which made over 500000 victims according to certain estimates (I would be open to better stats). According to certain theories, these peoples existed before the colonisation of Rwanda, but it is during this period that the terms of the genocide were established. The colonising States systematically supported the Tutsi supremacy, giving them administrative posts in the colony according to racist principles: seeing as Tutsi resembled the “Caucasian race” than the Hutu, they must be more capable of governing and help with the project of “civilisation” of the colonial State. After the formal independence of the Rwandan Republic, the Hutu majority took power and with a well orchestrated propaganda campaign were able to mobilise a large number of Hutu in the genocide.

It would be difficult to not see class struggle in the racism of this example.

And these ideologues calling themselves Marxists then wonder with bewilderment why proletarians living specific oppressions are often distrustful towards people who seek to unite them under an organisation with an explicit class struggle objective. It’s simple to understand: the history of revolutionary organisations is not exactly bright when it comes to understanding the oppressions that affect the proletariat. This is because for decades, political power in communist organisations has been monopolised by people who have had material incentives to betray its other members. These organisations have always been at an internal or external political reconfiguration away to liquidate itself. Proletarians living specific oppressions are right to not involve themselves in these organisations: the threat of the creation of a new class society is a concrete one. This new system of antagonism could be worse than the previous one because in this new system social status can not be bought. Their wariness doesn’t come from “awful” identity politics but from a materialist analysis on the source and evolution of the forces present in their politics.

The experience of the RSM

Strengthened by the considerable work done during a few years, the different groups and associations that honestly wanted to work among the masses as communists and finally succeed in winning fights decide to unite in a pan-Canadian organisation: The Revolutionary Student Movement (RSM). This process underwent a qualitative leap over a year ago, during a weekend in November 2014.

During the congress, we decided to formalise what unified us all as student revolutionaries. We spent the first day discussing the conditions for campus based organisations joining the pan-Canadian RSM and thus create a chapter. This was of course essential: it is impractical to have RSM members who travel to start new RSM chapters. All that mattered was that student groups were ready to work with us on the minimal basis of unity that we had decided on. Communist ideals were, after all, taking hold in young people partly due to social media, but also because the end of history rhetoric is beginning to wear out.

This basis of unity was inscribed in the preamble of the pan-Canadian RSM. It describes the organisation as based on communist principles and working towards revolution. It is also written that it will be the RSM’s mandate to fight alienation and oppression that affects students and that each member will uphold this mandate.

How was this basis of unity developed? Through the experience of the delegates that had been accumulated during the years of struggle that predated the official creation of the pan-Canadian RSM during the 4th congress. The RSM was founded in opposition to the bureaucratic student movement where cadre looked only to build up their own careers in center-left parties like the NDP, the PLC, the PQ or QS and relied on lobbying as a strategy. It was also built in opposition to revisionist and/or Trotskyist communist groups that always proposed to align themselves with the student and labour bureaucracies in reformism. The student bureaucracy, despite its stagnation, in Ontario, has one strong point: it has a strong understanding of identity politics. Student bureaucracies in Ontario generally won’t use this, as a communist group would, to fight against the government, but are strong enough to delegitimise the pretenses of a revolutionary organisation who claim to understand the contradictions within the proletariat.

As for the experience in Quebec, before its relaunch, the RSM was centered at the Lionel-Groulx CEGEP. Its student association had no elected executive, while most other student association have elections yearly. To be a member of the executive at the Lionel-Groulx CEGEP all you need to do is support the previous motions democratically decided upon during the assembly and have participated to at least 2 executive meetings. This procedure gave it the reputation of being the most soviet student association, referencing not only the high number of communists in that CEGEP but also its anti-bureaucratic method of operating. We have experienced success with this model since the CEGEP was the most politically mobilised for years. The contact with the masses demands respect of political positions taken during assemblies.

We decided it was essential that people who represented the RSM among the masses respect its mandate and constitution. It is not only a question of being coherent with what we say: it is a necessity to be able to survive as a political organisation. But we did much more than survive: after the fourth congress we had 10 chapters, before fall 2015 we had around 18.

In Montreal our development was even more spectacular: we went from 5 members in October 2014 to 26 members in April 2015. Our success can partly be attributed to our understanding of the relationship between unions, the masses, the State and the necessity of having a plan for building a solid revolutionary organisation (see section What is to be done?) Our success can also be attributed to our understanding, now totally denied but that was strong at the time, that revolutionary cadre must present themselves as a window into our organisation, how people should behave under socialism and that people always understand what MLM is when they witness us.

But in the longer term, we were able to improve the RSMs reputation by publicising our politics as defined on the Constitution. When people took the time to learn more about our organisations in Canada, the articles or news shared about our campaigns showed that we were involved in our communities and that we took our engagements seriously. All the while considering class struggle with proletarian unity based on correct principles. We were clearly the only organisation with the national unity required to launch a national campaign: on top of that, we were openly anti-capitalist and revolutionary. We were far from being strong enough to tackle the RSMs ideological rivals, but for the people in the radical left in Montreal in general, credit was given where it was due.

One of the promises we made to everyone we met was that the proletarian feminist line was the best synthesis of feminism ever created and that it was the reason we were able to launch initiatives like the free daycare, meant to liberate militant parents of this task that is all too often a feminized. We also claimed that this line implied a critical look at liberal discourse on sex work by giving sex workers the power to define their own work. Lastly, proletarian feminism was necessarily inclusive to LGBTQ*2S people: specifically, we guaranteed that no trans exclusive radical feminists (TERFs) would be allowed in the organisation.

The objective of this promise around a proletarian feminist line was simple: resolve the contradiction between radical and queer feminism. The question of gender self-determination is a central one. Queer feminists, part of third wave feminism, demands total rights to self-determination of personal gender identity that corresponds to their social being, which is a basic democratic right that unfortunately is not yet given. Radical feminists belong to an older ideology, from the second wave feminist movement, refuse this understanding of gender, saying that self-identification of gender undermines the necessity of what they define as the struggle between the male class and the female class.

Contrary to what you may have been told, this contradiction rages on everywhere in the radical left in Montreal. This conflict is almost over everywhere else in North America. Montreal is the last fortress of one of the worst forms of radical feminism: its TERF variant, that applies to the letter the conclusions of the central principles of radical feminism. This contradiction is one of the principal obstacles in ASSÉ’s development. There is not one conference where this conversation doesn’t end with disappointing results, where nothing can be decided in terms of gender oppressions. The Montreal section of the IWW, that claims to be a an industrial union and seeks, at least in its ideology, to unite all branches of workers according to the principle of One Big Union, is also stuggling with this problem. There, the conflict has manifested in a cold war: first, a women’s committee was created under the initiative of a TERF totally open on her thoughts, then, an attempt of a LGBTQ committee was led. In fact, the situation seemed bad enough that the committee was created secretly at first, to win a maximum of support, to reveal itself only that when it was clear that a majority of people would approve the creation of this committee. Finally, the local section has decided that this LGBTQ committee rather has the charge to consider all other oppressions, to form in reality the anti-oppression committee.

A women’s committee was created inside the 2015 Spring movement, but clashing with the practices inherent to this movement, this committee has decided to rename itself Women* united against austerity. A member of RI, who was present at the meetings of this committee, has admitted that the TERFs were really acting in bad faith and were obstructing the feminist struggle. The question of the inclusion of trans women has taken the whole place, to the point where no other question could be treated. This committee has thus died before having done anything in public.

With my mentor, I anticipated this kind of conflicts way before the refoundation of MER-Montréal. This is why, even before the first meeting, I started an investigation in order to formulate a mass line on trans liberation struggles that would have allowed us to have recruits in these communities. Ideally, we would have needed trans people with whom to start MER-Montréal, but Marxists in Montreal have the reputation of being at best totally indifferent to the cause of the LGBT and at worst to be for the abolition of the LGBT social fact “because of its foundation on bourgeois pseudoscience”. My task was thus to go to the trans masses, wherever I might find them, in order to recruit them ideally, or to content myself with obtaining contacts of trans people willing to educate us on this subject. I succeded, before the first meeting to enter in contact with trans people willing to join the organization, in condition of course that this organization would be trans-inclusive, which I could guarantee by talking about my experience in the third congress of the MER-RSM in March 2014. In no cases however, when a person would have an oppressive behavior but would manifest sincerely the will to learn and to correct their behavior, would we expel this person: effective struggle against transphobia and its rationalizations in the masses can only be done in contact with the masses.

For the rest, our position was clear. We were to denounce the sexist division of militant work, which is a key demand of radical feminists, all the while accepting the existence of trans people on their own terms. We counted on one the one hand to attract those people claiming to be radical feminist that weren’t brandishing that flag because amongst themselves, certain queer feminists didn’t treat that sort of subject. We counted on the other hand to attract the people that demanded more queer feminism because of the assessment that radical feminist theory is transphobic in its very foundation, but that would like to have within its revolutionary student political group certain demands of radical feminists that were well founded. We had believed that the people who felt called to this type of politic of which we were promoting would come, whereas those that felt repulsed would stay away, at worse they would publicly denounce our practice and would combat us. We had expected some politic of principle.

Alas, the RSM was a victim of its own success. Since we had always spoken of a materialist perspective of history and because we effectively had practices that radical feminist could appreciate, the feminist claiming a radical-materialist current had joined the RSM, despite the fact that since the beginning, we had understood that trans-exclusionary radical feminist ideology wouldn’t be accepted. So long that no practices that were unacceptable according to the principles we had established within the constitution after years of investigation and of struggle with rival groups, the theoretical identification would remain superficial. At least, we believed this would be an acceptable compromise.

During this time, myself and other members of the RSM were now accepted within the party, whereas beforehand we had limited contact with it. We now had to give accounts at the party cell in Montréal. The RSM had been the sole factor of growth for the party in Montréal. Since many years, the party had only lost members in Montréal. Excluding the people that were a part of the RSM as its restart, no members had been recruited for many years. The swift success of the RSM in Montreal had therefore been lifesaver for the party that was failing on the proletariat.

However, divergences existed between our new recruits and the PFF line. Elsewhere, one the members of the party had taken pleasure in explaining to me why there had been really been no problems as to why there is a gendered division of social roles. This committee had the responsibility to monitor patriarchal practices within the RSM and to propose solutions. We had unanimously approved this creation, since it had permitted to the women of the RSM to express themselves. It seemed as if there would be a confrontation between radical feminism and proletarian feminism. It isn’t however what had really taken place.

Of Radical Metaphysics

Foremost, we need to understand the material and historical circumstances that had lead radical feminism to emerge as a theory. After the Second World War, it had already been two decades that the women of the petit-bourgeoisie had been massively mobilized to work in factories. The proletarian women were already been working for a long period outside of their homes, but petit-bourgeois women were still occupied primarily with the home.

This period forever changed ideology amongst women. Clearly, women were capable of taking on the same roles as men. The latter weren’t the base of society: on the contrary, men appropriated the free labour of women by naturalizing it. Within patriarchal ideology, changing diapers, taking care of the children and taking care of the home were the natural tasks of women, extensions of their very essence, whereas men had to make the decision and assure the family revenue, appropriating all the power within society by means of the family. The sexuality of women was also controlled by men, with dual strike of having to satisfy men sexually and to be nothing within society as if they don’t conform to this role. The false dichotomy of the figures of the mother and the whore, and the presentation of figures demarcating themselves from these two poles as being degenerations were created to police these standards.

Patriarchal ideology justifies this subordination of women by the creation of a feminine essence, which found its base in the uterus, in the hormones or the brain which would be different amongst women. The feminist had therefore decided to respond blow for blow: there was no gendered brain and the oppression of women found its source in patriarchal social relations, even if the men exploit and violent women in function of their sex. The patriarchy serves itself of biology for its own needs.

Radical feminism was born at a moment in history in which movements of toppling over capitalism and imperialism (American in particular) were very strong by comparison to that which we are used to in the 2010 years. Inside these organizations reigned an unsustainable machoism, and these men in general didn’t care about any specific oppressions within the proletariat. These men, all for the “serious” things, this being combats that were situated at thousands of kilometers, were incapable of having practices that respected all of their comrades. Radical feminism was born of the assessment that the women were making themselves oppressed within the very same organization that were supposed to liberate them from imperialism. Worse, the men had the gall to say that their oppressions were secondary, that the question had to be delayed until after the revolution.

In front of so much bad faith, the women had generally decided to consider these problems seriously by founding their own organization and theoretical current. The days in which the oppression of men remained would be counted: radical feminism will attack and eradicate the oppressions of women for good. Then had to be communicated what are the oppressions of women, their fundamental causes and what in which they inscribed themselves. Strong from their experience within anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist movement, they had decided to found their theory to permit themselves to define what gender is.

The radical feminists had therefore decided to take the best of what Marxism had to offer, its materialist analysis of the struggle between the bourgeoisies and the proletariat, and to apply it to the oppressions related to gender. There exist two classes of people: the men and women, according to radical feminist ideology, but also the gendered relations of power and oppression which women lived aren’t inscribed within their sex as a biological state of nature, but within their gender, which is the social construct that inferiorizes women in diverse ways. Gender was now detailed like a class system. The definition of the masculine gender is that it contains those that dominate, violent and oppress the women: the definition of women is that it comprehends those that are dominated, violated and oppressed by the men. The question that imposed itself now is: how was this oppression reproduced for the radical feminist?

Materially, by the institutions of the family and prostitution. The State, under control of men, could well confer legal and judicial equality to women, but in reality, the true power of exploitation of men over women didn’t situate itself in the State, but in the hold of reproductive labour that women do in society in multiple manners, but above all on the basis of their sex. In the family, women found themselves to be mothers, that served to raise the children of their husbands that would occupy themselves of being the financial support of their families, and therefore had the majority of the power. When the mothers weren’t enthusiastic at the idea of satisfying all of their husbands’ sexual need, for whatever reason there may be, there existed the institution of prostitution, where men could satisfy their fantasies by buying the sexual labour of a woman.

Ideologically, it is by the gendered socialization that women are reproduced. At the very moment that we assign a baby according to its sexual organs, and that, even if baby all resemble each other, we don’t treat them in the same way. Even the way in which we hold them in our arms is different. Follows a whole procedure of socialisation, very precise and segregated, that would determine forever the behaviours of women and of men.

The structure of radical feminist theory, being identical to the materialist theory of Marx about the struggle between the bourgeoisies, which takes its surplus value from the proletariat, these feminist had therefore decided to call their current “materialist radical feminism” which had effectively conferred a materialist character, according to themselves. The final goal of radical feminism couldn’t therefore be clearer: the abolition of gender.

I won’t occupy myself with knowing is the radical feminist ideology is correct in term of combat against ordinary sexism. I had only attempted to make an honest portrait necessary for the discussion on the place to which radical feminism has a right within our mass organisation. There are certainly many proletarian feminist that I know of which are certainly more capable of critiquing radical feminism than I am under this angle.

As Marxists we have to care about specific struggles, that which we really need to ask ourselves as a question is: what praxis does radical feminism prescribed when it comes to other oppressions? What have they produced on their subject? They had simply inspired themselves of the best that the Marxist groups of the 60s and 70s had to offer: their conception of the division between the principal and secondary struggles. What oppression was the more ancient one? That of men over women. As such, it has to be the first historically. It was therefore this oppression which would determine all the others.

One the ways to truly understand what is gender was to constitute non-mixed discussion groups in order to define what oppressed women in general. This was a way for them to define their combat along their terms, but also to have a larger ideas of what women as a mass thought. However, a good proportion of women were dissatisfied by the conclusion that came out of these discussion groups. These women contested the concentration of all their efforts on the sexuality that some men had imposed on some women. They reproached in particular the maintenance of class privilege and of race. Finally, the prescription of a list of good behaviors to have as feminists, in which they had to work outside the home, modify their appearance in a certain way rather than another, to have the sexuality suggested by the apparatchiks of these organisation made it such that they didn’t recognize themselves within this ideology. From whence a good part of feminists had come to reject this “grand discourse”. With its faults, and with the new fashion of postmodernism, the grand radical feminist coalition had fallen. These spaces had multiplied themselves and had fragmented, prefiguring the current postmodern practice of antioppresion discussion workshops in general.

These struggles against radical feminism could only intensify in Montreal, the last bastion of radical feminism in North America. The causes that explain this resilience are above all material. Foremost, it is once again the product of the 60s and 70s: since the end of the Second World War, there were no doubts that Montreal had a more developed extreme-left. Radical feminism had therefore started from a larger base of militant women. Following this, by forcing concession from the Quebecois State, then in full expansion and which wanted to create its distinct power in the perspective of affirming the Quebecois fact in north America, the extreme-left had created its intelligentsia within the universities, in particular within the network of Quebecois universities. Knowing this, we wouldn’t there need to move to know that the largest radical feminist fortress in Montreal and consequently North America is UQÀM.

We however need to admire the combat these feminist had delivered against all these people that had wanted to modify the essential principles of the radical feminist praxis. This combat was sparkled in schisms and purges, necessary to preserve the integrity of the struggle against the domination of men over women. What right do these servants of the patriarchy demanded that feminism had an anti-ableist discourse? What right do these coloured women have to demand that their feminist organisation occupied themselves of their specific problems? It was already the task of women to take care of everyone’s injuries, it is what the patriarchy ordains women, and we must struggle against this socialisation! What is important, is to be woman before anything else!

Radical feminism has the same weaknesses that the traditional Marxism of the XX century, which we still encounter the debris from time to time unfortunately. It is altogether normal: they have the same historical origin. It is this false distinction between principle and secondary contradictions that is at the origin of these weaknesses. The radical feminist could well insist that they don’t make this mistake, the problem, is that this fault is in the development and very logic of radical feminism.

It is the direct transposition between the class struggle, which had been described by Marx and Engels after decades of observation of the struggle that produced themselves on the anti-patriarchal struggle, which constitutes the biggest weakness of this ideology. Being but a formal copy of Marxism, the form of class struggle mechanically transposed over genders, radical feminism couldn’t seize the true nature of what is gender. It becomes impossible to imagine what is gender, all like merchandise, that possesses the dual nature of use-value and exchange-value, could also have a personal and social existence: that the construction of the gender identity of a person emerges from a complex interaction between their psychology, their body, their culture and the social attitudes vis-à-vis the psychology and body of this person. It is impossible to even propose that a person could decide to combat the influence of patriarchal ideology all the while ceasing to identify with their socialised gender since birth to themselves. It could only be a subjectivist fantasy, because gender is for radical feminist a social fact imposed on people by function of their genital organs.

In the absolute, the feminist question if not at all based on the fact of knowing if the brain is gendered or not. The recent advances in neurology teach us that the brain possesses a large plasticity. So long as a human being learns new talents, the morphology of the brain changes. The typical example is those of taxi drivers: certain parts of the brain become more voluminous to hold city maps. All the same, after an accident, certain people having damages to their brains are capable of recuperating by utilising other parts of their brain to effectuate the same tasks. Maybe gender is or isn’t inscribed in the brain, maybe when the relations of power and oppression related to gender will be eliminated, there wouldn’t be any chemical of morphological difference between the brains of human being according to their gender: whatever it is, the gendered division of labour and the inequalities of power have to be eliminated. This is our historical task as feminist as well as communists.

It is a debate similar to the one about whether homosexuals are born as such or if it is their choice. This question is not only fundamentally impertinent, it is also very dangerous: it represent an open door to the anti-LGBT “therapies” What is important, is that the only forbidden element in sexuality is the one on violating the consent between partners. The theoretical questions around the origin of gender identity or of sexuality are really less important than the necessity of having an anti-oppressive culture

It remains that concretely, it remains difficult to imagine if something as important and pervasive as gender has no importance on the brain. To base oneself on this type of fact to elaborate a feminist doctrine is vowed to fail. What is clear however, it that what is effectively revealed by neurosciences, is that part of the brain related to cognition aren’t sexualised. It is maybe an argument which is better suited to counter misogynists.

All this to say that radical feminism is essentially transphobic. There is really no two ways about it. But what happens when someone identifies themselves with radical feminism? Does this mean they are forcibly a transphobic person? I have found it useful during my practice within the RSM to distinguish between four categories of people that will identify with radical feminism. It is a necessity that arrives when the time comes to understand from where their reasoning comes and where they are problematic. It is a guide that allows intervention and which also permit to gauge at which point radical feminists pose a threat to trans people, but also for the credibility of our organisations. I grade them in order of adhesion to the more problematic foundations, those that derive directly from the idealist application of revisionist Marxism to the feminist question. I’m calling them: the eclectics, the realpoliticians, the strict TERFs and the real TERFs.

In the first category figure a lot of women in Montreal, which identify with the tradition of radical feminism but which will separate themselves from the more problematic conclusions. They will explain that in the end, they want to tackle for real at the root of gendered relations of power. They include elements of queer feminism and admit that the patriarchy is a system that imposes its oppression on people under different forms and intensities according to the people implicated. People are assigned according to their sex determined at birth. The women assigned as woman are oppressed as women, but the people which don’t have an identity which correspond to their gender assigned at birth are also oppressed according to them. They are interested in the imbrication of patriarchal oppression with other oppressions such as ableism, racism, colonialism and yes, also capitalism. The people identifying themselves with radical feminism want above all to avoid liberal feminism, which refuses all militancy and which struggle exclusively for legal and judicial reform. Their ideology is a plate chosen by individuals in the grand buffet of ideas, it is the very definition of eclecticism.

In the second category figures a very small minority of radical feminists that recognize that trans people had something significant to contribute to their vision of radical feminism. They identify trans women in particular as being particularly violated by the system and they hear the discourses of trans women denouncing patriarchal violence. They say themselves more prompt to support a trans woman that will support radical feminist discourse more so than a liberal feminist cis woman or anti-feminist that will struggle ideologically to minimise the structural violence of the patriarchy. Never however will we hear these radical feminist frontally denounce pure TERFs. Anyone is good so long as they serves their interests. It is why I call them realpoliticians.

I had been very open to the first two categories of feminist that I have described joining our mass organisation. I don’t pretend to be an authority as to what consist as acceptable in terms of the level of feminism in our organisations. In fact, I am sure that the majority of delegates at the 4th congress would find my attitude far too lax, and that I would fall back from the position of proletarian feminists on this subject. I had never demanded the ideological purity of proletarian feminism. It would be absurd, considering at which point I had been influenced by radical feminism during these years. My conception of feminism had often resembled the first category. We can’t demand people to have a perfect practice in order to belong in a mass organisation. But for what it is of the third and fourth categories of TERF, or course, no mass organisation or communist party can seriously considering having these types of members. I make the distinction between a strict TERF and a real TERF.

A strict TERF is strictly for the creation of non-mixed spaces in which it would be required to be at once a woman and to be designated a woman at birth, but this person wouldn’t be cissexist or transphobic, with the exception of the creation of this space. Of course, we would convene that this strict definition encounters difficulties: what do we do with people born with vaginas that don’t have one anymore for diverse reasons? Are they less of a woman? But let the TERFs take care of their internal contradictions. The real question that we must ask ourselves is: do this kind of TERFs exist? It is never difficult to find cissexism and transphobia with these people, after all it is cissexism and transphobia which is at the source of the creation of these spaces. In all the readings I had done that take a defense of these type of non-mixed spaces, it was evident. Now, suppose that we have a person that admits that these types of spaces are cissexist and transphobic, but that they affirm their necessity to make propaganda for the struggle of trans liberation and to make realise that the practices of TERFs wouldn’t really make any advances on the struggle against patriarchy. By definition, this member would be a double agent. We can’t officially endorse this type of practice. But I imagine that once this double agent has been exposed, we could make a place for them within our organisations. But all of this is highly speculative.

For what it is of real TERFs, cissexism and transphobia are clearly shown, even if the degree of violence can vary enormously. It can present itself within discourse of different degrees of theorisation. The only point in common between these people is their will to delegitimise the gender identity of trans people. The real TERFs can insist to explain that trans people aren’t what they show themselves to be by reason of their socialisation that they have been inculcated since childhood. This socialisation, inculcated since childhood, cannot be changed. You can’t have a magical potion Obelix, you fell into the pot when you were small! The TERFs will never define more precisely what masculine socialisation is.

Another typical target of TERFs is the decision of certain trans people to have surgeries, whichever ones they may be. It can also to all the way to making commentary on the genital organs of trans women, as to why they aren’t women because they don’t have a big smelly vagina (Germaine Greer), or on the contrary because the vaginas post-operation of trans-women have a bizarre odor (Sheila Jeffreys.) Or straight up, their “altered” bodies is the conspiracy of a surgical industry seeking to mutilate bodies for profits. (Sheila Jeffreys) Or worse yet, that the goal of these biological men (sic) is to have access to lesbian biological women (sic). And let’s not forget, to finish, to have access to spaces reserved to women with the goal to commit aggressions.

However the TERFs don’t limit themselves at attacking trans women that decide to have surgeries. The simple fact to exist as a trans women is a rape for some ( Robin Morgan, Janice Raymond). But not all TERFs will reach this stage of course, but all of them would agree to say that trans people reify gender by their existence. Strangely, never do the TERFs attack as vehemently trans men (even if it does happen for them to accuse trans men to want to destroy lesbianism (Sheila Jeffreys)). The TERF ideology is a cissexist and transphobic theoretical construction, yes, but it is above all transmisogynist.

It isn’t difficult to explain why TERF ideology incites resistance with feminists in general. There is no struggle with the patriarchy, it is reaffirmed by using feminism as a vehicle. Which people that come to essentialize socialisation and to pass insulting commentary on the bodies of women, whilst calling themselves feminists? Who pretends that a trans person not clearly presenting themselves as a trans person seeks to violate people that implicitly claim to have any given sexual orientation? Who judges women in such a severe way for their appearances? The worst of macho men above all, the most often linked to the most reactionary factions, in North America, of the republican party in the U.S. and of the conservative party in Canada. A reminder of course that these are the same types of argument that hetero men will use to justify their homophobia. But for the fanatics that are the TERFs, the enemy of their enemy is their ally. It isn’t a big deal to associate with the worse reactionaries.

Well understood, the same type of errors had been committed with black women during the first wave of feminism, which supposedly had behaviours that were too masculine and that weren’t confrontational enough to their taste against black men. Since the beginning of the second wave, the same mistake had also been committed with lesbian women, which supposedly were a menace for women in non-mixed spaces.

It is with the last kind of TERF that we had to deal with in Montreal. It isn’t, however, that Montreal as a city magically had trans people ready to join our organisations. Montreal isn’t a city isolated from the rest of the globe.

To Montreal Exceptionalism

We knew however that in Montreal, we had to take firm positions since the beginning in order to be sure that the RSM had the correct politics faced with trans liberation struggles. Contrary to what had been said by members during the investigation, an extensive preparation had been taken since the restart of the RSM to insure that the members were capable of struggling against cis-chauvinism.

At the first meeting, a trans person was invited, which were interested enough to be a sympathiser. They had proposed to us a workshop on questions of mental health, since they are an experienced militant on this issue. They had helped us following to redact writings, doing the off putting task of correcting and giving feedback on them.

At each reunion following this up to the 4th congress, when I had given example of campaigns not forcibly related to struggles against the bourgeois character of the State, but against the injustices that the proletarians lived and that could help accumulated our forces as a mass organisation, I had always cited as an example the struggle to have non-gendered toilets. This example had always been understood as a proletarian issue for the members of the RSM.

At the month of January, we had screened the film of Laurence Anyways at la maison Norman Bethune. We had equally foreseen a discussion on the subject after the screening. We had made a facebook event to publicise the event. In the description of the event, a member of the RSM had copied a description on the internet in which the trans women was described as being a man having transitioned, which is cissexist. The mistake had been remarked by the trans sympathiser, which was promptly corrected. No better summary of the movie had been found on Google, and the member in question hadn’t seen the movie, therefore they couldn’t have made one themselves. The mistake had then also been promptly forgiven.

At this event, we had invited many trans people, but these people had refused either because they were busy or because they weren’t in an appropriate psychological state to watch a movie depicting violence against trans people. We had succeeded in bringing in one trans man, that I had contacted during the first months of the restart of the RSM, first off with the goal of recruiting him as a simple member, but also for his experience on the trans question. By going to meet them in person at their CÉGEP, he had revealed to me that he had received a 500$ bursary to make a pre-study on the situation of trans people in the whole province. It consisted essentially in part-time work. He had to produce a pertinent questionnaire, meet people ( he had the time for 5 people) and to produce a discussion on the issues that trans people live. This study would be the first of its kind in Quebec, one that could guide doctorates towards more in depth and specific studies. This man had therefore been invited to comment on the movie.

Another member had invited their partner, which we were meeting for the first time. Launching the discussion, this woman had explained how she believed that the look of the protagonist effectuation their coming-out in the movie was misogynistic. In particular, there where we see the protagonist envy cis women for the gender expression and for having anxiety for feeling trapped in the movie. Our trans invitee had responded to this question, in a polite fashion, that it was a good representation of the life of trans people before coming out of the closet. We didn’t call it a closet because it was pleasant. Following this, this woman left, their partner in the RSM following her. We hadn’t really understood at the time why it had happened.

Since this woman comes back often in this piece of writing, I will from now on call her the TERF instigator, since she had effectively instigated, at least in appearances, the diffusion of TERF ideology within the RSM.

A month after the screening of the movie, myself and member that had invited the instigator had come to discuss feminism. He told me that I shouldn’t take position for the queers within feminism, because there is an alliance between the prostitutors and queer folk for the legalisation of prostitution, and that this alliance served the exploitation of women. I had still been dumbfounded by this remark, I had however responded that it was a false amalgamation. Then, I had responded that the RSM had no position on prostitution, but that it would be good to engage with sex worker or ex-sex worker students on the subject. In the end, I had told him however that we had a clear engagement to be inclusive of queer folk.

In the month of March, a little bit before the pan-Canadian day of action, this member invited the instigator. We had come to discuss of the materialist current within feminism and I had been very clear. We are materialists, but in no case were we to accept whatever transphobic or cissexist manoeuver or theory. In particular, I had made reference to the TERF ideology. She had responded that it was quite clear, despite that she protest against the fact that anybody that was anti-prostitution were called TERFs. I hadn’t truly understood the amalgamation here, but I had simply responded that for us TERFs referred uniquely to the trans question, and not in itself to the question of sex work.

After the pan-Canadian day of action, she had implicated herself more regularly and we had considered her a member of the RSM. She had ceased to post TERF theory on the Facebook profile, despite the fact that we could find traces of it in the past. Being exhausted in this moment because of my militancy and also by my studies, I hadn’t confronted the subject. I had told myself that my other comrades, that had been taught on the question and which had voted that it be obligatory to be trans-inclusive within the RSM, had judged that she was on the way to eliminating this ideology within her thinking.

There had then been a meeting of which I had been speaking of two sections above with the PFF, the women of the RSM had been unsatisfied by what they had heard in relation to proletarian feminism, in which a man had permitted to mansplain to these women how gendered division of labour wasn’t really a problem. These radical feminists had certainly the right to critique this aspect, just like critiquing the programme on this aspect, which isn’t really terrible on the majority of aspects around the gender contradiction. The feminist struggle is a political struggle, not a struggle of ideas, contrary to what says the programme of the RCP.

The TERF instigator of the RSM hadn’t stopped however. She had created a reading list, counting more than a dozen of links leading to sites such as Trouble and Strife and Deep Green Resistance. This reading list had been transmitted to a member of the RSM that wanted to create a LGBT committee, in reaction to the women’s committee. This reading list had been transmitted to me afterwards. It was very alarming.

I then demanded to the party to be able to speak to my mentor. There were really no doubts that the women’s committee would succeed in uniting the women under its banner and under TERF ideology. My mentor had suggested that I speak to a trans comrade living in Toronto, ancient member of the RSM CC. This ancient member also had experience in the struggle in the Philippines, being originally from that country.

Then, during a dinner, I had given a very serious warning in relation to the expression of this type of ideology. I told her straight up that they would demand I expulse her and all people that approved of TERF politics. I couldn’t even consider that any other RSM in the rest of Canada would have tolerated this situation for as long.

A week later, I had received a message from the instigator, saying essentially that the women’s committee had met, and had concluded that the revelations of the politics of the RSM constituted intimidation. They equally demanded that I inform myself on what really is radical feminism. They also suggested the reading list that had been given to the member of the LGBT committee, which was clearly transphobic.

By the way, to be entirely clear, this list did not contain a defence of the history of radical feminism itself. In my description of metaphysical aspects of radical feminism, I concede that radical feminism has had much more of a positive aspect of progressive organizing than this list. This list simply contained a defence of transphobic practices in women only organizing spaces. This list was sometime reactionary enough that one could easily confuse it with a famous Quebec city reactionary media personalities: Richard Martineau. If you do not know this man, he is a journalist for the Journal de Montreal which is particularly detested in the Quebec student milieu. Between an article where he speaks of the imminent Islamist invasion of Quebec and another where he accuses the Canadian left of being complicit with this reality, he does not hesitate to compare trans folks to those who claim to be “transracial”. He essentially says those who are trans are equivalent to those committing black face. All of those ideas were present in the reading list.

At this moment, I had no other choice than contacting the CC. That being said, I did wait a day to speak with the comrade who is originally from the Philippines. He reminded me of the social situation of trans folks in Asia and how their repression was a key factor in the subjugation and colonisation of the Philippines. He also reminded me that North-American TERFs were sending funds and propaganda to the anti-people and anti-communist movements which were actively repressing both. Pro-LGBT politics have been supported out there for decades, long before it took up importance in the West. Another remind he gave me was that this struggle had happened in three other RSMs. He also mentioned his deception upon hearing of a member supporting TERF politics in Montreal. His deception was made bigger when he understood that this very member went to speak, on behalf of the RSM, at an event based on combating imperialism in the Philippines. The event was organized by Anakbayan, the organisation for young communists in the Philippines, and they had invited us. After discussing the situation with him I asked what should be done next. He proposed an action plan where we would meet with the women’s committee to make a last attempt of political unity of the trans question. Maybe this was all that was needed to correct this contradiction.

The response from the RSM CC vis-a-vis this plan was clear, only three options were possible: The TERFs stop being TERFs, The TERFs are expulsed, or the entirety of RSM Montreal is expulsed from the pan-Canadian RSM. If all attempts at reconciliation were to fail, then a public ultimatum was to be send to the Montreal Chapter asking for the immediate and total expulsion of TERFs from the organisation. It was the CC’s responsibility to make sure those who flew our flag respected the mandate of the last congress. This mandate, which was at the 4th conference of its kind, was crystal clear: all members must respect the preamble, which states one must be trans-inclusive to be part of the RSM. This vote passed unanimously. My next task was thus to show up to the next RSM Montreal meeting to explain that there was a serious problem a foot, also to tackle these intimidation accusation with the Filipino comrade present. I also was hoping to answer any question they would have.

Unfortunately, this former member of the CC as well as the rest of the CC made a crucial mistake, that is to assume that is was the women’s committee which were imposing their ideology with the goal of destroying the RSM. This conclusion was a result of how anti-TERF struggles played out elsewhere. The thing is, the political practice of PCR in Montreal is particular, especially when it comes to the contradiction between genders. Members outside of this city could not even imagine. The truth is, the women in the women’s committee were lied to every step of the way by both members of the RSM and the Party. They were encouraged to organise themselves along these cis-chauvinists political lines by members of both these branches.

That being said, the final goal of these members was not necessarily being blatant cis-chauvinists (with the exception of the TERF member, obviously). This is definitely an important aspect of the conflict but is not the final goal. The ultimate objective was to defend the patriarchal privileges of these members and maintain this as a political reality in the Party. This is obviously in complete contradiction with the values of proletarian feminism. The events which follow shall prove this thesis.

A few hours after having sent my letter, I received a message of a Party member telling me not to come to the next RSM meeting, despite being tasked by the CC to be there. A party member within the CC was quite clear: I needed to be there and if the Montreal cell wasn’t happy with this they could bring it up with him. I thus decide to go to the meeting.

Unfortunately all these events had a profound impact on me in the week leading up to the release of the letter. I was profoundly anxious, unable to focus on my studies with a more or less permanent sense of nausea. After being in this state for week, I was not up to the task. After a member of the party sent me threats (which were more or less vague) relating to the RSM’s memberships opinions of me, I decide I couldn’t fight this fight.

Still, I decided to bring a witness with me for precautions sake, a member of both the party and the RSM who was originally from Ottawa but who moved to Montreal recently to go to school here. In theory he could have been a new member for RSM-Montreal. I had announced his arrival months earlier.

In this meeting, according to the witness, it was clear that the members of the party were setting themselves up to be able to freely put forward and consolidate cis-chauvinistic ideas within the RSM permanently. As stated in the so-called demanded for a self-criticism by the RSM towards me, no one has the right to criticize the personal opinions of members of the RSM. The meeting ended with the RSM given me a sickness leave of a month, with a vague demand for self-criticism without any details.

All this was done by so-called radical feminists whose slogan is “the personal is political.”

I told all of this to the CC and its members were very surprised and concerned. They somewhat lost trust in me and decided there had to be an investigation done in Montreal. Although they didn’t call me a liar, they did affirm that I may not be telling the whole truth. I immediately accepted this investigation so that my comrades could see the truth themselves. I also mentioned the comrade who followed me to the meeting as a witness and that they should communicate with him. After he confirmed everything I said, their trust in me was rebuilt but they still decided to go forward with the investigation as I was unable to keep doing political work at this point.

The next day I met with a member of the party as well as two others who are also members of the RSM. The pro-TERF member asserted that it is impossible that the woman I was accusing of being a TERF was a transphobe because she had a trans friend. He would probably also accept any cis-man affirming he cannot be a misogynist because he has a girlfriend. Afterwards they violently denied the facts vis-à-vis the imperialist character of distributing texts which are used as repression for the revolutionary struggle in the Philippines. I was asked to publish a self-criticism in which I accepted that we would have a debate on the gender question and that we would never exclude someone for their radical feminist perspective. Of course, the debate was supposed to be on the subject of the self-determination of the gender of trans folks. After arguing for 4 hours, without any real agreements, I finally gave up and decided to accept doing a self-criticism.

Later, after the meeting was done, the pro-TERF individual straight up said that he would not accept trans women joining spaces reserved for women, and he even went to so far as to call trans women “men who are trying to rape women.” He claimed he could not accept that someone who was socialized a certain way their whole lives to suddenly change their mind vis-à-vis their gender. Finally, he shared his opinion about the TERF woman in question: He said she would never be a good militant, but we needed to accept her perspective because she was there.

I personally never doubted in the potential of any women in the RSM. If I accepted the risk of recruiting radical feminists (or material feminists) it is not because I doubted in their ability to organize. They showed great intellectual and practical capacities, especially in communication. Their potential to build links with the masses spoke for themselves.

I therefore was not able to actually do my self-criticism. First of all, if I surrendered to the TERFs on this question while folks in RSMs outside of Montreal knew of my trans-liberation politics, there would be an ideological split within the party in the wider RSM. I also was not yet convinced that the party in Montreal was operating with bad faith. After all, the Party had yet to see the transphobic reading list and that they were simply working with the info given to them by problematic individuals. I thus withheld my self-criticism in order to win some time and attacked this situation within the party itself.

About a week after this RSM meeting, a woman from the women’s committee disassociated herself from the reading list and the global initiative. She claimed to be profoundly opposed to the materials present and that she would retire from this adventure. The women’s committee never seemed to take this seriously.

The following weekend there was another meeting which much like the first one, was outside of the geographical area in which we all live. There, the pro-TERF party member did not hesitate to admit that he knew the RSM had passed an anti-TERF proposal at their 4th congress (also admitting that I did not invent this in an authoritarian stupor). He knew that this could get RSM-Montreal expulsed with the reasons being made public. These consequences did not seem to phase him.

The women who had recently left the women’s committee was also there and she decided to speak with the pro-TERF member. She spoke of her experience with trans folks. He job was not related directly to trans issues but she worked with addiction cases and trans folks were often over represented in these spheres. The pro-TERF member refused to consider any of the arguments she put forward, calling it anything that accepts trans identities as “bourgeois pseudo science.” Other members of the RSM approved the sayings of the pro-TERF member.

There are recordings of this meeting made by another member of the party which confirm these statements.

This same evening, the CC ordered the pro-TERF member to pass on the message that an investigation was under way. He simply refused. This lead members of the CC to consider RSM-Montréal’s expulsion from the wider pan-Ccanadian organization for not respecting the democratic structure of the mass org. My internet was not very good at this time and I could not follow the conversation directly. My comrades seemed too exasperated to repeat what was discussed. A few days later however, the pro-TERF published a letter called “the construction of a drama” to denounce not only me but also the CC for their maneuvers to know more about the transphobia present with the RSM.

Here is a summary of the critiques present in the letter: The CC was unable to be neutral vis-à-vis the TERF and intimidation question. The CC only had access to the transphobic reading list (including a 40min video by Deep Green Resistance which claims it is impossible to assign yourself your own gender). The CC had not seen the TERF women crying in her home in their bed and that she had no intention of returning to the RSM despite claiming being neither transphobic nor cissexist. The CC was unable to distinguish who was trying to be the savior of women and who wasn’t. Thus, the investigation could only be biased: calling transphobic ideology TERF could only be an insult and a defense mechanism for an aggressor against a victim/survivor. The letter also affirms that transphobia is only but a non-antagonistic contradiction within the masses and that folks within the pan-Canadian RSM could not expulse folks from RSM-Montreal. It would be sectarian to expel TERFs. Thus, it is not the pro-TERF folks that are defending patriarchal power within the organization but rather it is the CC which is simply trying to defend its “friend,” and willing to kick out the largest RSM chapter in Canada for this reason, despite the very large scandal this would cause.

He also went as so far as to claim that its thanks to radical feminism that the day care initiative was put in place by RSM-Montreal. Strange then that this specific comrade is the one who, on a live web streaming camera February 12 2015, announced the creation of the day care service, and this before a single radical feminist was recruited. I’m sure he could easily state that the I wasn’t the one who proposed the service in the first place (I was) and that he would have no trouble explaining how the radical feminist who he claims was responsible for the whole ordeal, only showed up for the second half of the initiatives training and formation, filming the last part where we would show how to change diapers.

(It is worth pointing out that his radical feminist is the same the women from RI denounced as going too far in her defense of TERF practices.)

The actual object of the debate, the auto determination of one’s own gender, a reduced to a simple “question of semantics on the definition of the word women.” I am certain that had the debate taken place of the right of abortion, this same individual would argue we cannot kick out anti-choicers because the debate is simple a question of semantics around the definition of what it is to be human. This would not be anti-feminist according to him. If anything he would argue calling anti-choices anti-feminist would be sectarian. The same could be said about defining marriage as between a man and a women: not homophobia, just semantics. Clearly, he has only read the worst of the post-modernists’ discourse on dicourses: post-modernists at least tend to be nominally pro-trans.

Thus, the CC of the RSM sent a message to the Facebook group for RSM-Montreal to warn them of an investigation involving the alleged presence of TERF ideology within the organization which is not dealt with correctly. This wording was chosen in order to be the least upsetting possible, even if though the fact that a party member was defending a TERF infuriated the CC itself. This member was not even respecting some of feminism oldest claims and struggles, that is to consider women responsible for their own words and actions. However, for him it was not enough to treat her like a child; he also resorted to a psychiatric discourse in front of the CC to justify the behavior of this woman, and to assert that I was the only abuser in this situation.

Also, member of the RSM CC implicitly stated that they would demand an intervention by the party CC to end immediately this restriction of trans rights based on ableism and misogyny.

Within a few minutes of this message being sent, this party member who was present at the last meeting decided to remove his material support from the group. He had access to a garden which was supposed to be used for feeding the masses.

Shortly after, the TERF defending member claimed that the women who worked in drug addiction ( the one who tried to argue his politics based on her experience with trans folks) was acting suspiciously. The direct cause for her sayings must have been his boyfriend (who gave us access to his garden). This is not the first time the TERF member clearly lacked respect for the intellectual abilities of a gender oppressed person, and it certainly was not the last.

The idea of a CC intervention within RSM-Montreal was thus obviously criticized by the chapter itself, but their arguments stemmed from the idea that revolutionaries living and organizing within the same bourgeois state as them, using the same name as them, the same constitutions and tactics, and who have contributed to the same struggle as them for literally year, have no right to criticize them. These revolutionaries in Montreal are rather reactionaries who are using the name and prestige of a pan-Canadian organization to put forward and defending political lines which our contrary to our founding principles and the reasons we have been successful.

Because if a person cannot decide their gender for themselves, they can at least decide if they are revolutionary or not. Its not like this is something which is proven through practice among the masses… rather, for the comrades in Montreal, it is the essence of a person’s psyche.

The TERF instigator on the women’s committee proceeded to send said committee a letter while this was all unfolding. It was a letter where she essentially resigned from the RSM because she could no longer love the violence which was being forced upon her, and that she was grateful for the support she received. She then proceeded to describe some of the patriarchal violence and sexual abuses she had lived before meeting any members of the RSM, before ending on a clear and unmistakable statement that cis-women continue to need spaces reserved for them where trans women should not be allowed, because they don’t need it.

Needless to say the members of the CC were satisfied with this revelation. She admitted it. No more hiding or lies. Members of the women committee could she her for what she was. However, these events were still but the tip of the iceberg.

Starting with the fact that it is the pro-TERF party member which invited her into the RSM when he knew about her TERF politics. He knew she opposed the founding principles of our organization and that all other principled RSMs would lead an antagonist struggle against these reactionary and transphobic politics. It is hard to blame TERFs for expressing their ideology when party members tell them that not only is this acceptable, but is encouraged. This abuse was only possible because of the pro-TERF member’s seniority privileges by being well aware of the situation, while acting like he knew nothing.

She spent many many hours and lots of energy for the RSM, but she never really expressed her political opinions within the organization beforehand. He tasks were essentially urban decorating, organizing free stores and cooking our food to feed the masses with. The pro-TERF party member knew very well her political position were never be tolerated within the organization, yet he continued to ask her to participate.

As if this was not enough, by inciting the women of the women’s committee to defend the TERF women in a lost cause fight, he essentially delegated to them the task of care work. The reasons for this need to be understood: He was living with the TERF (who he was dating) for months now and even admitted to harming her during this period. Now this living situation was necessary for the party member because his family had recently cut him off and he needed to find work to survive. His partner was essentially keeping him alive. Thus he needed her to be supported within the organization so she could continue be supported by her.

During August’s Party meeting, a long period of time was dedicated to the RSM question. One member made a chronological summary of the events. The summary itself was accurate. Most of the members made interventions on behalf of defending the rights of trans folks, however, members stopped short of affirming why it is important for a mass organization to support and defend a pro-trans line. Two interventions, one from a man who works in mental health and the other from a woman in the PFF made a case for the acceptation of trans folks, but their positions stayed timid. Other members within the PFF straight up denied the validity of the accusation of intimidation and psychological assault. This blamed this reaction as a consequence of not having a proper procedure for dealing and rectifying oppressive behavior within the party.

This was all the PFF said. Nothing more.

I made a several-minutes speech on the threat which was currently being faced by RSM-Montreal. Firstly, I had made promise to several trans folks within the anarchist movement about our political line, specifically our proletarian feminist perspective. I then spoke of my experiences at the 3rd RSM congress where everyone was asked to give their pronouns. What I learned there was that this was definitely a necessity: there was a large proportion of folks present, I’d say at least 30 %, whom I would never have felt comfortable gendering without knowing how they identified. From this I could tell the party cell in Montreal that in no way would the pan-Canadian RSM ever submit itself, even ever so slightly, to a TERF perspective on mass organizing. Finally I told them that given the progressive and generally pro-trans lines present within most of the CEGEPs and universities (with the exception of UQAM which is a completely different ball game) there is no chance in hell the RSM could organize within these spaces without attracting a violent and justified reaction from the students as a consequence of our pro-TERF positions. I did admit however that the conversation around TERFs ended too quickly, and that I would create a self-criticism to address this.

Another member, who was not a TERF by any means, that he agreed with my understand of a pan-Canadian struggle within the RSM over the TERF question should we not deal with this problem now. The direction proposed a plan: firstly I should self-criticize. After this, the ideological unity around the trans question must be achieved by the party members present within the RSM. After the three of us which were members of both organization agreed, the leader agreed to meeting with the CC of the party.

But then the question must be asked, why didn’t the party act immediately to eliminate the source of abuse present with MER-Montréal, especially seeing as they had all the information they needed in hand. My explanation is simple: cis-chauvinism is a benign oppression compared to the patriarchal practices common within the Montreal party cell. Speaking of valid radical feminist critiques towards the organization, why wasn’t anyone interested in the personal relationship between members, especially the intimate ones? After all, they clearly have a political character.

But here lies a larger contradiction: The practice of recruiting through intimate relationships is not only allowed within the Montreal cell, it is in fact the only way the party has recruited women in this city. This way of proceeding obviously has its very large and intrinsic consequences, namely recruiting women into an organization where they have less power than their male counterparts from the get go. From a feminist perspective this is an awful start. It can only end in abuse, which happened.

I was informed about a case of abuse in the context of an intimate relationship between members which involved sexual violence. The next day I contacted party members within the RSM to discuss an action plan. This was two days before the famous lunch. Nothing came of this. I also spoke with a party member in a leadership position, who seemed up to date with the abuse case. When I asked if the abusive member had, at the very least, produced a self-criticism, I was told very bluntly no. in fact, the case had never been discussed openly within the party. Ever.

Thus, let us cover what we know. A case of abuse and sexual violence happened between a man inside the party (the abuser) and a women comrade (the abused). The leadership of the party cell defended this abuser. Given the circumstances, we cannot believe this to be an isolated event. Thus we would need to investigate the entirety of the cell to see how far these cover ups go. Let us pretend we are investigating every heterosexual relationship in the party. In this investigation, we would need to ask all the men present in the party the following questions:

• Have had a intimate relation with a women from the party or a mass organization within the past 15 years?

• If yes, were all your partners teeth still present at the beginning of this relationship?

• How old were you when the relationship began?

Then we would need to ask the women the following questions:

• Are you in a relationship with a man from either the party or a mass organization?

• Was he a member when the relationship started?

If I built this arguably strange questionnaire, it is to avoid naming the survivor of the incident discussed above and get to the very nature of these abusive relation within our organizing spaces. The woman in question was only a teenager at the time. It is literally the norm to recruit women, not by political work, but by intimate and sexual advances. The huge power advantages given to men in situation is thus very convenient. The old party members and the young RSM members this recognized each other as allies against those who could challenged their power because of their anti-feminist practices.

It is thus very clear who was in charge when the resistance to the RSM CC’s investigation was put underway. Why would the women’s committee take a frontal charge against proletarian feminism? If radical feminists were really up ton date with the situation in the entirety of the masse orgs related to the RCP, would they really go after the feminists of the RSM for cis-chauvinist reasons? Or, was it rather an attempt by the men of the organization to blind them to the actual source of patriarchal power within our organizations. After all it is really strange to think that radical feminists would first attack the RSM for its application of proletarian feminism before go after the primary contradiction according to them, that is to say the oppression of men over women in a patriarchal relationship.

But this is actually quite simple tom understand: not a single women present in the women’s committee was not in a couple with a man from the RSM who had already been there for months. These men deliberately lied on proletarian feminism policies to be able to act as brave white knights while consolidating their power over women. And this is a conclusion both radical feminists and proletarian feminists can agree on.

Can there truly be consent when, as a new comrade of a mass organization, ready to recruited into a PPW, you are under pressure to stay a part of the group, regardless of how you are treated, or potentially be exposed to repressive state violence? For all the rhetoric around the acceptance of radical feminism the patriarchs of the RCP have proven to have zero understanding of the radical feminist criticism of the concept of consent. Thus, for the party patriarchs, radical feminism is strictly acceptable when it’s time to oppress trans folk, not so much when it offers often valid critics of the patriarchal practices of a given organisation.

The answers received for the second questionnaire would reveal very conclusively that not a single women has been recruited in Montreal since the formation of the RCP that is not presently in a relationship with a man of the party. Also, that all of these women are in relationships with men who are more experienced in communist activity than them and have been around for longer. The man to woman ratio would also be quite bad.

This whole operation vis-à-vis allowing TERFs to spread their ideas without restriction had no other goal than to protect this messed up practice of recruiting women. After all it doesn’t make any sense to keep patriarchal abusers while kicking out TERFs. Therefore, it is in the name of this practice that proletarian feminism was challenged on the TERF question. Trans folks where thus more collateral damage for the party membership than anything else.

Getting back to the story, we three had a meeting to reestablish the RSM’s goals and direction, as planned by the party. This meeting was a failure. Here, the pro-TERF member attacked another party member who contested the acceptation of transphobic views within the RSM, as well as the image that had been painting of me by the same TERF forces. Actually, this person was not yet a party member, but had sent his letter to be accepted. The party was worried about this man’s adventurism, and decided to integrate himself to help fight this.

Those attacks on this member from the pro-TERF member were not political in nature however, but was related to a mental health diagnostic. The pro-TERF member didn’t want to have him for this reason. He also found it quite suspicious that it was this man’s girlfriend who, while on the women’s committee, refuted his TERF thesis. This was probably a form of patriarchal violence according to him, not an actual professional opinion. In his mind, all men must be and act like him with respect to respecting women expertise.

It was thus clear that this member was ready to do anything to scare the membership. Did he do the same with me? I asked the future party member who attacked the TERF forces for his opinion.

I was categorized by psychiatry when I was a child. I no longer identify with this diagnostic for many reasons, the first being it has never helped me. I still tend to speak about it with comrades once I feel comfortable with them. This is how I came to detest capitalism, not by being a proletarian, but by refusing the idea of a value being attributed to individuals. Hell I can’t even be a prole according to psychiatrists. Either, by chance, I get to live like a petty-bourgeois if my family can support me or I would end up lumpenized.

Now, let’s say the pro-TERF member had used my example to explain principles on specific oppressions and how these socialized people under capitalism without telling me, this would not be okay. But I would still recognized the intention as noble.

However, this was not the case. The fact that I stood by the decision voted at the Congress, the fact that I was in solidarity with trans folks, the fact that I denounced an oppressive situation… well these were all consequences of me being categorized. There must have been a pan-Canadian epidemic of development disorders in the RSM. Needless to say one cannot discuss reasonably with someone who, before you even start to speak, claims you have no value.

Was it a non-justified fear of people diagnosed by psychiatry which caused these reactions of this member? It is hard to conclude with what has been said thus far. To really understand, we must understand the reaction of this member vis-à-vis the case of Guy Turcotte, a man who murdered his two children. One of the most mediatized cases of the last 5 years, the man who was a doctor by trade murdered both his children after discovering his wife had an affair. He claims having drank anti-freeze. In his defense, the court declared he was not criminally responsible because of anxiety and depression. He was not conscious of what he was doing.

Doctors defending doctors. The masses are not dumb. This unleashed the passions of many. A second trail was held, where it was discovered the anti-freeze was consumed after the murder and displacing of the children’s bodies. A new psychiatrist argued there could be no link between the disorder and the murders that were committed.

So how did our TERF defender react to this while the masses were in rage? He systematically toke the defense of psychiatry to deny the idea that this man was simply a violent patriarch of the most brutal variety. The masses knew he was guilty, but it involved attacked patriarchy and psychiatry, two things he wouldn’t swallow.

Now I realize this all sounds like a string of conspiracy theories involving secret patriarchs manipulating the party. However it must be understood that this is not a conspiracy. Patriarchy is not a conspiracy. The patriarchy present within the party is no more a conspiracy than the accumulation of wealth and class struggle under capitalism. The fact that the state is in the hands of the bourgeoisie is not a conspiracy. Thus the male membership of the PCR in Montreal will never admit their patriarchal tendencies and how this influenced their actions within the party.

But patriarchy is a special political power: it is usually so strong in a given society that it does not need to be explicit to be applied. Men as a social category are the winners in this situation by taking advantage of the benefits it gives them. I have no knowledge of a united and planned understanding of patriarchal power within the party, although I stand by the fact that the acceptation of these practices is the reason proletarian feminism was attacked.

Now if one was to understand the patriarchal politics of these party members, one needs to look at their interpretation of Marxism. The cell leadership in Montreal does not recognize the specific oppressions lived by the proletariat as something worth analyzing and working with. Instead of understand how the working class divides itself into smaller categories, the leadership strictly recognizes what is universally prole, aka surplus value, class struggle, etc. According to these white cis-heteronormative men who do not live any specific identity based oppressions, it is better to ignore the differences lived by their less privileged comrades than to focus on the main goal, the overthrow of the bourgeois State. Therefore, an MLM party, which must prepare its members for a potential restoration of capitalism after a given revolution and the establishing of a socialist state, should not worry about these details according to these men. If anything they believe we should repress the masses’ attempts to eliminate those oppressors of a part of the proletariat, those oppressors who wreck socialist organizations.

We could also suppose that these men saw an opportunity in the fact that this attitude is the typical approach of TERFs. TERFs claim that all women live the same oppression and detailed study of this oppression would weaken everything. Clearly it should be easy to convince them to change their primary contradiction to that of class? But seeing as these men have no real interest in radical feminism, this would be given them too much merit. They certainly haven’t done this work of analysis of radical feminism. It’s certainly not a viable long-term option. Seriously trying to make future ex-radical feminists to swallow that patriarchal oppression defended by the party is secondary is totally ridiculous. Are they aware there will be no form of political unity between radical feminists and the party?

Now the party members present in the RSM were not in agreement with the management of this case of abuse of a teenage woman. They certainly did not agree with the sexual violence lived by a comrade… but they generally supported the practice of involving women who would never have any real political power in the organization. They thus had all the interest on earth to maintain this patriarchal policy even thought they would never admit it. They will recognize the specific abuse case I mentioned as fucked, but they will not allow themselves to acknowledge that their recruitment formula for women is equally fucked and is clearly a form of abuse. Let alone recruiting someone while knowing she would be rejected from the group for her transphobic politics.

Therefore, despite the fact the party members in the RSM and the leadership agreed on these practices, the political unity between those people is spontaneous at best. This is not an organized conspiracy. That being said, this matters little: whether this is a planned conspiracy or simply the side effect of nasty politics and a lack of principles, the consequences are the same. They do not understand that they are both accomplices, but also potential enemies. At least, while all patriarchs are all right with the status quo.

However, the intentions of the pro-TERF member must be made clear, as this was not accidental. He abused of the trust both his partner and the whole RSM had in him. He was at the 4th congress where the TERF exclusion was voted unanimously. His actions of including a TERF and his struggle against the RSM CC were thus intentional attempts at breaking with the decision that was democratically made at the 4th congress by the pan-Canadian membership of the organization.

I doubt the situation in the rest of Canada is anywhere near as bad as this. But for our Pro-TERF member, the positons held by comrades out West vis-à-vis identity politics are “almost Trots” in the sense that they do not understand the oppressions lived specifically by the proletariat. Thus we cannot trust them with their comprehension of oppressions which are not exclusively prole. I will presume for a moment, that these comparisons with Trots is honest and serious. Well he probably meant that the groups out west organize like the trots here. Well when I went to one of their meetings at the university of Montreal (UDEM) they had achieved full woman/man parity. (there are about 10 of them, only two people present where in a couple). These groups have no feminist theory. Therefore, the Trots experience in Montreal have shown that is better to have no feminism at all than to maintain the messed up proletarian feminism practices by the RCP in Montreal.

The RSM CC thus had another meeting in which we discussed what happened in Montreal. I told them all attempts at unity had failed, and I told them about the kind of discourse this TERF member had. They gave me the single task of bringing this up to the party cell in Montreal, claiming something would happen. It was however an empty promise.

Some will claim that it is not true that men control everything within the Montreal-RSM. The proof is that some women were nominated for coordinator positions. Also, a women was named to be on the RSM CC. These women thus have more responsibility than before, after we asked them to fight a losing battle. Of course this need to be understood in the context of the men being sure no opinion of the CC would affect them. Thus removing the women from the “real” decision making processes. Only after liquidating all political authority and all necessities to follow the constitution that the men voted for a women for this task. To be sure she is kept busy by day to day work, instead of wielding actual political power.

Now this phenomenon is not new in the Montreal left and even the local radical feminists have written tons of documentation about it. We have an important political moment (EX; spring 2015), the men take leadership positions and become the face of the movement. Lots of militants are recruited, the sexual division of work is not contested and thus spreads. Men focus on the big political lines as well as the actions which need to happen, women are reduced to smaller task to make sure all the necessary details work, they do all the logistical work. Patriarchal alliances form between the men in power, knowledge becomes monopolized by the men. After the struggle men and women are exhausted and leave organizations. The women are usually the ones who keep the communication going between people and thus start the long and painful task of rebuilding. Another political crisis emerges and the men retake control. The cycle begins anew.

Therefore, it safe to say that the men in the RSM cared very little for radical feminism. If they followed it, they would spend more time fighting themselves than proletarian feminism. That is not to say that they did not listen to the radical feminists: they specifically went to a presentation on this subject organized by radical feminists. Only after hearing about the activist cycle could they reproduce this cycle. Before, they probably would not have thought about it.

The investigation finally went ahead. During the investigation, another member of the RSM explicitly admitted to me that they (the men) incited the women to support the TERF initiatives to struggle against the “threat” that was a CC mandate to eliminate TERF ideology in the RSM. According to him, it is unlikely that the other members of the women’s committee had actually read the letter and the TERF reading list.

The investigator met me first. After telling him about the situation, not mentioning the sexual abuse case present in the party structure, he told me the problem was not in the RSM but the Party. He re-explained to me the central role of the party in the defining of the politics present within the mass organizations, and that the mass orgs should not be ahead of the party politically. He then told me that as far as transphobic is concerned, the issue was the pro-TERF member in both the party and the RSM. Without mentioning the other abuse case I was aware of and everything about it, I told him I agreed.

After well over a month where members were literally prepared and told not to say anything transphobic, the investigator found no proof of transphobia in the women’s committee. They claimed not having read the reading list before approving it. For another member, the same who encouraged the denouncing of the investigation, these women were simply acting under the influences of their emotions. Those men in the RSM expect the women to know how to use Facebook to have conversations and expose their lives, but not to use Google to find facts. I’m sure another man will find a way to claim this act of misogyny against post-secondary student women was, in fact, a feminist defense.

The irony here, is that in his famous letter “the construction of a drama” anti-feminist men who condemn feminism are a bourgeois ideology are denounced. But personally I see no difference between affirming that the women of the committee accepted to send the list they did not read and to say that bourgeois women are the one who sign checks they did not read the amount on. They were the people having this discourse, I didn’t.

Despite all this, there was little the investigator and myself could do to change the situation in Montreal on the shirt term. At best, all other organization in the country knew that the Montreal-RSM was being watched under suspicious of TERF ideology present. To expulse the RSM was to condemn it to death. But seeing the level of conspiracy theories being put forward by certain party members (Queer folks and trans folks use their politics and identities to destroy women’s groups…) it was clear there was only one way to win this battle for proletarian feminism. It was to incite the members of the women’s committee to go to the 5th RSM congress to meet actual proletarian feminists. Because apart from the written letters and reading list from the gone TERF member, no transphobic comment had been heard by the investigator.

I presented myself to the meeting just before said congress. I apologized for the back and forth with the CC where I showed I and the CC panicked for nothing. I then invited all the women present to speak with proletarian feminists as much as possible and to present themselves for election to the CC, to maximize the contacts. Ultimately, it is thought contact with the membership outside of Montreal that the truth would be revealed.

Before my apologies, the investigator presented a report which was relatively soft on the RSM-Montreal. For this to be possible, he had to omit many preoccupying facts. Firstly the resignation letter by the TERF women recruited by the Pro-TERF member, which showed clear signs of transphobia, was not mentioned. Also, the TERFs were seriously discussing the concept of autogynephilia as a reason for trans identity. (The idea that trans women are just men trying to infiltrate women’s spaces to commit sexual violence.) The investigator even mentioned to me privately that the pro-TERF member once shared that he doesn’t understand why misgendering a person is wrong. These facts were omitted by choice.

Other facts were omitted not by choice. The reason being he accepted what he was being told as the truth. This was problematic in my opinion seeing as he knew that the members of the committee had denied the existence of a letter published by the now resigned TERF member which they had clearly access to.

But he also omitted other worrying discourses, that were simply hidden by the members. He also failed to mention the one of the ideas circulating is that transitioning surgeries are in fact a plan to exterminate gay men, as apparently seeing in Iran. Who knows what kind of consolidation of TERF ideology has been hidden this way…

Thus, this report never had the goal of giving an accurate depiction of what was happening in Montreal, but rather was hoping to justify the conversations which were to be had with Montreal by the rest of the pan-Canadian RSM. On the one hand the investigator blamed the CC for the terror radical feminists felt to explain their point of view. Not that they did anyways in their demand of self-criticism and their sending of the reading list. Thus he suggested the CC should have investigated Montreal before investigating Montreal. That being said he did condemn the transphobic reading list and made it evident that these kind of allegations would not be allowed at the 5th congress or any time after that. Thus the nature of this report was clear: get the radical feminists to come to the congress and make sure they don’t get themselves kicked out for TERF practices or ideas.

However, something unexpected happened. After having presented my apologies, a women from the women’s committee suggested that they should maybe do a self-criticism for the reading list they approved of. This was met with a very hostile look from the pro-TERF member who published “the construction of a drama.” She did not follow up on this. After that the chair of the assembly suggested that the list was just to open our minds to radical feminism. The founding member of the LGBT committee then asked if she had actually read the list. She asked if she really needed to answer the question, and another party member said no.

This was just another demonstration of patriarchal power in the Montreal-RSM. No one should have any doubts about the status of feminist practices in Montreal, they are non-existent. If anything, it is more misogynist and anti-feminists than most of the masses who have no education on the subject.

Radical feminists are not the source of patriarchy. It is an appropriation of the Marxist structure applied to the dynamic of gender. It is an idealist deviation in feminism, which has only gotten worst over time where they have disassociated themselves for many women’s struggles. Do not take me for a defender of radical feminism I already stated that, by its nature, radical feminism is inherently transphobic. They are wrong. Those in the RSM are wrong. They are however, adults, and should takes responsibility for they statements.

That being said, we must recognize radical feminism for what it is: a bad answer to the inherent problems caused by the revisionists politics developed by the majority of self-claimed Marxists. This does not mean that their faults should be ignored however.

The largest danger here is to believe that Montreal deserve an exceptional treatment because of the strong presence of radical feminism here. That is essentially stating that trans folks have less rights here. Go around in the city amongst the masses for yourselves: it is false to say the proletariat would support the transphobic and TERF stances of the Montreal-RSM. The masses would be outraged.

Any form of exceptionalism is a defense of oppression, a refusal to take responsibility for the politics put forward towards the masses. All exceptionalism must be combatted, including Montreal’s with respect to the TERF question. This is not only opportunism: it is reactionary and must be stopped.

Via colonizing proletarian feminism

But when all patriarchal manuvers fail to convince outside of their patriarchal “personal” relationships as to their anti-proletarian-feminist political positions, what solution remains? When the mass organization that is not under direct control of those patriarchs stick to its patiently elaborated line by integrating elements of marginalized communities and by doing a large social investigation, what remains to be done? They can always create their “own” feminist proletarian line.

In regions throughout the world where MLM organizations are strong, where proletarian feminism was elaborated, the integration and respect of LGBTQ have been and still are a great part of their practice. India and the Phillippines are definitely countries where we observe with interest the development of MLM organizations. Nepal was also part of those countries: besides, before the crumbling of the PPW, Nepalese maoist theoreticians were warning that the failure in the progression of the abolition of the family might probably be a cause for revisionism. This has certainly not stopped them to promote trans liberation: there is an opposition between women and LGBTQ only with reactionaries.

However, these are developing countries, that are out of the imperialist sphere, so we can’t take their experience directly and inspire ourselves from their struggles. We can’t either instruct ourselves from the United States comrades like different Red Guard groups, RATPAC, or even our own comrades west of the Ottawa river. The true line on this question would be found thanks to three debates in isolation that will (have been) conducted on three months, where finally the RSM will be able to have a position that “convenes to all”, without any reference to trans defense groups and to their lines and their practices. We should have our line on proletarian feminism independently from the concerned people. If the ILPS (International League for People’s Struggles) decides, in the same line, to exclude MRAs, the KKKa and TERFs, this is not an argument. Making reference to the outside world in a debate on a question so vast as “gender” is clearly a sophism.

Those are the genius interventions that were said by this member and other members of the cell in the monthly meeting of September 2015, nothing less. But this discussion in the cell was cut short, because taking position against specific oppressions withn the proletariat, that is divisive. It was at least the opinion of the direction.

This goes in line by the way with the self-criticism demand that was made to me. The party direction also explicitly stated that we couldn’t kick out a person because of their oppressive behavior, even if it participates with the oppression of proletarian as proletarians. After all, according to them, it takes a whole life to change behaviours. They could have also said that they will always refuse to combat proletarian specific oppressions.

After all, we communists care principally about the capitalist oppression on the proletariat: this is being Marxist according to the cell. Like Marx in Das Kapital, the true daily situation of proletarian interests us much less than the question of capital reproduction, which Is the question that unites us all. It is for this reason that in Das Kapital, the question of historical origins of the proletariat is not treated. The history of English oppression on Ireland or India is not mentioned. It is also for this reason that in the annexes, that are almost a fifth of the first volume, doesn’t treat of facts on children or problems with the countryside in Great Britain. No mentions on facts related to land distribution, agriculture intensification, conversion of land used from grain production to pork and beef pastures, on the peasantry, the proletariat throughout the world or on imperialist warfare. That’s the whole point of the Capital, the extraction of abstract labor is the only oppression of the proletariat and it doesn’t go further. Taking solid positions to fight specific oppressions within the proletariat and to allow it to be united in its struggle against capitalism, that is divisive.

By the way, there is no problem with destroying Third World nations’ communities with TERF propaganda transmitted via means of communication built from Third World labor and ressources in order to have more of Third World labor and ressources. That’s not part of the process of capitalist accumulation.

All this is sarcasm of course. Perhaps if those people read Das Kapital instead of trying in their professional lives to make the least possible labor as intellectuals for the bourgeois state that hires them, they would have understood that in fact, Das Kapital is full of discussions related to concrete asepcts of oppressions of the bourgeoisie on the proletariat. The study of those concrete aspects and their interrelation, this is what Marxism is about. There is no royal road to science.

When I was having my communist education group in Fall 2014 (in Montreal this is how we ensure that members want to defend the party line), I was told that they were reading “Le communisme primitif n’est plus ce qu’il était” (tr: Primitive communism isn’t what it used to be) written by Christophe Darmangeat in order to criticize the idea of primitive communism, that has never reflected any reality.

This sounded reasonable: the development of science always founds itself on the development of an ideology. The former is more like an intuition that guides our practice without really having conscience of the real dynamics rather than a truly comprehensive guide that would allow to explain internal links between phenomena. When Engels published The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, the idea was to give a first attempt to make scientific the ideology that would be fighting the hegemonic ideology of its epoch: the family is an ahistorical fact, a property of human nature, it has always existed and would always exist. The ideology deployed by Engels reflected much more the material contradictions of capitalism and an attempt of resolving this contraction rather that what really happened in history.

But Darmangeat goes further: by basing itself on the studies of anthropologists of populations throughout the world, he mentions that gender inequalities exist everywhere. If those inequalities aren’t the same everywhere, there is no place where those inequalities don’t exist, even where there is no private property. In fact, worse than that, the more we are far from the Western capitalist sphere, the more women are oppressed. According to him also, the construction of the ideology of gender equality could only really start as capitalism developed, when social relationships related to the market has wiped out all other social relationships.

We must face the facts, the West is no long the beacon of socialist revolution throughout the world. The only real attempt was the Paris Commune: if we want to be generous, we’ll say that the October Revolution in Russia was also Western. But since those days, Western communists have contributed very little, in terms of theory or in terms of practice to the proletarian class throughout the planet. Certainly, there was Althusser. There was also the Black Panther Party (BPP). But compared to what has happened in the last century on the rest of the planet, this is very weak.

But according to our vanguard ideologues in Montreal, the RCP in Montreal is sufficiently mature to have its own feminist line distinct from the others. It has enough experience to conclude for the necessity of a different line on LGBT questions from the other proletarian feminist lines in North America. Not only would we have the experience, but we would have a sufficient number of women that would be representative of the masses.

In the past, communist organizations have denounced LGBT people as degenerates subservient to bourgeois ideology. At best, they were confused people that would cease their disgusting practices when the revolution would re-educate people to a “true proletarian sexuality”. At worst, those people were seen as direct threats to revolutionary organizations. All form of struggle against this cisheteropatriarchal reaction was seen as bourgeois pseudoscience, simply because the bourgeoisie saw some advantage to integrate LGBT people to capitalism and a help to its hegemony by trying to give them democratic rights like to non-LGBT people. Unfortunately, residues of those reactionary politics are still present within the RSM and the RCP in Montreal.

I recontacted this trans student that had visioned the movie Laurence Anyways, as he had an unique experience on the trans question. The man was also an anti-capitalist who organized in the IWW, not a reactionary let’s say. For the RSM members however, it was clear: we should abstain to call intellectual workers on the question. The priority was the abolition of the distinction of manual and intellectual labor. This trans student received 500$ for his work, which made him essentially different from the RSM proletarians, who do not exchange their labor force to survive.

This was a sufficient motive to not invite a trans person in the discussion, that had however shown an interest to support our organization. The cis character of a person however, never was a reason to not express themselves on the question, especially if the person paid to have an education in social sciences coming from the bourgeois State at the same time. This is the state of proletarian feminism in Montreal.

But what do actual proletarians think about this division between intellectual and manual labor. Let’s take a concrete example: the siege of Leningrad, one of the bloodliest battles that has brought the most suffering on the Russian people in the Second World War. The city was encircled, by land and by sea. Nazis had decided to not take the city, but rather to starve it to death in order to destroy it. For the Soviets, air supplies were impractical. They had to bring the supplies by sea. A small fleet would do that in the summer, but in the winter, when the watercourses were frozen, that was impossible. They had to cross the ice by foot, but then the ice would have to be sufficiently thick. The optimal procedure to supply the city was thus difficult, but very important for the success of the war against Nazi invasion.

What did the proletarian think of the fact that it was mathematicians, not peasants, that were interested in the relation between ice thickness in Leningrad and the number of supply cargos that were possible to transfer in that period? What did the proletarian think of the fact that Kantorovich, thanks to mathematics that were inaccessible to most Soviets, has calculated the maximal supply flux that was possible with the ice thickness available at that time of the year, while fighting soldiers desperately needed it, and where any excess of zeal would have meant the loss of tons of cargo, and where we had to maximize the supply flux for fighting soldiers? They honored those mathematicians, those specialists that became famous before everything else because of the work of proletarians. They identified to them, because it was their work that they were seeing on the battlefield, that was equivalent, not by an abstract proclamation, but in the reality that was now possible because of the socialist revolution. They did not fight them as though their contradiction was the same as between bourgeois and proletarians. They were displayed proudly on their postal stamps and their propaganda posts.

Somewhere, members of the RCP in Montreal have concluded that people who were trained despite themselves, to maintain two or several identities for security reasons, were not really important. Trans people, that are used to maintaining those identities anonymously, were less important than cis people, that would be manifestly more likely to support the PPW. This is not a rare and useful quality for a PPW manifestly. I am sure, however, that the true communists within the party will recognize Chelsea Manning as an anti-imperialist heroine and her social being as a trans person. The combat that she lived, anonymously, likely helped her to fight the American imperialist state.

The struggle against cis-chauvinism will always be less violent than the struggle that was imposed to people who do not conform to gender stereotypes. The reactions of the RCP against the struggle against cis-chauvinism were against the preparation of the socialist revolution.

Certainly trans liberation struggles are good in themselves, outside of the communist struggle. But it is only basic for communists to understand the alienation that proletarians live under capitalism. You all that lived capactisim, cisheteronormativity, patriarchy in your relations, or simply capitalist exploitation in general, that were forced to flee your family way before you would have wished in other circumstances, you know what is to plan an exile, what bourgeois media would with contempt call a runaway. You know that the first thing that you must think of is where you have the right to shit after all the stress that you have lived. You made a map of those places, noting if and when they are accessible. You know that if you were trans, this last resort you had would have collapsed. Communist solidarity for trans liberation is automatic.

But surely, those party members will succeed in convincing us that they are not antifeminist and patriarchal, and that they understand the impact of capitalism on gender oppressions. They are neither cis-chauvinistic nor transphobic. They are not against proletarian feminism and the practice it prescribes. It’s only that they are formulating their vision of feminist practice: a proletarian feminism with Montrealese characteristics.

What is to be done?

Who invented the PPW? Why not ask who invented electricity. Of course, we can prescribe certain people in particular that have played an important role, certain scientists to theorizations, but nobody in particular invented electricity, that is after all nothing less that a category of manifestation of matter that pre-existed to its method of application and its theorization.

In the same way, we attach the PPW theorization to Mao. He certainly was the one who synthetized what we can call the general theory of the importance of the mass movement as being necessary to the revolution and the communist party as that which allows to cadres the organization allowing to direct this mass movement on the road to socialism. The necessary power, for Mao, could only exist fully that if the people was armed and rebelled, against the bourgeois State but also against all landlords and their warlords.

When Mao wrote on the protracted people’s war, the scenario was totally new. Never before did it happen that armed communist bands could establish in a semi-permanent fashion without crush totally the bourgeois state on its claimed land. Decades after the Chinese revolution of 1949, the PPW was theorized as the way to maintain proletarian armed forces on liberated territories by taking into account all political problems that this opposition to the state would cause in the masses. According to PPW theory, the State crumbling would not happen in a Great Night. There would be phases where the movement would not be able to eliminate the bourgeois State, but would be able to have base areas on smaller territories. Those base areas would grow as correct and just politics and relentless struggles would be lead against the bourgeois State.

The operations that were lead in China cannot simply be reapplied within imperialist blocs. We only have to read texts such as “Why is it that Red Political Power can Exist in China” to conclude that we would need major innovations to be able to wage a PPW within an imperialist country, totally controlled economically, politically and ideologically within capitalist hegemony. The RCP theoreticians on the PPW have clearly never read this first text published by Mao on this question. This text is quite accessible to the majority of proletarians, is very short and written in a very readable style. The will of certain members proposing concretely the PPW in an imperialist country to sincerely aim for a victory for socialism, without trying to answer to those concrete problems to which the PPW will face, is for the least questionable.

Those questions can only be answered if the logistical problems related to armed struggle are answered. In the heart of the imperialist powers, the answers that we will give will be very different from the ones Mao gave. However, I never saw any reflexions on the logistical question inside the party. Again, it is that it requires more analytic work than the simple repeat of the formula of the PPW a universal.

Revolutionary strategy is not the weakness of anti-capitalist revolutionaries in the First World. It is logistics. Groups like the Invisible Committee have a vision of strategy. For those groups, it is the mob, in its refusal to fix itself and by creating permanent insurrections, that will create communism. They have a vision of how masses will make the revolution, it is a revolutionary strategy. The reasons why this strategy will always feel are logistical before everything else. It is incorrect to say that a mob is able to react against the repressive state apparatus. We need communication lines, supplies, organization of the number of hours, hours of leisure, hours of sleep, hours of care to bring to our comrades. We need to be able to tactically retreat from some areas to protect our logistics. This is where anarchism fails in general, not on their strategic vision. Their deviation comes in fact from their worries on the organizational facet of said “authoritarian” communism. Is it really a good idea to give the leadership of the organization to a bureaucracy, that may easily integrate gains that were made by revolutionaries to world capitalism? In fact, from a strategic point of view, this is a weakness of so-called authoritarian communists. The logistical imperatives justify the method of communist struggle, certainly not strategic problems.

Amateurs talk strategy. Professional talk logistics. Revolutionary war is not an exception.

If the PPW was theorized in the abstract by Mao, the necessities of the PPW were totally understood concretely way before by Lenin. In What Is To Be Done, Lenin is very clear on this subject. He always talk of a patient work to carry out in the masses, in a transparent but without adventurist stunts determined by local cliques. In particular, he criticized student practices of the times, consisting to always agitate more before getting repressed by the Tsarist secret police without being able to resist. He also talks about the importance of getting armed, while criticizing the terrorist lines of the RS.

We can’t say either, however, that the MLM concept of universality of PPW is purely a discussion on logistics. In fact, PPW’s universality makes the link between political necessities and logistical necessities. It takes the best of what Lenin and Mao gave as solution in their respective contexts.

There were two principal constraints in the fact of leading a socialist revolution in Tsarist Russia. First, it was necessary to defend against Tsarist secret police, that was probably one of the only functional State appartatus in the Russian Empire at that time (in fact, it was redoubtably efficient.) Then, it was necessary to have an organization able to keep on the road towards the socialist revolution, able to mobilize the most motivated elements of the masses.

In the beginning of the 20st century in the Russian empire, Lenin identified the principal deviation of the proletarian movement as being economism, or the idea that we had to add one cent to every dollar gained by wage workers to stimulate the struggle, though for him, it didn’t happen in one blow. First, he identified this new strategy of the local deployment of tactics in order to stimulate workers’ struggles as a step backwards in the communication of theory but also a step backwards in the formulation of a revolutionary strategy. He also reminded against those opportunists the importance of having a newspaper in order to communicate the proper way to build organizations, in order to have a necessary guide so every locality could pose their bricks and that buildings would be erected, not a random pile of bricks. Then, he denounced this “new theoretical advance” of spontaneism as being a dead end, because the proletariat already knows that politics is a concentrated, distillated form, of economical relations. He proposes to fall back on tactics-as-plan rather than tactics-as-process (spontaneism).

The universality of the PPW is thus, at least superficially, a guide on the management of the contradiction between politics and logistics. This contradiction has historically changed form once countries having done socialist revolutions have ousted bourgeois power from political apparatus. Ultra-leftists would be negating communist logistics, while rightists would be negating communist politics. I say superficially, because as I said in the section on Marx, to really understand something, we must study in detail by turning every layer of the question onto itself and grasping its relation with the other layers. Just read Lenin’s “A great beginning” on the construction of railroad during the Russian Civil War as an exemple of how it can be complicated.

But let’s focus first on how to grasp political power in Western capitalist countries. The principal reason why we didn’t have any revolutions since the Paris Commune in so called advanced capitalist countries is the deliberate sabotage caused by the implementation of petty-bourgeois internal policies. Different extreme-left groups define themselves theoretically, more often then not, by their struggle against petty leaders or against liquidationism, producing more petty leaders and liquidating more organizations. How is it possible otherwise that there was no revolution already while objective conditions have been there already since… the 19th century everywhere in the West?

Thus, in opposition to all the sayings of the Third-Worldists, there is a political base for the socialist revolution in the West. Only the people claiming themselves of the worst mechanistical deviations of Marxist theory will say that only the balance of consumption of labor-value and of production of labor-value is an adhesion factor to the communist revolutionary cause. Really believing those donkeyish stuffs is the same as saying that incapacitated people are exploiting people able to work. It is not only an ideology that leads to political inaction within imperialist countries, it is a dangerous ideology.

Lots of proletarian blood has flown since those Leninist critcisms of spontaneism, but the situation is essentially the same in the First World. The only difference is that we presently are in the militarizing phase of this spontaneism. Those “strategists” claim to guide us with their strategy of the PPW, but refuse categorically any demonstration of our logistical capabilities in the contact of the masses. Those masses would be able, spontaneously, to be convinced by people who want to lead them towards armed struggles against the largest powers that the Earth has ever known, even if the vast majority of the masses has never been exposed to communist ideology except in the way of bourgeois propaganda. Even the vast majority of anarchists in Montreal has never seen communists in operation. Even worse, all those people don’t know what is the content of our politics, the object of those operations in practice.

The very idea to rely on the masses to wage the revolutionary political struggle is absent in Montreal. In their bizarre distanciation of economism, those cadres have decided that we must implicate ourselves in none of the struggles that can be won realistically without a complete collapse of the bourgeois State. They imagine themselves that the masses will realize their potential without having seen any gains in their lives before the Great Night. Of course, this is totally the reverse of economism. But to reverse a metaphysical perspective on revolutionary struggle creates only another metaphysical perspective.

It is not because we wish it very strongly that the PPW is the universal strategy able to make the socialist revolution. It is because it gives a full understanding of logistical questions intrinsically, because it also understands the importance of putting politics in command. MLMs understand that if the basis of the army is the soldier, than the basis of the soldier is the ground on which its feet stands. If the ground is not prepared in advance to receive the stress of the soldier’s weight, then the soldier will collapse. If the soldier doesn’t care to lead correct politics within the masses, then the revolutionary movement will collapse.

The gap between those “strategists” and reality can’t be explained by saying that the PPW is not universal. Rather, it is explained in terms of deconnexion of this general staff from reality. Those people sincerely, believe that thanks to some third type propaganda, carried out by well-equipped cadres, proletarians will recognize themselves in us and will massively join us in our initiatives, even if we adopt revisionist politics and we have outright reactionary people in leadership positions. It goes without saying that no political work within the masses can be realized in this manner.

Being the Center of all struggles
(Critique towards the Invisible Committee and homage)

However, the experiences of the RSM demonstrate that it was rather the reverse that worked. In fact, even the provocation of a protest of respectable size requires patient political work in term of agitation and propaganda throughout the masses, some concrete examples of what represents socialism which reflect through our style of work and the creation of a united front with other tendencies interested in revolt, even if these other tendencies seriously deviate from many aspects of MLM at once within their discourse and their practice.

These practices particularly bore fruit during the launch of the strike in March 2015. We had carefully prepared the spring during many months, knowing in advance that we would have a great display on March 24. This date had been chosen since the month of January, after discussion with the clique behind Spring 2015. We had observed since summer 2014 the movements within Spring 2015 and within the ASSÉ to know what were going to be the relations between the student associations, the unions and the community groups within this non-organisation taking a lot of pride in itself.

But our organisation did not limit itself to this large protest: in fact we had done our political work so well we were completely surpassed by the masses on March 24. We had been unable to reap the fruits of our labour, so much our work had borne fruit.

How did we realized this exploit? It certainly wasn’t because of our political mobilization capacities. Spring 2015, and the members of the ASSÉ that had attached themselves to this project, had many times our mobilization capacities. At best, in term of impact, we had maybe 10% of the political mobilization of Spring 2015. What we had done was assured to become one of the undeniable elements of the Spring 2015 initiative by covering the weaknesses of this non-organisation with our own organisation.

First of all, this campaign for a pan-Canadian day of action had been created thanks to the mass line developed in Ontario, but which was easily applicable to Québec, because living under the same State, the situation within the universities weren’t different. The only real differences were about the present tuition rates. The rest of Canada could say they learned from Montréal on this question and showed them the necessity of having student organisation capable of struggling against the State. This mass line having been primarily developed by proletarian feminists, we had equally exposed to the people of the Invisible Committee the principal differences between proletarian feminist practice and other feminist practices.

Following this, the type of non-organisation prescribed by the writings such as the Invisible committee always leads to the tyranny of non-structure. One of the consequences of this tyranny is the absence of measures allowing gender oppressed people to express themselves. It is why another group, Women* United against Austerity ( Femmes* Unies contre l’Austérité) had partially dissociated themselves from Spring 2015. We had predicted these events thanks to our comprehension of this dynamic since the beginning of the call outs for Spring 2015.

If we had understood this dynamic, it is because we had members present within each meeting of Spring 2015. Nothing was more outrageous for these anarchists than the fact that an organisation was capable of having representations at 3 simultaneous meetings in 3 different locations. By definition, these militants who represented nobody but themselves were incapable of doing as much. We could then have a portrait of the evolution of the forces in presence almost in real time. We were capable of interpreting the signs we were seeing on social media very easily. We knew who we had to approach to effectuate manoeuvers.

It goes without saying that given the fierce struggle between radical feminists and queer feminists in Montréal, the fact of announcing this contradiction had been sublimated thanks to proletarian feminist in the rest of Canada had certainly impressed. Many brows rose when we presented ourselves as a pancanadian movement, however when the pan-Canadian RSM published documents destined for the rest of Canada on how to start local struggle committee within schools, we had doubly impressed. Many self-proclaimed anarchists had even shared our documents on social media.

But what had mostly impressed the masses and the ensemble of militants for Spring 2015 was the childcare service we had proposed. That was where we had really succeeded in feeling the pulse of a situation. Many feminists had denounced the non-inclusivity of the non-structure of Spring 2015: we had attempted to rectify this weakness by proposing a childcare service in the form of a committee, to easily integrate within the non-structure. Since we had unrivaled logistics at the time in Montréal, it was relatively easy for us to proceed.

If we had rivaled operations in order to solve contradictions amongst the people such a gendered division of labour only to distinguish ourselves from anarchist practice, it would have been quite dishonest. The anarchist at Montreal were never anti childcare services, many of them even offered to help.

We had criticised since the beginning the non-structure of spring 2015. However contrary to Trotskyists, and certainly contrary to the RCP in Montréal, we had always known to seize the opportunity given by the non-structure to prove that our theory inspired good practice. It was nothing more than the simple application of Leninism, but without repetition of formulas learned by heart typical of old ML organisation of the twentieth century. We were armed with logistics.

Even more shocking within Spring 2015 was the fact that the RSM had only sent men for the childcare service. Never had anything similar been produced before. We were literally a vanguard. We had proletarian feminist theory. We had formed unity to struggle against gendered division of labour. We had debated on the form of application and we had come out with the most efficient one. We could be totally centralist without being anti-democratic.

To prefigure our ambitions of being a great organisation capable to bring a significant contribution to the socialist revolution, we had been modest in our description. Even if we already had a sufficient amount of members to be larger than most RSMs, we had decided to openly call ourselves an organisation committee. That is to say, the Montréal RSM didn’t really exist yet, but a committee was formed to create it. We could then literally say that history would retain our historic role by remembering that the Montréal-RSM was a success even before it existed.

The leadership change in relation to what anarchists had previously seen of communist practice in Montreal was so big that these concluded that RSM was in fact a secret organisational rupture of the RCP. We had done nothing to quell these rumours, other than to say that our mentor which was known to be active with the RCP was in the RSM and that we were guided by them, and that we rigorously followed proletarian feminism.

And let’s be frank, even if we wanted too, we couldn’t openly claim to be affiliated to the PCR. Considering what had been said earlier in relation to pro-patriarchal struggle within the party, we couldn’t be surprised that the RCP had a bad reputation. In fact, the PCR had so despised in Montréal, that we would publicly say that we were admirers of the Black Panther Party. It was sufficient cover so that we could publicly affirm ourselves as MLM, but far enough from the RCP in its practice that we reclaim that heritage (even if we were mostly whites.)

We didn’t know at the time that the party cell had systematically opposed all of the manoeuvers that had been undergone by the RSM to constitute itself as a window for socialism but equally as a political pole to overthrow capitalism. It had to be my mentor that told me, after I had joined the party. The cell was opposed to the creation of a pan-Canadian RSM. It had opposed the Spring 2015 campaign. It had opposed the pan-Canadian day of action. It had opposed the creation of a childcare service.

The cell couldn’t fathom that people would’ve had enough confidence in us to take care of their children. The majority of parents within the organisation wouldn’t have placed confidence in the members of the party to take care of their children for one evening. We could tell ourselves that we understand from where these types of concern would come from after the patriarchal practices within the party were revealed. The problem was that the masses were ready to get their children babysat in order to organize. If the members of the party didn’t feel safe to have their children taken care of by other party members, it maybe, justly, highly problematic. Despite everything, the degree of confidence amongst the comrades within the organisation is so high that we may be enough to wage a PPW.

Considering the important that MLM places in the centralising role of the party, this reversal of tendencies in the practice of MLM in Montreal could only be temporary. It had only been possible thanks to the recruitment of new members that had new ideas all the while being very loyal to MLM all the while not being really affiliated to the RCP. It is these three conditions that had led to the success of the Montreal-RSM: as soon as I and two other members became members of the party, our practice could only suffer.

Anyways, the true reason why my mentor had left was because of the unceasing repression of the activities of the RSM that had been done during months. It is also what she had revealed to me a few days before the anti-trans debacle within the RSM. She had supported for months this tearing apart that was continuing to believe in the central role of the party and to believe the policies that the Montreal-RSM had newly created. She left when the cell continued, even after our amazing growth, to attempt to stop us. It was too much for her: it had become evident that the party was doing nothing but sabotaging the proletarian struggle.

It remains always better to have been dishonest about our link to the RCP rather than to be dishonest when we would have been by claiming to be an MLM organisation when we were anything but Marxist, Leninist or Maoist. Dishonesty is always evil, but sometimes this evil could have unexpected beneficial effects.

For example, we could blame the Invisible committee to have been dishonest on its political practice. After all, the Invisible committee had Leninist practices than the RCP in relation to the creation of propaganda material to stimulate the masses and to push them into combat. The attempt to lead people from student and union centers from the base together into assemblies might have been badly exploited, but what had been done and that which I witnessed, was the taking of suggestion for ideas on mobilising people, by taking rapports of people that came from their centers. During the Large Committees of Spring 2015, many dozens of people had assembled. It is probably the closest example of a Leninist practice I had witnessed in Montreal, outside of those by the Montreal-RSM before some members joined the party.

I reiterate: The Invisible Committee had been more MLM than the RCP during Spring 2015. The Invisible committee like the RCP would take this affirmation as an insult. For the RCP, it is totally intentional on my part, however it is a complement for the Invisible Committee.

Residing in the faults of the movements

We can pretend that unionism, with its institutions totally subordinated to capitalism and imperialism, with its pension funds that exports capital to the Third World for exploitation, is totally surpassed and that we have no reasons to bother with it. Unions’ centers could propose to shake up and bother by a little bit the ordinary working of the government, we know very well the sole reason why they do so is because they fear to be totally abandoned by the membership it represents.

The problem is that there are still millions of Canadians that are unionised, and even for those Canadians who aren’t unionised, unionism is still seen as the gold-standard of proletarian militancy. To not recognise that the MLMs, or even the militants that are the most vaguely against capitalism are in a position of weakness from a political and ideological point of view in the first world is refusing to recognise reality.

I have surely committed the worst possible heresy within the only organisation that seriously battle for a socialist revolution in the country. I paraphrased the famous text Left Communism and Infantile Disorder. Maybe for those people who have never worked a day in their lives, the distinction is empty between common work tools to keep within hand reach, such a hammer, and a building’s construction plan, because a hammer could serve to renovate, and to propose to use this type of tool is clearly dangerous, However for the Leninist, the difference between people who use these tools that are for the status-quo and those that seek to prove to the masses the inefficiency by explaining why this strategy is vowed to fail all the while providing the necessary logistical aid to accomplish those small mass battles are clear. It suffices to be Leninist to understand the difference between a building and a random pile of bricks.

To be quite honest, Lenin was really not the only one to reflect on these types of considerations. Even some left communist such as Rosa Luxembourg had reflected on the dialectic of constructing a communist movement. For her, spontaneity and organisation were opposed and united. Having struggles for reforms to help the wellness of the working class was important, even when the struggles happened in a spontaneous fashion, because they could then justify the presence of an organisation. When the organisation in itself was limited by the fact that it was impossible to keep going within the bourgeois State, and that certain organisation degenerated into reformism, the propaganda campaigns for a mass strike would be launched to allow for more spontaneous campaigns that would then serve to reinforce communist organisations and the combat the reformist organisations.

We have a tendency to oppose Lenin and Luxembourg on the question of mass organisation, but they had more points in common than we would think at first sight. In every case, their differences are far less than between the current practice of the RCP and Leninist practices. Let’s not talk about residing in the faults anymore. Each fault we have identified within the mass movements that we have observed while I was in the RSM, have reproduced and expanded within itself in the organisations affiliated with the RCP.

We can never rupture with anarchism if our strategy is to isolate ourselves within paramilitary institutions in the goal to topple the government without mass support. Apparently all attempts to demolish ruined coalitions that inhibit the road to revolution are either an idea vowed to fail, either a politics that doesn’t represent the interest of the party. The only thing that is important to the party, is to fight the police when they are at their strongest: when they attempt to master some hundreds of people that protest. It probably what was retained of Mao in Montreal: we need to fight the enemy when they are strongest, by relying on the weakest fractions of the masses. But why not? If we can say that proletarian feminism can effectively erase Trans people from history, why can’t we say that the RCP has a practice of PPW as defined by Mao?

But let us abandon these theoretical consideration for the most concrete manifestations of the presence of the RCP in Montreal. If the RCP considered that it was a bad idea for the RSM to adventure in the participation of a movement strongly polarized between anarcho-insurrectionism and bureaucratic unionism, the RCP didn’t hesitate to profit by participating with the CLAC during the anticapitalist Mayday in 2015, a convergence of anticapitalistic struggles in which the party participates for many years. This protest was a frank success: thousands of people had participated, revolting against the bourgeois State that was clearly not talkable, at the least in this moment. Two Rectilinear Floors (RF) had been carved for the occasion, and the confrontation with anti-riot cops, well equipped of fireworks, had permitted to produce quantity of spectacular photos in which we saw flames, that were then distributed everywhere on the planet thanks to social media.

Also, the conscious of people in the restaurants around us that suffered the shots of anti-riots had well evolved. If is why after this great battle against the bourgeois State, worth more than any leaflet or political discourse that the party or and mass organisation could have proffered before the masses, literally nobody was interested in the party for the following months. However, we needed not conclude to a strategic failure that was to create riots on Mayday, even if it had been many years that this type of adventurism had only allowed for comrades to arrest and some external anticapitalists. No, we would have to wait years before the change in ideology amongst the people is done. It we hadn’t seen any fruits from our battles, we had to place our confidence in the judgement of the three in charge.

The woman within the cell had however spoken a diverging discourse during the meeting that took place after Mayday. They had to have organised the Mayday protest with a woman that was linked to the Communist Party of the Philippines.

I personally met this woman one evening organised by Anakbayan. She seemed to have a lot to say about our practices, enough to sigh. What she had found ridiculous was the fact that no one outside the party knew our real names, and she had found me ridiculous to use a nom de guerre. I then reassured her that my name wasn’t arbitrarily chosen, but that it had a family origin narrowly linked to communism. But she was still aware of this practice that alienates the masses.

All this to say that the women within the party had suggested, along with this woman related to the movement in the Philippines, that the protest had to be as large as possible in terms of accessibility and the discourse that was too combative in terms of confrontation towards the police limited the diffusion of our politics amongst the masses. Here, the segregation of ideas amongst men and women had to be unimportant in the eyes of members for a long time, since the direction simply responded that it wasn’t our line and the conversation ended. Happily that our men ensured that the faults wouldn’t make us crack anymore. It needs to be said that it is easy to have a lack of movement within a structure when the structure in its entirety has no movement.

Today, the extreme left organisation in Montreal that have the most faults are the party and the mass organisations. It is the immediate cause to our members to recruit or even to personally mobilise. When the people aren’t ashamed of our organisation, they are absolutely incapable of presenting what is MLM, if it doesn’t limit itself to the most militaristic lines of the RCP. The power relations that we had lead amongst various movementists currents had completely collapsed.

I imagine that the members of the party in Montreal would seek to counter this diagnostic I am convinced however that they would only confirm, by the magnitude to their “success” of the last year, how they succeeded in liquidating the most spectacular growth that had taken place since the creation of the RCP.

The babies speak of tactics

At the very moment when the CC of the RSM were discussing the possibility of the complete expulsion of the Montreal-RSM, certain members of the RSM had now decided that the Montreal-RSM would become a real RSM and not simply an organisation committee.

Well before this struggle against the freedom of speech on transphobic point of views in the Montreal-RSM, we discussed ways to integrate ourselves more locally within schooling establishments. There would remain a decision taking process at the pan-Montreal level, however local RSMs would be created, that would be politically united by the principals we had established in the constitution. The reasons for first and foremost logistical, even if there were other very good strategic and tactical reason to proceed this way.

At the logistical level, since the schedules of school schedules of the universities and in the CÉGEPs were often strongly disparate, we had discussed that it would be easier to organise our time and its communications without always making use of the internet. It would diminish the signal that exterior forces could hear, all the while diminishing the noise of having to read conversation about technical issues that would concern only one locality. The communication of a rapport synthesising periodic experience would reduce the efforts we would need to bring to the level of communication. People would also be closer for having done activities.

From a strategic point of view, this would allow to have more contacts with the masses. If one person was alone in an establishment, all they would need to do is find people interested in socialism within that establishment. Rather than to always rely on the logistic support of other members, the new cadres would be lead to rely on the masses. The confrontation with real practical problems related to speaking to people, to convince them, would push them to refine their political line by exchanging with people that have different experiences. This would accelerate even further our growth.

One big problem would seem to appear if we consider only these two points. By being more in contact with the outside than with other members inside the mass organisations, the newly created groups could arrive at rather different positions on many questions. What could we do to assure unity between the different groups in schooling establishment? How do we, once a large campaign is organised, make sure that we agree on the objectives and our political positions?

A solution was already formulated. It was called the RSM Constitution. We had travelled dozens of thousands of kilometer and reserved thousands of hours, if we added the moving and the time of each individual, in order to unite and formalise this unity by formalising the minimum acceptable unity. It is this base of unity that would guide us to know if we recruit individuals or if we accept a revolutionary group that is interested in our politics. We had discussed during more than ten hours, in which we all in agreement with the contents, and we had fairly long debates on the formulation of this constitution. Some people continued to work hours after these hours of debate to discuss the constitution of the 4th congress, even if they all had headaches. Even more, to rally at the constitution was not so different than to ask the execs of Lionel-Groulx to simply support the decision of the assembly when these decision are taken.

However this strategy had become impossible.

Because the members of the party at Montreal had simply decided to throw the Constitution in the garbage. The important thing, was to have people that would aid the party from a tactical point of view through our mass organisations that would accept specific task and that become a part of RF, not to be in accordance to the constitution. The direction of the party only saw this constitution as purely ornamental. They were good intentions, however if a person was not in accordance to the essential parts of our mandate as revolutionaries, it wasn’t serious. In fact, it wasn’t even serious if one person oppressed entire sections of the proletariat.

There was only one way left to assure that the Montreal-RSM wouldn’t desegregate. It would be to rely on our friendship relations. But to support ourselves on friendship relations would delegitimise the Montreal-RSM. Therefore, general assemblies would be help every two months, because we had to have assemblies to seem democratic, but the least amount possible, because having political discussions with many people was a waste of time. A bit like the general assemblies in 2012 had been useless. The hundreds of thousands of student in the 2012 strikes were all friends between themselves.

But let us imagine that a member would make new friends and would like to initiate them to the Montreal-RSM. What could we do to make it so these recruits could be exposed to the decision making process? We would need to create a multitude of committees. For each tactical task, there would be a committee. If a tactic demanded logistical support from more people, then we would need to be it before a bimonthly assembly. In this way, we could assure to not explain the decision we had taken subjectively.

It remains difficult to integrate with a group of friends we don’t know, and that share a similar political ideology when we come from the outside. To assure however that the new recruits feel well integrated, direction position could be given to them immediately. The patriarchs of the RSM would say that it would be antiauthoritarian. Of course, appearances are never tricks. These people have no political experience and we need to above all avoid that the people who have more than a few months experience be officially seen as having some decisional power, otherwise these people could be criticised.

To be honest, all these new decisions had been controversial within the Montreal-RSM. Some members who wanted to continue doing mainly political work for the RSM outside of the RSM. Others found it ridiculous that we gave the people who had the least experience decisional positions. It isn’t as if the new red bourgeoisie would create in a few months an organisation that still had no relation to the means of production.

The idea to confer the decision positions systematically to new members having the least amount of experience could only come from petit-bourgeoisie. Not for the banal reasons communists often give, that they are anarchist ideas. No, it is that there are only two ways in which a person arrives at this type of reasoning. Either they had never work in their lives, and at 25 years old, let’s say it’s because they’re rather well off petit-bourgeoisie. Or they have worked, and they had seen bosses perform this type of manoeuver to intimidate the proletarian that were a bit too independent. To confide to someone a position without any framing, is the best way to intimidate and to make bourgeois power seen like a relation between the experienced and unexperienced. It is the best way to dissimulate the power of capital. In the same fashion, it was the best way to dissimulate the power of ancient members.

Admire the way the women of Montreal were given positions with responsibilities all while assuring these positions conferred no power. Admire how a woman was elected on the pan-Canadian RSM CC after the men were totally assured that the party would cover them if this woman had to denounce the practice of the RSM in a city in particular. Admire also in particular their perception of these women: if the masculine majority placed them, it is because they were seen as less experienced. Admire also how the expertise of my mentor has simply been put to trash, in order to respect the work of women in the RSM.

All this had as a consequence to effectively concentrate power around a few people. What is the most outrageous in this story, is that the members of the party that were militant in the RSM had been directed in this way after having considered the failures of the committee of Spring 2015. It wasn’t however that the consideration that had been left in the air without being thought of: complete presentations had been realised before the members of the party, not only in Montreal, but also in Outaouais. This last presentation in Outaouais had been criticised as being too sectarian towards anarchist. It would then be extremely difficult to conclude that it wasn’t intentional, even if I am convinced it wasn’t. The failure of the Montreal-RSM was simply a risk they had to take in order to protect their power.

It remains that despite the resemblance between this fixations on friendship, there is a capital difference between Spring 2015 and the Montreal-RSM. The instigators of Spring 2015 had done it with their esthetic and the ideology issued from the Invisible Committee. These people were motivated to test their politics, they really had the intention to have power that would create itself in spontaneous committees and that would give power to people outside of existing structures. Spring 2015 was based on the consideration that the unions were objectively against popular struggle against austerity measures. These people hadn’t always been honest with their display of revolutionary politics, but they had corrected some things afterwards. They had equally never openly claimed to be anything other than their anarchising ideology (Of course, these instigators were lying because some of their practices were quasi-MLM.)

The members of the party within the Montreal-RSM however do everything to make believe that their politics are communist, when they are a version even more vulgar than the ideology of spring 2015. Spring 2015 accepted our critiques of their non-organisation, even if they disagreed. At the Montreal-RSM, the party members didn’t even want to follow the constitution they themselves had voted for. When they have as their first task to demonstrate what an MLM practice is, they did everything to demonstrate the contrary, but they still made believe that it was MLM.

Never have MLMs deployed so much concerted efforts to lower revolutionary consciousness suddenly appearing from students that have joined the RSM.

You want to consider the success of these politics? Ask the Montreal-RSM how many members they had in the month of May 2016, and ask them how many they had May 2015. I would be surprised that they had found new recruits to successfully recover half of what the RSM. We could also ask them how many people strictly go for politics that are friends with nobody in the organisation outside of politics. It is for me a measure even weaker than the number of members. We were 6 non-friends at the refoundation. I am convinced that there are less now, which proves that politically, the organisation was set back since the first meeting in September 2014. However these members would never accept to admit their failure. In fact they glorify the success of the Montreal-RSM after the elections. A popular dinner had been made, a boycott campaign, urban decoration had been made. No recruits interested in our politics. All successes.

I am certain that all these manoeuvers will be justified by citing Mao, or by making a reference to the Cultural Revolution in China. You see, this revolution was anti-authoritarian. It demolished the bureaucracy of the Chinese communist party, which was at the point of restoring capitalism in China. The masses had been awaken like never before to communist ideas. Wasn’t it a success? Wasn’t it always right to rebel?

This anarchising interpretation of the Cultural Revolution on China could only be made by Western academics that had never understood the link between the material process that had continued after the Chinese revolution of 1949 and the evolution of ideology in the masses. Was mid XXth century China, which had just come out of feudalism and that was still strongly influenced by Confucian ideas, similar to the west that places all their emphases on the ego and the individual? Was the ancestral cult in China similar to the cult of youth in the west? Not at all. Being communist in China implies combatting this ultra-hierarchizing culture. Being communist in the west implies combatting people who believe they owe nothing to others. The cultural revolutions, after the overthrow of the bourgeois State and the socialisation of the economy will not take the same form in China and the west.

We don’t give a fuck about elections!

One the most marking moments of the 2012 student strike and of the whole social movement that followed it was the reaction of the masses at the beginning of the elections. Every faction knew that this tactic was used to kill the movement. The reactionaries wanted to finally have peace by proving that the people refused the red square movement and found it even more ridiculous that people joined them by banging on saucepans. The reformists wanted to succeed in winning this conflict, either by freezing tuition rates or by imposing free schooling. The revolutionaries of whatever origin rose against this by protesting and promoting a boycott.

These protests have definitively shown at which point people were annoyed at parliamentary democracy. The saucepan movement, in its own logic, could only make the movement collapse into movementism. It was a spontaneous movement that had reason to revolt against government that despised them and was ready to suspend the liberty of political organisations to assure the maintenance of high bourgeoisie interests. It had its power within the masses and in its ease of access, but was condemned to collapse without the least political or ideological alternative.

We can make a critique of the ASSÉ and its strategy of gradualist-radicalism and of the fact that no real offensive had been launched since decades thanks to the strategy of combat unionism. But at least, these people understood the importance of tactics-as-plan applied to a strike movement. It is a procedure that succeed in fulfilling its objectives: struggling against the attacks of the government against the conditions of student life.

Yet here the RCP wanted to reproduce this type of elections boycott movement that had to culminate in a protest that would take place on the eve of the elections.

Here, the presence of at maximum a handful of people from the ILPS showed the success of their mobilisation. Also, the power of the party showed that it was capable of leading the proletariat towards people’s power. Even in the worst political repression of 2012 with the infamous code 78, the protest wouldn’t of been comprised of enough people for this special law to apply: there were less than 50 people. It is here that we can consider the success of mobilisation by the party for this campaign. Another frank success that had manifested above all to have changed the formation of tactics-as-plan towards the spontaneity in mass organisations.

If the revolutionary parties that claimed to be communist were incapable of having support through the masses, the bourgeois parties still have a lot more than the Yes men of the party communicate to their members. The rate of participation in the federal elections had never been under 50%, and this, despite the fact that there was never any real unity within a single and unique Canadian nation. The real questions that we had to ask are, what had been the participation of the masses in the struggle against bourgeois political power and what had been the mass support for the RCP’s line. In every case, we convene that it was absolutely nothing, and this despite more than 4 years after the existence of the last federal election. The difference between the participation rate within federal elections are probably more so caused by the weather on election day than by the RCP: we only need to look at the statistics of the different levels of government to be assured of this.

And let’s not even talk about the success of the boycott campaign throughout the masses. The logic of this elections’ boycott campaigns rested on the idea of people’s power. Rather than elect representatives that even if they were sincere, would be absolutely incapable of effectuation the least positive reform, the proletariat would have to constitute its own means to struggle against the bourgeoisie. People’s power, it isn’t direct democracy, so capable of being manipulated and fragile against the attacks of the bourgeoisie. It is an organised power in which the masses can implicate themselves and that allows the masses to protect themselves of the distortions interests groups could create.

What credibility does the party have in term of criticism of bourgeois parliamentary democracy? What does the party do to concretely establish People’s power within the masses? For Lenin’s sake, all that I have seen as action and decision by the party had been to demolish people’s power. At the very moment that the RSM had wanted to struggle against the patriarchal reaction outside the organisation, at the moment when the RSM had wanted to purge its false members on the inside of the organisation, the RSM had seen itself be imposed to cooperate with a handful of reactionaries, simply to assure that they would have two RF? More at the protest on Mayday. Which would have been finally, almost an equally good protest for the boycott.

We can’t even really speak of ultra-leftism here. There is no expression of a political programme for the socialist revolution in the RCP. The only real reason for which these members of the RCP don’t present themselves in bourgeois elections resides in their hard-headedness to not apply their principles in reality: very much like the bourgeoisie, their principles are to demolish people’s power. There is no other way to explain their attitude.

But for every one of their disastrous campaigns, we have to give credit to the cell in Montreal. On one aspect, the organisation had succeeded in showing its Marxist and revolutionary character: by having the tendency to eat its own children. (Marx)

It remains that the weakness of revolutionary activity of the RCP wouldn’t be a reason for the State not to strike. We now have a new prime minister that doesn’t hesitate to remind us which year we’re in. It isn’t that it was legitimate that democratic rights of marginalised people were trampled in the past. It is to show the positive side of the bourgeois State, the extension of democratic rights that are put forward by the new government. At the very moment I write these lines, a bill is debated on the fundamental rights of Trans people. It might soon be illegal to discriminate against Trans people.

If the party is incapable of organising a protest that would have been illegal under code 78, well at least it might now be illegal by continuing to accept transphobes within their ranks. Every member is good that opposes the State within our ranks.

Combat Liberalism

During the second phase of the civil war in China, the Chinese communist party had to face the fiercest struggles it had witnessed at the time, and this time against the warlords supported by the imperialist and against the Kuomintang. The party had been seriously damaged and was incapable of defending itself in the cities. The strategic decision of folding back in far off areas where it was difficult for these forces, that had more personnel and was better financed and equipped than the communist forces, had allowed the communist party to survive.

Like in any struggle for socialism across the world, the communist parties had distributed tasks to their cadres to gain the support of the masses. It’s like this that communist parties function. But for the parties to be efficient, it requires that the cadres can take into account their actions and their results. These cadres don’t fall from the sky of purely communist ideas, but bring with them their old practices that may be liberal or simply reactionary. When these practices are committed throughout the masses, they discredit the party and the areas that were meant to serve as support bases for the communists finds itself rather people by those that would receive the enemies of communist as their liberators.

The decision taken by the Chinese Communist Party contained its own lot of challenges. One of these non-negligible challenges was to struggle against Han chauvinism on contact with the masses. The support bases wouldn’t be easy to build since they were in rural areas where people lived very poorly and had lived for millenniums the oppression from the Han. They would even more difficult to build if the cadres of the party despised and perpetuated oppression towards these peasants.

Certain people having only learned certain formulas of Marxism within books, without placing them in their contexts, said that all the questions weren’t important, and the only aspect of the struggle that was important was to push back the imperialist and appropriate all forms of capital as quickly as possible. It isn’t without reminding of the criticism of identity politics in Montreal that had been made against further and more detailed comprehension of communist across the world.

These people were equally incapable of comprehending that we couldn’t simply abolish all forms of capital, money and inequalities immediately. They couldn’t comprehend the importance of leading an agrarian revolution by campaigning for the poor peasants, said otherwise, to redistribute land left abandoned that belonged to rich landlords, but also to not completely leave themselves to subjectively thought ideas as to why they also needed to attack small landowners owning only the equipment and land needed to fulfill their needs. Assuring to bases themselves on the poor without alienating people that were slightly better off but that were sympathetic to fighting against the Kuomintang and the landlords was too much for them.

The lines of communication in China in this period were very difficult to maintain. Each rank of the organisation had to at once listen to inferior ranks as well as superior ranks, but it was technically very difficult to realize. Concretely however, the biggest barrier to the formation of cadres was liberalism. They refused to listen to the messages that came from the base of the instructions from top, not because they didn’t like the party, but because it frustrated their old comrades that had become friends. In fact, they leave the problems accumulating, they refuse to contradict our comrades even when they are wrong to reinforce their relations with them, despite the consequences that this attitude would have for their relations with the masses.

To combat this plague, Mao published the famous Combat Liberalism, which has to be periodically read by anyone with a serious engagement for the socialist revolution. Liberalism isn’t simply an ideology that comes from the relations of capitalist production, it is a practice extremely damaging that can corrupt all the revolutionary organisations. We stop criticizing, because people do not want to self-criticise or to improve their behaviors. They can’t even accept that they will go squarely against the decision that were taken beforehand, even when these people have sworn loyalty towards the organisation they represent.

The practice of criticism and self-criticism in Montreal

What I will reveal here will definitively surprise lots of folks in Canada: there is no regular practice of criticism and self-criticism in the party in Montreal. In fact, the only criticism that had been formulated within the cell was the one that I had to continue to lie to masses and to the members of the RSM on the nature of decision that had been taken at the 4th congress. This demand to self-criticize had been formulated after that the criticism had been formulated in Montreal that the transphobes had to accept to be re-educated or purged.

We could then ask ourselves in what way it is pertinent to demand a self-criticism following the “bad behaviours” to promise to expulse trans-exclusionary, when it is clear that the fact that I had never accepted the liquidation of real class struggle and of our mass organisations in profit of an abstract and militarising vision of a certain fringe of the party, when we know that this tendency is at the origin, for many years, of patriarchal violence from which there are victims/survivors. The only practice of criticism and self-criticism that I had seen within the cell was the one that sought to put an end to the practice of criticism and of the struggle within the RSM against these tendencies. It speaks volumes.

But even by doing abstraction of this political struggle against patriarchy and its support amongst radical feminists, this demand to self-criticize could only have failed, because there was no habit to self-criticize within the cell. It is impossible to be good in something without regular practice. Luckily, outside of Montreal, it is current to make criticisms and self-criticisms faced with other members, therefore we are saved.

The party’s liberalism in the rest of Canada

The principal critique that had been addressed to me concerning the Montreal cell is that its cadres were, for the vast majority old and disconnected from reality. The different manifestations of this attack had taken as an example to will for people in the Montreal cell to keep the paper format of the Partisan and to invest very little time into the Internet. I have also heard at multiple times the Montreal cell called the Politburo within the same line of ideas.

These criticism miss by a long shot the true problems of the cell. The age of the members really has nothing to do with the disconnection with reality of the cell. The members that seem to be understand the negative implications of having members which do not comprehend the specific oppressions of the proletariat were definitely not the youngest but the oldest. The arguments that were presented to me by the older people on what concerns the publication of the Partisan seemed sufficiently reasonable to seriously consider that it is a technique that functions well if the person handling the papers is sufficiently capable. The first time I was exposed to material from the RCP was in 2011 during the federal elections when a newspaper was given to me by a party member in a metro station. The newspaper hadn’t convinced me at the time because of its content more so than because the method of communication was inefficient. (It isn’t really a commentary against the article or its author, a discussion of some hundreds of words on revisionism can only appear sectarian to someone who has no practice.)

Ageism is barely veiled behind these criticisms coming from the rest of Canada, and at its limit ableist. There probably existed some very good argument to end the publication of a newspaper.

We need to look at the concrete impacts of this attitude amongst the youth, in particular in English Canada. It has only for effect to erect a wall between young and old. It is founded on the incapacity to be preoccupied by real political question that separate the young from the old, more occupied by make easy criticism rather than have fundamental debates on our tasks as revolutionaries.

Who really has interest at to such a situation persisting? Only small groups within the party that want to consolidate their power and the interest of the members of these groups by grouping in spaces where the members of other groups won’t be present. For example, by having a party with lots of alcohol, loud music late at night. If it isn’t the manifestation of inherent corruption towards liberalism, I don’t know what to call it…

Very mean organisation will call you out of being nothing but a grouping of academics, with no experience in real struggle against the capitalist State with no sway amongst the masses (RI). Others told you that this theorisation of PPW as universal is nothing more than a way to shut up debates on the way to anchor the party amongst the masses and that the real practices of the party and its mass organisations isn’t any different from habitual movementist activism (RAIM)

But of course not you have responded. The Maoist movement was strong in Montreal. The RCP emerged from a long history of socialism in Montreal. The RCP was so important that the Maison Norman Béthune was under surveillance in Montreal. The RCP struck so much fear to the bourgeoisie that a special team from SPVM was dedicated to studying it in Montreal. The RCP wasn’t only a group of men having the privilege to study and end up as intellectuals: there was a serious activity of organisation in high schools (for what end can we ask ourselves in retrospective? Maybe more recruits that don’t have all their teeth.) It was the proof that your affirmations on the solidity of praxis of the RCP was serious.

The reality is that, comrades to the west of the Ottawa River, you preferred to boast about exploits that you haven’t done to increase your ranks thanks to a propaganda you haven’t created. Rather than to confide in the masses, you have preferred to confide yourselves in a group in a city situated a many hundreds of kilometers that had no root in the masses. A group that has absolutely no way to create the least displacement of air, but by scavenging the anarchist, had succeeded in producing an appreciable compilation of riot porn. Rather than try to investigate on the process of fabricating these images, you have preferred to take them as they are and publish them. If at least you were tagging along an organisation that had the least power, a locomotive that you could have seized in an opportunistic fashion to propel yourself and that would have been ready to abandon at the opportune moment. But you didn’t. You are tagging along a paper tiger.

The worst in all of this, is that you have preferred to boast of the success of our politics by relying on the fact that the police came down in some regions of Montreal. Had even considered making an investigation in Montreal to know if the RCP had a better revolutionary practice than the Hell Angels? Are these bikers that get arrested for their revolutionary causes? Oh, and speaking of the special team that had to investigate the RCP, we had mocked the fact that it was incapable of concluding if the RCP was communist or anarchist. But the repressive State apparatus understand the situation in Montreal better than the party in the rest of Canada.

But of course you’ll tell me, on the contrary we’ve been firm with Montreal, especially with the RSM. Above all when a feeding the people banner had both a hammer and sickle and an anarchist A, when the photos were distributed on social media. Clearly, the attitude of Montreal, eclectic and not inclined to rely on symbol historically attached to communism, rather than the people that are interested in our politics but continued to identify themselves as anarchist, needed to be criticised. Which had been done, promptly! It apparently needed to be said, yes you will accept the hammer and sickle but no we won’t accept the anarchist A, and if you aren’t happy with it, scram!

Why hadn’t you criticised rather the Agitprop committee that was supposed to create a logo for the RSM, but failed in its mandate without having demanded help? Of course, the choice of a logo proper to the RSM wasn’t, like a member of the party had remarked, but a technical solution to a political problem in what concern the relatively feeble appearance of Maoism with the Montreal-RSM at the time. But where was the discipline which you had so boasted about? The delays for the logo were not caused by Montreal. But it was in Montreal, more than anywhere else, where a new logo for the RSM as an anticapitalist united front, communist in a large sense, non-sectarian, would have been most useful. But it was much easier to criticise people from another region for their difficulties than to criticise your own problems.

And how could I forget the management of the conflict with the TERFs. When you had proofs, beyond any doubt, of the presence of TERF ideology and of the elaborated plan by the patriarchs to permit them to express themselves without any fear of repercussion in relation to the appearance of the RSM to these people, you had sent me a cis-man to do investigative work alone when you had promised him help and that he had to do only translation in the beginning. Let’s be honest, you also haven’t sent him at his best mental health. I however had told the members of the RSM CC and of the party CC that there was no hope of cooperations with the patriarch, which they had no intention to cede.

You had been convinced, by people who didn’t even pretend to refuse to understand the question, to not combat more profoundly this tendency within the Montreal-RSM by appealing to your good old regional chauvinism. A good classic: this area is backwards compared to you, we can’t treat people from over there as our equals. This proves itself even more that the style of work outside of Montreal was good. All this in the goal to maintain good relations with Montreal. I have not yet seen the least amount of proof of a real combat against revisionism and against regional chauvinism. The culture of combat liberalism west of the Ottawa River is but an exercise in style. Luckily at least you speak of ideology, this mystique force that justifies all possible deviations. So that you can fear other things than your own political failures.

Science and Ideology, opposite but united in class struggle

Maybe it is worth the trouble of demystifying what is science and ideology. There are no two words for which the combat between bourgeois and proletarian classes are the most acute. The reason for this combat comes from the fact that it is the link and opposition between the subjectivity of different agents and the objectivity of material forces in which evolve these agents. Said otherwise, this combat is about the very definition of our objectives as revolutionaries. The only way for us to get out of these embroilment that the bourgeoisie imposes us with Ideological State Apparatuses, is to associate these words to the material movement they describe: told otherwise, we need to give them a materialist basis.

Science is nothing but the continued deepening of human comprehension of the laws of the universe. Continuous deepening because this science is built by the observation of the universe and the seizing of essences that reveal themselves by real action, by analysis and synthesis. This task is never ending, its eternal character is inscribed in our material nature. The goal of science comes from our goal to get closer to nature. Human comprehension, because there is a subjective dimension to science, that comes from the very fact that is people that have their own goals in science, with the goal to transform the world for their ends.

But if in this goal, science is in-finite, it therefore forcibly incomplete. The investigative method of human beings always comes from an incomplete foundation. Vagueness is always present in the conception of the universe by human beings. But human beings must live in the world while transforming it according to their own objectives. Ideology consists exactly of this vagueness. We are in contact with ideology precisely there where we have a conception of the universe that seems natural to us and goes without saying, but that we can’t prove easily. Ideology therefore has a principally subjective character. Its objective aspect comes justly from the fact that it is a part of the real movement of human being negating itself through science. It is therefore impossible to subjectively ideology: we can only define it and reduce its impact by continuously deepening our way of comprehending the laws of the universe. The ideology of people is therefore in one moment and location given, the starting point of science, but also its product.

Science and ideology are therefore opposed as material movement of human beings to attain the own objectives in transforming the world, but they are also united in the nature of what it is to be human. It is a never-ending knot, evolving into a spiral. This know cannot be comprised by only taking into account the material nature and the history of the human beings that produce it. This movement can be illustrated through an example. Let’s take the concept of temperature.

For the majority of people, temperature is simply a degree of measure of heat, defined accord to the good sense. A pool is more than 26 degrees Celsius, it is warm, below 20 degrees Celsius, it is rather cold. When we announce more than 30 degrees Celsius outside, it is hot, when we announce less than -20 degrees Celsius, it is freezing. If the only confrontation of a person with nature comes from exposition to the elements, it would probably suffice.

However, when comes the time to confront nature in the goal to transform it, we become aware really quickly of this notion of temperature like the feeling of heat is insufficient. We would disagree on the criteria I have given previously, these criteria are subjective. The method the most shocking to perceive it is by first preparing a glass of water of a certain temperature, then to dip one hand in cold water for let’s say 20 seconds and to feel the water in the glass with both hands. The two hands would feel different temperatures. To do so, to measure temperature, we would rely on the physical properties of certain elements, that change in function to the temperature and that would be more reliable indicators. When these people who have the initiative to control more precisely the temperature of tools they use to fulfill the needs of humanity, they would use apparatuses that reflect this change in uncontestable fashion. The thermometer, for example, contains a liquid that dilate according to the internal temperature of this liquid, we would then seek to assure that there is a thermal equilibrium between the thermometer and the ambient area. It is by the way, literally in this fashion that the temperature is defined formally in most physics courses.

Again, in certain contexts this notion of temperature will insufficient. These cases reveal themselves when we need to take into account quantum phenomena in physics. Having never worked with these concepts I will limit myself to pointing out that the thermometer method can be very useful in many cases but can completely halt work when use in the context of quantum physics. The progression of the definition of temperature allows us to take into account more and more phenomena. However, real scientific maturity comes from the fact that we can define the limits of our understanding, as material beings, from our material objectives.

Science is nothing more than abstraction of labor, whatever that labor may be. Some will tell me that my definition of science is tainted by ideology, which I will not deny. It is based in ideology, not as the contemplative human, spectator of the Universe, but as a human that by nature modifies the Universe. My definition is ideologically proletarian. Any other definition in which people are seen as unconscious are anti-proletarian. But I speak also as a scientific worker. Science can coincide with ideology when the latter is made scientific by the perpetual passing of the concrete to the abstract and vice-versa.

We must reiterate that this opposition between subject and object is not only reflected not only in human ideas of nature and humanity, but that it is part of reality itself. This is true for all sciences, even the most natural ones, and is even more apparent when we work the social ones. Even when interacting with people working in the natural sciences we can hear a lot of ridiculous shit. Is there a more mystified domain of knowing than chemistry? We could be led to believe that scientists in lab coats have finally discovered the building blocks of the universe and that we now know their intrinsic properties and that these properties are found in the substances themselves. Nothing can be more false. It is only by exposing substances A, B and C to substances 1, 2 and 3 that we can really know these substances. Chemistry is not about unveiling the thing-in-itself that is chemical substances, but the interaction of chemicals between themselves. It is only by chemical reaction that the dynamics of substances is discovered.

Of course, we can try to predict these properties by using the underlying physical phenomena by which atoms and molecules are formed, but we would only be using other elements of knowledge gained by a similar process. Physics is no different than chemistry in that it also makes matter interact with matter: only the method of investigation is different.

What interests us particularly as communists is not so much the natural sciences, but the social ones. Not just any social science but the one that will allow us to complete the construction of socialism and arrive to our goal of communism. Like all sciences, it has a ideological base and seeks to enrich and refine that ideology in an infinite loop of the advancement of knowledge. This whole movement has been described in abstract terms, but for us communists, it is the advancement of the proletarian class that interests us.

Mao may not be the founder of his tradition of investigation of the material world, but he remains one of those who has best simplified the process of accumulation of knowledge in the communist movement. From there comes his focus on social investigation. We can frequently see his insistence on not using abstract formulas taken from the work of others or of proposing a plan subjectively but to proceed with a detailed investigation of the forces present and the material reality of class struggle in the field.

Marx was certainly sceptical of the possibility of having a base coming from concrete experience: this is understandable since he was part of the first generation to subscribe to this materialist understanding. His contradiction with empiricism, with his principle of passing from the abstract to the concrete only reveals that at the time, the main task for communists was to move past theoretical abstractions towards a concrete description of the laws of capitalist development. The first three volumes of capital were more than just thousands of definitions, calculations or footnotes insulting bourgeois intellectuals of the time. Important investigations as to the material reality of England in the mid XIXth century where transmitted.

For his part, Mao was not a strict empiricist. Literally, he taught not only to understand the laws of revolutionary war in China, but also the laws of revolutionary war in general. He did not, of course, say that you need to go out and get shot to understand what it feels like. Empiricism and abstractions are two moments in the process of thought, similar to science and ideology.

When we look at the science of revolution, which is to say class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, we understand that it is an absolute war that brings together not only the productive forces, but also politics and ideology. The education system, mass media, think tanks all work to misinform the proletariat on the nature of reality. That these apparatuses have become increasingly stronger since the first wave of socialist revolutions shows their true objectives: confounding the thoughts of the masses. If you were physically threatened while laying on the dusty ground, I am certain you would throw dirt in the eyes of your opponent. In fact, you would probably prefer that this opponent not know that they can shield their eyes. The control of mass politics must therefore be seen not only as a political goal but as a military one.

How the steel will be tempered

There arises the importance to Mao that party cadre have a correct political work style. Understanding that the ideological influence of communist ideas among the masses is a military objective, communists must ensure that this work is done in a correct and professional fashion. If it was only up to the number of soldiers able to use military equipment, specific or improvised, that interested us as communists, our model would be that of the USSR in the 80s. We would be Brejnevites, not MLM.

The steel framework of the proletarian struggle apparatus against the bourgeoisie is of a different kind. We MLMs have also understood the importance of ideological struggle within the party and among the masses. Every part of the term MLM, Marxism, Leninism, and Maoism have their own orientation. They are scientific but also ideological. They are united by the material and historic character of class struggle. Consequently, the bourgeoisie will try by any means to disassociate the proletariat from the historical and material movement.

The weapon of choice used for centuries now against historical materialism is the so-called struggle for universal freedom of thought. The goal of this idea is to remove the material and historical character of thoughts. We think in an ideological void; we don’t think about the universe, about objective facts or about the work to be done. Instead, thought will be the essence of humanity. Any human must therefore be allowed to think whatever they want and express these thoughts no matter what the consequences on the rights of others. We would have to defend the freethinkers against those who wish to struggle against the sacred rights of individuals to participate in the pillaging of the proletariat to then retreat to their luxurious lounges at the end of the day.

This weapon is used in the party and in mass organisations initiated by the party. It is precisely this tool that TERFs have used in the RSM to justify their behavior. Passing over the fact that women in the RSM were lied to about the true nature of the RSMs politics on the trans liberation struggle, it was mainly through this conception of freedom of thought that the struggle was conducted in Montreal. The solution proposed by the TERFs and their defenders remained dedicated to this anti-proletarian engagement. Questions such as “What is gender” without any input from people actually living with the most acute contradictions regarding gender is doomed to failure. It is taking position on something that will never take into account the desires of the masses, nor the importance as revolutionaries to defend the democratic rights of trans people. No one can really think that it is possible to convince the proletariat that their material and social realities are an illusion. The existence of trans people is a material, social fact. The most reactionary faction of the bourgeoisie can try to erase this and create reading lists to convince themselves, they can try to psychiatrise it or use other repressive means, but it will never erase its long history that has been spanned the entire globe. To not recognise the right of a revolutionary organisation to purge reactionary members is to condemn it to death.

Academics may say that this analysis is too unilateral and puts too much emphasis on individual manifestations of ideological thought. The bourgeois elements will choose our conception of ideology as the battleground for their fight for liberalism, against our methods of investigation and work. To these people, ideology is something largely out of the control of individuals and for which we could not blame anyone who did not struggle against it. It would be a force that is impossible for the masses to see, hear or feel, but that would determine most of their thoughts even before they thought them. The masses would not draw pre-emptive conclusions on questions that have not been correctly investigated. They would be affected by false consciousness. It is for that reason that the majority of the proletariat could never be interested by MLM.

In fact, by speaking of ideology as this unconscious influence that the object of your recruitment has and that doesn’t meet your needs, these academics strangely resemble the people who constantly delay organization building, arguing that objective conditions are not yet ready for revolution. Obviously, the masses are not ready, but if only consciousness changed, mass organisations would form spontaneously. We would need a snapping of some divinity’s fingers to achieve this. It could not be the lamentable state of the far left’s politics for the last decades that is the cause of this. It couldn’t be the repeated examples of how not to build a party or mass organizations that have led to this defeatism in the masses. It must be some mystical force that is false consciousness.

I hope at the very least that you will not argue, like other petty bourgeois people we know, that the debate in the nature of ideology is one of semantics, a simple debate without consequences. These bourgeois ideologues who want to simultaneously regiment the masses while preventing them from regimenting themselves like to believe that if the masses don’t behave themselves like the theories they were taught in school of some abstract teleological understanding of history, it must be because the masses have become passive. Not in a temporary way, caused by material constraints where the proletariat has decided to disassociate with politics, after a period in their youth where they still hoped to change the world. No, instead it is because the masses are essentially masses of zombies. We all know where this train of thought leads. MLMs understand that if the masses are repulsed by our activities and that revolutionaries despise us, it is because we have bad practice and that we must self-criticise. It is easier to explain our failures by citing some force out of our control than to do a serious self-criticism.

Those who have made of their profession the study of ideology and that amuse themselves in their spare time by doing dialectics will reply that it is clearly false to take something for what it is. We must always take it for what it isn’t and conclude that A and anti-A are simultaneously true. When we see someone from a bourgeois background with anti-proletarian ideas, we can’t conclude that they have a plan. God, economic relations, have imposed ideas in people against their will, their politics are not politics. It was the demons of dominant ideology that have deposited thoughts in the heads of people. Forgive them, they know not what they do.

All that is not important though because we have within our party saviors who will delivers us from the scourge of these ideologues: those who will leave the sphere of the academy and find the job that will destroy their health the quickest. It is well known that the masses hate work. Therefore, if someone from a privileged background decides on their own to destroy their health, the masses will be pleased to meet this person. It is that this person has understood what it means to be proletarian. That is to say having a job that we hate simply by choice. These people are radically opposed to the bourgeoisie right? They are opposed to idea of the presence of the mystical force of ideology. They uphold conversely that for revolutionary ideas to develop you simply need to expose yourself to the same conditions as the proletariat. Of course, if we ask these saviors if the proletariat is ideologically unified they will answer no. They would be communist revolutionaries themselves because they identify with that ideology, and it shouldn’t be questioned according to those saviors. But the other proletarians that are not convinced by other MLM organisations are not. While pointing out the multiple logical inconsistencies in their reasoning, theses nouveau-poors will point the finger at our formal and anti-dialectical logic.

A quick break for sarcasm; do you know what proletarians, exploited and oppressed across the planet, hate more than members of the petty bourgeoisie that cry for the proletariat when they see misery on the television and then move on to whatever petty bourgeois activities they usually do? A petty bourgeois who voluntarily cries alongside of them, destroys their health and does a job they wouldn’t need to do. Do you think the proletariat are exploited by choice? None of them will be fooled.

When Engels was made aware of Marx’s difficult situation, he gave him more money so that he might stay healthy. He did not say to himself that him and his family must stay miserable so that he could produce revolutionary theory. This is what distinguishes revolutionary praxis from posturing.

No proletarian likes being a proletarian by definition! There will never be proletarian re-education in a process where privilege is not exploited. This is the most bourgeois reflection of Christian morality where suffering absolves you of your sins. Like all ideologies, it must first justify its own existence in the practice it promotes. But it is through the battleground of the bourgeoisie that we must consider this behavior. Its goal is to make us believe that the trash of the bourgeoisie, the same who through laziness or lack of discipline failed to join the ranks of their parents, are our allies. However, they are not only a risk to the integrity of the politics and ideology of MLM organisations, but mostly good for nothing.

The proletariat prefers by far someone who contributes by financial means, who uses their privilege in the judicial system (Ex: people who studied law) or their expertise preserved by law in a revolutionary context (health care professionals, engineers, scientists…). No proletarian will ever be recruited through these “self-re-educated proletarians”. On the contrary, proletarians are repelled by them, and for a very good reason: they are a step away from using their “proletarian experience” to wave the red flag against the red flag.

You will ask me, what should we do with the petty bourgeoisie who claim to be interested in the betterment of working conditions for the working class, who want to brandish the red flag of the proletariat? Should we throw them out with the trash while we wait for gulags to be set up? Is there no hope to re-educate oppressive groups of all sorts?

I will most likely not answer these questions in this text. What I know is that when I meet the head of a multinational who pushes the agenda of imperialism around the globe against workers of all nations, I don’t try to save them by trying to convince my comrades that they are simply ideologically unconsolidated. I analyse their power relations, their origins and their class destination to determine how I will converse with the goal of creating gaps in their hegemony. The planning of actions and their concretisation in the direction of socialist revolution, where thoughts and practice combine, are what determines loyalty to the communist cause. That, among other things, is why we need a party. Planning for the integration of people who will do all that is possible to weaken proletarian power by letting them have anti-proletarian ideas is nothing less than letting them plan anti-proletarian actions and letting them carry them out. “Ideas are stronger them guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why would we let them have ideas?” (Stalin)

Good for us if we can have double agents in the bourgeoisie. That will demand from us that we can be certain that their loyalty towards the movement will be flawless. Otherwise, it is the bourgeoisie that will profit from this to destroy us.

Let’s forget for a moment these Stalinist ideas on the nature of the communist party and the criticisms I am making. This is not a question of fighting all specific oppressions and making sure that the proletariat in its entirety is put forward. It is neither a question of proving to the masses that we can ties our practice of class struggle to with the building of a party that will have an understanding of the importance of tactics and the logistics it implies. It isn’t even a question of combatting liberalism.

We must look at the world as it appears to us to understand why people don’t follow us. You ask why there are so many anarchists and why the marches in Montreal are so big? Let’s look at what surrounds us in Montreal and what the masses bring forward unconsciously: their cats. In Montreal, cats are no fatter than in the rest of Canada, but they are very different: In Montreal we feed them with poutine. It is an ancient practice that developed from cultural conditions distinct to Quebec. Poutine has a special effect on the odor of cats, which compels their masters, without them knowing, to take to the streets and shout slogans. Cats being anarchists, as we all know, this odor can be determined to be the cause of the dominant presence of anarchism. It isn’t something we can spontaneously reason out; we are born into it.

To study the subject, a commission was put together. It employed professionals working in an academic milieu to try and understand the behavior of the masses, who are inaccessible to them. It is mostly chemists who work on this question. They have developed reactional mechanisms, putting into question the dogmatic ideas that people could have reasoned out for themselves their way of doing political work.

These strange behaviors in the masses of Montreal can be explained by the unconscious processes done by the Digestive Apparatuses of the State: let’s forget that what the masses have seem from MLM in Montreal has been awful. It is the direct support of government subsidies in potato, gravy and cheese curd production that is responsible for the lack of enthusiasm by the masses for MLM.

You are professional ideologues who create excuses to justify your failures in MLM practice? You prefer to see the future proletarian members as objects to be studied instead of the subjects of history? You prefer to see people as commodities? The least you could do is come up with original ideas.

The case of RI

As you may know, members of RI began to poach in the RSM, the PCR’s front yard. The thing is that it wasn’t RI that started, it was myself. At this time where I was overflowing with social energy, it seemed to be a good idea to invite myself to the birthday of woman with whom I became Facebook friends after attending a workshop that she gave on transformative justice. I started poaching in her friend group. She later told me I was close to bringing them to my side. They had been particularly interested by my authenticity, what the petty bourgeoisie within the party call my rigidity and that this same petty bourgeoisie will surely explain with bourgeois psychiatry.

I have had many interesting conversations with the members of RI. I have to admit that in Montreal it isn’t common for MLMs to engage with people outside the group and have conversations on our methods of work and goals as communists. On many subjects, this woman has had more of an influence on me than the party. It is only because of a few clearly bad ideas that I didn’t join RI. Among others the idea of not doing recruitment and only looking for already existing MLMs who didn’t know about the organisation was particularly absurd. For the rest, the conversations I had were of a much higher level than the ones I experienced during the meetings on the program that dates from 2011.

There are other reasons not to join RI. Firstly, the group does not take the task of building a communist party seriously. Unlike what I have seen from the RCP in Montreal, these people know the importance of the mass line. But RI is unable to pick the fruits of their political work because they lack any sort of apparatus to take in people interested by the science of MLM. By wanting at all cost to avoid looking like the RCP, they fall into the opposite extreme. The problem with the RCP is the lack of willingness for socialist revolution: it is the reason no steps forward are taken. RI takes a step with their mass work but does not know what to do with its other leg, the building of a party, and cannot continue to grow and do work.

This reason remains a long term problem. What repulses any persons wanting to fight against chauvinism, be it cisheterosexism, imperialism or colonialism, is the presence of TERF ideology within the organisation. I was unfortunately a witness to the fact that this ideology was progressing in RI. Certainly, that organisation did not sufficiently combat that ideology in the past, and now it seems that people struggling for trans liberation are losing allies in the organisation. Considering the opposition from the conservative and radical feminist axis towards the Maoist movement in the Philippines, there is no way for anti-imperialists to support the organisation.

I do not wish to diminish the confrontations that the party or certain members has had with RI in the past. The fact is that apart from the two criticisms I have mentioned, RI is more advanced on all fronts compared to the RCP in the domains of pedagogy and communication. Their members have warned me about the dynamics within the RCP (think amongst others of an elevator repairer) and for someone who has had no contact with the party for years, they were pretty well informed.

Members of RI do not fetishize Montreal, unlike party members outside of Montreal, and correctly understand that the RCP’s practice is a mix of tailism of the worst practices from the Montreal anarchist movement and a militarist adventurism. Their members were well informed on the situation in Montreal. In fact, the elevator fixer was even able to name all the members he thought were problematic. It will not surprise you now if I say that he named every party member of the Montreal cell. Take from that what you will.

If RI does not take seriously the task of party building, unlike the RCP, the task of building a mass line and disseminating it is. Their members are clearly able to discuss specific oppressions, I am thinking of racism and colonialism in particular. For some strange reason I haven’t been able to figure out the queer and trans struggles have been are clearly neglected. It’s a shame since as I have previously said, this is the main reason I would incapable of joining that organisation.

Also, I did as tasked in July to ask for a self-criticism on their part for the sabotage work that was done in Vancouver as well as trying to convince RSM members that their organisation was doomed to fail. Their answer was simple and predictable. About Vancouver, my contact said that the “saboteur” was not under the mandate of RI and proceed of their own accord. On the RSM, it goes without saying that I couldn’t support the activities of the RSM among the masses, that have become non-existent along with any sort of communist ideology it had.

I should add this small bit of information to my self-criticism perhaps, but it would have created a rupture with the rest of the self-criticism. I inadvertently let slide an important fact to the elevator repairer during a party. I mentioned the Montreal cell in the singular, instead of the plural of the past. He found it quite funny.

The Communist Agenda

All evidence shows the RCP in Montreal has never understood what the proletariat is. Its understanding of class, its political will and its ideology is as mechanical and disconnected from reality as can be. Let’s not even ask its members to concretely identify it. Any symptom of oppression by the bourgeoisie is dismissed as bourgeois as long as it doesn’t pertain to the extraction of surplus value.

Never will a proletarian want to resemble the worst bourgeois macho gaslighter, who judges the validity of people’s gender identities by classifying them and telling them that spaces for gender oppressed people is not accessible to them. Proletarian women know how violent bourgeois gaslighting can be. They have struggled against it for centuries and will continue to fight it until it is destroyed: history will continue. The only question is whether the RCP will be a vanguard in this historical process or if it will be demolished in the revolutionary process as a reactionary force. The Montreal RCP is anti-Marxist.

The more we do political work, the more we see that communism is not a necessity. I understand that people have rallied to the slogan Socialism or Barbarism. I understand that these people want to bring back communism as a historical process, instead of a far-away goal out of our reach and for which we will never have to make plans for the overthrow of the State. The problem is that we forget that discussions around revolutionary strategy makes us forget the most important point: that communist organisations are a theory used for fixing a logistical problem. The communist necessity can only assert itself if it is understood as an Agenda. Being a communist is to work towards the realisation of this agenda for the triumph of revolution. This is what distinguishes us from Anarchists, who see in power relations but particularly the State as the source of all social ills.

The RCP in Montreal did nothing but destroy the agenda of the RSM-Montreal. It put sticks in its spokes form beginning to end. But the RSM was not simply an initiative to reach out to the masses. It was a permanent rebellion against the party, while we didn’t even know what we were truly doing. We were simply applying Leninism. But the RCP in Montreal is anti-Leninist.

When comes the time for self-criticism between members, when these people have not respected their engagements towards the masses, the party needs to be accountable to the masses. It must attempt to reform the ill elements, to try and save them, but must also understand that if these people are stubborn and that they do not want to change then the party must purge them.

But for the Montreal RCP, we must not confront problematic elements, who will never be perfect. This is very convenient for the professional ideologues, but revolutionaries must avoid falling into this sort of logic. We are still waiting for the results of this logic that consist of always talking without working to actually change the world. We will never know every aspect of the universe; it is impossible to take position or plan for anything. We revolutionaries understand ideology as the framework allowing for the building of a plan. Bourgeois psychoanalysis can stay in the dustbins of history, but the RCP in Montreal has succeeded in giving it new life. The RCP in Montreal is anti-Maoist.

Let us suppose, as a last defense for theses pseudo-MLMs, that this is only bad faith on my part. That I really only have an ego problem. How is it possible for an entire mass organisation to be ready to dismiss an entire cell based only on the writing of a single member? Personal loyalty? No, it is truly the political contradictions that are the problem. Any form of ridicule towards theses struggles as being divisive is a maneuver that serves the bourgeoisie. The fight to maintain chauvinism within the party is the struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat within the party.

I have no doubts that the proletarian members in the party and those alienated by the system will know what this is about in Montreal: the struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Dogmatism and sectarianism are words used by revisionists to weaken the masses’ understanding of revolutionary science. Its objective is to separate the masses from their revolutionary practice which is their main tool for revolution. The call to integrate and respect the State’s Ideological Apparatuses of the imperialist bourgeoisie, in the name of MLM, will be seen by true revolutionaries as “waving the red flag against the red flag”. Particularly when they are volunteers working for free. This is worse than agents.

Some might say I am restricting the freedom of thought within the party. Others will accuse me of wanting to crush dissent. Essentially, I am no better than the Eastern European leaders who repressed their people to satisfy the orders of another country’s bureaucracy.

But what were the real dynamics in eastern European countries? Many of them had invaded the USSR. Almost all those countries had collaborated with Nazi Germany. That imperialist union was only able to be broken by the occupation of Europe.

Without a doubt, the imperialist countries will again need to be occupied by communist forces to be able to eliminate once and for all the imperialist threats. But this is exactly what the imperialists in the party protest. Maybe it will take anti-imperialist occupation forces in North-America and transform the colonial supremacy into a barbed-wired police state to repress theses supremacists.

I would prefer to be any Honecker, who was able to take actions against a nation who for decades could only think of subjugating and colonizing the rest of Europe (in this case Germany), than to follow people who would support allies of anti-communist repression in the Third World. Forwards ever, backwards never. This includes Mao who shook Nixon’s hand. In no circumstances will supporting a person or organisation for its name without worrying about its politics advance the cause of socialism.

We remember all the struggles we have faced against the imperialist bourgeoisie. We have been told how they sent us to be slaughtered in World War 1. We remember how the leaders of liberal democracies, Daladier and Chamberlain, betrayed the hopes of self-determination of European nations to appease Nazi Germany. We honor the Stalinist purges that succeeded in doing what no other leader of the west was able to do: eliminate the risk of a Fifth Column in their ranks, ready to collaborate with fascism. We have also understood what liberty is, what liberation is, and what will always liberate people temporarily under the fist of tyranny. A true anti-fascism, not the one of manarchist punks always ready to refuse our practice and experience on the subject, but the one that always led the way to better living conditions for the proletariat, towards freedom for the masses in the face of their oppressions, that eliminated all vermin who stood in the way of progress.

Maybe this last part of that sentence may seem a little ideological, idealist even. That would be forgetting how the October revolution forever changed the proletarian ideology across the planet. That would be to erase from history, alongside the bourgeoisie, the plans that the oppressed masses of the world have made for future generations. We are in a new epoch. Capitalism is not eternal. The days of freedom for imperialist powers are numbered.

My loyalty can only be towards communism, against revisionism, towards the intensification of contradiction against bourgeois scum within our organisations as well as without.

But those people are afraid. We need only look at cinema. In the bourgeois imagination, the fear of zombie hordes is a strong one. In fact, it is only second only to robot armies. The very idea of having a party, like an iron fist, that would without mercy crush the bourgeoisie, and that would have the information to accomplish its goals by being connected by infallible lines of light-speed communication is sufficient to create the worse propaganda campaigns. Imagine on top of all this the arm and these lines of communication connected by a dedicated structure able to calculate the optimal path to liberation. Let us not forget that the word robot itself comes from the Czech word for work. From here stems the hate the bourgeoisie has for any sort of proletarian organisation and their tacit support for “citizen initiatives” that refuse all forms of internal repression and de facto leave all repression in the hands of the bourgeois State. Also from here comes the realisation that their enemies lie in those who struggle for proletarian power in a disciplined manner, who they will quickly try to discredit by giving them the label of robot. This isn’t a reflection of the bourgeois subconscious, quite the opposite. It is the best of their reflections, that even if it manifests itself only it its darkest moments, always remains at the forefront of their minds. The bourgeoisie has a far better understanding of class struggle than certain ideologues think.

The biggest fear of bourgeois trash is an army of robots. Their biggest fear is an army of robots bred by the science of revolution. An army of robots that have grasped the science of revolution and will speak of building a party. By speaking of party building, they will be speaking of a revolutionary, antirevisionist communist party. By asking them what truths state party thought, they’ll say Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.

I had hoped to leave the RSM as soon as my duties towards the pan-Canadian RSM were completed, once my mandate was up. I had never really wanted to do student politics. Even before starting, I was tired of it. But my mentor had a good idea, and I intended to help her reach her goals. She was even more tired than I was at the time so I replaced her on the CC of the RSM.

The attacks on the RSM by the party are even more obscene as they intended to destroy everything my mentor a built over the years. If she had the energy to stay a few months more she would have done everything to expulse the TERFs that didn’t wish to conform to our respect of democratic rights for trans people. But these people profited from her departure, because of capitalist exploitation and the anti-MLM alienation inside the party she was suffering, to impose their politics. They should be ashamed.

We live in a wonderful time to be communists. Never has it been so easy to present oneself as a communist and talk to people. They are no longer hostile to the word socialism as they were in the past. The new generations in 2016 find anti-communism absurd, especially those who have known nothing but the so called wars on terror. These new generations have seen that the end of history never arrived and never will. They are more eager than ever to talk about a better world where imperialism, oppression and class society will be a thing of the past.

Nonetheless, after everything that happened in the party, after the fall from up high, I had decided for a brief moment that I would abandon revolutionary politics because I could not see how I could contribute to socialist revolution. It seemed impossible to me.

But reality caught up to me. People started talking to me about their daily struggles. My old classmates would tell me how they were living and manifested revolutionary consciousness, not always sustained, but always lively enough to catch my interest. People I had considered incorrigible on the trans question came to find me to tell me they had changed their views and were now pro-trans. People asked me about my experience in the revolutionary movement and wanted my opinion on ideas they had. These are generally apolitical and no revolutionary people who convinced me to rededicate myself to revolutionary politics.

I will never forgive those who made me lose, even for a moment, my revolutionary faith.

As a communist, the field in which I found myself the most promising, where I could mobilise the most people, was ecology. Since my childhood I have been intrigued by the tie between our technology and our relation to our environment, which I will call our social metabolism for short. One of the most revealing ways to explain imperialism and the chaos that capitalism imposes on every population is through interventions relating to ecological crises. This mass organisation would have a few points of unity, that are still in an embryonic stage, but that reflect the underlying idea. I have no desire to speak in detail here of this organisation here, only why it would be impossible under the current party direction of the RCP.

This organisation will oppose itself to the two main deviations of the modern ecological movement: the pro-market deviation and the utopian deviation whom I divide in futurists and primitivists. I have no doubt that communists in general are opposed to these deviations of modern ecology. The problem is that currently, some members of the party would fight tooth and nail for these people to preserve the social consequences of their views.

It happens that I used my time in the RSM to discuss ecology with a large number of people. A good part of anarchists in Montreal say they are drawn to primitivism, but don’t call themselves primitivists as such. All those who maintain a safe distance form the primitivist scene do so at least in part because of the inherent transphobia in that discourse. There is no way to escape it, similar to radical feminism. It is the same arguments that are used. In this ideology, the subjugation of nature and women have the same root cause. It is similar political problems for primitivists. The other reasons anarchists won’t touch primitivism with a 10-foot pole is for its colonialism. It is not surprising that primitivist discourse calls for people to flee decadent society and go live in nature. This is the same discourse that is at the origin of the colonisation of north America. Primitivism is nothing but the coloniser’s tale.

If a person has had a certain interest for primitivism in the past, it could be that this person has had well founded criticisms on the role of expertise and specialisation of work. In that sense, they might have common points with MLM, and it would be a wasted opportunity to reject them. But for the integration of these people to be successful, we need to set a firm barrier for reactionaries.

However, I have the proof, without a doubt, that the party would do all in its power to stop the folks interested by this organisation plan to struggle in that direction. Instead of supporting its mass organization from reactionary forces, the party would support reactionaries and force the organisation to debate its very existence within the party, preventing it from doing any work outside of it.

An organisation of this type is open to a fight on two fronts. It may be difficult, but stimulating and captivating. But it in no way interests me that this organisation would have to constantly fight to justify its existence to the party that should be supporting it. It does not interest me to have to justify every unanimous vote the organisation takes if a party member trying to consolidate their power via patriarchal means will be defended by the party. And I will not fight both against the outside patriarchs and the patriarchs imposed by the party. I would have no choice but to leave the party to accomplish this task that I believe to be a historical one. If the party outside of Montreal wants to keep attaching itself to the “success” of Montreal, it is their prerogative. But I will not follow them.

What Happens Next

I believe however that a majority of members outside of Montreal will be willing to denounce the situation in Montreal. But I will need proof of this.

If I wrote this text it is because I am convinced that we need an MLM organisation in Montreal. Mass organisations aren’t enough: we need a party to lead the struggle, to centralise and refine the science of MLM as it develops. I am also convinced that that the RCP in Montreal is not that organisation. I would not have written all this as revenge. It has taken me hundreds of hours to write it, and could have easily given up without saying a thing. But I wanted to keep fighting for revolution, I needed to communicate these criticisms.

This text contains a large number of revelations that even if taken separately would be enough to break the party. I hid this information for a long time to avoid this happening. As I said in my self-criticism, before joining the party I still believed it to be possible to address theses contradictions non-antagonistically. The new members and I were only candidate members at the time however and would not have a vote for another six months.

In order to confront the forms of reaction within the Montreal cell, all we needed to do was recruit enough new members to force a debate on the practice and theory of the party. It was essentially a plan to ensure that the party would gradually adopt an MLM line.

Was this planned doomed to fail? Without a doubt. A mass organisation cannot be more advanced on a praxis level than a communist party. De facto, before joining the party, the RSM Montreal looked a lot like a party. Our successes were based on this fact, but it couldn’t last. Moreover, there would have been an antagonistic confrontation at one moment or another.

How is a non-antagonistic contradiction different than an antagonistic one? It is an important distinction when comes the time to deal with contradictions. In a non-antagonistic contradiction, two or more terms are in conflict, but none have to disappear. In an antagonistic contradiction, one of the terms must disappear.

For example, the contradiction between cis and trans people, between disabled and able bodied, between people of different races or between men and women are non-antagonistic. Why? Because none of the terms necessarily need to disappear. But cis-sexism, transphobia, ableism, racism and gender oppression need to disappear. The contradiction between oppressor and oppressed is antagonistic. The oppressors need to disappear. Same as the most basic example, the contradiction between bourgeoisie and proletariat, the bourgeoisie needs to be eliminated as a class.

What is the nature of the contradictions within the party?

The contradictions between the MLMs and those who maintain a reactionary agenda in the Montreal cell is an antagonistic one. If the oppressions that proletarians live through need to be erased everywhere, they have no place in the party. But the cell in Montreal defends theses oppressors. It has shown time and time again that it would not change. It has no choice but to disappear.

We need to seriously consider the possibility that here, one must divide into two.

We need to look reality in the face. The name of the RCP in Montreal is ridiculed to the point where it isn’t worth saving. While the RSM was growing, it was forced to distance itself from the RCP in conversations with the outside. We burn propaganda intended to ignite the masses. Our graffiti get vandalised. All the leftist groups in the city congratulate themselves on this fact. Rival leftist group takes us seriously only when we bring on them when we’re close. Have you ever been around Montreal? And these people are not even yet aware of the reactionary elements in the party.

This isn’t because the masses are hostile to the communist tradition still attached to the USSR and China. The RSM had for a long time a practice defending the presence of an organisation and democratic centralism in general. The RSM promoted MLM and people respected us quite a bit, just before the pan-Canadian day of action. The masses aren’t anti-communist.

We have no reason to fear a split. In Russia, at the beginning of the XXth century, the social-democratic party split between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks for less fundamental reasons. It had tens of thousands of members. Ask how many members we have in Canada; we are nowhere near that magnitude.

On top of that, the program isn’t very good. There are entire sections that started of bad. It is out of date, even its best parts.

The process of struggle against these reactionaries has been discussed by myself and a few other members. Two processes were originally brought up, followed by a third that incorporated the advantages of both without their disadvantages. All of them entail a discussion during the congress on the problems that plague the party and would require a majority of votes to separate from the party in Montreal.

The first proposal was to lead a purge of the party. A de-patriarchization committee was to be formed with the goal of separating those who should be publicly denounced as dangerous to the militant movement in general. The party would grant the power to conduct interviews with members to classify them into three categories: those to denounce publicly as patriarchal, those who must leave for being simply anti-MLM and those that will stay. The main issue with this proposal is that we don’t necessarily have the capacity to lead this kind of work. But mostly, seeing as we are in the presence of people who believe that that they are themselves the RCP, and considering the safety risks associated with this procedure, it is better to discard this idea. The other issue is the perception that the masses will have of a procedure of that nature. Would it be seen positively? It is far from being obvious.

The second proposal is the direct opposite. Why not simply leave the party during the next congress? We would only need to expose the situation and explain why we are leaving. This proposal has the advantage of not provoking Montreal, but the issue remains of the impression people will have of those who left. The party in the rest of Canada have spent years bragging about the progress of the party. It is deciding to leave because it no longer wished to be associated to reactionaries? Why not have combated them earlier? Or is the goal to leave and start afresh without having to struggle? As MLMs we can’t sincerely have the confidence of the masses if a handful of reactionaries can change everything from within the party. Moreover, I am confident the majority of members will condemn Montreal’s actions. But it would be strange to claim that we were a majority when the party would stay the same after we left it. Why not have simply taken control of it?

The third proposal combines the strengths of both while limiting the negative aspects of each one. I propose a scorched earth policy followed by a separation. We can’t underestimate the dangers that the practices of Montreal pose for the public opinion of MLM. We cannot leave well-meaning people to rely on red flags and the formal allegiance to MLM that the Montreal cell has to be ground up by the organisation by burnout, gaslighting or straight up patriarchal abuse. The members of Montreal have shown themselves capable of anything to maintain their authority. The enemy won’t disappear on its own.

We must call for a Congress dedicated to this subject.

This congress will be the occasion to bring the situation to light. It will be the last time the party will exist as it stands. In this congress, the RCP will need to enact a series of resolutions that will force it to apologize to all those concerned and to our organisations that were impacted by the reactionary practices of the party. The following section contains a draft of theses resolutions. The RCP will need to publicise theses resolutions and they will need to be shared widely on social media. Afterwards, the MLMs will separate from the party and all those wishing to pick up the pieces of their organisation will be able to reap what they have sown. Organisation committees for a first Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Party can then be created.

Western communists have fallen behind by a century in their synthesis of revolutionary theory: it is the communists in the rest of the world that have advanced it. We will bridge this gap in the next ten years, or be wiped out.

Draft of the Resolutions to be Adopted at the Next Party Congress

Be it resolved:

That all forms of oppression specific to the proletariat be firmly combatted as communists should, especially when the masses spontaneously fight these oppressions.

That all members of the RCP are required to combat, within and without of the party, oppression of LGBT people, as specified in the concise but clear section in the party program.

That all party members resolve to combat cis-chauvinism within the party and without.

That the RCP condemn all forms of exclusion of trans folks on the basis of their gender identity, whether open or concealed, such as:

• Theories that are “critical of gender” that mainly criticise the existence of trans people

• Accusations against trans people of “dehumanising” gender

• The concept of autogynophilia

• The instrumentalisation of cultural appropriation of racialized peoples to affirm that trans people are appropriating other people’s gender (specifically transracialism)

• Denouncing trans liberation as liberal feminism

• Conspiracy theories that claim that queer and trans people seek to exploit women via prostitution

• Claiming that trans women are men seeking to infiltrate and sabotage feminist movements

• Denouncing queer struggles as apolitical and anti-feminist

• Reference to universalized feminine socialisation

• Considering the term cis as an insult

• The refusal of receiving the label of TERF when any of the previous points are brought up

That the RCP improve this list according to the needs of trans people within the masses: that it is to be seen as a process, that is to say that it is not exhaustive

That the RCP recognise TERF ideology as imperialist, colonialist, cis-chauvinist and transphobic

That the RCP regularly update this list to warn members and allies of the maneuvers of TERF against people

That the RCP recognise the source of TERF ideology as patriarchy

That the RCP recognises the historical responsibility of radical feminism in transphobia, that they be vigilant in regards to people who identify openly or implicitly as radical feminists

That the RCP condemn in the strongest terms all past or present defenses of TERF ideology by members of the party in mass organisations or outside the party

That the RCP condemn in the strongest terms the threats caused by harboring people who have caused direct harm to the safety of trans people within the party and in mass organisations

That the RCP condemn in the strongest terms all the members in Montreal that participated in the maneuvering against popular power of the RSM as having acted on a voluntary basis in the interests of imperialism, colonialism and patriarchy

That the RCP condemn in the strongest terms the suspension of a member of the RSM for having struggled for the resolutions taken in the 4th congress that was orchestrated by certain patriarchs in the party and the RSM to maintain their patriarchal authority over the RSM

That the RCP admit that members of the party in Montreal did all in their power to alter the results of the investigation that the RSM CC requested on the situation in Montreal. That it apologizes publicly to the RSM for the intervention by the lackeys of imperialism and patriarchy in the RCP

That the RCP send a public apology to Anakbayan for having sent a member in support from the RSM when this same member later refused to recognise the imperialist aggression underlying the integration of TERFs with the goal of maintaining their power over the women’s committee of the RSM-Montreal

That the RCP send formal apologies to all people who were gaslighted by members of the party for having supported the rights of trans people to gender self-determination

That the RCP recognises that the totality of the decisions taken to divert the RSM in Montreal from its mass practice as acts of counter revolutionary sabotage that caused the ideological stagnation of the communist cause in the masses and an important setback to the dissemination of MLM science

That the RCP works to compile a list if people in Canada with extreme patriarchal behaviors, such as sexual abuse, psychiatrization/medicalization without the consent of the concerned individual or the holding of TERF views within far-left groups. This is not an exhaustive list

That this list created by the RCP be available on demand by all gender oppressed people, their organisations and their allies. That the RCP ensures that this list not be readily accessible to bourgeois States

That all opposition to this program coming from reactionaries currently within the party be crushed by calling to all our contacts and allies within the revolutionary left, if necessary.


* * *

ANNEX 2: When One Must Divide Into Two:
A Maoist’s analysis of the PCR-RCP’s politics and practices within Montreal

By Comrade “B”

This report is a personal reflection on my interactions with the PCR-RCP (henceforth referred to simply as the PCR) here in Montreal since my arrival in fall 2015. In order to make this accessible to as many comrade as possible, I will try to keep it brief and to the point. Other comrades have produces very detailed accounts of this feelings towards our party’s cell here, I am simply writing this to support what many have already expressed.

My involvement with the party has essentially been non-existent since May day 2016. The reason for this is I was contacted shortly after by Comrade “A”, the member who initiated the TERF crisis of last fall which saw me act as an investigator for the RSM CC, who claimed he had written a 90+ page document which both denounced the rotten nature of the PCR in this city as well as laid the ground work for what he called a new ML organization. I was of course skeptical of this document considering “A” had essentially being unofficially kicked out for the PCR’s circles in Montreal following my report of last fall. The members here will simply argue that he left by choice, however I can personally testify to seeing an instance of RSM organizing where he was straight up asked to leave for intimidation related reasons. The document, which totals 96 pages, was a long winded mix of accusations towards the PCR in relating to their handling of the incident last fall and as well to their general practice around organizing oppressed gender folks. The document also had some very thick theoretical discussion about Maoism, the logistics of PPW, etc., but I don’t believe these aspects to be pertinent to this report.

After reading it in its entirety I was quite shocked. The accusations made were quite profound and, as I told a comrade over the phone before sending it to him, if only 10% of the statements made were true, then there is a very serious problem with calling the members of the PCR cell in Montreal our comrades. I immediately began the construction of an improvised translation team with comrades from Ottawa in order to allow the English speaking members of our party to have access to it. There is now an English version, approximately 80 pages long, that is in the hands of some comrades in southern Ontario. I strongly recommend every comrade who has an interest in the Montreal situation to give it a read, with the understanding that it is in fact the analysis of a single individual, who feels personally frustrated with the current state of the PCR both inside and outside of Montreal. I also investigated during this time the reputation of the PCR in the broader Montreal left , and shall be sharing those discoveries here as well.

The final factor which has encouraged me to publish this document is the congress which transpired this last weekend where our party was assembled and struggle was possible. Despite not being able to make it because of work related reasons, it have become clear to me though discussion with those who were present, that a well define demarcation has been made between the comrades inside and outside the city. This political division, which is at its most clear with the trans question but is also visible in other spheres of our political practices, now represents a political crisis of legitimacy within our entire organization. As long as we refuse to deal with this contradiction, there is no such thing as democratic centralism in our party, and all the progressive and principled practices on earth are next to useless if we also have people flying our flag while not upholding our politics, let alone perpetuating systems of oppression. With this in mind, I would like to begin with a self-criticism of what I wrote last fall.

Self-criticism vis-a-vis my MTL TERF report of fall 2015

I’m sure many comrade who have read my report must be very frustrated right now. After all I concluded that TERF presences in the RSM was marginal and definitely did not discuss the possibility of there being any in the party cell itself. The reason for this is that I made several crucial mistake in my investigation and in my analysis of my collected data. In comrade “A”’s document he strongly criticized my report saying it did nothing but blur the clear demarcation he had attempted between TERF and proletarian feminists in the RSM and party. Now I believe this to be true to a certain extent, all while recognizing that his attempts at forcing the TERF question in the open were also failures.

The first failure I feel I must share is what was unfortunately the very short sighted nature of the report. My goal wasn’t to dissect the inner minds of RSM Montreal on the trans question: I knew these people very little, did not feel welcome in their circles, and was starting a masters degree all while fighting the second intense depression in my life. My goal was to get the MTL RSM to the next pancanadian congress where discussion around the TERF question could take place and incorrect ideas could be forced out into the open and challenged. I wrongfully assumed that simply getting them there would correct any problematic tendencies. And for this I both apologize and self-criticizes.

My second failure I wish to share was my understanding of the trans question here in Montreal. In my report I made the statement that Montreal is one of the last bastion of radical feminism in North America, where TERF politics are allowed to existed because of a lack of identity politics present, limited to the Anglo-sphere of the city. This conclusion was wrong. I entered the city with this assumption and simply took all the signs supporting said assumption as fact while ignoring those who contradicted it. The fact is that my statement about the city was maybe true 5 to 10 years ago, but that is rapidly changing. Identity politics, mostly under the banner of so-called queer feminism, has been hammering away at the radical feminist hold on this city for a while now. Out of all 4 major university campuses (McGill, Udem, UQAM and con Concordia) only one still had radical feminists (With TERFs included) organizing openly with the greater campus left, and that was good old fortress UQAM. Even there, in a school known to be ideologically trapped in the 1970s, queer feminism has begun to pose a serious challenged to the established ideology. As for feminist organizing outside of campuses I’m afraid I have much less contact. That being said, we have another gender oppressed comrade in the city who is also from Ottawa who has done their fair share of investigating and their conclusions are very similar to mine: The Montreal left is no longer a safe space for TERFs. This thus undercuts my report in a very important way, for it allowed the existence of a certain level of TERF ideology to exist based on a misunderstanding of the city’s political level. For this I both apologize and self-criticizes.

The third failure I shall bring up is one that actually causes me a fair bit of sadness as it relates to trusting those we call comrade. I stated early on in my report that I assumed that all those who participated in the report did so in good faith and thus could be trusted to be telling the truth. After everything that has happened this last weekend it is clear now that this was not the case. Either there has been a considerable TERF take over of both the RSM and party cell since my report was published, or there was a clear attempt tom limit the amount of information I could collect to render my investigation weakened. “A”’s document lists many lies he believe I was told during the interview. Once I told him that I had read his document and would prepare a response to it, he then supplied me with a complete list of lies he believes I was told during the investigation. He also claims he has proof of all of this. I shall not name them all as it would render this document even longer so I shall simply name a few of the ones which strike me as worst:

• The RSM Montreal had never really dealt with the trans question

• The RSM Montreal did not understand the role and importance of the Pancanadian CC

• The RSM Montreal never defended TERF ideology nor ever kept a member they knew was TERF

• The Women’s committee was unaware of the TERF nature of the reading list mentioned in the report, nor did it read the TERF member’s resignation letter when she clearly defended her oppressive stance

• The RSM Montreal was only semi-hostile to the report because of the heavy handed nature of the CC intervention

• The RSM Montreal struggles against transphobia in Montreal.

Many of these lies I can definitely attests to, others I must depend on witness accounts. The truth is I do not know exactly were each member of the RSM stands, and this is because I accepted everything they told me during the interview as truth. For this I apologize and self-criticize.

Thus, if I may conclude, my report should be seen as nothing more than a failure. It failed to reveal the contradictions present in the city, it failed to rectify a incorrect and oppressive political line present within the RSM and it failed to inform comrades outside the city of the scope and severity of the situation. There are other mistakes I could discuss and other lies we could debate but the fact is that my report should be kept as a example of how not to investigate properly. I am not ashamed by this, after all this was the first attempt at this for both myself and our organization. I simply hope that other comrades may learn from my mistakes and that in the future, our reports shall be more effective and informative.

Our organization as seen by the Montreal left

I would now like to spend a bit of time speaking to the image our party and its mass orgs have out here in Montreal. First a bit of context: I was recruited with one of the first new batches of members to come out of the Ontarian expansion of the party: my official join date was in late 2013. Comrades from Ontario were very interested in joining this Montreal based party as it seemed to have every going for it: It was a MLM organization filled with members who had been around since the glory days of En Lutte, they had a strong history of militancy and practices to the point where the RCMP was investigating them, etc. To us, it didn’t just seem like the PCR was an important part of the Montreal left, it seemed like they WERE the communist forces in this city. Fast-forward to today, after I have spent 14 months in this city, and let me tell you that this is clearly not the case. The PCR has nothing less than a horrible reputation within the left here. Horrible. I am not using a hyperbole. We are not liked here. This first became clear to me when I was interviewing comrades as to their practices with the RSM during the failed spring 2015 strike. I was told, by many, that the RSM chose to blur its relation to the party during this time, insisting instead that they were a group which was mostly inspired by the Black Panther Party. When I asked why this choice was made, it is because they feared they would not be taking serious would they have mentioned their relation to the PCR.

During my time apart from the party in the last 9 months or so, I have decided to attend various political events throughout the city to better understand the way in which the left views us. My first stop was in radical feminist and queer feminist circles in UQAM. I was able to find contacts through some of my classmates, met a few people and was present for a meeting for each group. For the radical feminists, the PCR is a patriarchal stronghold, controlled by men in which women are only invited if they can be controlled. To be fair to the PCR, there didn’t seem to be any real investigation done on the radfem’s part to uphold this view, however it remains our reputation which I believe is still important. In the queer circle, we were ironically enough called TERFs, and one person claimed that we, much like material feminism, belong in the dust bins of history. Now my exposure to feminism remains limited. I am a cis hetero white man after all, so I do recommend comrades look into other reports and testimonies on this question. Specifically, I believe everyone reading this should also read the document writing by the gender oppressed comrade who has joined me in this city and is involved in gender oppressed organizing here in a much more serious way.

My second stop on this Montreal left tour was anarchist circles. Now anarchism in Montreal is a hot mess of orgs, political lines and practices. It would have been impossible for me to meet with all of them so I focused on anarchist groups at UQAM and anarchist members within the IWW. In both cases, the PCR was resumed as such: Small, silly and sectarian. While both groups admired our May Day commitment to fight pigs in the street of the downtown core, they also said we did nothing the rest of the year except encourage sectarian strife. The IWW comrades specifically pointed to the ridiculous PCR vs. IWW panel which was organized in August. I have already shared my distaste for this event with many comrades from outside the province and would be happy share it more if anyone asks. Now, again like with the radical feminists, it was clear these anarchist comrades had not spent a considerable amount of time studying the ideology and practices of the PCR, but I do believe this to be irrelevant. If we were active and principled out here as we claim to be, the rest of the left would at least need to recognize our importance, even if they do dislike us. Instead, what a found was a general mockery of our organization, similar to how we speak of Trotskyists orgs in the rest of Canada.

My third stop was with our main enemy: other communists! In October I made the choice to attend a 15$/H minimum wage march in eastern Montreal after a classmate at UQAM had told me there was significant mass involvement. Back home in Ontario, this campaign is mostly a platform for social democratic organizations to recruit and spread their reformist message, therefore I was skeptical to the idea of mass engagement out here. I was wrong. Oh so so wrong. Yes this march was led by your usual cast of reformists and liberals but what followed them was hundreds and hundreds of people. Not activists, no banners, just people. People of all walks of life with one thing in common, they were almost all minimum wage workers. This blew my mind. Contrary to the other marches I have seen since moving here this was the first which retained some of the spirit of the 2012 maple spring. It was by no means a violent of even militant march, but the masses were there. And where were we? Well not there. I definitely agree that 15$/H minimum wage is by no means revolutionary however it seems ridiculous to me to not go and participate where the masses are engaged and willing to listen. That is not to say there were no hammers and sickles present. In fact every single other communist org in the city was there. From the Parti communist du Quebec (PCQ) which is little more than a branch of Quebec Solidaire (QS), to the fight backer Trotskyists who were selling their usual publication to socialist alternative, the USA based reformists who have been growing and trying to branch out here. They were all there, we were not. So I decided to speak with them about us, communism and Montreal in general. Ironically, it was the trots who called us sectarian, the socialist alternatives who called us communist larpers (in reference to LARPing, aka Live Action Role Playing) and the members of the PCQ didn’t think we still existed other than our book store and a few random tags in the metro. From this I investigated the mass work of these orgs and while the PCQ was literally nothing more than hands at the service of QS both socialist alternative and the fightbakers, despite have very simplistic and watered down political lines, seem to have a decent approach to organizing the masses. The Trots are present on most campuses, with decently sized study groups while SA, despite being so new, as had a decent amount of succession recruiting fast food workers and other prole people. When revisionists, with poorly defined politics, are doing better mass work than the Maoists… then there is something seriously wrong with the Maoists.

The final group I would like to discuss is students. Despite claiming it has over 20 members and is present on every campus in the city, the Montreal RSM is non existent in the student sphere of organizing. First of all, there are 12 of them, something our comrades in Saskatoon have achieved despite being in a city with a tenth of the population, and second of all, they are present on exactly zero campuses. Seeing as they organize themselves as one big cell for the city instead of one RSM per campus as we do in Ontario, they have turned into a strange affinity group which is in fact quite isolated from the actual student population. Yes they do basic mobilization on campuses with propaganda and discussion but this is Montreal: Every campus has dozens of established leftists groups which are directly involved in student organizing. Without having a secure base on every campus, with weekly meetings and a plan for involving themselves in the larger student mobilization, the RSM here becomes just another batch of crazy leftists giving away flyers in front of a cegep. The RSM is completely disconnected from the reality on campuses and seems to think that spending time feeding random people in the park, playing revolutionary songs in the metro for money and rioting against the SPVM a few times a year is the solution to organizing the wider student population. The consequences of this are clear: Students here do not know what the RSM is. Some, on francophone campuses will remember their role in previous strikes but that’s it. As for Anglo campuses, forget about it, the RSM out here seems only interested in organizing French speaking students.

I believe as communist we often make the mistake of speaking of the masses as a whole, like one big body with a single consciousness. Now I cannot claim to know the masses in Montreal, this city is huge and divers and I, a single individual, who is wrapped in his fair share of privilege, do not believe I can truly understand the political level or consciousness of the entier working class in this city. What I do understand however, is that this working class has no idea who we are and what we do. If we cannot even achieve basic recognition and respect from other organizations in the city which do what we do, organizations which seem to have better track records when it comes to recruiting and expanding, then I fail to see how we believe we can reach the masses as a whole. Needless to say, this is a very big contradiction to what Maoist organizing is supposed to look like.

Recommendations and conclusion

Thus, here we stand. After the weekend of events which just transpired, it is now more clear than ever that there is a well defined demarcation between the newer branches of the party outside this city and the original cell within it. The party here clearly uphold TERF and other transphobic politics, something they denied, and blurred the reality of last fall. The party here fails to engage with the masses, something they have lied about since we joined them many years ago. Finally, the party here lies about upholding democratic centralism, something crucial and central to any ML organization, let alone MLM. More frustrating still, it is now clear that the so-called comrades in this city would rather deny and do bureaucratic and political maneuvering to avoid engaging with us than actually being challenged on their fucked up politics. The sudden and surprising cancelling of this weekend’s RSM conference (apparently due to not having a venue…) a mere few days after the party headquarters here was ruthlessly bombarded by a force of principled comrades from outside the city tells me the members here are looking for more time to see if they can’t once again blur the lines of who stands where. This is not what principled Maoists do when they are challenged politically. This is what opportunists do when they feel their grasp on their authority slipping. Thus, I agree with comrade “A”’s conclusion to his long document: The PCR here is anti-Marxist, anti-Leninist and above all, anti-Maoist.

My personnal feelings as to how this happen are simple: This is the product of Montreal exceptionalism. An exceptionalism that both exists here and outside the city, one which kept the comrades here from seriously engaging with their own contradictions and kept comrades outside the city from questioning the cell in the great Montreal. Back last fall I heard rumors that certain members of the RSM scoffed at the idea of being kicked out of the pancanadian RSM (something they clearly denied in my investigation but we now know that can’t be trusted…). Apparently for the comrades here, it was more important to maintain their fucked up politics then to continue to be a part of the one of the largest leftist student orgs in Canadian history. It was more important to preserve their control over the mass orgs and party here then to be principled communists open to criticism. Montreal exceptionalism has made that folks here think they can do no wrong, and we in the rest of Canada must also blame ourselves for this, as we let this happen. My thoughts are there was probably clear signs of this back in the early 2010s, we just didn’t see them, nor did we know what to look for it seems.

So, where do we go from here? Well, at the risk of encouraging the notion of us being communist LARPers, I must turn to Lenin in What is to be Done: The fact is our party is split. Spilt between a principled majority, which wants our party to represent and fight for oppressed people of all kinds, and a opportunist minority, which seems more interested in its prestige and autonomy than in its ability to organize along democratic and principled lines. The fact is that the PCR’s reputation is so bad out here I have been ashamed to call myself a Maoist as of late, it has even made me reconsider Maoism as a legitimate revolutionary ideology. Now I know that problem isn’t Maoism, it is those who call themselves Maoist in this city. Therefore, I have no interest in being part of an organization which keeps these kinds of members as comrades. I can say right now in all honesty, that if concrete steps are not taken to address the situation in this city, than this report shall also double as my resignation letter, as I feel I and many other principled comrades in the city have said everything we can at this point.

My recommendations go as follows: I believe all branches of the PCR outside of this city should effectively split from the cell here. I believe we should rebrand and make it very public to the left here but also in the rest of the country that this is how a principled organization deals with internal contradictions. The fact is the PCR was a dream which did not live up to our expectation, and as long as we associate ourselves with the problematic comrades in the city then for every step we take forward we can also expect to take two steps back. The time has come for 1 to split into 2. I now call on all comrades who agree with me to make things happen: We need a special congress, we need an open platform to debate these questions and see exactly who stands where. The longer we wait, the more likely the opportunists in our party will reorganize, and this will make our task immensely more difficult. It only takes a single spark to start a prairie fire, and this city is looking rather flammable. I would like to thank all the comrades who read this document as well as those who encouraged me to type it up. The future of our party is in our hands, let us seize the time and truly blaze a revolutionary path.

Dare to struggle, dare to win.


* * *

ANNEX 3: Concerning the February 1st ultimatum

(Do not like, do not comment and do not share publicly this text. I assume personally the risks associated with the diffusion of this announcement.)

I publish this message concerning the ultimatum sent which consisted in the publication of a manifest denouncing very harshly the reactionary theories and practices developed in our organisation for years and calling for the construction of a first MLM organization in Canada. I consider that the demands of the ultimatum have been more than filled. I was skeptical for a long time, and I write this message to explain to our allies why I consider the demands have been fulfilled.

I hope you have not been too much troubled by my absence on social media. Do not believe I abandoned the struggle. The last 18 months consisted for me of nothing less than of a construction of a network of trenches, of ditches and of communication lines that would allow us to win by erosion the struggle that our enemies have imposed to us. I lack the words to describe the situation, and for obvious reasons, I cannot enter into details. Allow me to paraphrase a whole section of one of my favorite speeches from almost a century ago.

I know that it is hard for people outside the organization in Montreal to realize the magnitude of the struggle in which we are involved. We have problems in this struggle no other organizations have. Fortunately, the great majority of members have, in this great crisis of the development of our organization, shown themselves splendidly loyal to their revolutionary commitments. Everyone had a right to sympathize with any party of the conflict. But now that the enemy camp has revealed itself, without any doubt, as being antagonistic to any form of progressive struggle a few months ago, there are only two sides, and the time has come when every member must declare themselves as a revolutionary, or a traitor!

A few days after this revelation, this ultimatum was sent to the organization so that the rest of Canada respects the revolutionary commitments that were taken and honor the MLM tradition. Things have not developed as quickly as we wished, but we have many reasons to be optimistic and to grasp the hand held out by the rest of Canada.

We must disappoint the members of the organization in Montreal who believed that all other members would risk their own mass organizations, future generations of comrades to meet, their own reputation and their conscience in the name of unity with the reactionaries of the organization in Montreal. Members travelled to us this year from all Canada, coming from the Prairies to the Maritimes, passing by Ontario and Quebec City. There is no form of sentient life which bites, kicks, squeal and scream as much as those dear comrades, if you were to announce that they would be forces to betray their oaths to this woman comrade who gave us the example and who proposed to us the project of construction of this organization.

The moment I sent the ultimatum, we received an offer by one of the members of the high brass of the organization that the text would be published as a book. This offer is way more interesting than a simple publication on Internet on a blog. It is likely however that a shortened version will be written, that will go straight to the point without being too heavy on MLM theory. The people have the right to name its enemies, to know them and to fight them. We must make all the efforts that will allow the masses to succeed. We must oppose the oppressions of a closed clique with solidarity, self-criticism and transparency.

Propositions were made to us in order to solidify MLM unity in Canada. They can only be well received, in spite of the sluggishness of the general process. Our allies in the rest of Canada are well aware of the sabotage of communication lines by the reactionaries and by the hardening of their reactionary political actions. The disarray of the rest of the organization can be explained mainly by the lack of experience faced regarding such operations. The base of the organization in the rest of Canada is at least as much frustrated as we are by this situation. It is regardless to the MLMs of Montreal to make the first steps towards a Pancanadian unity. The support that we are granted fills us with enthusiasm. We hope the high brass of the organization will make their possible to minimize delays towards this unity.

Even if we should advance only 10 feet per week, we will go on. Dare to struggle, dare to win: monsters of all kind shall be destroyed. Our resolve has never been stronger. Our lines of communications are better than ever. Rest assured that we will publish other texts to stimulate the enthusiasm of the high brass if we see the need.

Our cause is just, victory shall be ours!

e p D T F s