A Noble Cause Betrayed ... but Hope Lives On
Pages from a Political Life, by John Boyd
Chapter 3
Why I Left the Communist Party
(My Letter to the Central Executive Committee)
Feb. 18, 1970
To the Central Executive Committee, Communist
Party of Canada,
Toronto, Ontario.
Yes, I have dropped my membership in the
Communist Party. After long and careful consideration I came to the
conclusion that I can no longer belong to
-
a Party that condoned and continues to
condone the terrible injustices and crimes that were committed and
are still being committed to this day in Czechoslovakia all in the
name of "Marxism-Leninism," "democratic centralism" and "proletarian
internationalism."
-
a Party that condones the distortions of
socialist democracy and socialist legality that have been taking
place and are continuing to take place in the Soviet Union and other
socialist countries since the 20th Congress of the CPSU likewise
in the name of "Marxism-Leninism," etc.
(This conclusion is based not only on sources that are available to
everyone, but also, and mainly, from what I learned from a score or
so of Soviet Communists and foreign Communists who have lived in the
Soviet Union, with whom I worked in Prague, as well as a few I met
in Moscow. Some of them were old-time members of the CPSU, some new;
all of them highly knowledgeable in their fields. They described the
situation much more sharply and much more harshly than I do.
Significantly, most of the information given to me by these Soviet
persons was given individually, when alone, very seldom when there
were two or more present).
-
a Party whose leadership remains silent when
anti-Semitism is used to advance a particular policy or interest
as, for example, in the propaganda seeking to establish that
counter-revolution had gained the upper hand in Czechoslovakia. (Why
did not anyone in the leadership of the Canadian Party denounce or
criticize or even seek to correct the lie, one of a dozen at least,
in Dyson Carter's own version of a "white book" Whatever
Happened in Czechoslovakia? that Jiri Hajek was a Jew, whose
real name was Karpeles? Why didn't the Canadian Tribune
publish, as the London Morning Star did, the statement Hajek
issued denouncing the canard, which first appeared in lzvestia,
and its slimy purpose? Was it because it happened to be at the same
time, grist for the mill of the "official" line? And hasn't the same
attitude of silence been taken towards, or mealy-mouthed attempts
made to explain, the ill-disguised efforts recently in
Czechoslovakia and earlier in Poland, to exploit anti-Semitism in
the Party's inner struggle by concocting charges of Zionism against
devoted and dedicated life-long veteran Communists?).
-
a Party (and this is true of most other
Communist Parties today) in which a small group at the top often
influenced strongly by one or two individuals, and even more often
by the top clique of the Party of another country is the sole and
final arbiter of who in the Party is a "left-sectarian dogmatist"
and who is a "right-wing revisionist." Strangely enough, in spite of
constant references to "two dangers," regardless of which is the
greatest at any given time, there doesn't seem to be any record of
anyone in the Party ever having been denounced or disciplined, much
less expelled, for left-sectarianism or dogmatism. For example, even
though the Central Committee of the present Communist Party of
Czechoslovakia proclaimed in a resolution at its November 1968
plenary meeting that there is a need to fight both dangers, to this
day no one has yet been denounced or disciplined for
left-sectarianism or dogmatism. But the screws sure have been turned
against anyone even suspected of leaning towards so-called
revisionism. Is it at all perhaps because those doing the labeling
and categorizing, denouncing and hounding and expelling, in Canada
and Czechoslovakia, are the real left-sectarians and dogmatists?
-
a Party in which members who gave years of
selfless devotion and work "for the cause" and have not abandoned
their dedication to socialism can be treated by their lifelong
colleagues almost as "class enemies," simply because they strongly
uphold views they sincerely believe in on certain important issues.
Their only recourse, apparently, under the present arbitrary and
convenient interpretation of "democratic centralism" is to clam up
and conform or get out.
Apropos this last point, I recently have had some
personal experiences that would appear to be relevant:
-
a top executive officer of the Party told me
on my return that I could not express to my fellow-members in the
Party my views and feelings about what I saw and experienced in
Czechoslovakia, because this would be in contravention of the
convention decisions and thus harmful to the Party. (I haven't
worked in the YCL and Party for over 40 years to have my mind and my
conscience muzzled that easily.)
-
a Party member holding a responsible post
told a member of my family while I was still in Prague that I am an
"imperialist agent" because of my views about what happened in
Czechoslovakia.
-
a highly placed, responsible member (I went
to some trouble to find out who) informed a Toronto Telegram
reporter after I declined to stand for the Central Committee that
I'm flirting with the Trotskyists a deliberate lie. Why? I hold no
brief for the Trotskyists. While I consider the overwhelming
majority of them every bit as sincere in the desire for socialism as
are most members of the Communist Party, I also find they are every
bit as sectarian, as dogmatic, as clich้-minded, and as irrelevant
to the real Canadian scene as are all-too-many members of the
Communist Party. If they have a "plus" it is in fact that they have
been able to attract a large number of young people to the cause of
socialism.
-
a leading member has been peddling the story
that the job I now have had been arranged for me even before I left
Prague. Since this is an outright lie, what purpose could it have
other than to discredit me among my friends?
I realize that these latter charges involve the
actions of individuals and not the Party as a whole. But I find this
readiness to brand as an enemy anyone who holds a sharply different view
on a major issue, or issues, all too symptomatic of an attitude
throughout the Party. (The last convention was a good example of this.
So is the manner in which those who are now in the "driver's seat" in
the Communist Party in Czechoslovakia are dealing with those who don't
agree with their "official" policy. Likewise, what they did to those who
opposed them, including good veteran Communists, to get into the
driver's seat).
Let me make one thing clear: in spite of all the
above, I have not given up my ideals, the ideals for which I worked all
my life. I still believe in socialism, but genuine socialism, "socialism
with a human face," as the Czechoslovak Communists so aptly described
it, with all that that implies.
However, I do not see how the Communist Party of
Canada, as it is now constituted, with its present policies and above
all its methods, can be instrumental in advancing the Canadian
people to socialism. I believe that somehow, eventually, the coming
generation or generations of revolutionaries and forward-looking and
thinking people will achieve that goal; but only as they are able to rid
the present movement (and the regimes in the socialist countries) of
most of the present injustices, weaknesses and evils: dogmatism,
sectarianism, and above all bureaucratic elitism, which is such a damper
on the potential in the socialist. world today.
While I've had criticism of, and reservations
about, some of these injustices, weaknesses and evils in the past (those
I knew about) I was willing to rationalize, to overlook them in the
interests of the greater common goal, to see them as flaws in the
movement in the socialist world, flaws which eventually could and would
be fought against and eliminated. My two-year stay in Czechoslovakia
what I saw there, what I learned from the representatives of other
Parties and most of all from 15 to 20 Soviet Communists with whom I
worked and whom I got to know intimately and whose confidence I gained
all this convinced me that it is a pretty frustrating hope.
Certainly in the Party in Canada it is. Were I in
the Italian, Spanish or British Party, to name a few, no doubt I would
still be a member, for I find myself in agreement with their policies,
their approach, and their thinking, as I know them from the documents
and articles that I read, but even more from conversations I had with
their leading people. I find that the leaders and members of these
Parties share the critical views that I have and they hope to fight
through for them. But there is no room for these views in the Canadian
Party and, unfortunately, as yet in too many other Communist Parties.
As I made clear in my letter to the convention
and in subsequent conversations with Bill Kashtan, I have never had and
do not have any intention of publicly proclaiming my differences with
the Party or making a public issue of them. This is why, when I decided
to drop my membership, I simply told the secretary of my former club
that I would no longer pay dues or attend meetings, without giving any
reasons. I thought this would be the best for all concerned.
In reply to your letter, I have tried here for
the first time to briefly outline some of these reasons. But I have no
desire to get into any discussions, polemics or debate about them. With
this letter, therefore, I consider the matter closed.
Yours sincerely,
John Boyd
[ Continued ... ]
[ Top ] [ Table of
Contents ]
Copyright South Branch Publishing. All
Rights Reserved.
www.socialisthistory.ca ▪
|
