International Struggle Marxist-Leninist
ISML WEB VERSION: ISSUE NUMBER 3: 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TO ALL MARXIST-LENINISTS AND COMRADES
OF THE WORLD!
We are honoured to announce the birth of a
new Journal, "INTERNATIONAL STRUGGLE - Marxist-Leninist". The task of
the journal is to analyse, debate and clarify, on the basis of
Marxism-Leninism, and within the Communist movement, the major theoretical,
political, economic and social questions thrown up that face the world's
proletarians, toilers and the conscientious working people. The fundamental aim
of the journal is to defend and spread Marxist-Leninist revolutionary theory;
to assist the birth of new revolutionary historical eras; to fight against any
revisionist and opportunist deviations within the working peoples and communist
movements; finally, it aims to work for the unity of the Marxist-Leninist movement
in order to move to the establishment of a new Communist Marxist-Leninist
International.
The journal aims to form a common
revolutionary, political platform for the Marxist-Leninist groups,
organisations and parties in the world, who will take part in this editorial
initiative, for theoretical discussion and to exchange their experience of
revolutionary struggle.
Especially today, when there is a
resurgence of imperialist economic and military dominance all over the world;
with the super-exploitation of labour for super profits from invested capitals;
with the violent oppression and super-exploitation of under-developed
countries; and the destruction of nature; with the fostering of racism,
nationalist war and even fascism - it is necessary and urgent to obtain the
unity in action of the International Marxist-Leninist movement.
Only this latter Unity can retard and
potentially obstruct the advance of capitalist and imperialist barbarism; only
this can transform the coming third inter-imperialist world war into a war
against the bourgeoisie and imperialism; and only this can prepare the new
proletarian revolutions for the final victory of Socialism all over the world.
Since the beginning of the fall of the
Soviet Union from socialism under J. V. Stalin into capitalist restoration
under N. Khrushchev, the world's workers and poor toilers have struggled to
re-establish the international proletarian and toilers’ movement. But there
remain, many contradictory views and "camps", in the Marxist-Leninist
left.
Many recent meetings of Marxist-Leninists
have recognised the need for a New International. Yet, despite the urgent need
and desire of an International, the truth is that the communist movement is
divided into many contradictory camps, which are incapable of discussing and
debating. Sectarianism not only divides the movement but also acts as a brake
for the theoretical development of the movement. The main enemy we must fight
and defeat - that Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin also had to fight against, is
still revisionism. Revisionism is born and spread from capitalism, and the
bourgeois culture of egoism and individualism. Unfortunately revisionism has
survived inside the communist movement, and this has caused the defeat of the
first experience of Socialism.
In the construction of socialism, class
struggle and dictatorship of the proletariat must form a new material socialist
basis; that will move quickly to eject bourgeois culture from the minds of men
and women. Only this can and will prevent bourgeois culture arising again.
Before the workers and poor peasants of
the world can come together in a new International, they must understand and
write their own history of the last 150 years; and they must answer politically
and in a revolutionary manner the new problems that arise out of historical
development. The Marxist-Leninist analysis of the capitalist process of
production and of the revolutionary road of the proletariat in order to smash
and bury capitalism once and for all - will always be valid and relevant.
In such a situation it is impossible to
build an international unless the communists prove capable of organising at the
least, an international forum where theoretical differences can be aired and
debated. They must answer the Question: "How did revisionism, temporarily
defeat the world's communists, led by Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin? Why has
this happened? Why was the struggle for Socialism temporarily defeated?"
The Editorial Board of "INTERNATIONAL
STRUGGLE - Marxist-Leninist", holds that without such a firm theoretical
and historical clarity, it will be impossible to form a principled
"United" International. At a critical stage in the development of the
Russian Communist movement, Comrade Lenin called for "LINES OF DEMARCATION":
"We
declare that before we can unite and in order that we may unite we MUST first
of all draw firm and definite lines of demarcation as Iskra demands"
(Works Vol. 5; Moscow 1977; p.367).
These "Lines of Demarcation" are
required now, more than ever before. These lines can only be drawn by a
scientific and clear debate aimed at answering the questions above.
The answers to these central questions
will undoubtedly assist us in taking up the challenges of all the theoretical
questions thrown up by the world today. These theoretical questions include the
development of global finance capital, which has taken advantage of the
weakness of the world proletariat in the wake of the victory of the world
revisionist movement.
"INTERNATIONAL
STRUGGLE-Marxist-Leninist" is an international forum created by
Marxist-Leninist organisations the world over, to organise non-sectarian debate
on these urgent theoretical questions facing the Marxist-Leninist movement.
Ultimately we aim to assist the formation
of a NEW COMMUNIST, MARXIST-LENINIST INTERNATIONAL, by promoting and fostering
an open, reasoned, scientific debate between those who consider themselves
Marxist-Leninists.
Appropriately enough, "INTERNATIONAL
STRUGGLE- Marxist-Leninist" was formed by a democratic decision, at a
Conference in December 1995, honouring the Centenary of the death of FREDERICK
ENGELS. As co-founders of Historical Materialism and of the First International
Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, jointly set the World's Workers on the only
possible road to their full freedom.
This Conference was convened by
"L'Uguaglianza" ["Equality"] of Italy, and held in Ischia
on December 1995. At this meeting, representatives of parties and groups; from
11 countries attended to present views on the RELEVANCE OF ENGELS FOR TODAY,
and to assist in the eventual formation of a new Marxist-Leninist
International.
Below is listed the Editorial Board's
EDITORIAL PRINCIPLES of operation. In recognition of the centenary of the death
of Engels, Master of the international proletariat and one of the co-founders
of our great movement, the first two issues will be largely devoted to the
papers that were presented at the meeting.
- LONG LIVE THE WORKERS, AND TOILERS OF THE WORLD!
- LONG LIVE MARX, ENGELS, LENIN AND STALIN!
- WORKERS OF THE WORLD UNITE - YOU HAVE ONLY YOUR CHAINS TO LOSE!
MARCH 1996 THE EDITORIAL BOARD;
THE EDITORIAL BOARD: Domenico Savio of
CeCim (Italy); Sherif of Marxist Leninist Communist Party (Turkey); Hari Kumar
of Alliance Marxist-Leninist (Canada and USA); Jehangir Merwanji of
Revolutionary Workers Co-ordinating Committee (India).
FOUNDING
EDITORIAL PRINCIPLES OF "INTERNATIONAL STRUGGLE - Marxist-Leninist".
1. We proudly uphold the following points
of Marxist-Leninist principles, and believe that they form the minimum, agreed
basis to unite ALL who call themselves Marxist-Leninists for the purpose of
bringing out an international theoretical, political and revolutionary journal:
a) Defence and
a consistent and proud acknowledgement of Marxism-Leninism;
b) Defence and a consistent upright
acknowledgement of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin's thoughts and works.
c) Determined theoretical and practical
struggle against revisionism and revisionists of Marxism-Leninism and its
revolutionary political theory.
d) Upholding the Revolutionary road to
Socialism, and not the so-called "Peaceful Road".
e) Recognition of the necessity of the
Dictatorship of the Proletariat to first achieve, and then to maintain
socialism; and then to advance towards communism till its complete establishment.
f) Full support of the right of nations
to self- determination including secession.
g) Upholding and spreading the philosophy
of dialectic and historical materialism and the revolutionary policy inside the
working people's movement; against the philosophy of idealism.
h) Abhorrence and complete rejection, and
determined struggle against all forms of racism and sexism.
2. It is important that the journal
involve all the groups who consider themselves Marxist-Leninists. For that
reason the Editorial Board will try to contact all the Marxist-Leninist groups,
organisation and parties who accept the Founding Principles of clause (1). The
Editorial Board has the task to inform them about the journal and to encourage
them to take part in its production and circulation, and to attend the next
conference in 1997. This conference can be attended by more than one
organisation from those countries where the Marxist-Leninist Party has not yet
been re-constructed.
3. Until an open debate has achieved the
clarity and the principled agreement that is required by the international
Marxist-Leninist movement, no new, principled and meaningful Communist
International can be formed. That is why a prominent section of
"International Struggle" will be the "Discussion and Reply"
section.
The Editors will be scrupulously fair to
all points of view that conform to clause (1). That is to say, we guarantee
that ALL Marxist-Leninists will be able to have a written and printed reply,
either on the basis of their own, or, on their party's, or group's behalf.
Moreover, the Editors are mandated to
ensure that a scientific, non-sectarian debate proceeds on MARXIST-LENINIST
LINES. That is, a debate that is conducted on principled and factual lines; and
eschews personality attacks, or character assassination.
4. The editors are aware that the road
towards the Marxist-Leninist International cannot be covered on the theoretical
level only, so they want to emphasise the importance of the establishment of
communist parties and groups in order to organise the class struggle against
the bourgeoisie and the reactionary forces. They want also to emphasise the
importance of the exchange of political and organisational experiences between
the world revolutionaries and communists.
5. The only views that will not be
tolerated in the journal are those that are openly anti-Marxist-Leninist. They
include openly racist, bourgeois, revisionist and Trotskyite views. Only one
exception to this will be permitted; that will be where the editors take a
joint decision that such an article, carried a valuable lesson to the
Marxist-Leninist movement, and needed exposing by printing. Such cases will
always be appended with a covering Editorial.
6. The editors number 5, including a Chief
Editor. The current founding board has been decided by a democratic election.
Their mandate is for 12-18 months by which time, a new Conference will be held.
At this Conference all decisions, elections, and functions can be re-discussed.
All groups will carry one vote at this forthcoming Second Conference. New
elections will be held for the new Editorial Board.
7. The language of "INTERNATIONAL
STRUGGLE - Marxist-Leninist" is initially only English. This is purely a
practical consideration at this time. At this stage, participating groups and
parties will have their own responsibility to translate the journal into their
own other, significant languages. With further consolidation of our strength,
we will be able to later assist this translation process.
8. Donations are required for the journal;
but these do not confer any editorial privilege.
9. We are fully agreed that a new
Marxist-Leninist Communist International is urgently needed. As LINES OF
DEMARCATION are drawn, we wish to assist at the right time, in the formation of
such a single, truly united Marxist-Leninist Communist International.
We request Marxist-Leninists the world
over to participate in this journal. We ask that views be forwarded to the
chief editor at the addresses below. We further ask, that these submissions be
in both paper form and, if possible computer disc form IBM compatible. Of
course, if the latter is impossible, then we will accept articles in only a
written form.
Domenico Savio, CeCIM, (Italy).
J.Sherif, MLCP(Turkey);
Hari Kumar, Alliance (Canada & USA)
Jehangir Merwanji, Revolutionary Workers
Co-ordinating Committee (India).
SECOND CONFERENCE OF
INTERNATIONAL STRUGGLE-MARXIST-LENINIST CONWAY HALL, December 8-10, 1997,
LONDON UK, INVITATION
The journal and movement entitled
International Struggle Marxist-Leninist, were born at Ischia, Italy in 1996. As
the principles and statements indicate, it was a movement born out of a
recognition that the international Marxist-Leninist movement was divided.
However, it is also born out of conviction that the only way of resolving these
divisions was through active debate about these issues. We therefore proposed
that this journal should, in a non-sectarian manner, actively discuss and
decide what constitutes current Marxism-Leninism.
As we see it, the minimum requirement for
all Marxist-Leninist today, is to accept the stands of Marx, Engels, Lenin and
Stalin. Beyond that however, we all recognize that there are deep divisions.
Marxist-Leninist recognise that the only way to resolve these divisions is to
engage in a principled debate.
We were mandated at the founding meeting
to convene a SECOND CONFERENCE, to
examine the way forward for the unity of
the international communist movement, and to try to engage further groups and
organisations that are of Marxist-Leninist conviction. At this meeting we wish
to constructively discuss the international movement and whether these current
divisions can be bridged. What are the divisions? In what manner can
organisations of a Marxist-Leninist conviction, overcome these divisions? How
are the deep theoretical divisions to be debated, or is there no point in
discussing them? What practical activities, in the form of the United Front
work, can be engaged in the sort of a full agreement and resolution of these
differences? Unless the movement internationally can resolve these issues, many
comrades are likely to remain confused, and in this we include ourselves. Since
the attack on Khrushchev led by Albania and China, there has been no single
journal and/or forum for such a serious debate. Yet such a debate is exactly
what is needed, in order to resolve the way forward. We must remember that this
was the way that Iskra, under Lenin's leadership, accepted the challenge of
forming one great river of Bolshevism, out of the smaller rivulets of struggle,
that existed before the debates led by Iskra. We must remember that Lenin
pointed out that without a revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary
movement!
In this spirit we fraternally ask that
your organization join in the serious matter of resolution of these issues. The
second Conference of the International Struggle-Marxist-Leninist journal and
movement cordially invite your organisation, to attend at CONWAY HALL, LONDON,
UK, on the 8-9-10th DECEMBER 1997. We ask that you send immediately to the
London convening organizers, your acceptance of this task, the name of your
organization, some of your literature and the number of delegates you plan to
send. Conference fees should be according to what the delegations can afford.
The organizers shall not be able to bear
all financial responsibility for the delegates. They, however shall provide
board and lodging for two persons per delegations. Each delegation is entitled
to one vote and one speaker, although observers with non-speaking rights are
more than welcome. Papers to be addressed at the conference should be sent in
to the Progressive Documentation and Information centre of Turkey (see address
above) at least until the end of November and should not exceed 10 (ten)
typewritten pages. All delegates are advised to bring in their literature for
exchange and distribution. The organizers shall try to prepare proper
facilities for the exposure of such literature. Considering the high cost of hiring
people competent in simultaneous translation, the organizers have decided on
English being the language to be used during the conference. Those who cannot
communicate in English and/or want to bring their own interpreters are, of
course welcome to do so. All inquiries for further information may be sent to
the addresses on page 6 for the journal.
ARTICLE FOR
DISCUSSION : THE REVOLUTIONARY PROCESS IN COLONIAL-TYPE COUNTRIES
By Bill Bland for the Communist League;
Originally Read to the Marxist-Leninist Seminar. London July 1993)
1. THE MARXIST-LENINIST
STRATEGY
The aim of Marxist-Leninists is to lead
the working class in each country to accomplish socialist revolutions that will
establish socialist, and ultimately communist, societies.
The revolutionary process will differ
somewhat in each country according to the specific conditions existing:
The nationally
peculiar and nationally specific features in each separate country must
unfailingly be taken into account by the Comintern when drawing up guiding
directives for the working-class movement of the country concerned."
J. V. Stalin: "Notes on Contemporary
Themes"; (July 1927), "Works", Vol. 9; Moscow; 1954; p. 337.
In this paper I shall attempt to analyse
the revolutionary process in colonial-type countries. I use the term
"colonial-type countries" to mean relatively underdeveloped countries
that are dominated by one or another capitalist Great Power, which is usually
an imperialist (i.e., monopoly capitalist) country. I shall use the following definitions
and terminology. A colonial type country may be:
1) a colony, which is ruled directly by a
Great Power; or
2) a semi-colony, which is nominally
independent but is in fact dominated by a Great Power.
A semi-colony which was formerly a colony
is called a neo-colony.
A revolution in a colonial-type country
which achieves the national liberation of the country is termed a
national-democratic revolution.
A revolution which achieves the political
power of the working class is termed a socialist revolution.
The Role of the National
Bourgeoisie
A key feature of the class structure of a
colonial-type country, is that the native capitalist class consists of two
parts:
Firstly, the comprador capitalist class or
comprador bourgeoisie, which has close ties with the landlord class and whose
exploitation is based primarily upon foreign trade, making them, like the
landlord class, dependent upon the dominating Great Power;
and
Secondly the national capitalist class or
national bourgeoisie, whose exploitation is based on the ownership of
industrial enterprises and whose economic advancement is held back by the
dominating Great Power
Stalin pointed out in May 1925 to the
students of the Communist University of the Toilers of the East that the native
bourgeoisie in some of these countries :
"Is
splitting up into two parts, a revolutionary part (the national bourgeoisie --
Ed.) . . . and a compromising part (the comprador bourgeoisie -- Ed.), of which
the first is continuing the revolutionary Struggle, whereas the Second is
entering a bloc with imperialism. J.
V. Stalin "The Political Tasks of the University of the Peoples of the
East"; (May 1925), "Works", Volume 7; Moscow; 1954; p. 147.
The 6th Congress of the Communist
International, in September 1928, agreed that the native bourgeoisie in
colonial-type countries :
"Do
not adopt a uniform attitude to imperialism. One part, more especially the
commercial bourgeoisie, directly serves the interests of imperialist capital
(the so-called comprador bourgeoisie). In general, they maintain, more or less
consistently, an anti-national, imperialist point of view, directed against the
whole nationalist movement, as do the feudal allies of imperialism and the more
highly paid native officials. The other parts of the native bourgeoisie,
especially those representing the interests of native industry, support the
national movement.
6th Congress of Communist
International: Theses on the Revolutionary Movement in Colonial and
Semi-Colonial Countries, (September 1928), in: Jane Degras (Ed.): "The
Communist International: 1919-1943: Documents", Volume 2; London; 1971; p.
538.
Therefore, in a colonial-type country, the
national bourgeoisie is a class objectively in favour of the
national-democratic revolution but objectively opposed to the socialist
revolution.
It follows that the class forces of a
colonial-type country which are objectively in favour of the
national-democratic revolution are wider and stronger than the classes
objectively in favour of the socialist revolution. The Marxist-Leninist
strategy for the revolutionary process in a colonial-type country must be based
on striving to mobilise the maximum class forces objectively possible for both
the national-democratic and the socialist revolutions:
"It is
possible to conquer the more powerful enemy . . . only by taking advantage of
every, even the smallest, opportunity of gaining a mass ally, even though this
ally be temporary, vacillating, unstable, unreliable and conditional. Those who
do not understand this fail to understand even a grain of Marxism."
Vladimir I. Lenin: "'Left-wing'
Communism, an Infantile Disorder"; (April 1920), in: "Selected
Works", Volume 10; London; 1946; p. 112.
"The
Communist Party of each country must unfailingly avail itself of even the smallest
opportunity of gaining a mass ally for the proletariat, even if a temporary,
vacillating, unstable and unreliable ally."
J V Stalin: 'Notes on Contemporary
Themes' (July 1927), in: "Works", Vol. 9; Moscow; 1954; p. 337.
Thus the Marxist-Leninist strategy of the
revolutionary process in colonial-type countries is to strive to carry through
the process in two Stages: Firstly, the stage of national-democratic revolution
and, secondly, the stage of socialist revolution.
In the first stage, the strategy is for
the Marxist-Leninist Party to ally itself with the national-bourgeoisie, to the
extent that this class remains genuinely revolutionary:
"Temporary
co-operation is permissible, and in certain circumstances even a temporary
alliance, between the Communist Party and the national-revolutionary movement,
provided that the latter is a genuine revolutionary movement, that it genuinely
struggles against the ruling power, and that its representatives do not hamper
the Communists in their work."
6th Congress, Communist International:
Theses on the Revolutionary Movement in the Colonial and Semi-Colonial
Countries (September 1928) in: Jane Degras (Ed.): op. cit., Volume 2; p. 542.
The Transition to the Socialist
Revolution
Such co-operation, such an alliance, is temporary
because the aim of the Marxist-Leninist Party is to win for the working class
the leading role in the revolutionary process in order to carry this through,
with the minimum possible interruption to the socialist revolution. This
leadership of the revolutionary process can be won only by struggle with the
national bourgeoisie. The Marxist-Leninist strategy is, as Stalin states,
that :
"The
proletariat pushes aside the national bourgeoisie, consolidates its hegemony
and assumes the lead of the vast masses of the working people in town and
country, in order to overcome the resistance of the national bourgeoisie,
secure the complete victory of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, and then
gradually convert it into a socialist revolution";
J. V. Stalin: "Questions of the
Chinese Revolution"; (April 1927), "Works"; Vo 9; Moscow; 1954;
p.225.
"The
bourgeois-democratic revolution, consistently pursued, will be transformed into
the proletarian revolution in those colonies and semi-colonies where the proletariat
acts as leader and exercises hegemony over the movement. .. In these
(colonial-type -- Ed.) countries the main task is to organise the workers and
peasants independently in the Communist Party of the proletariat . . and
emancipate them from the influence of the national bourgeoisie";
6th Congress of Communist International:
Programme of the Communist International (September 1928), in: Jane Degras
(Ed.): op. cit., Volume 2; p. 507, 522.
If it becomes clear that the working class
is winning the leadership of the national-democratic revolution, and so is
attaining a position to transform the revolution into a socialist revolution, then
the national bourgeoisie will inevitably desert the revolution and go over to
the counterrevolution, preferring the retention of limited exploitation
under colonial-type domination to the ending of exploitation under socialism.
This, according to Stalin and the Communist International, was what occurred in
Chiang Kai-Shek's coup in China in 1927:
"The ECCI
issued directives concerned with preparing the workers and peasants for
struggle against the (national -- Ed,) bourgeoisie and their armed forces. This
was a few months before Chiang Kai-Shek's coup. Subsequent events . . confirmed
the Comintern's predictions: a radical regrouping of classes occurred, the
(national -- Ed.) bourgeoisie committed treachery and deserted to the enemy
camp; the revolution moved on to a new and higher stage";
ECCI: Resolution on the Present Stage of
the Chinese Revolution (July 1927), in: Jane Degras (Ed.): op. cit., Volume 2;
p. 393.
"In the
first period of the Chinese revolution... the national bourgeoisie (not the
compradors) sided with the revolution. Chiang Kai-Shek's coup marks the
desertion of the national bourgeoisie from the revolution."
J. V. Stalin: "Questions of the
Chinese Revolution"; ( April 1927), in: "Works"; Volume 9;
Moscow; 1954; p. 226, 229.
After the working class has gained the
leadership of the revolution has begun to transform the revolution into a
socialist revolution, Marxist-Leninist strategy is to bring about the
establishment of the dictatorship of the working class:
"The
revolution will be unable to crush the resistance bourgeoisie, to maintain its
victory and to push forward to the victory of socialism unless . . it creates a
special organ in the of the dictatorship of the proletariat as its principal
mainstay."
J. V. Stalin: "The Foundations of
Leninism"; (April/May 1924), "Works", Vol. 6; Moscow; 1953; p.
112.
2. REVISIONIST STRATEGIES
The term revisionism is applied to
any ideology which, while presenting itself as Marxism-Leninism, in fact
distorts it so as to serve the interests of a capitalist class.
Revisionism is of service to a capitalist
class in an environment where Marxism-Leninism has won support, serving to
divert potential Marxist-Leninists into political channels which serve the
interests of the capitalist class.
In so far as the revolutionary process in
colonial-type countries is concerned, there are two basic types of revisionist
trend:
Firstly, types which serve the
interests of imperialists and comprador capitalists. Into this category fits such revisionisms as Trotskyism
and : Secondly, types which serve the
interests of national capitalists. Into this category fits revisionisms such as Maoism. Because the
national capitalists of a colonial-type country need national-democratic
revolution in order to develop their wealth and power free of imperialist
shackles, this second type of revisionism appears to be "more
revolutionary" than the first type. In fact, its objective role is to seek
to check the revolutionary process at the stage of national-democratic
revolution and stop it from proceeding to the stage of socialist revolution.
TROTSKYISM
As we have said, Trotskyism is a type of
revisionism which, in relation to the revolutionary process in colonial-type
countries, serves the interests of imperialists and comprador capitalists.
Trotskyism rejects the Marxist-Leninist view that the national capitalist class
can play a revolutionary role in relation to the national-democratic stage of
the revolutionary process:
"The
national bourgeoisie has been essentially an instrument of the compradors and
imperialism."
Leon Trotsky: "The Chinese
Revolution and the Theses of Comrade Stalin", in: "Problems of the
Chinese Revolution"; Ann Arbor (USA); 1967; p., 21.
It therefore rejects as
"counter-revolutionary opportunism" the Marxist-Leninist strategy of
stages in the revolutionary process in colonial-type countries:
"The khvostist
(tailist -- Ed.) theory of "stages" or "steps" repeatedly
proclaimed by Stalin in recent times, has served as the motivation in principle
for the opportunist tactic.
Once we set out on this road, our policy
must be immediately transformed from a revolutionary factor into a conservative
one."
Leon Trotsky: "The Chinese Revolution and the Theses of Comrade
Stalin", in: "Problems of the Chinese Revolution"; Ann Arbor
(USA); 1967; p., 21.
Under slogans which boil down to
"socialism now", Trotskyism serves to assist the imperialists and
comprador bourgeoisie by disrupting and weakening the potential objective
forces of the national-democratic revolution.
MAOISM
Maoism or Chinese revisionism is the most influential of the types of
revisionism that serve the interests of the national capitalist classes of
colonial-type countries.
As have seen, the Chinese national
bourgeoisie defected from the Chinese revolution in 1927:
"Chiang
Kai-Shek's coup marks the desertion of the national bourgeoisie from the
revolution." J. V. Stalin: "Questions of the Chinese Revolution"
(April 1927), "Works", Vol. 9; Moscow; 1954; p. 229.
After Mao Tse-tung and his supporters took
over the leadership of the Communist Party of China at Tsunyi in January 1935,
the Party's policy became one of striving to win back the national
bourgeoisie into a united front with the Party:
"The(national
-- Ed.) bourgeoisie . . . withdrew from the revolution and turned into enemies
of the people. .In the present circumstances there is a possibility that the
bourgeoisie will once again cooperage with us and join in the resistance to
Japan, and the party of the proletariat should therefore not repel them but
welcome them and revive the alliance with them."
Mao Tse-tung: "The Tasks of the Chinese Communist Party in the Period of
Resistance to Japan"; (May 1937), in: "Selected Works", Volume
1; Peking; 1964; p. 271, 272.
This programme naturally required the
national bourgeoisie to be convinced that if they joined a united front with
the Communist Party under its new Maoist leadership they would be secure from
socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat. Mao accordingly strove to
convince the national bourgeoisie of this:
"Capitalists
should be encouraged to come into our anti-Japanese base areas and start
enterprises here if they so desire. Private enterprise should be encouraged and
state enterprise regarded as only one sector of the economy."
Mao Tse-tung: "On Policy"; (December 1940), in: "Selected
Works", Volume 2; Peking; 1965; p. 447.
"Some
people suspect that the Chinese Communists are opposed to the growth of private
capital and the protection of private property, but they are mistaken...We have
too little of capitalism.. . It will be necessary in the interests of social
progress to facilitate the development of the private capitalist sector of the
economy."
Mao Tse-tung: "On Coalition Government"; (April 1945), in:
"Selected Works", Vol. 3; Peking; 1965; p. 281, 283.
Maoism accepts the Marxist-Leninist
analysis of the stages of the revolutionary process in colonial-type
countries and the Marxist-Leninist concept:
"The
Chinese revolution must go through two stages, first the democratic revolution,
and second, the socialist revolution."
Mao Tse-tung: "On New Democracy"; (Jan 1940), in; "Selected
Works", Vol. 2; Peking; 1965; p. 341.
It also accepts the
Marxist-Leninist concept that the national bourgeoisie can play a
revolutionary role in the first (national-democratic) stage of the
revolutionary process:
"The
national bourgeoisie.. is oppressed by imperialism and fettered by feudalism,
and consequently is in contradiction with both of them. In this respect it
constitutes one of the revolutionary forces."
Mao Tse-tung: "The Chinese Revolution and the Chinese Communist
Party"; (Dec 1939), in: "Selected Works", Volume 2; Peking;
1965; p. 320.
However, Maoism reflects the
Marxist-Leninist concept that the strategy of the Party should be directed
towards the formation, with the minimum of delay, of a state of the
dictatorship of the proletariat. According to Maoism, in colonial-type
countries the strategy should be directed towards the formation, as a
"transitional" form of state, of a "new-democratic
state", a state of the dictatorship of several classes:
"In
present-day China, the bourgeois-democratic revolution is .. . one of a new
special type. We call this type the new-democratic revolution and it is
developing in all other colonial and semi-colonial countries as well as in
China. The new-democratic revolution.. results . . . in a dictatorship of the
united front of all the revolutionary classes."
Mao Tse-tung: "The Chinese
Revolution and the Chinese Communist Party"; (Dec 1939), in:
"Selected Works", Volume 2; Peking; 1965; p. 326, 327.
"The
new-democratic republic will be... different from the socialist republic of the
Soviet type under the dictatorship of the proletariat.. For a certain
historical period, this form is not suitable for the revolutions in the
colonial and semi-colonial countries... Republics under the joint dictatorship
of several revolutionary classes.. is the transitional form of state to be
adopted in the revolutions of the colonial and semi-colonial countries...it is
an alliance of several revolutionary classes."
Mao Tse-tung: "On New
Democracy"; (Jan 1940), in; "Selected Works", Vol. 2; Peking;
1965; p. 350-51
Mao states that the classes that form this
“new-democratic state” comprise all the classes in Chinese society, which have
an objective interest in opposing imperialism, including the national
bourgeoisie:
"The new
democratic republic.. will consist of the proletariat, the peasantry, the urban
petty bourgeoisie, the bourgeoisie and all those in the country who agree with
the national and democratic revolution; it will be the alliance of these
classes in the national and democratic revolution. The salient feature here is
the inclusion of the bourgeoisie."
Mao Tse-tung: "The Tasks of the
Chinese Communist Party in the Period of Resistance to Japan"; (May 1937),
in: "Selected Works", Volume 1; Peking; 1964; p. 271-72.
But, as we have seen, Marxism-Leninism
holds that, in order to build and maintain a socialist society, a state of
the dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary:
"The
revolution will be unable to crush the resistance of the bourgeoisie, to
maintain its victory and to push forward to the final victory of socialism
unless.. it creates a special organ in the form, of the dictatorship of the
proletariat as its principal mainstay."
J. V. Stalin: "The Foundations of
Leninism"; May 1924, in: 'Works', Vol. 6; Moscow; 1953; p. 112.
But any transition from "new
democracy" -- the joint dictatorship of several classes, including the
national bourgeoisie -- to a state of the dictatorship of the proletariat must,
according to Marxism-Leninism, involve class struggle against the resistance of
the national bourgeoisie. Maoism, however, rejects this Marxist-Leninist
view, holding that the contradiction between the national bourgeoisie and
the working class can be resolved peacefully:
"The
contradiction between the national bourgeoisie and the working class is one
between exploiter and exploited and is by nature antagonistic. But in the
concrete conditions of China, this antagonistic contradiction between the two
classes, if properly handled, can be transformed into a non-antagonistic one and
be resolved by peaceful means."
Mao Tse-tung: "On the Correct
Handling of Contradictions among the People"; (February 1957), in:
'Selected Works', Volume 5; Peking; 1977; p.386.
The "correct handling" which can
resolve these contradictions by peaceful means is
"The
policy of uniting with, criticising and educating the national
bourgeoisie."
Mao Tse-tung: "On the Correct Handling of Contradictions among the
People"; (February 1957), in: 'Selected Works', Volume 5; Peking; 1977;
p.386.
Which Mao defines as a policy of the
"ideological remoulding" (Mao Tse-tung: "On the Correct Handling
of Contradictions among the People"; (February 1957), in: 'Selected
Works', Volume 5; Peking; 1977; p.386) of the national bourgeoisie. But, this
is the "theory" of the Soviet revisionist Nikolai Bukharin,
who stated that capitalists can grow peacefully into socialism:
"According
to Bukharin's theory of the capitalists " peaceful growth into
socialism, . . . the irreconcilable antagonism of class interests between the
exploiters and the exploited disappears, the exploiters grow into
socialism."
J. V. Stalin: "The Right Deviation
in the CPSU (B)"; (April 1929): 'Works', Vol. 12; Moscow; 1955; p. 32.
On which theory Stalin commented:
"There
have been no cases in history voluntarily departed from the scene. There have
been no cases in history where the dying bourgeoisie has not exerted preserve
its existence."
J. V. Stalin: "The Right Deviation
in the CPSU (B)"; (April 1929): 'Works', Vol. 12; Moscow; 1955; p. 40.
If, therefore, something called socialism
was introduced peacefully in China, not against the opposition of but in
co-operation with the Chinese National bourgeoisie it must, according to
Marxism-Leninism, be a spurious and not a real socialism. Indeed, by
September 1953, five years after the proclamation of the People's Republic of
China in October 1949, Mao was equating socialism with state capitalism:
"The
transformation of capitalism into socialism is to be accomplished through state
capitalism".
Mao Tse-tung: "The Only Road for the
Transformation of Capitalist Industry and Commerce"; (September 1953), in:
'Selected Works', Vol. 5; Peking ; 1977; p. 112.
"State
capitalism.. is to be put into practice gradually so as to attain socialist
ownership by the whole people."
Mao Tse-tung: "On the Draft
Constitution of the People's Republic of China"; (June 1954), in:
"Selected Works", Volume 5; Peking; 1977; p.143.
This state capitalism was composed of
joint state-private enterprises, that is, enterprises jointly operated by state
and private capital:
"The
advanced form of state capitalism in China is called a joint state-private
enterprise. This is the principal way through which the transition of
capitalist industry and commerce into socialist enterprises is being effected...
A joint state-private enterprise is one in which the state invests and to which
it assigns personnel to share in management with the capitalists... A fixed
rate of interest was paid by the state for the total investment of the
capitalists in the joint state-private enterprises. The interest is fixed at a
rate of 5% per annum."
Kuan Ta-Tung: "The Socialist
Transformation of Capitalist Industry and Commerce in China"; Peking;
1960; p. 75, 84, 86-87.
So, under Maoist socialism, as Mao himself
admits, the working class continue to be exploited:
"In
joint State-private industrial and commercial enterprises, capitalists still
get a fixed rate of interest on their capital, that is to say, exploitation
still exists."
Mao Tse-tung: "On the Correct
Handling of Contradictions among the People"; (February 1957), in:
"Selected Works", Volume 5; Peking; 1977; p. 394.
The Chinese national capitalists not only
had no objection to Mao's
socialism, in which the state invested in their enterprises and guaranteed their
profits), they welcomed it:
"Why
were there increasing numbers of capitalists who petitioned of their own free
will to have their enterprises changed over to joint state-private operation?..
The statistics of 64 factories in various parts of China which had gone over to
joint operation earlier than others revealed that their profits were
increasing... Taking their profit in 1950 as 100, it was.. 306 in 1953... The
capitalists paraded with the beating of cymbals and drums, while sending in
their petitions for the change-over of their enterprises."
Kuan Ta-Tung: "The Socialist
Transformation of Capitalist Industry and Commerce in China"; Peking;
1960; p. 78-79, 84.
By 1954 Mao was claiming that :
"Socialism
already exists in our country today".
Mao Tse-tung: "On the Draft
Constitution of the People's Republic of China"; (June 1954), in:
"Selected Works", Volume 5; Peking; 1977; p.143.
"Socialist
relations of production have been established".
Mao Tse-tung: "On the Correct
Handling of Contradictions among the People"; (February 1957), in:
"Selected Works", Volume 5; Peking; 1977; p. 394.
VARIANTS OF MAOISM
Since Maoism is a type of revisionism
designed to serve the interests of the national bourgeoisie of China, variants
of Maoism have arisen to serve the interests of the national bourgeoisies of
other similar colonial-type countries Examples of such variants of Maoism are Leduanism
(Vietnamese revisionism) and Kimilsungism (Korean revisionism)
Leduanism
Leduanism, or Vietnamese revisionism, is
named after Le Duan, who was General/First Secretary of the Vietnamese Workers?
Party (now the Vietnamese Communist Party) from 1960 until his death in 1986.
The Democratic Republic of Vietnam was founded in northern Vietnam in September
1948 on the basis of Leduanism, and in July 1976 North and South Vietnam were
unified into the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.
Leduanism follows Maoism in departing from
Marxism-Leninism to put forward the strategy of working for the formation of a
state which is a joint dictatorship of several classes, including the national
bourgeoisie:
"Our
Party guided the workers and peasants to establish a national united front with
the bourgeoisie".
Le Duan: "Leninism and Vietnam's
Revolution", in: "On the Socialist Revolution in Vietnam",
Volume 1; Hanoi; 1965; p. 34.
Leduanism also follows Maoism in putting
forward the programme of the peaceful transition to socialism through state capitalism, by the formation, in
co-operation with the national capitalists, of joint state-private enterprises.
Participation in these, according to Leduanism, remoulds the national
capitalists ideologically into workers:
"The
national bourgeoisie.. are willing to accept socialist transformation,
therefore our Party's policy is peacefully to transform capitalist trade and
industry, gradually to transform capitalist ownership into socialist ownership,
through State capitalism, and to transform the bourgeois from exploiters into
genuine workers through ideological education and participation in productive
labour".
Le Duan: "Leninism and Vietnam's
Revolution", in: "On the Socialist Revolution in Vietnam",
Volume 2; Hanoi; 1965; p. 39.
Kim Il Sungism
Kim Il Sungism, or Korean revisionism, is
named after Kim Il Sung, who was the General Secretary of the Korean Workers
Party from 1966, till his death in 1995. The Democratic People's Republic of
Korea was founded in North Korea in September 1945 on the basis of
Kimilsungism. The DPRK is a state based on a joint dictatorship of several
classes, including the national bourgeoisie:
"A
Democratic People's Republic.. must be built by forming a democratic
united front . . . which embraces even the national capitalists."
Kim Il Sung: "On the Building of New
Korea and the National United Front"; (October 1948), in:
"Works", Volume 1; Pyongyang; 1980; p. 298.
"The
individual entrepreneurs, traders and people of other social sections
participate in government.. and form a component part of the united
front."
Kim Il Sung: "On the Immediate Tasks
of the People's Power in Socialist Construction"; (September 1957), in:
"Selected Works", Volume 2; Pyongyang; 1975; p. 37.
Kimilsungism rejects the
Marxist-Leninist concept that the dictatorship of the working class is
essential to construct and maintain socialism:
"The
establishment of the power of the proletarian dictatorship by force was
followed as a last resort in some countries.. In the northern half (of Korea --
Ed.).. this was not necessary."
Baik Bong: 'Kim Ii Sung: Biography',
Volume 2; Beirut; 1973; p. 176.
According to Kimilsungism, the joint
dictatorship with the capitalist can carry through not only the
national-democratic revolution but also the socialist revolution:
"The
entrepreneurs and traders of our country are fellow-travellers . not only in
the carrying out of the democratic revolution but also in socialist
construction".
Kim Il Sung: "On the Immediate Tasks
of the People's Power in Socialist Construction"; (September 1957), in:
"Selected Works", Volume 2; Pyongyang; 1975; p. 37.
"Uniting
with the national capitalists in the anti-imperialist, anti-feudal democratic
revolution made them.. proceed to the socialist revolution.
"Socialist Transformation of Private
Trade & Industry in Korea", Pyongyang; 1977' p. 37.
Therefore, the contradiction between the
national capitalist class and the working class can be resolved peacefully:
"Class
struggle attendant on the socialist transformation of capitalist trade and
industry was resolved mainly by means of persuasion and education, not by
violence."
"Socialist Transformation of Private
Trade & Industry in Korea", Pyongyang; 1977' p.26.
Kimilsungism rejects the Maoist
strategy of forming state-capitalist (joint state-private) enterprises, in
favour of the forming of cooperatives in conjunction with the national
capitalists:
"Comrade
Kim Il Sung held that.. it was wholly unnecessary for the peaceful
transformation of capitalist trade and industry to assume the form of state
capitalism".
Baik Bong: 'Kim Il Sung: Biography',
Volume 2; Beirut; 1973; p. 520.
"Our
country was the first to transform capitalist traders and manufacturers along
socialist lines by using the co-operative economy. This is an original
experience."
"Socialist Transformation of Private
Trade & Industry in Korea", Pyongyang; 1977' p.28.
According to Kimilsungism, the mere act of
joining a co-operative transforms a national capitalist into a socialist
worker:
"By
joining the producers'
co-operatives, the entrepreneurs and traders . . were transformed into
socialist working people."
Kim Il Sung: "The Democratic
People's Republic of Korea is the Banner of Freedom and Independence for Our
People & a Powerful Weapon for Building Socialism and Communism";
(September 1968), in: 'Selected Works', Volume 5; Pyongyang; 1975; p. 151.
The process of co-operativisation was
carried out gradually:
"The
fundamental requirement of the policy of transforming the capitalist traders
and manufacturers on socialist lines.. is to reorganise the capitalist economy
gradually."
"Socialist Transformation of Private
Trade & Industry in Korea", Pyongyang; 1977' p.23.
Of the forms of co-operative introduced
into Korea, the second and third forms were open to national capitalists. The second
form was one in which the income of members was related to the amount
invested by them. It was :
"semi-socialist
form in which.. both socialist distribution according to work done and
distribution according to the amount of investment were applied."
Kim Han Gil: "Modern History of
Korea"; Pyongyang; 1979; p. 387.
The third form was defined as a fully
socialist form in which the income of members was related only to work
performed (a definition which included managerial skill and responsibility) but
not to the amount invested by them:
"The
third form was a completely socialist form in which only socialist distribution
applied".
Kim Han Gil: "Modern History of
Korea"; Pyongyang; 1979; p. 387.
National capitalists joining a
co-operative could choose freely which form of distribution to adopt.
They naturally exercised this choice in accordance with their interests:
"In
transforming capitalist traders and manufacturers on socialist lines, our Party
applied the voluntary principle to them.. The important demand of the voluntary
principle is . . . to strictly guard against coercive methods in co-operativisation
and conduct this movement according to the free will of private traders and
manufacturers... The essential requirement of the voluntary principle is to
make... private traders and manufacturers.. choose the forms of their own
accord".
"Socialist Transformation of Private
Trade & Industry in Korea", Pyongyang; 1977' p.31, 72.
"The
voluntary principle and the principle of mutual interests were observed in the
co-operative transformation of capitalist traders and industrialists."
Baik Bong: 'Kim Il Sung: Biography',
Volume 2; Beirut; 1973; p. 520.
Thus, in accordance with their interests,
they tended to choose the second form of co-operation, since those who
did so received
A..
reasonable dividends upon the investments".
"Socialist Transformation of Private
Trade & Industry in Korea", Pyongyang; 1977' p.143.
"The
second form was popular in the co-operation of capitalist trade and industry.
It was a rational form which was readily acceptable to capitalists because it
applied distribution according to the amount of investment."
Kim Han Gil: "Modern History of
Korea"; Pyongyang; 1979; p. 387.
"Entrepreneurs
were gradually incorporated into the co-operative economy; here, in particular,
the semi-socialist form of co-operative economy was broadly applied."
Kim Il Sung: Report on the Work of the
Central Committee to the 4th Congress of the Workers' Party of Korea (September
1961), in: "Selected Works", Volume 3; Pyongyang; 1976; p. 69.
National capitalists who chose the second
form of Cupertino were encouraged to pass to the higher, third form (in which
the income of members was not related to investment):
"In
accordance with the level of consciousness of the members and the economic
condition of the co-operative, this (the second form of higher co-operation --
Ed.) was gradually developed into a higher form, that is into a completely
socialist economic form, in which they received dividends entirely according to
their work".
Baik Bong: 'Kim Il Sung: Biography',
Volume 2; Beirut; 1973; p. 521.
National capitalists were encouraged to
choose to opt for this transition not only by the taking of managerial skill
and responsibility into account in determining dividends according to work'
(Just as occurred in the revisionist Soviet Union in the period which followed
the economic reforms of the 1960's) -- but by the payment of additional
compensation to those who opted for the transition:
"In
such cases (of national capitalists opting for transition to the third form of
co-operation -- Ed.) he (Kim Il Sung -- Ed.) saw to it that each co-operative
member was paid due compensation for his contribution made to the means of
production and resources".
Baik Bong: 'Kim Il Sung: Biography',
Volume 2; Beirut; 1973; p. 521.
By August 1955 all former North Korean
national capitalists had joined co-operatives:
"The
ratio of private traders and industrialists who joined the co-operatives stood
at . . . 100% by the end of August 1958 A.
"Socialist Transformation of Private
Trade & Industry in Korea", Pyongyang; 1977' p.153.
So that Kim Il Sung could declare in
September 1958:
"The
socialist transformation of production relations has now been completed. . .
Thus, our society has become a socialist one free from exploitation".
Kim Il Sung: "Against Passivism and
Conservatism In Socialist Construction"; (September 1958): in 'Selected
Works', Volume 2; Pyongyang; 1975; p. 233.
By this time, according to Kimilsungism:
"the
private traders and manufacturers were reshaped into socialist working people".
Kim Han Gil: "Modern History of
Korea"; Pyongyang; 1979; p. 387.
Official Kimilsungist literature sometimes
implies that by 1956 all the co-operatives which included national capitalists
had passed to the third form, in which no dividends on investments were paid:
"Until
1956 there were two forms of producers' co-operatives. The two forms of producers' co-operatives were represented by one lower form,
where a co-op member got his share according to the amount of investment and
the other higher form, where the dividend was not paid according to the amount
of investment."
"Socialist Transformation of Private
Trade & Industry in Korea", Pyongyang; 1977' p.60.
But in fact a considerable proportion of
such co-operatives continued to operate on the basis of the second form after
1956:
"In
the first half of 1959 the co-operatives held 38%.
"Socialist Transformation of Private
Trade & Industry in Korea", Pyongyang; 1977' p.153.
SUMMARY
It is clear that Maoism and its
variants represent deviations from Marxism-Leninism, brands of revisionism
which serve the interests of the capitalist classes of the colonial-type
countries. It is, therefore, not surprising that, as the American diplomat
Averell Harriman relates, Stalin should have denounced Maoism as
revisionism:
"Stalin
did not have much respect for Mao Tse-tung. During the war he spoke about him
several times, and at one time he called him a margarine Communist. That
created a great deal of puzzlement in Washington. Some didn't know what he
meant. It would be entirely clear to any dairy farmer what he meant -- a fake,
not a real product."
W. Averell Harriman: "America and
Russia in a Changing World: A Half Century of Personal Observation";
London; 1971; p. 54.
Mao himself confirms that Stalin
considered him to be a revisionist:
"When
we won the war, Stalin suspected that ours was a victory of the Tito type".
Mao: "On the 10 Major
Relationships"; (April 1956), : 'Selected Works', Vol. 5; Peking; 1977; p.
304.
But, as Engels was fond of saying, the
proof of the pudding is in eating.
What is the situation of China, Vietnam
and North Korea today?
Few national bourgeoisies of former
colonial-type countries which won political power and independence in
national-democratic revolutions have remained able to retain that independence
against imperialist pressure --pressure which is most obvious in such cases as
Cuba, Libya, Iraq, and North Korea.
The most noticeable contradictions within
the leaderships of these countries in recent years have been not between
Marxist-Leninists and revisionists, but between conservative revisionists who
sought to retain the pseudo-socialist facade of state capitalism, and reformist
revisionists who sought to replace this by free enterprise capitalism. The
pressure of international imperialism has, of course, been exerted in favour of
the latter and the abandonment of the socialist facade. For example, in
China:
"When
it comes to making money, anything goes in Teng Hsaio-Ping's new socialist market. Its economy is more
deregulated than Britain's was in
1973. But Teng's China... is increasingly a country without faith or
ideals. The only slogan is money, money, money, and people will go to almost
any lengths to get rich... The gulf between rich and poor is widening and the
income gap may soon be the biggest in the world. The government boasts that
China is now a paradise for more than a million millionaires. The official
China Digest reported that the nouveau riches were swamping newly opened golf
clubs with applications for membership that cost at least $30,000. It is not really capitalism, it is gangsterism, complained an elderly Chinese who grew up under Mao.
At the universities, .. ideology has long
since stopped being a fundamental motivation. Professors who taught
Marxism-Leninism are now out of work, looking for jobs in the private sector,
their departments closed down.
Some are so poor that they have to work
in street stalls.
The vast sprawling cities of Shanghai,
Peking and Canton are changing by the day, almost by the minute. Foreigners
have committed billions of dollars to Shanghai. .
Luxury joint-venture skyscraper hotels
are rising out of Shanghai's slums. . . . Shanghai's nights have sprung to life in a blaze of neon.
Although most remain too poor for the
perfumes and designer clothes on sale, yuppification has even brought back the
fashion for pet dogs. One Pekinese sold for more than $13,000.. Nothing
symbolises the new capitalist face of the country better than the emergence of
stock exchanges in Shanghai and Shenzhen. .
When Teng dies, his motherland will no
longer be communist except in name. His legacy is a free economy."
'Sunday Times', 6 June 1993, Section 2;
p. 1, 2.
And in
Vietnam:
"During
1990 and early 1991 the Vietnamese leadership continued to try to implement the
plan initiated by Nguyen Van Linh in 1986 to transform the country's centralised economy to a market-orientated system".
'Keesing's Record of World Events',
Volume 37; p. 38,638.
"The
Vietnamese party.. hopes to achieve.. a planned switch to a market-driven
economy.
The peasants now lease their land and are
free to buy inputs and sell produce at market prices. The second aspect of doi
moi (renovation -- Ed.) consists of dismantling price controls.. and
eliminating subsidies for state industries. These are model steps to a market
economy, applauded by the International Monetary Fund.. Closures and job cuts
are occurring, even though unemployment is already high .. The third element of
doi moi is the promotion of foreign investment through a law which compares
with those of South-East Asia... In Ho Chi Minh city billboards praising
communism are today dwarfed by those extolling the power of capitalism; for
every mention of Marx of Lenin or even Ho Chi Minh, there are a score of
advertisements for foreign companies. On top of a city centre office building,
the name of Sony, the Japanese electronics company, jostles for space with
Philips, the Dutch group. Nearby there are Citizen, the Japanese watchmaker,
Microsoft , the US software house, and Castrol, the British lubricant manufacturer...
The biggest investors are the international oil groups. Vietnam has important
attractions for foreign companies -- cheap and well-disciplined labour; an
abundance of food for export, including rice and fish; mineral resources; and a
potential mass-market of 65 million people. The government is pursuing
free-market economic reforms, which envisage an important place for foreign
investment. Since 1968.. foreign corporations are permitted to invest up to
100% in almost any field, have rights to repatriate profits and enjoy a host of
tax-breaks and other incentives".
'Financial Times', 14 November 1991; p.
15, 17.
"In
1986 a new law on foreign investment was.. passed... This law is described by
the specialist international press as one of the most liberal, even compared
with other similar laws of countries with market economies".
'Overseas Trade Services: Country
Profile: Vietnam'; February, 1992; p. 54.
"There
has certainly been a resurgence of such social ills as prostitution and
drug-taking".
Economic Intelligence Unit: 'Country
Report: Indochina', No. 1, 1993; p. 11.
"For
one dollar,.. Hyunh sells her body to tourists. Dressed in cotton trousers and
a T-shirt, she looks no more than 12 as she sits under a hand-written sign
outside a makeshift brothel.. Rows of girls in deck-chairs, playing cards or
reading comics, have set up identical booths along the promenade".
'Sunday Times', 21 June 1992; p. 22.
In North
Korea:
The
Constitution was amended in April 1992 :
"To
remove mention of Marxism-Leninism and to replace it with references to Kim
Jong Il's Juche ideology;.. it also strengthened the
hereditary principle by exalting the positions currently held by Kim Jong Il
(Kim Il Sung's son-- Ed.). The new constitution also encouraged
foreign investment and guaranteed the rights and profits of foreigners
operating in North Korea".
'Keesing's Record of World Events',
Volume 39; p. R73.
"On
Oct. 5 (1992 -- Ed.) the Standing Committee of the Supreme People's Assembly approved North Korea's first law on foreign investment... The new law
permitted foreign investors to establish equity and contractual joint ventures
within the country, and to set up and operate wholly foreign-owned enterprises
in special economic zones. Foreign companies would be able to remit part of
their profits abroad".
'Keesing's Record of World Events',
Volume 38; p. 39, 141-42.
It must be
clear to any objective observer that those who believe that present-day China,
Vietnam and North Korea are socialist countries led by Marxist-Leninist Parties
are deceiving themselves.
CONCLUSION
Ninety-three years ago, in September 1900,
Lenin wrote an article on the political situation in his country. He was
writing about the situation in Russia at the beginning of the century, but what
he says is only too applicable to the situation in Western Europe at the end of
the century. (It must be remembered that Lenin uses the term 'social-democracy' to mean Marxism ):
"The
principal feature of our movement.. is its state of disunity and its primitive
character. Local circles spring up and function independently of one another".
Vladimir I. Lenin: "Declaration by
the Editorial Board of 'Iskra'".(September 1900), in: 'Selected Works',
Volume 2; London; 1944; p. 3-4 .
All those who regard themselves as Marxist-Leninists
will no doubt, support Lenin=s call for the formation of a Marxist-Leninist Party in each country.
In Lenin's words:
We Russian
Social-Democrats must combine and direct all our efforts towards the formation
of a strong party that will fight under the united banner of revolutionary
Social-Democracy. Vladimir I. Lenin: "Declaration by the Editorial Board
of 'Iskra'".(September 1900), in: 'Selected Works', Volume 2; London;
1944; p. 5.
Unfortunately, however, some who claim to
be Marxist-Leninists call for the creation of such parties by the unification
of all who call themselves Marxist-Leninists, ignoring the fact that some of
these embrace in fact one or other form of revisionism. Whatever short-lived
monstrosities might emerge from such unifications, they would be nothing
remotely resembling the Marxist-Leninist Parties which are so urgently needed.
Whether those who are working
for such unifications are conscious of it
or not, such processes could only serve as temporary diversions from the
historic task of building genuine Marxist-Leninist Parties free of all trends
of revisionism. We must never forget that the socialist world and the
international communist were destroyed -- however temporarily-- not by open
counter-revolution, but by revisionism, by the lies of treacherous leaders who
falsely posed as Marxist-Leninists.
Lenin=s position was quite different, and I conclude by
quoting from the same germinal article of 1900:
To establish
and consolidate the Party means establishing unity among all Russian
Social-Democrats and . . . such unity cannot be brought about by. . . a meeting
of representatives passing a resolution. Definite work must be done to bring it
about. In the first place, it is necessary to bring about unity of ideas which will
remove the differences of opinion and confusion that -- we will be frank --
reign among Russian Social-Democrats at the present time.
Before we can unite, and in order that we
may unite, we must first of all firmly and definitely draw the lines of demarcation.
Otherwise, our unity will be merely a fictitious unity, which will conceal the
prevailing confusion and prevent its complete elimination. Vladimir I. Lenin:
"Declaration by the Editorial Board of 'Iskra'".(September 1900), in:
'Selected Works', Volume 2; London; 1944; p. 6.
Published by : The Communist League, 6 The
Avenue, Roundhay, Leeds LS8 IDW, UK.
A PAPER ON THE NATIONAL
QUESTION BY: MARXIST LENINIST COMMUNIST PARTY (OF TURKEY);
Originally A Talk To the
International Seminar of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organizations, May 2-4,
1997, Brussels.
The intensification of the attack of
representatives and ideologues of bourgeoisie in the wake of the downfall of
the revisionist-social-imperialist bloc in 1989-90, has inevitably been accompanied
with claims of the irrelevance, or even the incorrectness, of a Leninist-Stalinist approach to the
national question. Of course, a host of petty-bourgeois, nationalist,
Trotskyite and social-democratic groups and people have for years and decades,
tried to vilify the Leninist-Stalinist approach, together with the bourgeoisie
and imperialism. They had all portrayed Lenin's and Stalin's Soviet Union as a
country, where the national rights of non-Russian peoples were allegedly
violated. And according to them, Soviet rulers were bent on annexing as much
territory as possible, and achieving a world domination.
A case in point is the social-democratic
servants of the bourgeoisie, who characterized Lenin's and Stalin's Soviet
Union as being supposedly Red imperialist. Khrushchev's slanders against
Stalin, during the ill-famed 20th Congress of the CPSU provided then, and
continue now, to provide fuel for this imperialist-revisionist crusade against
communism. For example, In his so-called Secret Speech= at the 20th Congress of CPSU, Khrushchev said:
All the
more monstrous are the acts whose initiator was Stalin and which are rude
violations of the basic Leninist principles of the nationality policy of the
Soviet state."
William G. Andrews, "Soviet Institutions
and Policies, Inside Views", p.78.
But the fact of the matter is that, it was
none other than Khrushchev himself, and his revisionist successors, who introduced
the social-imperialist policies. It was these that signified a departure from
the Bolshevik Party's internationalist and Marxist stand on the national
question. It is only necessary to remember the Khruschevite clique's attempts at collaboration with US imperialists. For
instance, they proposed to the USA, the transformation of the UN into a sort of
world police organization=; which would be under the leadership of the two superpowers; it was
proposed that it would put out the flames of peoples= struggles the world over.
And one should only remember the later
Brezhnevite clique's thesis, about a so-called United Soviet Nation, to
justify the subordination of non-Russian peoples to the Russian bureaucratic
bourgeoisie, and its so-called theories on international dictatorship and
limited sovereignty. Again all these simply justified= its intervention in the internal affairs of its
Eastern European satellites.
It is quite understandable that, following
the demise of the revisionist Soviet Union in 1991, the scope and number of the
so-called critics of the Leninist-Stalinist approach to the national question,
have grown considerably. Under these circumstances, the impact of the barrage
of bourgeoisie and imperialism has been sufficient, for a great many people
without a real and deep understanding of worldview of the working class, to
discard the Marxist-Leninist standpoint on the national question. In doing so
these people have openly disputed the validity of the Leninist-Stalinist
approach.
Such a case in point , is the PKK or
Workers Party of Kurdistan. This a petty-bourgeois Kurdish
nationalist group, which has waged a guerrilla warfare against the Turkish
colonialist-fascist regime since 1984. Ocalan, is the leader of PKK. In
a long interview, that was conducted in 1993 with a left-wing Turkish
intellectual, he has attacked the Soviet Union of Stalin. In this interview, he
blamed CPSU and Stalin with selfishness, and added the following statement :
The interests
of world revolution are the interests of the Soviet Union; the interests of the
Soviet Union are the interests of Russians; the interests of Russians are the
interests of CPSU; the interests of the CPSU are the interests of the Central
Committee; the interests of the Central Committee are the interests of the
Secretary-General.. .You may call it a bureaucratic deviation, a nationalist deviation.
For that reason, you have Russian nationalism. The natural outcome of such an
approach is definitely nationalism."
Dirilisin Oykusu, p.283.
And he said
further :
We now
understand that socialism was a tactic for arrested capitalism, for Russian nationalism
.
Dirilisin Oykusu, p.290.
Such pronouncements remind us of a Turkish
proverb, that characterized human memory as being crippled with amnesia! Not
very long ago, similar petty-bourgeois nationalist groups readily used to
declare themselves in favour of socialism=, or proletarian internationalism=, and the Leninist solution of the national question=. And they used to praise the revisionist like
Brezhnevs, Andropovs, Chernenkos and even Gorbachevs to the skies.
We could remind such opportunist and
pragmatic people, of the fact that the correctness of Bolshevik policy with
regard to the national question, was tested in the fire and storm of struggle.
Neither the bloody White Guard rebellion that lasted through 1918-21, nor the
ruthless capitalist encirclement of the 1920's and 1930's, nor the sabotage and
subversive activities of the fifth column, nor the attack of Hitler's hordes
could drive a wedge between the whole Soviet peoples in order to break their
unity. The socialist Soviet Russia of the 1920's, 1930's and 1940's, survived
despite formidable and seemingly unconquerable obstacles and hardships. And
what is more, the socialist Soviet Russia had become even stronger in the
meantime.
Meanwhile the revisionist Soviet Russia of
the 1980's and 1990's, has gone under relatively easily and almost without a
struggle. This only presents us with another proof of the superiority of
socialism over capitalism. As the proverb goes, The proof of the pudding is in
the eating. It is very instructive to observe the fact, that such groups and
people, have behaved worse than even some bourgeois scholars in being fair; at
least the scholars give Lenin's and Stalin=s Soviet Union its due in the realm of the national
question. For instance, Cobban, who was from being a Bolshevik or a
revolutionary, wrote this in 1945:
The Soviet
Union was to be no Habsburg Empire with a comparatively rich industrial and
financial centre in striking contrast with miserably poor agricultural
provinces. The minority nationalities had the evidence of economic progress on
a gigantic scale in their own homelands and under their own eyes. If the Soviet
Union eventually proves to have dealt successfully with the problem of uniting
the most varied nationalities in a single great federation, that success will
have to be attributed in no small measure to the steps it took from the very
beginning to bring the subject nations=, into the full stream of industrial development, and
so to remove the source of economic inequality and exploitation."
A. Cobban : "The Nation State and
National Self-Determination", p.211.
And Cobban
added:
In so far as
communism has succeeded in establishing a generally accepted ideal for progress
of the whole Union, this is a spiritual bond uniting all its peoples. It is a
new form of patriotism, and not the worse because it is directed to internal
progress rather than to foreign conquest. At the same time, the Soviet Union is
rapidly becoming - perhaps has already become - an economic nexus from which no
part can be severed without severe injury both to the part and the whole, and a
vast defensive structure, the parts of which are equally necessary to one
another from the strategic point of view. Economic and military
inter-dependence from above, local self-government, cultural autonomy and
national equality from below -that is the ideal scheme, however many faults
there may be in its present realisation, which the U.S.S.R. seems to be
striving to achieve.
A. Cobban : "The Nation State and
National Self-Determination", p.218.
The course of events since 1989 appears at
first glance, to justify the stand of petty bourgeois or nationalist critics of
Marxism-Leninism. The fall of the revisionist-capitalist order in the Soviet
Union was followed by a series of conflicts between Tartars and Uzbeks, ethnic
Russians and Moldavians, the Russian punitive expedition against Azerbaitan,
the conflicts between Azeris and Armenians, ethnic tensions between the Ukraine
and Russia, the growth of Great-Russian chauvinism and, lastly by the Russian
military aggression against Chechenia. A more careful examination of the
matter, however shows a different story.
It is true that the demise of
revisionist-social-imperialist bloc and the disintegration of the
social-imperialist Soviet Union have made their contribution to the aggravation
and spread of ethnic tensions and contradictions throughout the world.
BUT, we, first of all should remember that, the
fall of the revisionist bloc and of the social-imperialist Soviet Union, does not
signify the defeat and failure of socialism. To the contrary, they signify the
defeat and failure of revisionism and capitalism.
And secondly, we should point out,
that this national explosion= in the former Soviet Union and in Eastern Europe
itself, constitutes only part of the general failure of the bourgeoisie in the
solution of the national question. A casual glance at the global scene is
sufficient to demonstrate this fact. Apart from the long standing national
tensions and conflicts in semi-colonial countries, such as Afghanistan, India,
Iran, Sri Lanka, Turkey, the Philippines, Indonesia, Iraq, Pakistan, Rwanda,
South Africa, Zaire etc., recent years have witnessed to the aggravation of
national tensions, to the spread of a nationalist fever=, to many other and developed capitalist and
imperialist countries as well.
Let us list only some of these: Ethnic war among Serbs, Croats and Bosnians in the
former Yugoslavia; the development of Black and Hispanic nationalism in the US;
the stirring of ethnic tensions in the Sinkiang region of China; the revival of
reactionary and expansionist Pan-Turkist policies in Turkey; the growth of
Hindu nationalism in India; the rise of ethnic consciousness among oppressed
Indian people in several Latin American countries; the continuing resentment
among Black people of South Africa-who were cheated out of their victory; the
failure of US-sponsored peace= process in Palestine; the emergence of the Northern League and talk of
secession of Northern Italy from the rest of the country; the failure of the
peace talks in Northern Ireland; the growth of national tension between
Walloons and Flemish in Belgium; the flowering of separatist Bloc Quebecois in
Canada; the further growth of reactionary nationalism and even of racism in the
US, Japan, Germany, France, England, Austria etc. All testify to this trend.
The
development of events once again confirms, albeit in a bloody manner, the
correctness of the Marxist-Leninist approach to the national question.
Mankind is in a sense, being punished for
its= delay in bringing capitalist-imperialist system down,
punished by the growth of nationalism and aggravation of national
contradictions. We, communists are theoretically and morally in a much
stronger position now:
We can point out and prove to all workers
and toilers and all sensible and unbiased people that, only through social
revolution, through the overthrow of capitalist system of exploitation can a
permanent solution of the national question be effected. Marx and Engels
had demonstrated this long before. In their Communist Manifesto, the
founders of scientific socialism argued that the proletariat of each country
first of all, had to settle its accounts with its own bourgeoisie. Thus Marx
said :
Though not in
substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is
at first a national struggle.
And afterwards Marx and Engels had justly
emphasized the inseparable connection between national and social liberation:
In proportion
as the exploitation of one individual by another is put an end to, the
exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion
as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of
one nation to another will come to an end.
In line with this thesis of Marx and
Engels, Stalin, in March 1921 wrote this:
It scarcely
needs proof that under the rule of capital, with private ownership of the means
of production and the existence of classes, equal rights for nations cannot be
guaranteed; that as long as the power of capital exists, as long as the
struggle for the possession of the means of production goes on, there can be no
equal rights for nations, just as there can be no co-operation between the
labouring masses of different nations. History tells us that the only way to
abolish national inequality, the only way to establish a regime of fraternal
co-operation between the labouring masses of the oppressed and non-oppressed
nations, is to abolish capitalism and establish the Soviet system."
Stalin: Report on the Immediate Tasks of
the Party in the National Question",
Works; Volume 5.
Right from the beginning, Lenin and
Stalin attributed great importance to the national question. They waged a
consistent and uncompromising struggle against all forms of bourgeois and
petty-bourgeois nationalism. They also developed the teachings of Marx and
Engels on the national question, and adapted it to the conditions of the era of
imperialism and proletarian revolutions. They formulated the programme and
policy of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party (later the Russian
Communist Party/Bolsheviks) on the national and the colonial question. In this
way they armed the proletariat and its advanced vanguard the world over in its
fight against imperialism and capitalism, which have been and are the root
cause of national oppression and all reaction. Just like Marx and Engels, Lenin
and Stalin strived to educate the working class and its class-conscious
vanguard in the spirit of consistent democracy, and urged them to oppose all
forms and manifestations of repression and persecution targeting any class or
stratum. Only in this manner, could the working class and its vanguard avoid
being an impotent appendage of the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie, gain the
confidence and respect of toiling and exploited masses and of all progressive
forces.
Only in this manner, could the working
class and its vanguard establish their hegemony in the revolution and raise
themselves to a position of leadership over the toiling masses. Therefore, the
working class and its vanguard had to be resolute advocates and supporters of
the rights of oppressed nations, including their right to secession. They were
and are, especially obliged to support the national liberation struggles of
colonial and semi-colonial peoples against imperialism, which is and was the
main source of all reaction and its local allies. Lenin was very unequivocal in
his condemnation of so-called socialists, who in the name of the defence of the
fatherland, not only did not oppose imperialist wars, annexations and
oppression of colonial peoples by their own bourgeoisie, but actually approved
and supported them. In his Preliminary Draft Theses on the National and the
Colonial Question, Lenin said:
The age-old
oppression of colonial and weak nationalities by the imperialist powers has not
only filled the working masses of the oppressed countries with animosity
towards the oppressor nations, but has also aroused distrust in these nations
in general, even in their proletariat. The despicable betrayal of socialism by
the majority of the official leaders of this proletariat in 1914-19, when
defence of country= was used as a social chauvinist cloak to conceal the
defence of the right= of
their own bourgeoisie to oppress the colonies and fleece financially dependent
countries, was certain to enhance this perfectly legitimate distrust."
Theses, Resolutions and Manifestoes of the First Four Congresses of the Third
International, pp. 80-81.
On the other hand, it should be borne in
mind, that they never considered the struggle against national discrimination,
oppression and inequality as an end in itself. They viewed it as part of
the working classes=
struggle for socialism and communism, who had to be freed from the ideological
and political yoke of bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie, if it was to
accomplish its historical task of bringing an end to capitalism. It is obvious
that a working class which does not fight consistently against the national
oppression practiced by its own bourgeoisie, only strengthens its own chains.
As Marx said :
No nation can
be free if it oppresses other nations.
Commenting upon the relationship between
the struggle against national oppression and the struggle for socialism, Lenin
wrote:
The various
demands of democracy, including self-determination, are not an absolute, but a small
part of the general democratic (now, general Socialist) world
movement. In individual concrete cases, the part may contradict the whole, if
so, it must be rejected."
Quoted in Stalin, "Problems of
Leninism", p.53.
To this, one might and should add, the
incompatibility of nationalism with the worldview of the working class and its
internationalist stand and perspective. Lenin always stressed the utmost
necessity and importance of the unity of workers of all countries, and the
class unity of the workers of all nationalities in one country, and their
ideological and political independence from the bourgeoisie and the petty
bourgeoisie.
This required not only a consistent fight
against all forms and manifestations of nationalism of the dominant nations,
especially the imperialist yoke on colonial and semi-colonial peoples and an
unequivocal defence of all rights of oppressed nations, up to and including
the right of secession. But it also required the waging of an ideological
struggle against the nationalism of the oppressed nations and
petty-bourgeois nationalism. The policy of national oppression, on the
other hand, made it more difficult for the proletariat to preserve its class
independence. Speaking of the adverse effects of the policy of national
oppression, Stalin said:
It
diverts the attention of large strata from social questions, questions of the
class struggle, to national questions, questions common= to the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. And this
creates a favourable soil for lying propaganda about harmony of interests,= for glossing over the class interests of the
proletariat and for the intellectual enslavement of the workers. This creates a
serious obstacle to the cause of uniting the workers of all
nationalities."
Stalin: "Marxism and the National
Question", Works, Vol. 2, pp. 319-20.
And Stalin
added:
The obligations
of Social Democracy, which defends the interests of the proletariat, and the
rights of a nation, which consists of various classes are two different things.
Stalin: "Marxism and the National
Question", Works, Vol. 2, pp. 321-22.
It should be stressed, however, that to
go too far in the struggle against the nationalism of the oppressed nations
might lead to another deviation.
That is why, Lenin and Stalin fought at
the same time against those, who underestimated the importance of the national
question and turned their back on the legitimate demands of oppressed nations
in the name of socialist revolution. A case in point is Rosa Luxemburg,
who in her overzealous struggle against Polish nationalism, took a Proudhonist
stand, and rejected the right of Poland, then under Russian domination, to
self-determination. In taking this stand, Luxemburg, objectively supported
Great-Russian nationalism. In his polemic against Luxemburg, Lenin wrote:
...
Social-Democrats would be deviating from proletarian policy and subordinating
the workers to the policy of the bourgeoisie if they were to repudiate the
right of nations to self-determination, i.e., the right of an oppressed nation
to secede, or if they were to support all the national demands of the
bourgeoisie of oppressed nations...
Successful struggle against exploitation
requires that the proletariat be free of nationalism, and be absolutely
neutral, so to speak, in the fight for supremacy that is going on among the
bourgeoisie of various nations. If the proletariat of any one nation gives the
slightest support to the privileges of its own= national bourgeoisie, that will inevitably rouse
distrust among the proletariat of another nation; it will weaken the
international class solidarity of the workers and divide them, to the delight
of the bourgeoisie. Repudiation of the right to self-determination or to
secession inevitably means, in practice, support for the privileges of the
dominant nation.
Stalin: "Marxism and the National
Question", Works, Vol. 2, pp. 591-92.
It must be added that incompatibility of
Marxism with even the most just=, pure=, refined and civilized nationalism (Lenin); and the necessity of a consistent ideological
struggle against nationalism, should not lead communists to underestimate the
revolutionary potential of the peoples of semi-colonial and dependent
countries. Despite all the changes capitalism has undergone during the 20th
century, it still cannot do without being imperialistic, without undertaking
the most vicious exploitation not only of the workers and toilers of backward,
but also those of relatively developed countries.
Thus, the chief task remains : of establishing a joint front of workers of advanced
capitalist countries and workers and peoples of semi-colonial and dependent
countries against world imperialism, headed by US imperialism; this chief task
retains its validity. The working classes of imperialist countries, are obliged
to express and mobilize their consistent support of and solidarity with all
anti-imperialist and democratic revolutionary struggles of the workers and
peoples of semi-colonial and dependent countries, which due to the development
of capitalism there, have a greater potential of passing uninterruptedly into
socialist revolutions.
One last point: We believe that, the incompatibility of Marxism with
nationalism should not induce communists to underestimate the influence
of nationalism on the great masses of workers and toilers, especially in our
day.
They cannot
afford to forget, that the ideological pull of Marxism-Leninism on the working
class the world over, is weaker than it used to be in the 1950's.
Nearly half a century-old ideological and
political aggression of the bourgeoisie has resulted, among other things, in
the spread of nationalism in the ranks of workers. Therefore, communists have
to be more careful and attentive, so to speak; and they have to take into
account this relatively backward level of political consciousness, struggle and
organization of workers. There is nothing unusual to all this. In his day,
Lenin himself had taken note of the influence of nationalism among Russian
workers and peasants and the efforts of the bourgeoisie and the landlords to
deepen and extend it. So, his uncompromising struggle against all forms and
manifestations of chauvinism, social-chauvinism and bourgeois and
petty-bourgeois nationalism and his struggle for the rights of oppressed
nations and nationalities, did not signify support for a sort of national
nihilism. In 1914, in his article On the National Pride of the Great Russians,
he wrote:
Are we
class-conscious Great-Russian proletarians impervious to the feeling of
national pride? Certainly not. We love our language and our motherland; we more
than any other group, are working to raise its labouring masses (i.e.
nine-tenths of its population) to the level of intelligent democrats and
Socialists. We, more than anybody are grieved to see and feel to what violence,
oppression and mockery our beautiful motherland is being subjected by the
tsarist hangmen, the nobles and the capitalists...
We are filled with national pride because
of the knowledge that the Great-Russian nation, too, has created a
revolutionary class, that it, too, has proved capable of giving humanity great
example of struggle for freedom and for socialism; that its contribution is not
confined solely to great pogroms, numerous scaffolds, torture chambers, severe
famines and abject servility before the priests, the tsars, the landowners and
the capitalists."
Lenin V. I. ; Collected Works, Vol. 21,
pp. 85-86.
Stalin wrote in a similar vein during the
Great Patriotic War, when he set great store by Soviet patriotism. He said:
The strength of
Soviet patriotism lies in the fact that it is based not on racial or
nationalistic prejudices, but on the people's profound loyalty and devotion to
their Soviet Motherland, on the fraternal partnership of the working people of
all nationalities in our country. Soviet patriotism harmoniously combines the
national traditions of the peoples and the common vital interests of all
working people of the Soviet Union. Far from dividing them, Soviet patriotism
welds all the nations and peoples of our country into a single fraternal
family."
Stalin J. V. ; "On the 27th
Anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution", Works, Vol. 15,
pp. 422-23.
The teachings of Marxism-Leninism on the
national question preserve their correctness and validity in our tumultuous
world that is nearing the third millennium. Now, it is more obvious than ever
that, only the overthrow of capitalism and imperialism and the victory of
proletarian revolution throughout the world will save humanity from the
repetition, maybe on a much larger scale, of such tragedies, as the Armenian,
Jewish and Rwandan genocide and the terrible sufferings of two world wars and
of innumerable so-called local wars. Only through proletarian internationalism
and the brotherhood of peoples advocated by Marxism-Leninism, can humanity end
its 'global civil war' and enter an era of eternal peace, enlightenment and
progress.
Progressive Documentation &
Information Centre For Turkey, P.
O. Box 13068,
Tottenham London N.17.
United Kingdom.
ANNOUNCEMENT
OF NEW BOOK BY NORTH STAR COMPASS: THE LIE OF THE LENIN TESTAMENT
In October 1997, North Star Compass
published another in its series of books, aimed at puncturing revisionist
mythology. The Lie of the Lenin Testament - contains three inter-related
analyses. One is on the role of Krupskaya in assisting the attempts of Trotsky
and Zinoviev in removing Stalin form leadership of the CPSU(B) (By Bland of the
Communist League UK); the second is an analysis of the struggle that Stalin waged
within the party to expose Trotsky's Manoeuvrings surrounding the alleged Testament (By Alliance
Marxist-Leninist North America); and the third is a detailed analysis of the
diary entries that supposedly substantiate the allegations of the Lenin Testament
Affair (By Sakharov of Molniya Russia).
Price : $10.00 + post.
In addition the other two books by North
Star Compass with further valuable materials - many never previously available
in English - are still available :
1. Secret Documents A compilation of some materials from the archives of
the NKVD-KGB, the archives of the CC CPSU(B): and the personal archives of JV.
Stalin. Price : $25.00 + post.
2. Next To Stalin-Notes of A Bodyguard; by
A. T. Rybin. Price : $12.00 + post.
Send Cheques or money orders to :
North Star Compass;
280, Queen Street W,
Toronto Ontario Canada,
M5V 2A1.
Telephone : 416-977-5819 Fax : 416-593-0781
(EDITORIAL NOTE: PART OF THE LENIN
TESTAMENT NOW ON WEB AT ALLIANCE WEBSITE - addition for web version August
2000)
A REPLY TO
COMRADE MONIGUHA, OF PROLETARIAN PATH, INDIA;
FROM ALLIANCE
MARXIST-LENINIST (NORTH AMERICA).
International Struggle Marxist Leninist, recently received a fraternal criticism from comrade
Moni Guha, and the organisation Proletarian Path, whose struggles
are in India. This organisation had the honour of being one of the first world
wide, to challenge openly and reject the line of the infamous 20th
Party Congress of the CPSU. That being so, we are naturally very glad to
discuss matters of joint interest with these comrades. It is important to
ventilate the issues raised by Proletarian Path, since they touch on serious
matters for all Marxist-Leninists. We take the liberty of openly printing both
the fraternal criticism and an initial reply.
International Struggle Marxist-Leninist,
had already decided before the receipt of this letter, to print Guha=s statement concerning the infamous 20th
Party Congress. But this statement is even more interesting for us now, given
that Guha points out in his current letter to International Struggle
Marxist-Leninist, that a central thrust of Proletarian Path has been the same
central aim expressed by International Struggle Marxist-Leninist. Namely - the
call for a clear and principled international debate.
Here we publish Guha=s letter, and a first reply made by one of the member
organisations of the Editorial Board - Alliance Marxist-Leninist (North
America). The reply thus is only that of an individual organisation. The
contents of both Guha=s letter
and a reply by Alliance will be further discussed by the editorial board, prior
to any joint statement. We expect that other member organisations of IS-ML will
contribute their views on this question. We also of course welcome comments
from our Marxist-Leninist readers.
Without any further ado, we print below
the materials in this order :
First Moni Guha's Introduction to the book 20th Congress and Stalin,
published in July 1956 in Bengali;
Secondly: Moni Guha=s letter to the editorial board of IS-Ml dated 2.9.97.
Thirdly: the reply of Alliance, one member of the groups
belonging to the editorial board.
ONE : INTRODUCTION TO BOOK
20th CONGRESS AND STALIN.
20TH
CONGRESS AND STALIN: KHRUSHCHEV AND SOVIET HISTORY, By Moni Guha, Proletarian
Path,
FIRST
PUBLISHED July 1956 :
In Bangla,
immediately after the infamous 20th party Congress. Taken From
Proletarian Path New Series; Vol. 1; No 4; June 1994; p. 40-46; Calcutta India.
Reviewing Victor Hugo=s biography of Napoleon, Karl Marx wrote in the
preface to his book, The Eighteenth Brumaire:
The event
itself appears in his work like a bolt from the blue. He sees in it only the
violent act of a single individual. He does not notice that he makes this
individual great instead of little by ascribing to him a personal power of
initiative such as would be without parallel in world history.
This comment of Marx is equally valid when
applied in the context of the speeches and reports of Khrushchev-Mikoyan and
company in the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. We
come to know (Or are asked to believe anyway -Editor) from the reports of
Khrushchev-Mikoyan and Co. that in the twenty years after 1934, Stalin
gradually placed himself above the party and general masses. Deviating from
Leninist Principles of organisation he took recourse to bourgeois militarist
despotism in the field of organisation. On the one hand, this led to the
destruction of democracy within the party, the loss of collective leadership,
the crippling of independent thought and activity of the members and the growth
of the cult of the individual reflected in the popular feeling that Stalin will
do everything=, resulting in an increased dependence on great men.
On the other hand, Stalin had distanced himself from the masses, the Politburo
and the Central Committee and had become self-centred. On the whole, it was
Stalin who did everything whether in the national sphere or in international
affairs and it is Stalin who is responsible for the successes and the failures
of the past twenty years of Soviet history. Stalin is the architect of these
twenty years of Soviet history. The Soviet people were merely fodder for
history and in the atmosphere of terror the CPSU was merely a mute
terror-stricken spectator.
Victor Hugo was not a historical materialist.
Hence in his review of great historical figures the analysis is centred on
individuals. But Khrushchev Mikoyan & Co. are communists, and it is
expected that they are historical materialists. However, in their evaluation of
Stalin's role, they have emulated bourgeois idealists and adopted an
individual-centric approach. In brief, the Twentieth Congress of the CPSU has
abandoned the Marxist approach in its evaluation of Stalin.
Two basic questions of Marxism are
closely linked up with the evaluation of Stalin by the CPSU.
Deviating from Leninist organisational
principles, Stalin had taken recourse to bourgeois militarist despotism in the
field of organisation and to subjectivism in thought and method of work-this is
one side of the history of the past twenty years.
What is the other side of the past twenty
years? In the past twenty years great successes have been achieved and life has
advanced with gigantic strides. Among industrially advanced countries, the
Soviet Union is now placed second in the world and first in Europe. Life has
developed and advanced in all fields education, health, science, art and
culture. In the political, social and economic life an exploitation free
classless (in the sense of antagonistic classes-ed) society has been created.
Socialism has been established and steps advanced towards communism. Eminent
savants, Romain Rolland, Rabindra Nath Tagore, H. G. Wells, Bernard Shaw,
Hewlett Johnson, Emil Ludwig, the Webbs etc. have been impressed by the
unbelievable all-round progress of the Soviet Union. In the international
domain, where the Soviet Union was like an island in the imperialist sea, the
complete real basis for the emergence of a socialist world system has been
laid.
Thus, over twenty long-years, on the one
hand we have, in the main, a basically successful and unerring practical
application of the political, social and economic principles of
Marxism-Leninism and on the other hand, we have a basic and primary deviation
from the Leninist principles of organisation, an effort to distort these
principles and in place of democracy, democratic centralism and collective
leadership in society and the party, despotism and the establishment of a reign
of terror.
It is natural to ask how is this
possible? Is not success in
politics, society and the economy reflected also in organisational and social
life? The logical corollary of political, social and economic progress is
organisational democracy and the development of social consciousness. The
logical corollary of political, social and economic reaction is organisational
reaction, lack of individual initiative, apathy, the slow pace of dull, dreary
mechanical routine. Such a society does not reverberate with the song of life.
But we have heard the song of life in the Soviet Union. The question arises -
the political organisational line of Marxism-Leninism is not a motley
collection of discrete mutually exclusive independent phenomena which do not
interact with or exclude one another; rather it is a union of all embracing,
many sided integral ideology and practice. If so, then how is it possible that
politics and the organisation and organisational principles - the means of
successfully accomplishing that politics - could move in two opposite
directions for twenty long years? The conservatism of organisational policy
acts as a brake in political progress, similarly political conservatism also
acts as a brake on organisational progress - it is in this contradiction that
the organisation changes, there are changes made in its rules. In this way
organisational policy comes into consonance with political progress and does
not impede it. But where organisational policy and method of work impede
political progress - there politics does not move forward, and the organisation
also remains backward.
Thus in the Soviet Union, (to postulate
that -ed) politics was advancing, and great successes were being achieved, but
that at the same time, the organisation and organisational policies were
falling behind, and that this was going on for twenty long years, in an era of
great historical change - that seems quite impossible. Then are we to assume
that society moves forward at its own speed and on its own volition? Are we to
assume that Man has no active or passive role to play in this process, that society
is governed by fate, that Man too is a puppet in the hands of fate? But Marxism
denies this. In organisational policy, its activities, its form and character
are reflected political identity, its form and character. And the form and
character of the organisation and organisational policy are reflected in the
form and character of the politics.
If this is Marxism, then obviously the
Khrushchev-Mikoyan report is not. If so then either one maintains that socialism was not established in
the Soviet Union, that no advance in any aspect of life was made there and that
even today; the Soviet Union is a vast prison-house; or else, one maintains
that the Khrushchev-Mikoyan report is wrong; and the Khrushchev-Mikoyan is not
in accordance with Marxism, and it is inspired by ulterior political motives.
Apart from this, the only other alternative is to consider Marxism wrong and
the Khrushchev-Mikoyan report as correct.
The second fundamental question linked up with the Khrushchev-Mikoyan report is the
question of the role of the individual in the making of history.
Khrushchev-Mikoyan have said that after
1934, Stalin gradually concentrated all power in his hands and that he had no
contact with the masses, the Party, the Central Committee or the Politburo. He
never convened meetings of the Central Committee or Politburo, he took all the
decisions himself and issued directions accordingly.
Negating the people, the party and
everything else, giving no opportunity for criticism and evaluation, and basing
himself only on his individual independent= ideology, theory and methods of work, means the
following :
If a single individual was able while the
entire forces of world imperialism were ranged up against it; to raise a vast
backward country to such heights of development, prosperity and power, if
socialism can be achieved and society can advance towards communism based only
on one man=s theory, if communism can become powerful in the
international arena and imperialism defeated only on the basis of one man=s policies, methods of work and theory, then one must
say that Marxism is false, historical materialism is false.
If so, then why is so much stress placed
on collective leadership and democratic centralism and why are there
proclamations against the cult of the individual=? If by raising himself over the mass of the people
and treating them as fodder for history a single authoritarian individual can
create the bright history of socialism, then the best example of this is Stalin
himself. Refuting all hair-splitting theoretical arguments, it would appear
that Stalin has by his actions, negated historical materialism. If so, now we
can say with the idealists, that the vast populace serves only as the raw
material for history. The great individual is everything, the vast masses
nothing.
Hence one has to say, that if the
Khrushchev-Mikoyan report is true, then Marxism-Leninism is false, then
historical materialism is false.
In Khrushchev's report there is fulsome
praise of the unparalleled sacrifice and patriotism of the Soviet people in the
achievement of the many successes of the Soviet Union; yet at the same time,
Stalin has been held responsible for all the failures.
It is not
enough to say, as the French do, that their nation has been taken by surprise.
A nation and a woman are not forgiven the unguarded hour in which the first
adventurer that came along could violate them. The riddle is not solved by such
turns of speech, but merely formulated in another way. It remains to be
explained how a nation of thirty-six millions can be surprised and delivered
unresisting into captivity by three swindlers. A
(Marx and F. Engels, Selected Works, Vol.
1, p.402).
Marx means to say - that only a few people
cannot lead such a huge country astray and one cannot get off by laying the
entire blame at their door. After making the above statement, Karl Marx made a
masterly analysis of the historical condition under which the events in France
took place. This is precisely the historical materialist method of analysis.
That is to find out the basic cause in the analysis of the motion of
contemporary society and to analyse the successes and failures, achievements
and shortcomings and the role and contribution of the leader in the light of
that basic cause. To evaluate the role of the individual in the historical
context is a fundamental tenet of Marxism and the evaluation of the individual
in individual-centric context is the method of anti-Marxist bourgeois idealism.
That is the
fundamental difference between the Marxist and the Khruschevite conception.
The limitations and shortcomings of the
Soviet social system can be traced to the extraordinarily high price paid by
the Soviet system and people, for the all-round all-conquering development and
progress made by the Soviet Union. Socialism in one country is possible because
of the uneven development of imperialism, and the Soviet Union is proof of
this. But socialism in one country, amounts to only a drop of water in the vast
imperialist sea. Prior to its victory in the Second World War and the emergence
of the People=s Democratic states in several countries, the Soviet
Union was always, on both internal and external fronts, in a state of war. That
socialism would be restricted to a single country for such a long period had
not been envisaged by Lenin or other contemporary communist leaders. But man
has to work with the material furnished by history to society and the world,
and advance in the task of the creation of new history. The creation of history
cannot be done according to one=s own sweet will and cannot be based on illusory ideas and dreams. It
was the historical restriction and limitation of the Soviet social system that
it had to exist, over a long period, in a state of war amidst world capitalist
encirclement.
To gradually entrust the masses of the
people with all political, social and economic responsibilities, and thus
gradually to enable the existence of the state as a specialised institution for
repression to become socially unnecessary - is a fundamental task of the
intermediate stage of socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat. The
three chief pillars of the state are -the executive, the judiciary and the
legislative. It is the fundamental duty of a socialist country in its
intermediate stage to keep in check the permanent bureaucracy of these three
wings; as well as to eliminate the standing army, the secret police, the
intelligence department - all which do not play any creative role in production
and are entirely dependent on the state. In place of the permanent bureaucracy,
will be the representatives elected by the people, and the standing army will
be replaced by the armed people, which latter will not be dependent on the
state for sustenance.
It is only then, that people will be able to form their own
independent opinion, and only then that the proper conditions will be created
for them to express it. That is, the state cannot behave in a partisan manner
towards them.
In the Soviet Union, over this long
period, none of this could be accomplished. Amidst the imperialist encirclement
and the ever-present threat of attack, to protect socialism in one country, a
well-trained vast standing army equipped with modern arms and weapons and fully
dependent on the state was needed. In order that socialism in one country could
advance rapidly, it was necessary for a vast and backward country, to not only
catch up with other advanced capitalist countries, but also to surpass them.
Consequently, excessive stress had to be laid on centralisation. Later for
similar reasons, it became necessary to build and depend on a vast army of
skilled, self-sacrificing, idealist (not in the philosophical sense), hard
working, individuals devoted to the party in the state, in industry, in
agriculture, in education and culture.
The presence of a standing army secret
police and intelligence department which are fully dependent on the state and
do not play any creative role in production, is a big barrier to the all-round
democratic progress of society. The file-pushing bureaucracy, which has no contact
with the life of the people or creative production, is also a barrier to
all-round democratic progress. Thus in the Soviet Union, on the one hand, we
have unprecedented development and progress in social and economic life, in
education and culture and a classless (in the sense of antagonistic classes-ed)
exploitation-free social system, but on the other hand, there was also the
growth of an excessive centralisation and bureaucracy in the state and state
machinery. It was this contradiction which was at the root of the national and
social distortions in Soviet society. But one must bear in mind that the Soviet
Union had no other alternative road to progress before it. If one visits a
socialist country with a mind full of beautiful illusions, like Andre Gide,
then one's dreams are bound to be shattered.
In the analysis of the failures of the
Soviet Union, it is not enough to say this. History is created, as the result
of the mutual interaction of the mutually conflicting ideology and activity, of
millions of people in society. Man is not merely an onlooker at history. He
actively utilises his strength and capacity in the making of history. Until
now, this has been the contribution of millions of people in the creation of
history. This is an active contribution, but not a conscious one. That person
or party is the leader, who recognising the basic trend in the fundamental
motion and development of the real situation engendered by the mutual
interaction of the mutually conflicting ideologies and activities of millions
of people, consciously strives to advance society towards the achievement of
its historical objectives (goals). This is the indelible role played by the
individual in the making of history. Consequently, no leader or party can
escape responsibility for failures and shortcomings, by invoking the supposed
inevitable march of history.
Leaders like Mikoyan tried to escape
responsibility by propagating, that man learns only after the event has taken
place. This may be true of millions of ordinary people, but here we have a
question of philosophical knowledge. Every one can understand after the event
has taken place. But the role of the leadership or the leader, lies in
anticipating before hand the motion and development of the event or phenomena,
and in struggling against the adverse motion and development; so that healthy
and proper conditions can be created for the favourable motion and development.
It is precisely here, that the need arises for leaders and a leadership, and it
is to aid our understanding of this, that dialectical and historical
materialism have been developed.
Hence, on the one hand, we have the
progress of socialist society and on the other, a standing army, excessive
centralism and bureaucracy in the executive and the legislative resulting
necessarily in the failures and short-comings of the Soviet society, state and
social life and a distorted development. The question arises: was Stalin
as a leader sufficiently alert and watchful about these phenomena and did he
strive to create favourable conditions for struggle against them? It is only up
to this extent, and not more, that Stalin can be held responsible for the
failures and shortcomings. In spite of all efforts made in the struggle, the
development of Soviet society was bound to be distorted and one-sided to some
extent, there is no point in concealing this truth. But the important question
is how much effort was made in the struggle against the one-sidedness, and it
is only here that the question of fixing responsibility arises.
If Khrushchev-Mikoyan and Co. had based
themselves on the principles of historical materialism in their analysis of the
failures and shortcomings of individual and state then they would not have
denigrated Stalin and communism before the world. They would not have made
individual-centric personal attacks. It is because of their individual-centric
bourgeois analysis that they had to take recourse to falsehood and distortion
of history.
But Marxism-Leninism is invincible.
Historical materialism retains its validity-it is independent of the sweet will
of individuals. History will affirm the laws of historical materialism and will
surely vindicate Stalin and his contribution.
Reprinted From Moni Guha, Proletarian
Path, 25/1 Jyotish Roy Road, Calcutta -700 053., India.
Minor editing responsibility, ISML Print
office.
TWO :
"A
FRATERNAL CRITIQUE FROM MONI GUHA TO INTERNATIONAL STRUGGLE MARXIST
LENINIST." From Moni Guha Proletarian Path.
Dear Comrade
Merwanji,
Received your
letter dated 22nd July, 1997 on 1st August. You have requested us to let you
knew our views on principles and statement of the editorial board of
International Struggle - Marxist-Leninist. You have also requested us to let
you know our suggestion. Many thanks for it. Naturally such questions cannot be
answered readily without a thorough discussion with the available Comrades.
Hence the delay in replying, which we think, you will understand.
Below please
find our candid but comradely views and suggestion
I) We do highly appreciate and are in complete agreement with your
editorial board that lines of demarcation are required now more than ever
before. These line can only be drawn by a scientific and clear (also clean)
debate, which we are advocating since the twentieth Congress of the CPSU. (See,
the introduction of Moni Guha’s book The 20th Congress And Stalin, written and published in
July 1956, in Bengali).
II) We do
highly appreciate and are in complete agreement with clause 3 where it says
about the formation of communist international and need for a Discussion and
Reply section in the preparatory period for ideological political and
organisational unity on an international scale.
III) While we
unequivocally declare our general and basic agreement with the principles and
statement of the editorial board of ISML, we have also some reservations and
suggestions which are stated below:
In clause 2 of
the founding editorial principles of the ISML it is stated : The conference can
be attended by more than one organisation from those countries, WHERE THE
MARXIST -LENINIST PARTY HAS NOT YET BEEN RECONSTITUTED (Emphasis ours)
The above
clause appears to us somewhat premature at this formative stage of ISML. If
more than one organisation of a country reconstructed A or not, big or small have a history behind them of
fighting politically and ideologically against Khruschevite and Maoist
degeneration, however weak that may be in details, if more than one
organisation of a country agree with the principles and statement of ISML
BASICALLY, then there should not be any bar in joining ISML. ISML should not
play the role of Judge, authority at this stage, in giving judgement, as to
whether the reconstituted party should be the ONLY PARTY of Marxism-Leninism of
that country. We would request the editorial board of ISML to recall the
attitude and stand of Lenin in 1921 when he had to confront almost a similar
situation on the question of two communist parties of Great Britain.
iv) In
paragraph 2 of the page No. 6 of ISML Journal vol. 1 No. 1 1996, it is stated :
An the construction of socialism class struggle and
dictatorship of the proletariat must form a new material socialist basis that
will move QUICKLY (our emphasis) to eject bourgeois culture from the minds of
men and women. Only this can and will prevent bourgeois culture arising
again. (Our emphasis).
The Quito
Declaration also similarly wailed : Nor were we able to prevent the rise of a
new bourgeois class...
We have strong
and serious reservations on the above. We are afraid this way of putting things
is subjective and idealist and also a concession to the petty bourgeois thought
of Mao Tse Tung.
Can anybody
really prevent the existence and rise of bourgeois ideas and thinking merely on
a Anew material socialist basis without thoroughly
eliminating the OLD material bourgeois basis? Can anybody eject quickly
the bourgeois ideas and thinking even after the thorough elimination of all the
material bases of bourgeois ideas and thinking where old thoughts, ideas,
habits and practices persist for a long period and remain without any material
basis ? If not why then this false
and illusory promise and why this wailing that Awe failed to prevent ?
We should,
rather state in the most clear terms, and educate people that socialism in one
or two countries, especially in backward countries is ever less than half
socialism as Lenin said. We should educate people in the clearest terms that so
long there is socialism in some countries and capitalism in the rest of the
world, so long there is coexistence of socialism and capitalism, so long as
there is normal= diplomatic, trades and other relations with the
capitalist countries, so long as there is capitalist encirclement instead of
socialist encirclement, so long there is commodity-money relations in the
socialist countries, so long there is to each according to his work, so long as
there is the partial possession of labour power of the producer INDIVIDUALLY,
so long this partial possession of labour power, will be considered by the
actual producers as a natural privilege (Marx), the objective material basis of
the existence and resurgence of bourgeois ideas and thinking will remain in
spite of the best efforts of the Anew socialist material basis of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
We think that
this kind of petty-bourgeois wishful thinking is the source of Mao Tse Tung
Thought. We expect that this letter will be discussed in the editorial board of
ISML and that we will be informed of the views and opinions of the editorial
board.
Dated 2.9.97. With Revolutionary
Greetings,
Comradely yours, (Moni Guha) For
Proletarian Path.
THREE
:
A FRATERNAL OPEN REPLY FROM
ALLIANCE -MARXIST-LENINIST (NORTH AMERICA) TO COMRADE GUHA OF PROLETARIAN PATH
(INDIA)
Dear Comrade
Guha,
We recognise
that the contributions of Moni Guha and Proletarian Path, to the world
revolutionary movement have been such, that their fraternal letter to International
Struggle Marxist Leninist (ISML), demands serious attention. We are pleased
to find that the general thrust of ISML is agreeable to the views of
Proletarian Path. We think that this must be so, since you Comrade Guha, find
that there is complete agreement upon the central issue of clear debate upon
the lines of demarcation, at the present time. This is in our view, a very
significant agreement. This is especially so, since it has become clear that
other international trends have either felt :
I) that the
present line of demarcations are already so firm and evident - so much as to
preclude even any discussions with International Struggle Marxist-Leninist.
This characterizes the Quito grouping.
Or:
ii) That any
attempts to have a debate that could find and scientifically defend these lines
of demarcation, are ultimately divisive. This characterizes the
Brussels-Pyongyang grouping.
But in this
central matter, both Proletarian Path and International Struggle
Marxist-Leninist agree with the criticisms of Marx and Engels of the Gotha
Programme, and the endorsements of that criticism by Lenin. There are however Two
Criticisms that you, Comrade Guha and Proletarian Path, gives to the
Statement and Principles of International Struggle Marxist-Leninist. We deal
with these two matters below.
YOUR FIRST
CRITICISM INVOLVES THE QUESTION : IS THERE ANY SINGLE RECONSTITUTED
MARXIST-LENINIST PARTY ANYWHERE ?
Comrade Guha
correctly points, out that in Clause 2, International Struggle Marxist-Leninist
states the following :
The conference
can be attended by more than one organisation from those countries where the
Marxist-Leninist party had not yet been reconstituted.
The criticism
is contained in the statement made by Guha that :
ISML should
not play the role of judge, or authority at this stage, in giving judgement,
whether the reconstituted party should be the ONLY PARTY of
Marxism-Leninism of that country. We would request the editorial board of ISML
to recall the attitude and stand of Lenin in 1921 when he had to confront
almost a similar situation of the question of two communist parties of Great
Britain.
Letter Moni Guha to Editorial Board ISML,
p.1
We in Alliance
agree with the thrust of these remarks of Guha. That is that ISML cannot at
this moment in time, be the judge of whether any particular party must be the
ONLY PARTY of Marxism-Leninism in a country. However we point out to Guha, that
when the point was formulated by the editorial board of IS-ML, this was also
the view of the entire editorial board. There was no disagreement in the
editorial board, that in each country there may be more than one organisation
that was, honestly Marxist-Leninist in thrust. All the editors of ISML and
their organisations, then felt, that the process of formation of the unitary
Marxist-Leninist party in each country was still on-going.
ISML editors
felt, and presumably all still do feel, that in each country all the different
trends, or different organisations, must have their own country-by-country
debates about forming a unitary party. That this is the case should be evident
from the remainder of the second clause, that you Comrade Guha do not cite, of
our Founding Principles where we explicitly state :
It is
important that the journal involve all the groups who consider themselves
Marxist-Leninists. For that reason the Editorial Board will try to contact all
the Marxist-Leninists groups, organisations and parties who accept the founding
Principles of clause (1). The Editorial Board has the task to inform them about
the journal and to encourage them to take part in its production and
circulation, and to attend the next conference in 1997.
Our formulation,
was meant to imply that there was as yet, no Marxist-Leninist party that was
fully re-constituted. We may have felt, that in certain countries there was
a certain advance towards such a position, but we felt that in NO country had
that been completely attained.
We suggest that
there has been a misunderstanding. We think that on this point, it is
primarily a matter of our formulation, not being sufficiently clear as to
render any potential misunderstandings impossible. The addition of two lines
might take care of this potential for misunderstanding, and we suggest this to
the editorial board and member organisations of ISML. For instance, if
following the line quoted by Comrade Guha, sentences were to be inserted as
follows:
As yet,
in 1997, we are not aware of any single country where such a single unitary
Marxist-Leninist party has unequivocally shown that it has reconstituted itself
and established its leading position for the workers and peasantry in that
country. In these conditions, ISML encourages all trends from within a single
country, that call themselves Marxist-Leninist, to actively participate in the
work of ISML.
In passing, we
note that this recognition of the need to actively involve all honest
Marxist-Leninist groups within a single country, in both theoretical and
practical work to define the lines of demarcation - has itself become a line
of demarcation. Thus in contrast to this approach, the Quito initiative
explicitly only involves one grouping from each single country,
presumably because they accord the accolade of Marxist-Leninist only to that
single honoured. This grouping, does not even deign, to answer letters from the
less exalted ones! The approach of Brussels would seem at first glance
to be more wide and more open, as they profess to recognise that, more than one
grouping in a country should be involved. However the practice does not follow
the theory, since Brussels operates a selective refusal to certain groups to
participate. This selective invitation to an open sided debate, belies their
claims to non-sectarianism. It instead becomes an invitation to a club, where
it is politely known that disagreements will not obtain an airing!
We maintain
that no country as yet, has the unequivocally recognised leadership of a
unitary Marxist-Leninist Party. Of course it might be asked how this leadership
would be unequivocally demonstrated?
Alliance
answers that it is unlikely that the Editorial Board of IS-ML, would be able to
make such a recognition in isolation. This demonstration must come from the
best representatives of the working class and peasantry of each of the relevant
countries. Even such recognition from within the country in question, will not
mean that there will be no abuse or criticisms, hurled at such a party from those
outside of such a party, much as the Mensheviks continued to hurl abuse at the
Bolsheviks, long after their demonstrated leadership was acclaimed. But just as
the Bolsheviks consistently replied to these criticisms however, the new
re-constituted Marxist-Leninist party, would be most likely to reply to these
criticisms in an open and unashamed manner. This should allow the international
movement to be able to weigh up in the course of a dispute - Who is right and
who is wrong? With time, it will become clear to the international movement
that such a party has arisen, and in which country.
Of course, it
may well be that there are more than one organisations in each country
that come close to fulfilling the mandates of a Marxist-Leninist
vanguard party. Then indeed we suggest that you, Comrade Guha, are correct to
cite to us the attitude of Lenin to the formation of the Communist
Party Of Great Britain (CPGB). If we briefly recap the episode of Lenin=s advice to the CPGB, it illustrates the process. It
was the case that there were four main groups of merit in Britain, all vying to
join the Third International. The main dividing issues preventing them from
uniting was the attitude to bourgeois parliaments, and by extension to the
reformist Labour party :
There is no
Communist Party in Great Britain as yet, but there is a fresh broad, powerful,
and rapidly growing communist movement among the workers, which justifies the
best hopes. There are several political parties and organisations (The British
Socialist party, the Socialist Labour party, The South Wales Socialist Society,
the Workers= Socialist Federation) which desire to form a
Communist Party and are already negotiating among themselves.. on the basis of
affiliation to the Third International, the recognition of the Soviet system
instead of Parliamentarism, and the recognition of the dictatorship of the
proletariat. It appears that one of the biggest obstacles to the immediate
formation of united Communist Party is presented by the disagreement on the questions
of participation in Parliament, and whether the new Communist Party should
affiliate to the old, trade unionist opportunist and socialist chauvinist
Labour party, which is mostly made up of trade unions. The Workers Socialist
Federation and the Socialist Labour party are opposed to taking part in
parliamentary elections and in Parliament, and they are opposed to affiliation
to the Labour Party; in this they disagree with all or with most of the members
of the British Socialist Party."
V. I. Lenin: "Left Wing Communism
-An Infantile Disorder"; 19 May 1920; In Collected works; Volume 31;
Moscow; 1966; p. 78.
Lenin argued that the benefits of uniting into one
communist organisation - irrespective of the lack of agreement on the
tactics towards parliament, greatly outweighed any harm from embracing a
mistake over what he calls a partial secondary question. As he wrote to Sylvia
Pankhurst:
What if in a
certain country those who are communists by their convictions and their
readiness to carry on revolutionary work,
sincere partisans of Soviet power (the Soviet system...) cannot unite owing to disagreement over
participation in Parliament?
I should consider such disagreement
immaterial at present, since the struggle for Soviet power is the political
struggle of the proletariat in its highest most class-conscious most
revolutionary form. It is better to be with the revolutionary workers when they
are mistaken over some partial or secondary questions, than with the official
socialist or social Democrats, if the latter are not sincere, firm
revolutionaries, and are unwilling or unable to conduct revolutionary work
among the working masses, but pursue correct tactics in regard to that partial
question."
Lenin : "Letter to Sylvia Pankhurst,
dated August 28th, 1919."; Works, Volume 29; Moscow 1965; p.562.
In my opinion
the British Communists should unite their four parties and groups (all
very weak, and some them very, very weak)
into a single Communist Party on the basis of the principles of the Third
International and of obligatory participation in parliament.
V. I. Lenin: "Left Wing Communism
-An Infantile Disorder"; 19 May 1920; In Collected works; Volume 31;
Moscow; 1966; p. 87.
Thus Lenin
advised that when there were secondary or minor issues of difference,
the Communists should not be separate, and closeted in sectarian organisations.
This is obviously different from when there is an issue that is more than
simply secondary, where issues of primary principle are involved. What
then, might the needed process of unifying look like, where many organisations exist, whose views
are not quite clear, whose views therefore, may or not be different on issues
of principle? Where in fact one does not necessarily know whether issues that
are dividing are primary or secondary?
Such a process
is described by Lenin=s
discussion, of how the Bolsheviks welded Iskra into a unity, from all
the numerous workers and study circles in Russia. Lenin and the Bolsheviks,
welded these numerous circles into the single Russian Social Democratic Party
that went to become the Bolshevik party. The view of Alliance, that takes as
its starting point Lenin=s party
building approach, has been stated before in both North Star Compass, and in a
recent Three Party Joint Open Letter. (See H. Kumar : "Upon The Current
Situation, Unity And How We Can Help Inside Ex-USSR"; North Star Compass,
Vol. 4#1, Aug 1995; Toronto; p.2-8.; & Alliance+Communist League (UK)
+MLCP(Turkey) "An Open Letter to Comrade Ludo Martens"; London; 1995.
Open Letter-web-link) We briefly reprise our view here.
Lenin modelled
his approach on that of Marx and Engels, who did not compromise on principles
in order to form their party. They heavily criticised the attempts by the
German Peoples' Party to come to terms with Ferdinand Lassalle. Marx and Engels
had tried in previous years, to agree with the Lassalleans on principled
grounds. The Lassalleans had rebuffed them. The points at issue, in the new
proposed Gotha Programme of the party were contentious, as Engels
explained:
To begin with
they adopt the high-sounding but historically false Lassallean dictum: in
relation to the working class all other classes are only one reactionary mass.
This proposition is true only.. in the case of a revolution by the proletariat
e.g. The Paris Commune; or in a country in which not only has the bourgeoisie
constructed state and society after its own image but the petty bourgeoisie in
it=s wake has already carried out that reconstruction to
its logical conclusion... Secondly the principle that the workers= movement is an international one is to all intents
and purposes utterly denied in respect of the present.. Thirdly our people
allow themselves to be saddled with the Lassallean iron law of wages which is
based on a completely outmoded economic view.. Fourthly as its one and only
social demand, the programme puts forward-Lassallean state aid in this starkest
form.. Fifthly there is absolutely no mention of the organisation of the
working class through the medium of trade unions."
Engels : Letter to August Bebel March
18-28, 1875. Marx & Engels Collected Works Vol. 24: p.67-73.
Obviously these
are far more than secondary issues. It is well known that Lenin fostered a full
and open debate before Unity could be achieved:
We declare
that before we can unite, and in order that we may unite, we must first of all
draw firm and definite lines of demarcation, as Iskra demands."
VI. Lenin "What is to be Done?
Burning Questions Of Our Movements"; 1902; Vol. 5; Works; Moscow; p.367.
Yet Lenin
naturally saw the need for unity on PRACTICAL ISSUES. These were then
questions of a Broad Front for practical work; versus formation of a Party
work. Lenin reached for his Marx, and The Critique of the Gotha Programme:
If you must
unite, Marx wrote to the party leaders, then enter into agreements to satisfy
the practical aims of the movement, but do not allow any bargaining over
principles, do not make any theoretical concession. This was Marx=s idea.. Without revolutionary theory there can be no
revolutionary movement.
V. I. Lenin "What is to be Done?
Burning Questions Of Our Movements"; 1902; Vol. 5; Works; Moscow;
p.369-70.
Lenin adds, as
a preliminary to a long quote from Engels also on the importance of theory, why
the Russian workers movement was especially in need of theoretical clarity:
For Russian
Social democracy the importance of theory is enhanced... firstly by the fact
that our party is only in the process of formation, its features are only just
becoming defined, and it has as yet far from settled accounts with the other
trends of revolutionary thought that threaten to divert the movement from the
correct path.. Secondly, the Social Democratic movement is in its very essence
an international movement.. we must.. make use of the experiences of other countries.."
V. I. Lenin "What is to be Done?
Burning Questions Of Our Movements"; 1902; Vol. 5; Works; Moscow;
p.369-370.
The
significance of What is to be done? was that it laid the foundations for a
professional revolutionary Party. In Where to Begin? Lenin had already outlined
the urgent need for a newspaper. Here he hit that message home :
What we
require foremost and imperatively is to broaden the field, establish real
contacts, between the towns on the basis of regular, common work... I
continue to insist that we can start establishing real contacts only
with the aid of a common newspaper, as the only regular, All-Russian
enterprise, one which will summarise the results of the most diverse forms of
activity.. If we do not want unity in name only we must arrange for all local
study circles immediately to assign say a fourth of their forces to
active work for the common cause, and the new paper will immediately
convey to them the general design scope and character of the cause.. the mere
function of distributing a newspaper would help to establish actual
contacts..
V. I. Lenin "What is to be Done?
Burning Questions Of Our Movements"; 1902; Vol. 5; Works; Moscow;
p.506-507.
These extended
quotations Comrade Guha, are not to teach grandmother to suck eggs, as they
say; but to convince you that International Struggle Marxist-Leninist indeed,
intends to build one paper and one theoretical journal internationally -
wherein all Marxist-Leninists can collectively draw up the demarcation lines.
The assistance of Proletarian Path, would be most welcome.
In
conclusion, we suggest to the
comrade members of International Struggle Marxist-Leninist to consider some
amendment to take care of potential misunderstandings as pointed out by Comrade
Guha=s letter. We in Alliance purpose that a possible
amendment to satisfy this point might be of the form suggested above, namely
the addition of the following two sentences to clause 2 :
As yet, in
1997, we are not aware of any single country where such a single unitary
Marxist-Leninist party has unequivocally
shown that it has reconstituted itself and established its leading position for
the workers and peasantry in that country. In these conditions, IS-ML
encourages all trends from within a single country, that call themselves Marxist-Leninist,
to actively participate in the work of IS-ML.
YOUR
SECOND CRITICISM RELATES, IN OUR VIEW TO THE QUESTION :
HOW ARE BASE AND SUPERSTRUCTURE
INTER-RELATED IN THE MAINTENANCE OF SOCIALISM?
You Comrade
Guha, have problems with the sentence from the paragraph of the Statement, that
reads:
In the
construction of socialism class struggle and dictatorship of the proletariat
must
form a new material socialist basis that
will move quickly to eject bourgeois culture from the minds of men and women.
Only this can and will prevent bourgeois culture arising again.
There are
several points you make on this statement.
Firstly you argue this view of ISML, is a subjective view,
and not one that is an objectively based view of social change. You, Comrade
Guha, view this as being :
subjective and idealist;
and
AA
concession to the petty bourgeois thought of Mao Tse Tung;
and you argue :
Can anybody
really prevent the existence and rise of bourgeois ideas and thinking merely on
Anew material socialist basis without thoroughly
eliminating the OLD material bourgeois basis?
You also argue
that, we at ISML, should state :
So long as
there is coexistence of socialism (in some countries - ed.) with capitalism...
So long as there is capitalist
encirclement etc.. The objective basis of the existence of the existence and
resurgence of bourgeois ideas and thinking will remain in spite of the best
efforts of the Anew socialist material basis of the dictatorship of
the proletariat.
We interpret
these four remarks to mean, at least one matter in common - that without an objective
economic base there can be no subjective change. If this is not what is
meant by Proletarian Path, we must withdraw, and re-think. But assuming this
interpretation is correct, let us point out the following :
1) The
background of the Dictatorship of the proletariat
Of course we
are not talking in a vacuum - a vacuum that is unrelated to the expropriation
of the property rights of the bourgeoisie, taking place in the dictatorship of
the proletariat. We point this out, in the Founding Principles of International
Struggle Marxist-Leninist; under the clause 1(e) where we call for:
recognition of
the dictatorship of the proletariat to first achieve and then to maintain
socialism.
To us in Alliance,
the dictatorship of the proletariat, includes expropriation of the bourgeoisie,
and this forms the material objective basis of socialism.
2) On base
and superstructure
Clearly the
often-cited neat separation of base and superstructure is not quite so neat, in
reality. As Engels himself pointed out, it is incorrect to belittle aspects of
the superstructure:
Marx and I are
ourselves to blame for the fact that the younger people sometimes place more
stress on the economic side than is due to it. We had to emphasise the main
principle vis-à-vis our adversaries, who denied it and we had not always the
time or the place or the opportunity to give their due to the other factors
involved in the interaction."
Frederick Engels: Letter to Joseph Bloch
September 21-2, 1890. In Marx and Engels "Pre Capitalist Socio-Economic
Formations"; Moscow; 1979; p.524.
How did Engels
himself, see the interaction of superstructure and base?
According to
the materialist conception of history, the ultimately determining factor in
history is the production and reproduction of real life. Neither Marx nor I
have ever asserted more than this. Hence if somebody twists this into saying
that the economic factor is the only determining one, he transformed that
proposition into a meaningless, abstract, absurd phrase. The economic situation
is the basis, but the various elements of the superstructure - political forms
of the class struggle and its results, such as constitution established by the
victorious class after a successful battle, etc, juridical forms, and
especially the reflections of the all these real struggles in the brains of the
participants, political, legal, philosophical theories, religious views and
their further development into systems of dogmata -also exercise their influence
upon the courses of the historical struggle and in many cases determine their
form in particular. There is an interaction of all these elements in which amid
all the endless host of accidents (that is of things and events whose
inter-connection is so remote and impossible of proof that we can regard it as
non-existent and neglect it), the economic movement is bound to assert itself.
Frederick Engels: Letter to Joseph Bloch
September 21-2, 1890. In Marx and Engels "Pre Capitalist Socio-Economic
Formations"; Moscow; 1979; p.522.
Engels gives an
example how a mechanical insistence upon economic determinacy will lead to
obvious ridicule:
We make our
history ourselves, but in the first place under very definite antecedents and
conditions, Among these the economic one are ultimately decisive. But the
political ones etc; and indeed even the traditions which haunt human minds also
play a part, but not the decisive one.. It is hardly possible without making
oneself ridiculous, to explain in terms of economics the existence of every
small state in Germany past and present, or the origin of the High German
consistent shift, which divides the geographic partition formed by the mountain
partition formed by the mountain ranges from the Sudetenes to the Taurus, into
a regular fissure running across Germany.
Frederick Engels: Letter to Joseph Bloch
September 21-2, 1890. In Marx and Engels "Pre Capitalist Socio-Economic
Formations"; Moscow; 1979; p.523.
Moreover,
Engels argues, that there are a myriad of factors that individualise final
results, as opposed to classes alone. Each individual then plays a role in the
parallelogram of forces, that ends up in any result :
In the second
place however history proceeds in such a way that the final result always
arises from conflicts between many individual wills and every one of them is in
turn made into what it is by a host of particular conditions of life. Thus
there are innumerable intersecting forces, an infinite series of parallelogram
of forces which give rise to one resultant-the historical event.
Frederick Engels: Letter to Joseph Bloch
September 21-2, 1890. In Marx and Engels "Pre Capitalist Socio-Economic
Formations"; Moscow; 1979; p.523.
In another
letter, to W. Borgius, Engels explains:
Political,
legal, philosophical, religious, literary artistic etc; development is based on
economic development. But all these react upon one another and also upon the
economic basis. One must not think that the economic situation is cause and
solely active, whereas everything else is only a passive effect. On the
contrary interaction takes place on the basis of economic necessity, which
ultimately always asserts itself. The state for instance exercises an influence
by protective tariffs, free trade, good or bad fiscal system..
Frederick Engels: Letter to W. Borgius;
January 25th, 1894; In Marx and Engels "Pre Capitalist Socio-Economic
Formations"; Moscow; 1979; p.540.
We conclude
comrade Guha, that the interaction of base and superstructure can be
interpreted too narrowly, and we suspect that in general that you would agree
thus far.
3. The
Subjective Factor of Culture - the Cadres
We agree that
none of this of course takes away from the Main Thing - that is
undoubtedly the economic basis of socialist property relations. But we will now
argue that the view of ISML, is not dissimilar to the way that Lenin and Stalin
viewed the situation. Let us try to substantiate this.
After the
victory of the proletariat and the peasantry in the capture of state power in
1917, the state established socialist property relations. Thereafter, the state
proceeded to lay a huge emphasis on the subjective factors including
education, culture, and the changing of the mindsets of the people. That can be
shown by many quotations. In 1935, for instance Stalin points out to the Red
Army Graduates that cadres decide everything:
Having emerged
from the period of dearth of technique we have entered a new period, a period I
would say of a dearth of people of cadres of workers capable of harnessing
technique, and advancing it...Formerly we used to say that Atechnique decides everything. ... But it is not
enough... we need cadres... the old slogan.. Must now be replaced by a new
slogan the slogan Cadres decide everything."
Stalin JV; "Address to the Graduates
From The Red Army Academies"; Works Vol. 14; London edition 1978; p. 75-76
Earlier quotes
can also testify to the importance of the subjective or superstructure aspects.
For instance Lenin saw the role of education to build a new mentality:
It is true that
management is the job of the individual administrator; but who is exactly that
administrator will be - an expert or a worker - will depend on how many
administrators we have of the old and the new type... The trade unions are
heading for the time when they will take economic life, namely industry, into
their hands. The talk about not admitting bourgeois specialists into the trade
unions is a prejudice. The trade unions are educational bodies and strict
demands must be made on them."
Lenin V. I.; "Reply To Discussion On
Report Of CC 9th Congress Of RCP(B). March 30, 1920. From CW 30: pp 465-471;
Cited "Lenin On Intelligentsia"; Moscow; 1983; p. 260.
Under Soviet
rule your proletarian party and ours will be invaded by a still larger number
of bourgeois intellectuals, They will worm their way into the Soviets, the
courts, and the administration, since communism cannot be built otherwise than
with the aid of human material created by capitalism, and the bourgeois
intellectuals cannot be expelled and destroyed, but must be won over,
remoulded, assimilated, and re-educated, just as we must- in a protracted
struggle waged on the basis of the dictatorship of the proletariat-re-educate
the proletarians themselves, who do not abandon their petty-bourgeois prejudices
at one stroke, by a miracle, a the behest of the Virgin Mary, at the behest of
a slogan, resolution or decree, but only in the course of a long and difficult
struggle against mass petty bourgeois influences. .... Among Soviet engineers,
Soviet school-teachers and the privileged, i.e., the most highly skilled and
best situated, workers at Soviet factories, we observe a constant revival of
absolutely all the negative traits peculiar to bourgeois Parliamentarism....
These are truly gigantic problems of re-educating under the proletarian
dictatorship , millions of peasants and small proprietors, hundreds of
thousands of office employees officials and bourgeois intellectuals, of
subordinating them all to the proletarian state and to proletarian leadership,
or eradicating their bourgeois habits and traditions."
Lenin V. I.; "Left-Wing
Communism"; Op Cit; Collected Works; Volume 31; pp. 115-116.
Perhaps we are
wrong, but the statement of IS-ML that you, Comrade Guha, object to, does not
seem inconsistent with these types of views of Lenin and Stalin.
We would accept
however, that the word only, is incorrect in this context. We therefore
suggest to ISML that the word only be deleted from the phrase that currently
runs :
Only this can
and will prevent bourgeois culture arising again.
And the phrase
should read :
This will
assist in preventing, or retarding the continued re-birth of bourgeois culture.
4. The
Question of "Ejecting bourgeois ideas Quickly", and the re-growth of
Bourgeois ideology.
Comrade Guha,
you ask :
"Can
anybody really prevent the existence and rise of bourgeois ideas and thinking
merely one Anew material basis... ? Can anybody eject quickly the
bourgeois ideas and thinking where old habits, ideas, thoughts and practices
persist for a long period and remain without any material basis?"
On this aspect
of your second criticism, we here in Alliance would also partially agree with
your viewpoint. We recognise that the process is long. Therefore Alliance
agrees that a re-wording on this point is appropriate. On the other hand, we
point out that as early as 1920, Lenin is talking about cultural moves that
amount to the same. Thus an early and quick start to the process is not
intrinsically incorrect!
Furthermore, on
the matter of the constant re-growth of bourgeois ideology, we in Alliance
agree that the essence of Stalin=s fight against Bukharin was on this point. Thus Stalin points out that
:
The capitalist
elements have no desire to depart from the scene voluntarily; they are
resisting, and will continue to resist voluntarily; they are resisting, and
will continue to resist socialism for they realise that their last days are
approaching. And they are re still able to resist because , in spite of the
decline of their relative importance, they are nevertheless growing in absolute
numbers; the petty bourgeoisies in town and country, as Lenin said, daily and
hourly produces from its midst capitalists, big and small, and these capitalist
elements go to all lengths to preserve their existence."
Stalin: "The Right Deviation In the CPSU(B)"; Vol. 12; Mos 1955; p.
40.
Thus we
suggest to the ISML membership and the editorial board that a modification of
the wording there, should be made such that the offending statement be phrased
along the following lines :
In the
construction of socialism, class struggle and dictatorship of the proletariat
must
form a new
material socialist basis; that will move as quickly as possible - together with
an educational and cultural movement - towards the ejection of bourgeois culture
from the minds of men and women. This will take time, but the urgent creation
of a new Socialist consciousness is vitally important. This will assist in
preventing, and retarding the continued re-birth of bourgeois culture.
5. On
cultural Revolution and The Great Cultural Proletarian Revolution.
Now the final
aspect of this second criticism of yours, Comrade Guha, that we will deal with
only briefly here, is the one that relates to the question of Mao. You are not
a follower of Mao. Indeed neither is Alliance Marxist-Leninist (North America).
For our part we
do not believe that the movement raised by Mao was either cultural nor
proletarian nor revolutionary. It was in our opinion, a counter-revolutionary
movement, aimed at destroying the communist party China which had fallen into
the hands of a bourgeois faction led by Liu Shao Chi. We argue this faction of
Liu Shao Chi, opposed the bourgeois faction led by Mao Tse Tung.
This is not the
place to enter into the details, these are amply provided in two recent
documents that can be obtained from us (See W. B. Bland : "Class Struggles
in China"; London; 1997; Obtainable from Communist League (UK) & From
Alliance North America; & Three Party Statement : "Upon Unity and
Ideology- An Open Letter to Comrade Ludo Martens"; London; 1995;
Obtainable from Alliance + CL +MLCP(Turkey) - Both are now on web: Class
Struggles In China: And: Open Letter to Martens). But, the point to make here,
in response to your criticism, comrade Guha, is three-fold.
Firstly that it is clear from the above citations we have
included, that both Lenin and Stalin also laid great emphasis upon a cultural
explosion (to avoid the conjunction of the words cultural and revolution!)
taking place in truly socialist countries, like the former USSR. This was not a
Maoist innovation.
The second
point, is that the crucial
difference between genuine Marxism-Leninism, and pseudo-revolutionary Maoism
lies in the fact that China had not laid the material basis of socialism by
expropriating the bourgeoisie. Mao could only wave the cultural revolution in
the air without a material base. Of course, he did more than just wave it in
the air, he used this cultural revolution as a cloak, behind which he could
destroy the Communist party of China from outside, using lumpen and petty
bourgeois elements.
Thirdly, we would disagree with your assessment that the ISML
formulation, even as it stands now without amendment is typical of a :
Petty
bourgeois wishful thinking (that) is the source of Mao Tse Tung Thought.
To the contrary
we would argue that Mao Tse Tung Thought, has its roots firmly in the
capitalist class, especially that section of capital that favoured links with
US capital.
We continue to
believe that some - of course not necessarily all - Maoists, can be won over by
rational and scientific arguments, and the practical lessons of the proletarian
and peasant struggles in their own countries.
We Remain Yours
Fraternally,
Alliance
Marxist-Leninist (North America).
PUTTING
MARXISM-LENINISM BACK ONTO ITS FEET.
By Patrick Kessel,
CEMOPI, France; Centre D'etude Sur Le Mouvement Ouvrier et Paysan International
Fighting against revisionism implies first
of all that there has to be a definition of "What is revisionism?"
But generally, people are content with merely describing counter-revolutionary
positions, without defining it from the revolutionary point of view of our
class, or of Marxism, or of Leninism.
THE
MULTIPLE FORMS OF REVISIONISM
Revisionism, since it first appeared at the end of the last century,
and since its denunciation by Lenin, Kautsky and Rosa Luxemburg, up to
its' present manifestations must be viewed in each historical epoch. Even if
the object of revisionism is always the same today that object is the same as
it was yesterday - its characteristics differ both in accordance with the
international situation, and with that of each country in which it expresses
itself.
And in speaking simply of revisionism, one
can mix up the questioning of the principal theses of Marx and Engels, with
those of Lenin, which were developed within the framework of the Dictatorship
of the Proletariat, and of the building of the first socialist state - first
with Lenin and then with Stalin.
There is an anti-Marxist Revisionism;
and there is an anti-Leninist Revisionism. Some people want to save Marx
("Their Marx"), but are against Lenin. Others set up "Leninism
as a continuation of Marxism" - and fire upon both of them, rejecting in
general, the work and practical lessons of Marx and Engels. Yet others, at last
openly come out with it, and affirm that Marx 'encloses' Stalin's
"crimes". Even if all these different "schools" of
Leninists are opposed to each other - they are definitely different schools -
they all tend to go in the same direction, which is to perpetuate the
capitalist mode of production. But Marxists-Leninists cannot be content with
rejecting these revisionisms en bloc, because all these various revisionisms
develop on different grounds and histories, and they are either more or less
active in one country as opposed to another, and finally they are all formed by
different multiple processes.
Anti-Marxist revisionism reflects the first period of revisionism.
Anti-Leninist revisionism reflects the second period of revisionism.
During this second period, superimposed upon the references against Lenin, are
those that are anti-Stalin revisionisms. We can speak of these three
species of revisionists as being still of current interest. We do not need to
talk of those people who - after first having denounced Stalin, rejected Lenin
and abandoned Marx - do not even qualify as being revisionists of
Marxism-Leninism. These types, have aligned themselves completely with an open
reformism, that was formed at the end of the 19th century, whose major
representatives were Proudhon and Jaures. And yet a further degree of
viciousness is reached by those who denounce communism in general, as the worst
murderer in world-wide history.
Historically the Second World War
generated those revisionists, that people now call "Modern
Revisionists". Modern Revisionists, were exemplified for the first
time by the American leader Earl Browder, then by Tito, and then finally by
Khrushchev. This "Modern Revisionism", was fully characterized,
and given shape, in 1956, at the 20th party Congress of the CPSU, by the
denunciation of the role of Stalin during the construction of socialism in the
USSR. And joined to this, was the denunciation of Stalin's role in the global
construction of the Communist International.
This modern revisionism has a double
aspect:
It concerns the construction of socialism, and it also claims to involve those
communist parties who are not in power, in the "Peaceful road to
socialism".
It is in this way that revisionisms, both
old and new became dominant within what was designated the socialist
camp. This hidden camp was actually projected to become a system,
that was embedded within a perspective of a peaceful unprincipled co-existence,
with capitalism.
This new stage determined a change in the
character of revisionism. Actually until then, revisionism was able to develop
in any one or another party, according to the class battles within those
parties. From 1956 to 1960 the revisionist theses compelled a recognition of a
general line of the international communist movement; during this same time
revisionism was developing a "polycentric" line, as described
by the Italian leader Togliatti. The purpose of this was not to fight
the new revisionism, but to accelerate that process. And for sure, this new
revisionism carried then and now, a double sided aspect.
Firstly it is concerned with the USSR herself and the CP's in power;
and Secondly when it commands the line given to those communist parties
that are not in power and who are fighting under very different conditions with
a framework of either illegality or illegality.
THE
DIFFERENT CONTENTS OF ANTI-REVISIONISM
Two parties came Out and openly opposed
the revisionist hegemony which had become incarnated in the one "dominant
party" - that of the USSR. These two parties were the Party of Labour of
Albania, and the Communist Party of China. These two proclaimed themselves
antirevisionists, and they denounced certain aspects of the new revisionism.
But in doing this they started from different conceptions. That is why
they denounced - each of them either more or less deeply - several different
aspects of revisionisms. It is also why in the fight that they led against
imperialism, they themselves later erupted into antagonistic contradictions
between each other.
These antagonistic contradictions, did not
touch only on the effects of the new revisionism but came to the roots, the
very foundations of Marxism-Leninism. Actually the fight against imperialism is
not in effect merely a token, one to be labelled "Marxism-Leninism",
if one really manages to carry out a dividing cut - separating capitalism as a
mode of production from its imperialist stage. Nor is it a token, if one
substitutes one for the other, or if that struggle only pays attention to some
of the effects of imperialism, to its foreign politics be it directly of a
military nature, or economic and ideological.
The fight against revisionism, in which we
affirm our position, does not imply a unity of thought on the part of all those
who claim to be anti-revisionists.
This was already obvious at the very
moment as revisionism appeared. Our earlier reference to Lenin, Kautsky and
Rosa Luxemburg's struggles against Bernstein at the end of the 19th Century and
the beginning of the 20th century shows in contrast to the popular
"common-sense" sentiment, that the "enemy of my enemy" is
not necessarily a friend. It was against Kautsky and Rosa Luxemburg that Lenin
forthrightly stood up. Yet even while doing this, simultaneously he
acknowledged to Kautsky and Rosa Luxemburg their great contributions to the
denunciation of Bernstein. And just as all three (Lenin, Kautsky and Luxemburg)
had an overall agreement upon Bernstein in their own epoch, similarly there was
a concordance between the Party of Labour of Albania (PLA) and the Communist
Party of China (CPC) after the 20th party Congress of the CPSU(B). The
concordance at the same time mask certain antagonisms, but it did not suppress
them, and the contradictions became aggravated to the point of the final
rupture itself, between the PLA and the CPC.
FIVE
PRINCIPAL EPOCHS IN THE HISTORY OF REVISIONISM
Historically,
we can distinguish five primary epochs in the development of revisionism
1. That of the
Second International when none of the parties claiming kinship with Marx and
Engels were in power.
2. That which followed the foundation of the USSR as the first State of the
Dictatorship of
The Proletariat.
3. That which followed the Second World War with the establishment of the
Popular
Democracies and of the Peoples Republic of China, where revisionism became
qualified by the
term "modern";
4. That which had the 20th Party Congress of the CPSU(B) in Moscow from 1956,
as its
international starting point and which ended in about 1989.
5. And finally the present day period.
Of course there is no gap between these
periods. In each period that was ending, were already present the germs of
later elements, these earlier germs served to characterise the later
revisionisms. For example elements of modern revisionism were already present
in the political leadership of certain Communist Parties from 1935. The most
prominent and best known examples, were the Communist Party of France, and the
Communist Party of the United States, led by Earl Browder.
And then a Communist party does not become
revisionist in one day. Furthermore, in the case of a party that called itself
"communist", and was generally recognised as such, it is necessary to
analyse whether it truly was a Marxist-Leninist party. And this analysis
must be based on criteria that may themselves, prove to be controversial.
Anyhow, one may ask: recognised as "truly Marxist-Leninist" by whom?
And it should never be forgotten that the life of the party is made up in class
struggles, and that it builds itself passing through these struggles,
confronting all the various and multiple deviations before it faces revisionism
itself
Finally, by using the catch-all term
"Revisionism" one risks an over-simplification. This would be to have
in sight, only present aspects of policies, which to justify themselves, put
away those principles which were recognised as just, until that time.
WHERE
DOES REVISIONISM LEAD?
If one considers the objectives of
revisionism, these can take multiple forms. But for whatever reason
revisionists have in taking these various roads, all these roads have only one
consequence. That is to hijack the revolutionary road, and to lower the class
struggle and to limit it.
In each epoch, the revisionist currents
first crystallize themselves around various theoreticians before they spring to
life. These revisionist constructions have a body, or a corpus. But this body
of work is not on all points, identical in one period as in another. Each body
of revisionism cannot be simply reduced to the epoch in which it was born. They
have a life which is transmitted from one period to the other, they may
temporarily disappear, only to reappear in different contexts, either entirely
or in part. Some of these revisionist theses are no longer quite the same
today, as they are no longer driven by parties or organisations or leaders or
theoreticians, who rely on the history of the international communist movement.
The current day forms are quite indivisible from our open bourgeois enemies and
feed the dominant ideology. The present outcome of this type of propaganda
asserts the equivalence between communism and fascism and it criminalizes
communism in general.
That is why the battle against revisionism
in general - with respect to all its components - cannot be separated from the
battle against the guard dogs of capitalism. This does not mean a separate
battle, a battle on two fronts. It is only a single front, which is waged
against both the internal enemies of Marxism and of Leninism, and the external
enemies.
The fight against all these revisionisms -
to be in reality more than just waving of a toy-rattle - implies the study of
all of its' different incarnations, from Bernstein to Kautsky, from Kautsky to
Rosa Luxemburg; from Browder to Tito and then to Khrushchev. In all these
incarnations revisionism must be studied, whether it may have developed in the
currents of ultra-leftism, like Trotskyism, Maoism, whether it became dominant
in various parties that called themselves Marxist-Leninists; or whether it may
have laid claim to the work of theoreticians like Gramsci etc. And this study
should take into account the social bases and different periods in which these
revisionisms developed, whether in the USSR in the People's Democracies, or in
China etc.
Revisionism coexists alongside reformism,
in order to identify itself progressively with the latter, whilst also trying
to preserve its peculiarity, in order to survive as an independent political
movement. These differences, however still do not touch the essentials - that
is the acceptance or not of the capitalist mode of production. On this -
revisionism agrees with reformism. In France, the Communist Party talks today
of the "overtaking" or of "passing beyond" capitalism, not
of destroying capitalism. At the same time the revisionists in France and
elsewhere, agitate around the slogan of "We must make the rich pay".
But in reality our real objective is to expropriate the capitalist class.
THE
CONSTITUTIVE ELEMENTS OF MARXISM AND OF LENINISM
We have often used the concept of "Revisionism".
And we have often affirmed the necessity of studying all its forms, arguments
and its' consequences. But our arguments and discussions will become void, and
devoid of any efficacy, in any sense, - if anti-revisionists are only content
to simply enumerate formulae, as if they were counting or reciting beads
formulae like:
"Dialectical
and Historical Materialism; Dictatorship of the Proletariat, the Necessity of
the Destruction of the Bourgeois State by Revolutionary Violence; the Historic
Mission of the proletariat, the Right of the People Or Country to
Self-Determination; Socialization (and not nationalisation) of the Means of
Production; Collectivization of the Soil, Base and Superstructure, Forces of
Production and Relation of Production, a Class 'of itself' and a Class 'for
itself'; etc.
Given the way these formulae are used (and
they remain only as formulae if we do not show their necessity to answer
today's needs and today's genuinely posed problems) - they will remain only as
a vain agitation that will help distinguish us, from those who have rejected
the principles of Marxism, of Leninism.
A formulaic approach, equally means not to
take into account the period in which we are fighting today. To adopt such an
approach will mean leaving the battlefield free for all those who carry on a
permanent propaganda, on behalf of the bourgeoisie. Such an approach leaves the
field free to all the different currents of reformists and revisionists, whose
arguments are intertwined, because every party's particular themes plays its
part in order to prove that capitalism cannot be bypassed, be it for good or
evil and that one can only humanize it.
A
COMMON HISTORY, AND PARTICULAR HISTORIES
In as much as we are militant communists
and Marxist-Leninists, we have a History, one that transcends our own
individual countries. This history of our revolutionary movements, which has
become our common history, takes as its' starting point the October Revolution
of 1917. As for that history - everything possible is done to annul it. This
reference point, our reference point, is more and more unfamiliar to the young
men and women who have not had the opportunity to identify themselves with it.
This lack of opportunity comes about because they were born just when that history,
was being questioned by the very ones who still pretended to claim it as their
own. But despite their claims, the pretenders sabotaged that history. And
today, that history is now totally revised.
It is not that revised history which we
must claim, but its contents, and its objective which is the same as ours. We
also bear a heavy responsibility to those of the whole world who have
previously struggled, a responsibility to shake the capitalist society and
destroy it down to its' very foundations. The bourgeoisie is always ready to
crush any threat to itself Today their tactics are to slander our history, and
to dispossess us of our heritage and history. The bourgeoisie are ready to
assassinate and kill all those who threaten them and refuse to accept their
edicts and domination.
If we do not wish to become veterans of a
war that capitalism pretends to have won once and for ever, and one can be
veteran at any age - we must simultaneously claim this history, our history,
and fight within this society. Within this society where all classes are so
confused, and do not recognise themselves, do not want to know their own
history, because of the bourgeois and revisionist ideology. And it is out of
this history, that the formulae that we referred to are put forward, like so
many scarecrows.
That is why the entire struggle against
revisionism and the dominant bourgeois ideology implies the reappropriation of
the principles which for us are the foundations. This has to be done taking
into account today's context, in order to fix the principles in reality, and
thus to breath life into them In one word we must be understood. And it is also
be means of concrete and detailed analysis of the principles that we will be
able to undertake a principled struggle against revisionism (against
revisionisms) and against bourgeois ideology, also concerning the revision of
our own history.
Very concretely we must say that what we
mean by our references from Marx and Engels, to Lenin, and Stalin, in the
context of this time - the end of the 20th century. It is within the framework
of today's international world situation of economics, politics, and ideology,
that we have to give a base for our references, and to put forward our world
conception.
Equally we must justify, not just by
yesterday's standards, but by today's and tomorrow's, the validity of our
formulae, which we serve up as the line of demarcation - but which too often
are beyond any objective reality.
It is this work that allows us to
establish the line of demarcation between the bourgeois, the reformists, the
revisionists - and finally of those who aspire to be Marxist-Leninists. It is
this work which will provide us the tools for action.
It is necessary to fight against the new
world wide revisionism. But our common history since October 17th, has not
followed a linear path in each of our countries. And all the various hitches
and snags, not to mention the assassination attempts, upon Marxism, upon
Leninism, have led to the present situation both on an international and a
local setting. If it is necessary to lay out clearly all the intertwining
strands, of all the major international theses of revisionism, then it is above
all necessary to answer the questions we face today. This is necessary, in
order to clearly understand the especial and particular aspects of the
development of revisionism in our own countries. Of course, these aspects must
be well understood in relation to the dominant revisionist theses. We have to
sweep up in front of our own doors - ideologically speaking. Otherwise our
practice risks being a blind one, and of nourished itself by ambiguities that
will become brakes upon our political and economic battle.
It is clear that the cherishing and
encouragement of this or that revisionism by the bourgeoisie, or indeed of the
total assembled theses, will vary. It will vary and depend upon at any given
movement, upon the needs of the bourgeoisie, as the bourgeoisie, struggles to
face and overcome its' international and internal problems.
There are the "Great"
revisionisms, one could say. We have cited some of them. But there are others
that followed in their wake, which are in tow to the "Great"
revisionisms Those in tow have justified their actions under the cover of the
"Great" revisionist theses and political positions. From this point
of view, the events of the last thirty years, have considerably shuffled the
deck of cards, spreading a wide confusion. Since 1963 especially, tens of new
parties and organisations have arisen. These have held as part of their
'mandate", a stated opposition against Khrushchev and the traditional
parties around the Communist Party of France and the USSR. We must give up
attacking and pointing out Khruschevism as an enemy, because this enemy is too
easily visible. It does not assist us in the purpose of demarcation any longer.
Generally speaking, two poles, at
different moments, and to differing degrees, have served to legitimise
anti-revisionist initiatives : The Chinese Communist party, and the Party of
Labour of Albania. Today these two parties equally, are the starting point of
our history, not as living forces, but as actors in an ultimate and supreme
struggle between revisionism (as represented by the Chinese) - and
Marxism-Leninism (as represented by the Albanians). Each one of these actors
were incarnated as a party in power.
As far as our own country of struggle, in
France, it seems indispensable to us, to combine the study of the grand
currents of revisionism with the analysis of the failures of both the
Marxist-Leninists, and of those who since 1963, mask themselves as
Marxist-Leninists and use '~Marxist-Leninist arguments", whether or not
their respective organisation are now dead or not. It is obvious that this work
must go beyond the borders of France, in so far as these organisations and
parties have formed international contacts. And it is also indispensable to
study the French Communist Party, identified since 1920 as a communist party.
Patrick KESSEL
- Centre d'Etude sur le Mouvement Ouvrier et Paysan International (CEMOPI),
Corresponding address for CEMOPI: 4, Rue D'Arcole, 72000, Le Mans, France.
END OF ISSUE NUMBER
3; 1997.
Originally sold $ 6.00 - 63 pages- copies still available; apply to contact
address.