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,