The “renewal” of the WPP between 2004 and 2008 is ideologically and politically based on “The Resolution of 1999”. NON-agreeing with that resolution could be one of the reasons of being expelled out of the party as the by Boudewijn Deckers leaded installed leadership in 2004 argued against Nadine Rosa-Rosso and Luk Vervaet.
Now, in the “in memoriam” texts and speeches, the ACTUAL leadership is insinuating and suggesting that Ludo Martens was the main-responsible for that “Resolution of 1999”. Or that he AGREED with the political and ideological line of that text.
The political bureau of the WPB wrote:
“What is perhaps less known is that Ludo himself has put the first stone for the serious party-renewal. In 1999, before he went to Congo, he made after de bad election-result an elaborated document about the profound sectarism in the party. The party must get rid of “always knowing better” and the “pedant pointing finger”, was his opinion, and has to become a modern open party without denying her principles. It is that renewal which between 2004 and 2008 is more profoundly worked out and is accepted on the party-congress in 2008. In the period afterwards the party tripled her membership to 4.5000 members.[1]”
And the actual WPB-president Peter Mertens said in an interview:
“Ludo was a revolutionary. Ludo was noting much. He noted what the people told him. Always noting. Nothing allow getting lost (...) And Ludo was really listening. He wrote it down. He took people serious (...) It is so that the party-renewal has started. In 1999. We were with the elections again walked against the wall. And that opened the debate. What had to change in the party? Hoe we have to overcome deep-rooted mistakes? How can we become a party which has really influence on the things? We have, on advice of Ludo, spoken with 470 people. And the first, who read all that material, was Ludo himself. He has taken it very serious. And our co-operators said: away with that pedant pointing finger, away with dogmatism, away to thing in black-white, away from sectarism. Becoming a party which has really influence on things. A flexible, open party. But also a party fix to principles.[2]”
With the ACTUAL orientation on a program of REFORMS, Ludo Martens certainly would not agree! In a book, which is been always promoted as a PARTY-document (so as a collective point of view of the whole party) “From Tien An Men until Timisoara – struggle and debates within the WPB” he wrote about the limits of the propagation of reforms by the vanguard-party in the class-struggle.
Now, from 2004, the WPB is propagating radical national income redistributing reforms as they should be the most radical possible program-points of the class-struggle. This was NEVER the point of view of Ludo Martens.
“The Marxist-Leninist doctrine underlines four essential aspects of democratic reforms under capitalism. They are in the first place the result of popular struggle; in the second place they are granted to deceive the masses and to push them in reformist direction; in the third place is every democratic measure limited, incomplete en can in any moment again been cancelled and finally the revolutionaries can use the bourgeois democracy to propagate the necessity of the socialist revolution and in this way she can play a positive role.[3]”
In the SAME text Ludo was warning for a revisionist orientation when just focussing on the struggle for “possible” democratic reforms.
“It is useful to study the class-position of revisionists who openly stepped into the imperialist camp: they have cancelled class-analysis and the principle of the class-struggle, as well in the imperialist as in the socialist society. They are for all communists the teachers by negative example.
The still remaining members of the Belgian Communist Party are confirming that Lenin was wrong to speak about bourgeois democracy and proletarian democracy; that the democratic rights in the West were fully and only the result of the struggle of the workers-movement and that it was not correct to name them bourgeois and that the extension of the existing democracy will lead without revolution to socialism. "[4]
And as can be proved that behind the argumentation of “The party must get rid of ‘always knowing better’ and the ‘pedant pointing finger’ “, in fact was hidden “get rid of the (Bolshevik) principle of the working-class-vanguard organisation” it is a LIE to say “it was Ludo’s opinion”.
And “insinuating” or “suggesting” that Ludo Martens was in fact putting the first stone of the party-renewal between 2004 and 2008, by being the author of “Resolution of 1999”, or that he fully approved its political and ideological line, is MISLEADING members, sympathisers or further public. It is a form of NECROFILIE!
About the insinuation of the authorship of Ludo Martens of a text about the elections of 1999
So I come now to the famous Resolution of 1999. The main orientation is to be found in its first lines:
« Of: Central Committee 7th august 1999
To: Until the level of the delegates of the provincial congress
Part. nr: 1770.899
Resolution of the Central Committee about the election campaign
Part. nr: 1770.899
Resolution of the Central Committee about the election campaign
1. It is not normal that we are stagnating today, after thirty year of permanent presence on the domain, ten years after the climax of the anticommunist campaign, after the most important movements of mass struggle that Belgium was knowing out of his history, after that we were militating in all the movements of struggle and after what was perhaps the best election campaign out of our own history. Therefore we have to conclude that the elections formed a big political defeat for the party, were mistakes emerged that we were carry along already many years.
2. All the conclusions that we can make, analysing the elections, are already in « Party of the revolution ». We have to analyse why we were not capable to rectify and even not to assimilate what a Congress has decided, based on the centralising of many reports and notes. That is posing the problem of the ideological struggle for the real unifying through the implementation of the decisions in the concrete practice.
3. Are the causes of this defeat first of all intern or extern? Is the most important mistake made by the party of is the problem, the level of consciousness of the masses? « The result has nothing to do with the mistakes of the party, but it express the actual political level of the masses»
4. We are the most important target of all bourgeois, petty bourgeois and opportunist powers. To the outside, it is in our interest to underline the following: the unified party of capital is struggling against the unified party of the workers.
5. But intern and on the level of the cadres we have to say that our intern mistakes are the most important, because with these same enemies, after all our political activities of the past four years, we had normally had doing better. Franco D’Orazio: « the defeat of the WPB is serious. With all members that you have, this result means that you have a serious problem. »
6. Saying that our bad result has nothing to do with the mistakes of the party, is putting his head in the sand, is sectarism, bureacratism, justifying the lack of capacity to bring forward a simple revolutionary understandable message. Not going to the base of things, in the analysis of our mistakes, is the biggest danger. Since the 5th congress, years have been passing by and we have little rectified…. »
2. All the conclusions that we can make, analysing the elections, are already in « Party of the revolution ». We have to analyse why we were not capable to rectify and even not to assimilate what a Congress has decided, based on the centralising of many reports and notes. That is posing the problem of the ideological struggle for the real unifying through the implementation of the decisions in the concrete practice.
3. Are the causes of this defeat first of all intern or extern? Is the most important mistake made by the party of is the problem, the level of consciousness of the masses? « The result has nothing to do with the mistakes of the party, but it express the actual political level of the masses»
4. We are the most important target of all bourgeois, petty bourgeois and opportunist powers. To the outside, it is in our interest to underline the following: the unified party of capital is struggling against the unified party of the workers.
5. But intern and on the level of the cadres we have to say that our intern mistakes are the most important, because with these same enemies, after all our political activities of the past four years, we had normally had doing better. Franco D’Orazio: « the defeat of the WPB is serious. With all members that you have, this result means that you have a serious problem. »
6. Saying that our bad result has nothing to do with the mistakes of the party, is putting his head in the sand, is sectarism, bureacratism, justifying the lack of capacity to bring forward a simple revolutionary understandable message. Not going to the base of things, in the analysis of our mistakes, is the biggest danger. Since the 5th congress, years have been passing by and we have little rectified…. »
The whole resolution is going out of the idea: « When a communist party is participating in elections, than the election - result, makes a conclusion about the working of the party and her members IN GENERAL ». So a bad result in the election, for example less votes than the elections before, is saying: « the party is working badly »……and a better result, and perhaps chosen delegates say: « the party and her members are working in a good way. » So having good elections results would decide about the correct functioning of the revolutionary communist party! The objective, having as much votes (or chosen delegates) as is possible, decide about the political line, the organisation criteria and the guidelines for each member.
But these conclusions, about which is said: « they are already all in ’Party of the Revolution’ » are only to justify with a specific PART of « Party of the Revolution » ……namely:
Chapter III, part 3, « fighting bureacratism, strengthen the bounds with the masses».
Perhaps you are saying: « Nico you are seeing ghosts! » OK, I will prove this statement.
In 2003 the WPB participated again in an election. In the analysis of the results, the leadership of the WPB spoke about « a debacle ». It resulted in an « intern crisis-situation ». The whole history I will analyse later. But there was a resolution made by the leadership of the WPB (in fact of a kind of interim-leadership - installed by themselves and NOT elected on a congress) in 2004: « Resolution about the former general secretary Nadine Rosa-Rosso and the former cadre-responsible Luk Vervaet, 5th of April 2004 »
In this “Resolution” is written:
In this “Resolution” is written:
« In March 1999 the Central Committee accepted a resolution against leftism, also against her[5] conceptions. The Resolution of June 1999 is making up the balance of the past election-campaign.
Point 1 says: « We have to say that the elections were a big political defeat for the party, in which we see mistakes that we are carry along already many years. »
Point 2 says: « We have to study again « Party of the Revolution », ‘chapter III, part 3: fighting bureacratism, strengthen the bounds with the masses’.
Probably are all big points of balance about the elections already in this. »
Point 1 says: « We have to say that the elections were a big political defeat for the party, in which we see mistakes that we are carry along already many years. »
Point 2 says: « We have to study again « Party of the Revolution », ‘chapter III, part 3: fighting bureacratism, strengthen the bounds with the masses’.
Probably are all big points of balance about the elections already in this. »
And then in a note by this paragraph « We are quoting here the original version of this point like it was distributed to the members of the CC, just after the CC of June 1999. In the version distributed to all party-members the phrase pointing at « Party of the Revolution, chapter III, part 3 » was replaced by a phrase pointing at « Party of the Revolution »in general .»
So there was in 1999 a cadre (influenced by opportunism) who made a project-resolution that has to be discussed before distributing to the whole party. The CC criticised not the global line of this project-resolution, they just make the remark: « We have to say that we are basing ourselves on the whole of congress-documents and not jus on one document out of a whole. » And so only that phrase was changed (that proved that the whole resolution was indeed based on ONLY chapter III, part 3).
And that resolution had to be assimilated by all the members….
Further in Resolution of 1999 is said: « It is adventurism and activism to intervene in the ‘riots’ (mend is the riots of the young “allochtones”, children of migrant-parents, Nico) when we have no line to enter the environments of the young migrants, » While this statement in line with chapter III, part 3 of « Party of the Revolution » is in CONTRADICTION with another document of that same 5th congress were it said:
« Practice is the starting point and is staying in the central attention of the activity of the party. We lack often initiative, that can mobilise the masses, that lames the cadres by endless discussions about « the line ».
We can endless discuss with some petty bourgeois about « the criminality among young migrants » and even work out « a line about this ». But to what lead this? What is the use of all this? To which practice does it lead? It is better to organise activists who accept to work under young migrants, to bring them an alternative for drugs and little criminality and give them formation about the relation between drugs, capitalism and repression… (…)
Which attitude do we have against what the bourgeoisie calls « the riots oft the young immigrants »? Of course we accuse the filthy reactions in the media. But that is what every petty bourgeois can do. The communists throw themselves in the practice and in the struggle, at the side of the most oppressed masses. Our most important just has to be, to help them to organise themselves for to struggle, offer resistance, to let the world know about their situation and their points of view, and to get a socialist consciousness. Our most important task is not "work out the line" to give an answer to petty bourgeois, but at the other hand to work out a policy for the practice among the oppressed. The spontaneous reactions of some members and cadres are coloured by prejudges. »
We can endless discuss with some petty bourgeois about « the criminality among young migrants » and even work out « a line about this ». But to what lead this? What is the use of all this? To which practice does it lead? It is better to organise activists who accept to work under young migrants, to bring them an alternative for drugs and little criminality and give them formation about the relation between drugs, capitalism and repression… (…)
Which attitude do we have against what the bourgeoisie calls « the riots oft the young immigrants »? Of course we accuse the filthy reactions in the media. But that is what every petty bourgeois can do. The communists throw themselves in the practice and in the struggle, at the side of the most oppressed masses. Our most important just has to be, to help them to organise themselves for to struggle, offer resistance, to let the world know about their situation and their points of view, and to get a socialist consciousness. Our most important task is not "work out the line" to give an answer to petty bourgeois, but at the other hand to work out a policy for the practice among the oppressed. The spontaneous reactions of some members and cadres are coloured by prejudges. »
This is jut one example (I will perhaps, when there should be discussion further analyse the Resolution of 1999) that led to my conclusion that the political line of Resolution of 1999 is that of opportunism coming out of (on of) the 5th congress documents; and is in contradiction with the revolutionary line, ALSO in the documents of the 5th congress.[6]
Ludo made a totally other analyse of the elections of 1999 than is written in “Resolution of 1999”.
I want just give her an ALTERNATIVE analyse about the elections of 1999, a more consequent communist and Marxist analyse, that of Ludo Martens, who was apparently not followed by the rest of the leadership of the WPB… not in 1999 and not in 2004 or in 2008!
In Solidair nr. 24 • 16 June 1999. Ludo Martens: We don’t strive after easy victories.
A short speech of Ludo Martens in Brussels on a WPB-meeting
« In 1979, by the founding of the WPB, Kabila was here. He was sought by the police of Mobuto and had to hide himself.
In Zaire it was impossible for him to let the massed know of his program. He had not any possibility to mobilise the masses for his just cause. He had no public that he could convince. Mobutu and his mates had all the state power in their hands and their blind violence caused hundred of thousands of deaths. At the same time they worked with a devilish demagogy. Those elements are going together.
This is a characteristic of fascism. Hitler had Goebbels. Several months before the war, in 1939, he still organised with his Nazi-party a « peace-congress ».
Today we see how the whole imperialist world gets more and more characteristics of fascism.
With blind violence Yugoslavia has been bombed, and is presented to us as a humanitarian intervention to save the peace.
Imperialism is breaking today with all rules of the international justice. Nine year ago they attacked Iraq, in name of the international justice.
Who could imagine, twenty years ago, that the NATO, against al rules of international justice would start a most barbaric war of aggression in the heart of Europe?
The Congolese people have made innumerable sacrifices, under the 32 years of Mobutu-dictatorship, to choose finally to chase that individual with the weapons.
But before it was so far, they have seen pass al kinds of liars and demagogues. You cannot predict when the people have enough of all those lies and violence of the bourgeoisie. Those who strive for easy victories find what they want in the bourgeois parties and are doing just that what the bourgeoisie is asking them to do.
Just by the beginning Agalev[7] has taken that road and today that party is a speaking-tube of the big bourgeoisie and of imperialism. Hopefully they get into the government. Everybody will see that in no way they dare to attack the fundaments of this unjust society, of capitalism and imperialism.
The WPB has led an outstanding campaign. In that spirit we have to go yet more to the masses, place ourselves on their level and convince them of the necessity to organise themselves and to fight. We have to have confidence in the fact that the masses one day will have enough experience to see the criminal nature of the economic system that is exploiting and suffocating the world. »
[1] http://www.pvda.be/weekblad/artikel/ter-nagedachtenis-van-ludo-martens-1946-2011.html
[2] …http://www.pvda.be/nieuws/artikel/peter-mertens-ludo-martens-was-een-revolutionair.html , 27 June 2011 11:29, “ Peter Mertens: “Hij had de wijsheid niet in pacht, hij ging ernaar op zoek”.
[3] "Van Tien An Men tot Timisoara - strijd en debatten binnen de PVDA (1989-1991)", Ludo Martens en PVDA-uitgaven 1994, p.
33.
[4] Idem.
[5] Pointing at Nadine Rosa Rosso, Secretary General (replacing the president of the WPB, Ludo Martens who was almost full-time working in Congo) of the WPB from 1995 until end 2003-begin 2004 when she was expelled out of the WPB. (Nico)
[6] It is typically that the book “Party of the revolution” which is a compilation of voted 5th congress-documents (of which the project-documents were written by DIFFERENT cadres and with apparently DIFFERENT class-positions) is now presented as a book written by Ludo Martens
[7] Agalev - Anders GAan LEVen, ‘to live in an alternative way’ was the name of the ecologist party in the Dutch-spoken part of Belgium.( Nico)
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten