Blindness for development of revisionism in the International Communist Movement?

On the initiative of the KKE the “International Communist Review” was founded in 2001. In that year the 1^st Issue was made (and published on the website) Now is published on that same website the 2^nd Issue. As well in the 1^st as in the 2^nd Issue the first contribution is made by cadres of the WPB (PVDA/PTB) So one can say that the WPB is considered as an important contributor of valuable Marxist and COMMUNIST analyses. For me it is obvious that there exists a blindness to real revisionist developments as it happens before the eyes of themselves considering as watchful observers.

So is written in the EDITORIAL of the 2^nd Issue why this 2^nd ISSUE is so important:

“The second issue of the International Communist Review is published in a particularly crucial period of a deep capitalist economic crisis, in a period when the bourgeois attack on people’s rights escalates, the competition between monopolies and the inter-imperialist contradictions intensify. Under these conditions the discussion about socialism published in the following pages becomes particularly significant.
The historical era of transition from capitalism to socialism which was signalled by the great October Revolution in 1917 has not come to an end with the temporary defeat in the USSR and the other former socialist states in Europe. The October Socialist Revolution realised by the working class of Russia, under the guidance of the Bolshevik party, which was headed by Lenin, has been the greatest event in the 20th century and marked its beginning.
Capitalism in its imperialist stage, despite the immense wealth it accumulates in the hands of a small minority, cannot solve even a single problem of humanity. The necessity of socialism emerges from the very irreconcilable contradictions of the capitalist system, as a product of social development.
This revolutionary transition, which is necessary for the abolition of capitalist exploitation, cannot be accomplished through a series of reforms but though the revolutionary overthrow of capital’s power and the conquest of power by the working class in alliance with other popular strata; through the socialization of the concentrated means of production which are in the hands of monopolies. That is to say with the abolition of the private ownership of the concentrated means of production, the extension of socialist relations of production and of central planning in all the sectors of the economy begins, in this way the boundaries which capitalism imposed on the forces of production are successfully overcome.(...)
The Great October revolution and the socialist construction inspired the formation and development of the international communist movement. It accelerated the foundation of communist parties in many countries and led to the foundation of Third Communist International. (...)
The counterrevolution which broke out in 1989-1991 does not negate the historical importance of the October revolution, the contribution of the USSR, of socialism and the communist movement. The deep, critical, objective investigation of the course of socialism in the 20th century has nothing in common with the political and ideological downgrading of this historical period by the class enemy that seeks to rewrite history.
The analysis and recognition of revisionist views, which led to deviations during socialist construction in the USSR, is necessary for the correct and scientifically documented assessment of the causes that led to counterrevolution. It is essential for the strengthening of the ideological political struggle against opportunism which under the current conditions hides behind the slogan about the humanisation of capitalism arguing about “socialism with democracy” or about the “socialism of the 21st century”.(...)
The aim of this issue is to defend socialism through the further study of the historical experience as well as to repel aspects of the anti-communist attack. In our opinion, this effort can strengthen the ideological and political weapons of the communist parties in their struggle against bourgeois and opportunist positions.¹”

And as the WPB is still seen as a authentic revolutionary and communist party and the cadres of the WPB as serious Marxist ideologues, Herwig Lerouge can make the first analyse in this 2^nd Issue of the International Communist Review....

Hedwig Lerouge is very misty about the role of revisionism in the “liquidation of the socialist states”. He speaks not in terms of Reformism and Revisionism but about “Social Democracy'. And he is warning for a New Social Democracy, because the “”Old” Social Democracy is discredited:

“The Revolutionary October Legacy
No, the liquidation of the socialist states did not mean “progress towards freedom”, it was a counter-revolutionary process which overthrew the social and human conquests of the peoples of the East!
Today, the debate between the upholders of the revolutionary legacy of October and the supporters of a new variety of traditional Social Democracy is on the agenda. The traditional version of Social Democracy is more and more discredited in the working class. Some want to take its place by talking about “modern socialism”, a system in which it would not be necessary to socialize the means of production. They promise, without wanting to disturb the economic foundations of the system, an “advanced socialist alternative”, “peace”, “social justice”, “sustainable development”, which is what we all hope for.
Nevertheless, the multiple crisis in which capitalism finds itself offers opportunities and possibilities for socialism to be brought back to the centre of political debate. This is what Joseph Stiglitz, who resigned from his post as chief economist of the World Bank, had to admit: “(…) no crisis, especially one of this severity, recedes without leaving a legacy. And among this one’s legacies will be a worldwide battle over ideas – over what kind of economic system is likely to deliver the greatest benefit to the most people. Nowhere is that battle raging more hotly than in the Third World, among the 80 percent of the world’s population that lives in Asia, Latin America, and Africa (…). In much of the world (…) the battle between capitalism and socialism (…) still rages. (…) The former Communist countries generally turned, after the dismal failure of their post-war system, to market capitalism, replacing Karl Marx with Milton Friedman as their god. The new religion has not served them well. (…) Many countries may conclude not simply that unfettered capitalism, American-style, has failed but that the very concept of a market economy has failed, and is indeed unworkable under any circumstances.”²
Now that the most severe crisis in seventy years has hit us, it has to be said without any ambiguity: market economy, capitalism, does not work. It is not possible to create a version of it which would be exempt of crises, unemployment and wars. It can only be replaced through a socialist revolution, the socialization of the main means of production, political power for the workers, democracy for the greatest number.
The twentieth century will have been the century of the dress-rehearsal for the world socialist revolution. That experience, with its positive and negative aspects, allows the anti-capitalist forces to acquire a better understanding of the historical soundness of the principles of the October revolution. Indeed, faithfulness to Marxist-Leninist principles brought victories to the revolutionary forces all over the world in the first half of the twentieth century, while their progressive liquidation during the second half of that century has brought about bitter defeats at world level.³

Well you see that in the footnote that the Joseph Stigliz is quoted in a resolution of the National Comitee of the WPB. IN that resolution we read (I give the quote in French, without translation so they cannot say I am manipulation by a dubious translation):

“Face à la nouvelle vague d’austérité antisociale, il y a l’alternative 1-2-3 que le PTB met en avant depuis septembre 2009 : 1 milliard d’euros grâce à un impôt de crise sur les banques ; 2 milliards d’euros par la suppression des intérêts notionnels ; 3 milliards d’euros via la lutte contre la fraude fiscale. Mais pour le PTB, la priorité reste un réel plan d’urgence sociale avec, comme pierre angulaire, la taxe des millionnaires afin de créer de nouveaux emplois et de refinancer la sécurité sociale.
La question centrale, dans la période à venir, sera : Qui va payer la crise ? Il n’y a pas trois possibilités. Ce sera ou le monde du travail, ou les millionnaires. Et, avec la taxe des millionnaires, il s’agit d’un plan réel pour faire payer la crise aux riches. Elle fournira plus de 8 milliards d’euros et cet argent est d’une nécessité absolue. Elle montre clairement ce qu’est une mesure réelle et efficace contre le grand capital. Et c’est le contraire de demi-mesures symboliques qui ne servent que de paratonnerre contre les restrictions antisociales.
Les possibilités pour la taxe des millionnaires sont grandes. Il y a actuellement 10 417 fans de cette taxe. 5 015 de ces fans ont été rassemblés par le travail militant, les autres via Internet. La campagne ouvre l’horizon et insuffle toute une dynamique. La période qui nous attend sera difficile. Mais il ne sert à rien de se lamenter et de se plaindre. Il nous semble important précisément de faire pousser les germes du changement, aussi petits soient-ils. Chez Bayer et AB InBev, on est parvenu, en front commun syndical, a repousser pour l’instant les plans de grandes multinationales qui font des bénéfices. Et, malgré dix enterrements solennels orchestrés par certains médias, il s’est avéré que la résistance chez Opel n’était pas morte. Notre pays a une histoire sociale très riche qui, d’ici peu, sera mise en lumière lors de la commémoration du 100e anniversaire de la célébration du 1er mai dans notre pays, comme journée de lutte du monde du travail. Si nous pouvons associer la tradition de lutte sociale de notre propre histoire sociale au potentiel de résistance qui existe aujourd’hui, beaucoup de choses sont possibles. Et, dans ce cas, le monde du travail aura à nouveau « un monde à gagner. »⁴

So the Leadership of the WPB, of which Herwig Lerouge is part of, is propagating solutions within the the limitations of capitalism, without necessity of revolution or “expropriation of the expropriators”

In fact Herwig Lerouge, here considered as a “real Marxist ideologue” and cadre of a “real communist party giving here a “real good Marxist analyse” ,a CONSCIOUS REVISIONIST (a “renagade, Lenin would say)

He is responsible as a National cadre (of AMADA, the mother-organisation of the in 1979 founded WPB, and national cadre all-time of the WPB itself, which is - since 2004 but since 2008 official recognized - placed on the tracks of a “New Social Democratic Party against which Herwig Lerouge was “warning”.

In an analyse I made myself I explains how this could happen:

“About contradictions inside the WPB itself

In 2006 on the 15^th International Communist Seminar the point of view of the WPB was:

« Since its foundation, in 1885, the Parti Ouvrier Belge (POB), the (social democratic) Belgian Workers Party(BWP), has been characterized by its outrageous reformism.
The BWP was not a political party in the proper sense of the word. It was a conglomerate of political groups, trade unions, cooperatives, mutual insurance systems, choirs, circles of artists, athletes, etc.
At the start of the First World War, the total number of members paying their membership dues amounted to 600,000!
But the political groups in the proper sense that made part of the BWP counted only 13,000 members.
It's a most ingenious political system!

With 13,000 members, the reformist party had 600,000 families under its tight direction⁵»

How is it possible that on her 8^th congress in 2008 Peter Mertens, the new elected president of the WPB could declare:

" The renewed WPB will be in the coming period fixed to principles as also flexible (supple)(…)
In 1885 was founded the Belgian Workers Party. The BWP had certain socialist principles, but those were - special after the first election victory in 1894 - very quickly given up (…)
There came a great disgust against the deep going debate and against the socialist theory(…)
The characteristic properties of the capitalist system, the purpose of socialism, the long term interests of the working class…. It was all « forgotten » and sacrificed to the (real or) seemed advantages of the moment.(…)
The vision about the future of the society and about socialism vanished. (…)

While the BWP loosened the socialist principles, she loosened also the support to the ant colonist struggle… and let fall… the right of self-determination of the Congolese people⁶»

Peter, those « certain socialist principles » were they revolutionary principles or reformist principles?…or is there a third kind of principles…..?
In theMarxist Studies no 29 of March 1996 (see on marx.be) a dossier was made by cadres of the WPB about the BWP, warning against « harmful illusions » that « live by some workers and union-militants » that « at the end of the 19^th century the BWP was still socialist, even revolutionary ».

The BWP was « from the moment she was founded, through and through reformist »:

« It was one of the most moderated parties, if not the most moderated party of the Second International. A party that already on her founding congress in April 1885 refused to call herself ’socialist’. This name would frighten to much. It was a party that struggled against every revolutionary perspective and led a fierce struggle against every form of class struggle that she was not able to canalise. »

Peter, of what « socialist principles » are you speaking if the BWP even did not want to be IN NAME a socialist party?

How is it possible that a communist party, were once the majority of the communist members and cadres once take a clear position against reformism, accepted on her 8^th congress in 2008 a position that is PROTECTING reformism? ⁷

This revisionism is NOT detected in the ICS and probably not on the ECM although one could say that the line of the KKE in fact OPPOSED that of the WPB.

Read what I wrote in an Article about ECM which was organised on 1^st and 2^nd October 2012 about two lines OPPOSING each other but by which until now no struggle is organised

KKE about political line of WPB(PVDA/PTB): “Opportunism, which we have to defeat!”

On 1 and 2 October the KKE organised a European Communist Meeting. I made my comment about the initiative itself (here), I commented the “contribution” of the WPB (PVDA/PTB) here and the (at least those in English) contributions of some of the participating parties here.
I think at the end one can detect a contradiction between the attempt to develop (with discussion, study and ideological struggle) a revolutionary strategy (as the KKE for example is doing, but also some other parties in the ECM.....) and the attempt to submit the parties of the ECM to a REFORMIST “strategy (using some existing points of opportunism in a pseudo-Marxist reasoning).(Read further here)

Summary about the coup of 2004 in the WPB to which ALL “old” cadres are guilty....also Herwig Lerouge.
I wrote this “summary” in the in the analyse I made about the “official” In Memoriam which the leadership of the WPB published about the late Ludo Martens (former President of the WPB)

The creation of myths by the actual leadership of the WPB (PVDA/PTB) after the cremation of Ludo Martens

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. (Read further here)

I hope that serious internal discussion in the KKE, can free the party of (by some dogmatism induced) blindness for revisionist development in the international communist movement.

1http://www.iccr.gr/site/en/issue2/editorial.html, EDITORIAL

2Joseph Stiglitz, “Wall Street’s Toxic Message”, Vanity Fair, July 2009 http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/07/third-world-debt200907; cited in La crise, les restrictions et les germes du changement, Résolution du Conseil national du PTB, 15 March 2010, http://www.ptb.be/fileadmin/users/nationaal/download/2010/03/crise.pdf

3http://www.iccr.gr/site/en/issue2/how-the-october-revolution-and-the-soviet-union-contributed-to-the-labour-movement-in-western-europe-and-more-particularly-in-belgium.html, “How the October Revolution and the Soviet Union contributed to the labour movement in Western Europe, and more particularly in Belgium”, Herwig Lerouge

4La crise, les restrictions et les germes du changement, Résolution du Conseil national du PTB, 15 mars 2010 PTB, Éditions du PTB (Parti du Travail de Belgique) Boulevard M. Lemonnier 171, 1000 Bruxelles www.ptb.be • ptb@ptb.be • 02 504 01 12 Ed. resp. : Marie-Rose Eligius, boulevard M. Lemonnier

5Contribution to the 15th International Communist Seminar , "Present and past experiences in the international communist movement". Brussels, 5- 7 May 2006, The Communist International and the Belgian Communist Party, Workers' Party of Belgium, Juliette Broder and Ludo Martens

6 In the congress documents (published on the website of the WPB - pvda.be or ptb.be)of the 8^th congress in februari 2008

7“anti-capitalism not being anti-imperialism is reformism.pdf” on https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8UoQVLZKKQvMzA5NTIzZDgtMzRiMC00OTZmLTg0OTQtOWFiNWViYzhlNzI1/edit?hl=en&pli=1