Will the WPB/PVDA/PTB join the accusation that the KKE is (still) not free of 'Chruchov-Breznjevian “left”-formulated, revisionism'?(2)

On a Spanish website “La Mancha Obrere appeared a review of an article written about an article of a cadre of the KKE.

An interesting article from our regular contributor and translator Alexandre Garcia, who has
been published on several blogs, including that of the Association of Hispano-Soviet Friendship, and on La Mancha Obrera, (...)The intention of the article was to argue with the position of KKE, the Communist Party of Greece taken on the current and historical role of the Chinese Revolution, which triumphed in 1949, and the character of the Republic Popular, in (...) the article of Comrade Elisseos Vanegas, responsible for international relations of the KKE, "The international role of China" (...)
(T)he article does also (...) counter the harsh criticism of the KKE to the Chinese Revolution and its leaders,(...)A number of communist parties of "pro-Soviet" inspiration and blind obedience to Moscow, have passed from the "rightist opportunist" chruchevist-gorbachovianism to a "dogmatic leftism" that imposes an "iron corset" of class struggle on the policy of alliances, which would reduce this (...) to an international policy of "everything is imperialism". So is put to a same level, the traditional imperialist Axis (U.S., EU and Japan) the so-called BRICS (Brazil, Russia, China and South Africa) which limit the emerging field of action of this Axis,The party at the head of this new trend within the International Communist Movement (ICM) would be the Communist Party of Greece, according to Garcia, wanting to impose it on the MCI as a new "Party-Guide." (...)However despite having made criticism of its support for the Soviet revisionism, mainly from the XX Congress of the CPSU, Garcia argues that the KKE reproduces the same behavior of the CPSU of Khrushchev and Brezhnev with a "leftist" speech. These behaviors can be seen reflected, according to the article, in KKE's claim to be recognized as "Party-Guide" internationally and in reproducing the same charges as the Soviet revisionists poured against the Chinese Revolution.It is a (...) controversial (....)article and performs open and incisive criticism.1

It SEEMS just only, that here is drawn attention of “an interesting article”, but a judgement is already made for the reader who has not yet red the article of the KKE-cadre Vagenas: “Counter the harsh criticism of the KKE to the Chinese Revolution and its leaders
Well, the article of comrade Vagenas, you can find (and read) HERE
The analyse of Alexandré Garcia you can find (and read - it is in Spanish) HERE.
Well to me, what is concerning the article of comrade Vagenas, it is NOT the final and to the ICM imposing judgment of the KKE about the “current and historical role of the Chinese revolution”, as is said in the review of its “critical analysis” here above. It is an analyse of the ACTUAL CONCRETE character of China. Read my article about it HERE.

But what is then the real content of the analyse of Alexandré Garcia and the value of his critics?
Remark: the analysis is written in Spanish and I translated the quotes in English.
In the introduction Alexandré Garcia is already setting the tone...:
"The article of comrade Vagenas, very critical about China, shows us that the leadership of the KKE is trapped in old soviet concepts about China, which were developed originally in the climax of the crisis in de international communist movement which was in the second half of the XXst century and which resulted in a politic scission between de Communist Party of the Soviet Union (PCUS) and the Communist Party of China (PCCh). In order to say it with other words, the leadership of the KKE is proving that she has not broken, for the most important part, with the chruchovist and brezhnjevian conceptions about China, which is something contradictory with the Marxist-Leninist character, free from ideological deviations which she is declaring herself often."2

Instead that the author would write: "My opinion is,.... and I will argument this in this analysis..." he is proposing his opinion, his IDEA already as a (historical) FACT. This is not a materialist way but an idealist way of doing: proposing an IDEA as a FACT.
Further in the "introduction" the author is blaming the KKE of all kind of sins, without proof, without even quoting the article of comrade Vagenas(the only quote given is:"One of the “lessons” of the counterrevolution in the Soviet Union is that communists should not have accepted unquestioningly whatever the CPSU said."
The result is that a reader of the analysis of Alexandré Garcia is not very motivated to read the article of Vagenas.
....But all the blaming is about what is in the head of Aleandré Garcia, while he was reading the article of Vagenas
And he is producing a lot of blaming not linked anymore with the CONCRETE article of Vagenas but just what he, Alexandré Garcia, is THINKING what is the problem.
The quote, given by Alexandré Garcia in the context of a LARGER quote, out of the article of comrade Vagenas gives a whole different image:

The rise of a new global power, China, has provoked a great deal of interest from analysts and ordinary workers all over the world. This interest is even more intense amongst politicized people, who understand the era of social revolutions which began with October 1917 in Russia and which led to a series of important socio-political struggles and revolutions in the entire world, among them the Chinese revolution. The interest concerning the rise in China’s power is contradictory, as the increase of its power is taking place under the red flag and with the CP of China in power.
Nevertheless, one of the “lessons” of the counterrevolution in the Soviet Union is that communists should not have accepted unquestioningly whatever the CPSU saidbut that every CP, while remaining true to the principle of proletarian internationalism, should study with its own resources the developments, the experience of the international communist movement and must attempt to form its own opinion concerning these things, utilizing Marxist-Leninist theory as its tool. The KKE reserves its right of criticism within the international communist movement with the aim of strengthening it and the strategy of the communists. The KKE confronts deviations from the principles of Marxism-Leninism and the laws of socialist construction, while maintaining bilateral relations with communist parties which have different approaches.
On this basis the KKE, while it continues to maintain bilateral relations with the CP of China, systematically follows developments and forms its own assessments which it expresses both publicly and to the CPC. As is well-known, the KKE already from its 17th Congress (2005) noted the expansion of capitalist relations in China. In the period since then this tendency has been reinforced and is even more evident.3

Further he seems to quote Vagenas when he put "horror story" in the same way he cite a quote (between "...")
Well Vagenas is not saying anywhere "horror story" in his text. But for the one who has not yet read the text of Vagenas it SEEMS that what Alexandré Garcia says is true:

"Vagenas is describing in a metaphysical way only talking about a “horror story” in China, about supposed crimes and sins while attributing those to the PCCh in the past and in the present and how insufficient Chinese socialism is for comrade Vagenas...a model of socialism posing it in a maniacal way against the socialist construction in the Soviet Union as if both experiences, the Soviet one and the Chinese one were another expression of "good" and "bad". The proof of this is that in whole his article, comrade Vagenas is incapable to say just one positive thing which would be come as a result out of the revolution of 1949. Is that a way of "analysing" as a Marxist?"4

And then, using the limited quote here above "by the given quote one has to understand that comrade Vagenas want to say that we have neither "have to accept" (so quoting the limited quote in a even more limited way) whatever the PCCh could say. But this is not taking in account that the moment that Mao Zedong died and that Deng Xiaoping came to power there is not existing any other important communist organisation that could be the "party-speaker" instead of the PCCh as the KKE did in the second half of the 20th century when she "not had to accept" the statements of soviet-revisionism."5
Then Alexandré Garcia is in a very subjective way, describing which communist parties were not tending to have relations with the PCCh and which parties still were having relations with the PCCh, "also after coming to power of Deng" for then to come to a very tendentious position "It is a fact that those Marxists who recognized the undoubtedly positive role of Mao Zedong in the past and who defend more or less actual China and the political decisions of Deng Xiaoping are very few and exceptional. they are like I said the rare exceptions in the international communist movement, as for example the WPB/PVDA/PTB and the CP(ml) of Great Brittain with leader Harpal Brar."6
The purpose of the text is in fact as Alexandré himself is writing:

In this text I will try to refute some of the accusations which comrade Vagenas lanced against China and against the PCCh, accusations which come forth from a world-vision far away from dialectical materialism, the scientific base of Marxism. This initiative seems to me to be necessary, certainly when apart from lancing serious accusations against China which in last instance only will benefit imperialism, Vagenas in his article permits himself to say such blunders as “China is member from the UNO from its foundation” (sic) difficult to believe to come from a communist cadre.(...)Some of the admirers of the KKE, out of fanaticism or just out of extreme ignorance, adoring their leaders because of their attacks on China, without doing an effort to read other analyses which are more objective and less unilateral or without doing an effort to document himself about the history of China and the PCCh.7

Well, in fact in the WHOLE text ONLY CONCRETELY refuted is the statement of Vagenas (which is probably indeed mistaken) “China is member from the UNO from its foundation”. For the rest is the text of Alexandré Garcia an argumentation in an attempt to prove that the KKE has not liberate herself totally from “Chruchovist-Brezhnjevian revisionism”.
....therefore he can only CONCLUDE his text of 45 pages with:

It will be in the (next) second part that I will refute or oppose a lot of affirmations which Elisseos Vagenas made in his article, precisely about the “capitalist” and “imperialist” character (he however is not daring to say it with those words) of China; the class-nature of the economical politic of the PCCh; the commercial relations of China with countries of the so called “third world”, and in general her diplomatic relations with the rest of the countries/nations of the world and the role of China in the two wars of the Vietnamese people for its liberation. I will not forget to mention the attack of China “lanced against Vietnam” in february 1979.8

So we have to wait to the CONCRETE arguments opposing the CONCRETE statements and positions of Elisseos Vagenas with which Alexandré then can prove that the KKE has not liberate herself totally from “Chruchovist-Brezhnjevian revisionism”.

Defending China”
Alexandré is further answering a question which he is expecting: “Why waiting 3 years before answering and criticising the analyse of Vagenas?”, an answer which he is “introducing with:

“It is just in the last three years that I am realising the great importance of defending the Peoples Republic of China.(....) It is the essential task of every communist to defend socialism or if someone prefers the remains of socialism still existing in China. A task you cannot try to escape from, (....) although a lot of Western “communists” has done, by dogmatism, by ignorance or by cowardice or simple because they have been stayed in their houses without knowing what to do while the stones of the Berlin wall were falling on their heads – before to re-begin with political activity during the recent years with an ultra-revolutionary phraseology;(...) But I can not resist to say today that with a lot of ultra-revolutionary reasoning China is blamed not to stick to a socialism which is not so pure as they want it to be, so hiding that during the nineties this type of dogmatic opportunism not was able to resist the enormous anticommunist pressure that the NATO-regimes was putting on them.”9

Finally the author is coming back on answering the question he expects: “Why did he wait 3 years...?

“The writing of this analysis was a long period not a priority, for reason of “militant discipline” it was not possible to undertake this type of initiative.(...) Now I have the chance to defend China against those attacks of which it is submitted. And not only coming out of those “pro-soviet” sectors (the KKE and similar parties) but also coming out of other currents, as just those Maoists against which the leadership of the KKE so pretend to oppose, as are also the Hoxhists and the Trotskyites.(...) all having a common denominator, which is a dogmatic-revisionist concept of Marxist-Leninism. All the practical conclusions of the Hoxshistes, Maoists and chruchov-breznjevian in relation with China are not different in any way of those of the Trotskyites.”10

Alot of the rest of the 45 pages is treating a (historical) review of revisionism in order to prove the “analogue” revisionism of Vagenas (and the KKE-leadership)
I retake now just those parts in which directly is referred to the article of Vagenas.

II. Dogmatic-revisionism
(....)When I use this term, it is only to characterise the world-vision which is predominating the article of comrade Vagenas, in the first place in respect with his attitude towards China. (...) the lecture of the article of comrade Vagenas leads to the conclusion that he has in reality not break away completely with revisionism that was installed in the communist parties of the “pro-soviet”-orientation from the moment of the Xxth Congress of the PCSU, as we will see further. Formally, the leadership of the KKE corrected certain error-theses which she inherited from the period of “suivism” towards the PCSU, in fact she had not broken with the metaphysical and sclerotic concept of Marxism-Leninism which characterised Chruchov and Brezhnjev. Something you can notice perfectly in the article of comrade Vagenas.(...)
In the Xxth Congress of the PCSU, in which the group of Chruchov seized the power, and clearly in opposition with the former politic ruled by Stalin (...) happened to be a complete and unilateral negation of Stalin, who was judged to be a despotic and criminal leader, to whom blasphemous and unfounded accusations were lanced. Something similar did comrade Vagenas towards the Peoples Republic of China.(....)

Again, no concrete reference (beside sometimes VERY limited quotes, sometimes just several words) is made of the text of Vagenas. Only SUBJECTIVE judgements, which the author wants to submit the reader:” the lecture of the article of comrade Vagenas leads to the conclusion that....the KKE had not broken with the metaphysical and sclerotic concept of Marxism-Leninism which characterised Chruchov and Brezhnjev....etc 11

“During the contra-revolution in the Soviet Union, the KKE had first a consequent attitude of not renouncing to Marxist-Leninism and the strategical objective of the socialist revolution....(...) She was capable to see in the errors of the Xxth Congress (and later Congresses) of the PCSU the reasons of the revisionist degeneration which lead to the restoring of capitalism.(....)(She) has not totally broken with her past of “suivism” to the chruchoviste PCSU. And this what for a big part explains certain positions of comrade Vagenas in his article. (...) The leadership of the KKE continues to share the same root idealistic metaphysics which characterized the revisionism of Khrushchev and Brezhnev.(...)
That is why, when fighting against right revisionism, and all that is associated with it (either reformism, Postmodernism, Social-Democracy, etc..), the parties like the KKE have taken this fight but from the metaphysical reverse side of revisionism right, ie, in the "left" way, what Lenin described as childhood disease of communism.
In this way (...) they step to the other side and undertook the struggle “from the left”, not noticing that they were falling into other revisionism, this time that from “the left”.Like it happened in the past with revisionists type Brezhnjev, this revisionism of “left” is far from reality and is deceiving her militant bases with an abstract and sterile phraseology based on formulating a number of quotes out of the Marxist-Leninist classics. (...) The whole article of comrade Vagenas is soaked with this revisionism “from the left” characterised by a pseudo-radical phraseology.”12

WITHOUT any concrete proof, we have to accept the “analysis” of Alexandré Garcia, of the KKE and accept (WITHOUT any quote of a representative part of the text of comrade Vagenas) the “conclusion”:”The whole article of comrade Vagenas is soaked with this revisionism “from the left” characterised by a pseudo-radical phraseology.”

“Today, the leadership of the KKE understands that, (...) it is not possible that the working class takes the political power without a “violent revolution”, as she likes to say it.She understands that that she may not underestimate the forces of the reaction and that the communist party always had to be prepared to organise the proletarian revolution in order to take over the bourgeois power. (...) But by believing in this principle, going to a overestimation of the danger of the bourgeois reaction, (...) the KKE and allied parties have come to a obsessive fixation what is concerning the reformist forces, the eurocommunistes, the “green” and not-proletarian in general, almost considering them as the principal enemy, and see in all those popular, spontaneous movements (....), conspiracies of the bourgeoisie in order to sabotage her struggle (even where such related parties have zero popular support in their respective countries)This exaggeration of the capacity of influence of reformism in the workers movement (which in reality only serves for the excuse of the ineffectiveness and/or the lack of influence of certain communist parties, being so “pure”) is to understand in the case of comrade Vagenas in the international arena, as when in his article he accuses China not more or less to “capture the workers movement” (....) or drawn from a hat even accusations that the CCP calls on Communist parties "to forget class struggle" as if the CCP does not have enough problems in her own country.(...)Today, the KKE leadership knows that Khrushchevite thesis of "state of the whole people" was a cover to hide the growing class differences in the Soviet Union. Today she understand that the proletarian dictatorship is fundamental in whole the period of socialist construction in order to assure the passage to communism. But in her desire to restore this Marxist-Leninist thesis, the KKE leadership goes to the other end and, as can be seen in the article Elisseos Vagenas, where in the absence of "socialist purity" of countries like China and Vietnam, they could not make a carbon copy of the Soviet experience, he denies them the status of socialist countries and even the class character of their states. In the absence of all dialectical thinking, comrade Vagenas is not capable to recognise the existence of socialist elements in those countries.”13

But the author is not opposing, with arguments, the conclusions in the analysis of Vagenas that TODAY China is not anymore a socialist country but a capitalist country, is not anymore a proletarian dictatorship, but a bourgeois dictatorship.....and as capitalist state in can not by anything other than IMPERIALIST (being the actual stage in which global capitalism is). The “existing of socialist elements” in China which Alexandré Garcia seems to recognise is NOT a proof of anything,...and AS Alexandré Garcia is using it as proving argument for the conclusion that China is (still) socialist instead of to be turned into capitalism, he is practicing METAPHYSICS.

“Also add the legacy hatred of the Khrushchev-Brezhnev era to certain “pro-Soviet” communists who react with petty bourgeois hysteria before (even positive) progress and developments in China, who also deny her condition as socialist country , still accused to be "nationalist" and even "imperialist".Moreover, while Khrushchev refused to recognise the inevitability of imperialist war, and trusted in the "common sense" and in the benevolence of the leaders of imperialism, the KKE leadership today understands that war is inevitable under imperialism, in the same way it tends to reaction and always try to ruthlessly destroy the socialist countries. But where beautification of imperialism and idealization of its leaders are characteristics of Khrushchev revisionism, the KKE leadership was passed to the other extreme and now sees war threats everywhere and sees evil “imperialist” intentions in any aspect of the policy trade and diplomacy of a number of countries that can hardly be described as imperialist, as Russia and China itself. So, as comrade Vagenas sees it, as China invests in military arming for her own defence, it is because she prepares a war or pretends to compete for the “re-division of markets” and for the “plunder of resources”. For the little that China has done in the international arena, comrade Vagenas is holding her responsible for the exploitation of the working class and of the people of the third world, and also for the increase of the danger of a world war. For example, talking of an economic agreement between China and Greece, comrade Vagenas accuses China more or less to undermine “the production-capacities of the country” by involve it “in dangerous imperialist antagonisms”. As if the KKE herself has not any responsibility for nothing what is concerning the actual situation of Greece. For comrade Vagenas, as China is going for economical agreements with Venezuela it is for to tie her as colony. From “ all is “peaceful coexistence” of Chruchev, the leadership of the KKE has passed to “all is imperialism”. For Elisseos Vagenas, all the emerging economies (China, India, Russia, Brazil and who knows if South Africa or every other country in the imperialist stage as Zimbabwe – note the irony) form all a part of the same “imperialist” conglomerate14,as noxious as the triade USA-EU-Japan. In the years 50-60, the Chinese communists criticised the program of the Xxth Congress of the PCSU, for denying the contradictions which are inherent to the capitalist world, and for being convinced that “the contradiction between the imperialist countries could be reconciled or eliminated by the means of 'concluding international agreements between the big monopolies' “15. Today the leadership of the KKE is defending a thesis which is exact the opposed, but equal revisionist, by seeing not more then “tough contradictions” within the monopoly-bourgeoisie trying “to reach a better position in the world capitalist system for herself”, whatever the country, whatever economical regime or by making statements as follow: “ when we focus on the cooperation of BRIC countries (..) or the coordination which the Foreign ministers of China, India and Russia have achieved, we should not forget that this is only one aspect of imperialist reality”. being incapable to see anything progressive in the boom of the economies of the South, and by putting them in the same sac of capitalist countries.
This kind of deviations of the dialectical base of Marxism-Leninism is what explain something about the positions of comrade Vagenas in his article. Some other deviations, like for example the tendency to reduce all to the contradiction capital-work, we have not mentioned in this short paragraph but will be treated afterwards.“16

What would be the difference between China, India and Russia as “booming economies”....; only that China is (still) socialist? What are India and Russia? Capitalist? Socialist? And WHEN they are capitalist, are they imperialist or not? Is capitalism in India and Russia than NOT in the final actual stage of imperialism? In his article Vagenas is giving a lot of CONCRETE arguments (and Alexandré Garcia is not opposing any of them) with which for him it is proved that China is an integrated part of the imperialist world, making danger for WAR in the world (because the contradictions between competing imperialist powers) more imminent.
To make a difference between, for example, the USA and Brasil (or even South Africa) Comrade Vagenas uses the scheme of a “pyramid” (read the text, Alexandré Garcia!). It is to Alexandré Garcia now to prove, that this is a wrong argument..... or a not-Marxist analyse.

“Above her consequent attitude of opposition against modern revisionism (....)the CCP made another “sin” (...) against (one of) the pillars of dogmatic-revisionist thinking (...): the inescapable necessity of the existence of a “guiding-party” (....) which today it seems the KkE aims to be over a series of communist parties with very little hold on the masses.(...) This can explain the attitude of certain Communists as Elisseos Vagenas, who is outraged by the fact that the CCP refused to accept that the CPSU imposed their revisionist program at the whole international communist movement.(....)The same can be said about the process of socialist construction in China, which, with its ups and downs, has not followed from A to Z the process in the Soviet Union under the leadership of Lenin and Stalin, which is the reason why the current economic development of China in recent decades is regarded with suspicion by many communists. Because the construction of socialism in China has not followed the soviet path, apparently according to some universally applicable to all conditions at any time and anywhere, the economic development of China is a direct road to capitalism (“script-imperialism”) In fact, it is the same position adopted by the Trotskyists not finding just a pre-conceived “permanent revolution” model. For them, all what is not like that, turn out to be “stalinism”. For the leadership of the KKE “imperialism”. (...)In the case of “pro-soviet” communist like comrade Elisseos Vagenas, the misrepresented view of Marxism-Leninism and of its dialectical base, that is to say the revisionist view, either on your right variant or "leftist" also combines with a dogmatic metaphysical conception (and thus anti-Marxist) of Marxist-Leninist theory.
“Pro-soviet” dogmatism considered communism as a phenomena typical Russian, and associated Marxism-Leninism with the guidelines (whether right or wrong) issued by the CPSU. (...)It is, therefore, a dogmatic revisionism, or dogmatic kind revisionism. Dogmatic that clings to one part of Marxism, catching works of Marxism-Leninism a couple of dates, formulas and ideas that matter promptly to make reality fit their pre-conceived dogmas.(...) Revisionist because it misrepresents the essence of Marxist dialectic, and not infrequently also misrepresents the statements by parents of scientific socialism in whose name both speak precisely to match the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism with its particular reading - right yesterday, today "left - the same. In those who suffer from this disease, dogmatism and revisionism are two sides of the same coin, are inseparable from each other concepts and interrelated. Can not exist without each other. (...)The outstanding role of the KKE in the workers movement of Greece and her leading role of reactivating the Meetings of Communist and Workers' Parties, as also the theoretical elaborations of the KKE about the origins of the victory of the counterrevolution in the Soviet Union (which for the biggest parts are nothing more than a copy of the analyses outstanding done earlier by the Chinese and Albanians communists), caused admiration within the rest of the dogmatic-revisionists, who did not wait to embrace them as new “guide-party”. “17

This is not historical materialism but historical IDEALISM!
Alexandré Garcia is “creating” historical facts and is taking his SUBJECTIVE opinion as a historical fact. He is first insinuating that the KKKE is “dogmatic-revisionist” (without any concrete material proof). Then there is the statement that those “dogmatic-revisionists” are blaming the CCP, that she is not taking the CPSU as “guiding party”. And then comes the insinuating remark (without proof out of the article against which Alexandré Garcia wrote his critic) that “Elisseos Vagenas, (...) is outraged by the fact that the CCP refused to accept that the CPSU imposed their revisionist program at the whole international communist movement”....Of course Alexandré Garcia will defend himself that he wrote “This can explain the attitude of certain Communists as Elisseos Vagenas, who is outraged...etc...” But the insinuating (by subjectivism driven) formulation is also a fact.
And using general remarks (and not criticising the concrete arguments USED by Elisseos Vagenas) is ALSO a form of DOGMATISM. An example of such GENERAL - so DOGMATIC - formulation (“on itself” correct, but when you apply it on someone or someone's analyse you have to give CONCRETE, BY THE PERSON USED, arguments):

It is, therefore, a dogmatic revisionism, or dogmatic kind revisionism. Dogmatic that clings to one part of Marxism, catching works of Marxism-Leninism a couple of dates, formulas and ideas that matter promptly to make reality fit their pre-conceived dogmas.(...) Revisionist because it misrepresents the essence of Marxist dialectic, and not infrequently also misrepresents the statements by parents of scientific socialism in whose name both speak precisely to match the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism with its particular reading - right yesterday, today "left - the same. In those who suffer from this disease, dogmatism and revisionism are two sides of the same coin, are inseparable from each other concepts and interrelated. Can not exist without each other.18

Further Alexandré Garcia:

“In the paragraph “Historical precedent” of his article, comrade Vagenas affirms that the contradictions between the CCP and the CPSU,were not due to ideological reasons, but were purely of geopolitical order, and he describes in somewhat skewed and simplistic the past "sins" of China in international politics, Vagenas, who as a good metaphysician, is not likely to recognize the contradictions in order to better study them, but is terrified, he opt for the easy way, doing a hotchpotch of the history of the PRC, and summarizes 42 years foreign policy (from 1949 until 1991, the demise of the Soviet Union), as follows: “As long as the Soviet Union existed, Chinese foreign policy was coordinated with that of the USA against the USSR. And later Vagenas affirms of China's “ hostile stance in relation to the international communist movement and the USSR, and in coordination with the USA, to a position against the interests of the world revolutionary movement.”19(...)To "prove" this accusation, Comrade Vagenas in his article uses a series of half-truths and of maximal simplifications of historical facts. He makes superficial reference to certain events in a number of countries in which it appears that China played a sad role, as in Afghanistan where, in the words of Vagenas, China “ was a part of the “bloc” of forces formed by the USA, together with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and others” against “ the internationalist assistance which the USSR” or as in Angola where China “supported (...) the local forces of reaction, which fought in a united front along with the racist armies of South Africa”. While Comrade Vagenas refer to these sad episodes so simplistic and Manichean, the fact is that, if true, those facts are completely reprehensible and correspond to the time that the CCP had already unilaterally condemned the USSR as "social-imperialist" and considered as a imperialist power as harmful or more than the United States. Although a lot of them may require some qualification, they are facts about which I will not spent now any time20, because they would be the subject of another article.”21

Alexandré Garcia recognises that there are “sad episodes” corresponding to the time that the CCP “unilaterally condemned the USSR as “social-imperialist” and considered as an imperialist power as harmful ore more than the United States” and so that the facts as revealed by comrade Vagenas (probably) are true. (“if true, those facts are completely reprehensible.....” And so Alexandré Garcia is not able to oppose with arguments that what “ comrade Vagenas affirms, that the contradictions between the CCP and the CPSU,were not due to ideological reasons, but were purely of geopolitical order”. He is just promising that he will prove in another article that the use by comrade Vagenas of those “true facts in sad episodes” is of a kind of “using halftruths an simpllifications ....not recognising the contradictions in order to better study them...making superficial reference”....and with a note ( note 21“ I can not resist pointing out how these words of Comrade Vagenas remind me of what wrote the CPSU in his open letter to CCP written in 1963, which stated that "the Chinese leaders undermine not only the cohesion of the socialist camp, but also around the world communist movement, trampling the principles of proletarian internationalism "("Open Letter of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to the Party organizations at all communists of the Soviet Union", July 14, 1963”) ) insinuating that Vagenas is as revisionist as was the leadership of the CPSU in 1963.
Further Alexandré Garcia:

Now alright, the fact that one given moment China has practiced anti - Sovietism , reaching an alliance with the United States against the "social – imperialism", does not allow Comrade Vagenas to distort historical facts, neither to say that the attitude of the Chinese leaders was always wrong or that it had always " a hostile stance in relation to the international communist movement and the USSR " Are the statements of Comrade Vagenas against the foreign policy of China in relation to Angola , Afghanistan or Vietnam true (or not), the fact is that Vagenas not seem to have a minimum of willingness to study the causes that led, in a given time, to that given foreign policy "in coordination with the U.S." , causes in which the CPSU leadership had a great responsibility. This does not exonerate China for the fact it should have made serious mistakes, but at least would explain and clarify the facts. It shines by its absence in what Lenin called "the concrete analysis of a concrete situation", namely what should concerning him "the living soul of Marxism."22 However, when it comes to talking about the foreign policy of the Soviet Union, Comrade Vagenas describes it with the same metaphysical blinders, only in the opposite direction: idealized the Soviet Union in the extreme, wanting us to believe that their foreign policy is always characterized by a consistent "internationalism" which made advance the revolutionary cause in the world and opposed by all means the policy of the United States. Which is debatable.
Further, comrade Vagenas writes: “This stance initially was presented as criticism of the opportunist turn of the CPSU at its 20th Congress. Of course, we know today that in the beginning the CPC did not actually differentiate its position, openly or in essence, from the directions of the 20th Congress of the CPSU. Its disagreement was published later, motivated by Sino-Soviet border disputes.In the first place, it has to be clear that “in coordination with the U.S.” and “ criticism of the opportunist turn of the CPSU at its 20th Congress” are two things which, however related to each other in a indirect way, are very distinct. The criticisms of the CCP to the XX Congress of the CPSU which began as soon as that Congress in 1956 finished, were becoming clearly open in 1957. And the turn to establish friendly relations with the U.S. did not occur until 1971.It is a good attempt made by Comrade Vagenas to mix one thing with another, but this bone he will have to sell it to another dog.
In second place, when comrade Vagenas is capable to lie so blatantly about a historical fact of such a capital evidence, what can one expect of the rest of his “analysis”?Also, if comrade Vagenas assures that “we know today that in the beginning the CPC did not actually differentiate its position, openly or in essence, from the directions of the 20th Congress of the CPSU”, why does he says not directly which sources, to which he had access, made him affirm the “now we know” that the whole polemic between the CCP and the PCSU in the period from 1956 until 1963, in fact never existed? Is comrade Vagenas trying to replace absolute truths by relative truths?(...)
It is scandalous that a communist can lie so grossly to defend his views. (...) I will devote a few lines to refresh the memory of Comrade Vagenas making a small chronology of the origin of the discrepancies between the CPC and the CPSU, in order to refute his crude (and therefore so easily refutable) lies.(...)The first time that the CCP made a negative reference to the XX Congress of the CPSU, and in particular to the famous "secret report" in which Khrushchev launched his anti-Stalin diatribe, was, non-open and non-directly, in an article posted on April 5, 1956 (ie, only two months after the XX Congress of the CPSU), entitled "On the historical experience of the dictatorship of the proletariat", which clearly showed their rejection of the valuation made by Khrushchev of Stalin.(...)Here I stop. The subsequent conflicts between the Soviet Union and China, and especially the border disputes in the years 1966-1969 to which Comrade Vagenas referred, are issues that are beyond the scope of this article. I think I have amply demonstrated that the CPC criticized the revisionist positions taken in the XX Congress of the CPSU in the same year that Congress (1956) was held, and that criticism of Soviet revisionism was not motivated by "border conflicts" as Comrade Vagenas stated, but by an honest and consistent defence of the revolutionary line of the international communist movement. I have provided sufficient data to demonstrate throughout the period that lasted the Great Polemci, from the XXth Congress of the CPSU (1956) until the break and finally consummate the international communist movement in 1962-63, the CCP tried to defend above all the unity of the communist movement and weaponed herself with patience in order to try to resolve the differences in the least traumatic way. And that regardless of the subsequent attempts to restore relations with the CPSU, as with Brezhnev23, regardless of leftist mistakes that subsequently incurred by the CCP in its attitude toward the Soviet Union. The facts, which are very stubborn, clearly indicate that all the pre-break period between the two parties, the CCP's attitude was quite correct. Trying to interpret this otherwise is to deny the evidence.(...)(L)et someone tell us on what basis is founded that new "discovery" that today "we know that the Communist Party of China [...] did not differ so open and essential directions of the Twentieth Congress of the CPSU," as Comrade Vagenas says. Mission quite impossible, because these statements are simply lies. And most pathetic is that, being a lie, it neither even bring a new element. The Vagenas comrade is not doing more that playing a rehash of the old tales of the Soviet revisionists over half a century.Lying is nothing for communists, but rather for bourgeois politicians and opportunist leaders, revisionist or Social Democratic leaders, who deceive the masses, in the style of Khrushchev and company. (...) This, of course, includes comrade Vagenas, the leadership of the KKE and its dedicated fans worldwide.(...)Finally , as pointed out very good by Comrade Vagenas, it is true that following the Sino-Soviet schism the CCP committed a number of serious "leftist" errors in foreign policy regarding the Soviet Union and other countries in its sphere of influence . But contrary to what Comrade Vagenas would have made us believe , those errors were not the result of political decisions that fall from the sky , neither were not purely casual whim of evil "anti -Soviet"leaders . The errors committed by the CCP in its confrontation with the Soviet Union were part of the negative effects of the division of the international communist movement which was, as we must insist on this, Mr. Khrushchev's responsibility and of his supporters, and of his successors . To load all responsibility for the negative consequences of the division of the international communist movement solely on account of the CCP is a nasty exercise in intellectual dishonesty.In fact, about erroneous policies in the international arena one could talk much. The Vagenas comrade speaks of Afghanistan and Angola, and some even speak of recognition Pinochet and the "theory of the three worlds." But they do not talk about other memorable demonstrations of " proletarian internationalism " by the Soviet Union as was the refusal to recognize the provisional government of the Algerian FLN until it became inevitable to his victory24; as was the economic aid to the anti-communist regime and hostile to China of Nehru of India25; as was the mistake which led to a vote in the Security Council of the UN in favor of international intervention in the Belgian Congo on July 13, 1960 , which led to the crushing fire and blood of the Congolese revolution and the subsequent arrest and murder of Patrice Lumumba; as was the Navy shelling of the Red Army on the coast of Eritrea, in struggle for independence from the regime " Marxist- Leninist " Mengistu in Ethiopia, who generously provided by the Soviet Union with modern weapons26; as was the bombing of rural population in Afghanistan; not to mention the voting for the partition of Palestine in the United Nations General Assembly on 29 November 194727 and the subsequent military aid to the Zionist forces in the first Arab- Israeli war in 1948-49.”28

All the accusations and critics on Ellissios Vagenas in his article/analysis are NOT made concrete by an analyse of Alexandré Garcia himself. In his actual analyse he used only general remarks, subjective opinions, insinuations..... But there is hope, we will get some CONCRETE analysis and critics formulated base on CONCRETE statements Elliseos Vagenas made, as Alexandré Garcia writes at the end.....:

“So far the first part of this paper. In the second part, I will bring more from the article of Elisseos Vagenas, in order to refute or refine a series of statements he makes in his article, notably on the "capitalist" and "imperialist" character (though not daring to say it with these words) of China; the class nature of the economic policy of the CCP; China's trade relations with the countries of the so-called "third world", and in general its diplomatic relations with other countries; and China's role in the wars of the Vietnamese people for national liberation. Of course, I will not fail to mention something about the Chinese military attack "launched against Vietnam" in February 1979.”29

Short about the real subjective reasons of this “critical analysis of political positions of the KKE”
Two quotes of Alexandré Garcia which together reveal – for me – the real reasons of his political “anger” on the KKE-cadre Vagenas:

Paradoxically , Comrade Vagenas stated at the beginning of his article , quite rightly, that " one of the lessons we have learned from the counterrevolution in the Soviet Union is that the Communists should not be fully driven by what was in the CPSU ." By this is meant that Comrade Vagenas mean that we should not "get fully driven" by what the CCP said. However, there is no evidence that , once Mao Zedong died and Deng Xiaoping was anointed to power , there is some important communist organization which had a record of it, namely, operating as "alternative speaker" then the CPC , as did the KKE in the second half of the twentieth century when "fully driven" by Soviet revisionism. The "official" pro - communist parties of the Soviet tradition which participated at the EIPCO have not, overwhelmingly , brotherly ties with the PRC , except for the exceptional case of the Workers Party of Belgium ( one of the few parties of the "Maoist" inspiration which not broke relations with China after the coming to power of Deng ) , or the Communist Party of Spain , during their " eurocomunist " stage wove ties of brotherhood with the CPC because of a series of historical circumstances , caused by alliance policy of the CPC in its fierce confrontation with the Soviet Union. But generally , apart from certain organizations of eurocommunism , it seems that most of the parties participating in the EIPCO, share more or less the critics of the leadership of KKE against China.
Moreover, the hoxhistas matches ( which are also present in Greece) , hate anything that smells of China or Maoísm30 due to their blind suivism to the swings which made in those days Enver Hoxha , which first was based on sympathy for the "Mao Zedong" but ended in anti -Maoism more extreme31.As soon as Maoists nostalgic to the Cultural Revolution, who are not exactly in favour of China as it is today, (even if the leadership of the KKE and of other related "pro -Soviet" parties try to cram everything grossly "pro- Chinese" in the same bag ) , if not practically disappeared in most countries ( with few exceptions ) , are those who most hate the new China which has taken off with Deng. It is a fact, that those Marxists, who recognized the undoubtly positive role of Mao Zedong in the past and who defend more or less actual China and the political decisions of Deng Xiaoping, are very few and exceptional. As I said, the rare exceptions in the international communist movement , are for example the WPB/PVDA/PTB or the CP(ml) of Great Britain led by Comrade Harpal Brar32 33

In July 1960 , during the famine in China due to the mistakes of the Great Leap Forward(attempted a forced march of socialist industrialization that China hoped to achieve in 10 years steel production in Britain ) and a series of catastrophes natural that had plagued China in 1959 , the Soviet government decided to unilaterally withdraw all technical assistance it provided to China , canceling hundreds of contracts for the construction of industrial and military projects. That led to the 1390 repatriation of Soviet specialists working in China34 343 and breaking contracts specialists and supplemental agreements , cancellation of 257 items of scientific and technical cooperation and the implementation of a policy of restriction and discrimination against China in trade relations.35 Hundreds of buildings in China were paralyzed , which was a blow to the Chinese economy. This was another reason for the millions of deaths from starvation caused by the mistakes of the Great Leap Forward and climatic calamities that China had suffered.36

In further articles I will give more arguments and analysis which prove, that In fact there is a presumed (a subjective chosen) point of view, which lead to the development of the “analysis” by the Alexandré Garcia of, and the critics on, the article of KKE-cadre Vagenas.
It is not just the judgement as “dogmatic-revisionist” because of a supposed anti-China or anti-CCP point of view. No, the author is somewhat emotional indignant that a cadre of a COMMUNIST party, has the audacity to make an argued analysis, in order to prove that the political line/ideological line of the CCP AFTER coming to power of Deng Xiaoping has become revisionist (bourgeois ideology/political line formulated in Marxist-sounding phrases), which led in China to a re-install of a free development of capitalist production-relations and the taking the power out of the hands of the workers (included the workers in the countryside, the peasantry) and the coming into power of the bourgeoisie (and that a capitalist coountry can be no other than imperialist (as capitalism is TODAY in its imperialist stage).
Alexandré Garcia reveals indirectly (and without realising himself apparently) with the quoting of Envar Hoxha and of Vagenas, that as well as Hoxha as Vagenas (I am not saying that I agree with Envar or Vagenas, neither that Envar and Vagenas made the same analysis, that are other discussions for other articles....) are/were seeing a BREACH-point between the political development BEFORE, and the development AFTER 1978 (the year of the install of Deng's policy of “Opening and Reform”)
The KKE is putting the revolutionary experience of the Oktober-revolution as that of the Chinese revolution in 1949 on a equal level. Envar is fully supporting China “under Mao”, but is in 1981 opposing the than by Deng still as “the Mao-thought” presented political/ideological line.
Alexandré Garcia, however is on the point of view that the policy “Reform and Opening” of Deng Xiaoping is a correct (Marxist analysed and socialism with Chinese characterisitcs promoting) answer on the “disaster and mistakes” of the Great Lap Forward, and that China has to be defended (by the communists everywhere) as “real existing socialism” (whereby the eventually problems will be solved by the CCP herself).
So the discussion “what is revisionism” and “what is revolution-promoting” in the international circles of parties and organisations who present themselves as “communist” is axing round: “what is the analyse of the historical development of the Chinese revolution and in the CCP”?
Because the OUTCOME of that discussion (“what is revisionism” and “what is revolutionary ideology”) is deciding over what has to be the tasks of the communists as vanguard of the working-class and what has to be the task of the global working class herself (so what are the CONCRETE and OBJECTIVE ACTUAL interests of the working class) Because organising and mobilising for the struggle for those objective, concrete, actual interests of the working-class IS in favour of the interests of the majority of mankind.

The struggle between two lines has to be based on historical materialist analysis an not on Idealism and metaphysics
With the same method of “proving with a (presumed) historical analogy” - which Alexandré Garcia is using, to accuse Vagenas of chruchevist revisionism - I can “accuse” Alexandré Garcia (and Deng Xiaoping himself ALSO to be “chruchevist revisionists”. Their judgement “The Great Leap was a disaster (mainly) caused by a wrong (leftist, utopian or idealist ....) political line” is “mirrored” by the judgement of Chruchov (and supported by a “chruchovist” line IN the CCP):

The initial attack on Mao at the plenum came from Peng Teh-huai, minister of Defence. Peng had left China in April, during the session of the National People's Congress, to attend a meeting of ministers of Warsaw Pact powers. For several weeks hè toured the USSR and East European countries in order to learn advanced modern techniques.'(...)
The Politburo, of which Peng was a member, sat in meetings throughout late June. Mao's opposition took heart. The mighty USSR had cancelled the agreements. Did not this prove Mao utterly wrong?
In July, Peng Teh-huai toured China, investigating and collecting data against the Leap. So did Chang Wen-tien. So did others. They were preparing a case against Mao. It is in this context that Wu Han's Hai Jui Upbraids the Emperor becomes meaningful. It showed Peng Teh-huai that he had moral support two months before hè delivered his attack against Mao.
Peng arrived in Lushan and started lobbying the Central Committee members as they assembled in preliminary discussions for the enlarged plenum. He lobbied the numerous generals and marshals invited to attend, as well as regional representatives. A Russian observer team was also in attendance. On July 14 Peng Teh-huai circulated his 'letter of opinion.' On the 17th Mao received a copy of it. On the 18th Khrushchev in Poland attacked the communes and the Great Leap Forward as 'petty bourgeois ... fanatic ... adventurism.' Peng had used the same terms in his 'letter of opinion'. On the first of August, Army Day, articles appeared in the Russian press lauding Peng Teh-huai. Khrushchev's overt attempt to topple Mao was not revealed until 1963, and then obliquely, when the Chinese wrote that Khrushchev had expressed 'undisguised support for anti-Party elements in the Chinese Party' at the Twenty-second Congress of the CPSU in October 1961. The struggle at the Lushan plenum was not only an intra-Party confrontation. It now had implications of collusion with a foreign - even if also socialist — power.
While the plenum was in session, the Chinese Communist Party magazine Red Flag came out with a strange article entitled Peaceful Competition Is an Inevitable Trend (August 16), which indirectly took up the Khrushchev thesis.Peng Teh-huai's letter of opinion was an attack on all Mao's policies, which had been approved by the Central Committee and therefore were the Party line. The Leap, the communes, the steel drive ... 'Hasty ... waste of resources and man-power ... we have not handled the problems of economic con­struction in so successful a way as we dealt with the problem of shelling Quemoy and Matsu and quelling the revolt in Tibet.' He called the effort petty bourgeois fanaticism. 'In the view of some comrades, putting politics in command is a substitute for everything, but it is no substitute for economic principles.'(...)
A minister of defense who submits a memorandum criticizing the head of his party to a foreign statesman, who states that there might be cause to call upon a foreign army's help, would in any country and under any circumstances be relieved of his post.37 Peng Teh-huai's attack was not an honest criticism of the Leap; it was an attack on the basic principles of socialist construction, upon all of Mao's concepts; it implied also an attack upon Mao's stance against Moscow's military demands, which Mao was preparing to resist even at the cost of losing Soviet aid.38

1http://lamanchaobrera.es/en-defensa-del-pueblo-chino-respuesta-a-elisseos-vagenas-1o-parte/, En defensa del pueblo chino: Respuesta a Elisseos Vagenas (1º Parte), 10 abril, 2014 |
2https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B251oYOXh6QgR3RmZGNUSjlESDA/edit, “En defensa del pueblo chino. Respuesta a Elisseos Vagenas (1ª parte)”; Alexandré Garcia.
3http://interold.kke.gr/News/news2011/2011-03-04-china.html, "The International role of China", by Elisseos Vagenas, member of the CC of KKE,responsible for the international section of the CC, published in Communist Review 6th issue 2010
4https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B251oYOXh6QgR3RmZGNUSjlESDA/edit, “En defensa del pueblo chino. Respuesta a Elisseos Vagenas (1ª parte)”; Alexandré Garcia.
14 Adding to the famous "socialist-dash-communism", the KKE has coined another buzzword to identify that, which is "capitalist interstate Union". (note of Alexandré Garcia)
15 ”Proposition concerning the general line of the international communist movement”, Peoples Daily, 14 June 1963. (note of Alexandré Garcia)
16https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B251oYOXh6QgR3RmZGNUSjlESDA/edit, “En defensa del pueblo chino. Respuesta a Elisseos Vagenas (1ª parte)”; Alexandré Garcia.
19 I can not resist pointing out how these words of Comrade Vagenas remind me of what I wrote the CPSU in his open letter to CCP written in 1963, which stated that "the Chinese leaders undermine not only the cohesion of the socialist camp, but also around the world communist movement, trampling the principles of proletarian internationalism "(" Open Letter of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to the Party organizations at all communists of the Soviet Union", July 14, 1963) . (note of Alexandré Garcia)
20 With the exception of what Vagenas affirmed aboutthe attitude of China to the struggling people of Vietnam, during the period of its national liberation struggle”, which is of such an obscenity, that I will dedicate a whole section in the second part of this work. (note of Alexandré Garcia)
21https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B251oYOXh6QgR3RmZGNUSjlESDA/edit, “En defensa del pueblo chino. Respuesta a Elisseos Vagenas (1ª parte)”; Alexandré Garcia.
22 Interestingly, the assessment made by comradeVagenas about the foreign policy of China, agrees with the assessment of hoxhistas, which is the absence of boundaries between different historical stages of Chinese experience, both in regard to the foreign policy of the People's Republic China as domestic policy . ( economic construction ) . Both hoxhistas as "pro -Soviet" condemn the whole history of the PRC from 1949 to today, as if from its birth the Chinese revolution take growed in itself a "seed of evil" which would lead inevitably to an inescapable fate " anti-Soviet " " capitalist " and " imperialist ". Thus, the possibility of a concrete analysis of the evolution of China's politics, economy, ideology , foreign policy and is so refused, as also a differenting according to the different stages of its history. Again , science has been killed by metaphysics. But anyone who knows anything about the history of socialist construction in China , knows that its evolution was anything but linear. For illustration , this is what Enver Hoxha writes in 1978 : "In China, and also on the outside , there are people observing these reactionary maneuvers, compared the struggle of Teng Hsiao-ping against Mao , who was never a Marxist- Leninist , with that crime perpetrated by Khrushchev who threw mud on Stalin , which was and remains a great Marxist -Leninist . No one with half a brain can support such an analogy . The fairest comparison that can be made is: . Brezhnev and his revisionist group overthrew Khrushchev and now the Chinese Brezhnev, Teng Hsiao- ping, is breaking the pedestal down of the Chinese Khrushchev , Mao Tse- tung " ( Enver Hoxha , " The Mao Tse- tung thought , Anti-Marxist theory " , extracted from " Imperialism and Revolution ", Ed Question, 1978). (note of Alexandré Garcia)
23 In November 1964, after the fall of Kruschev, Zhuo Enlai travelled to Moskou, to have discussions with the soviet leaders in order to help them to leave the revisionist road. (note of Alexandré Garcia)
24 Until then, the Soviet Union had opposed the national liberation struggle of the Algerian people. In an interview with the French newspaper Le Figaro on March 19, 1958, Khrushchev declared: "We do not want France to weaken but to strengthen his greatness." It was not until later when FLNA victory was a fait accompli, when the Soviet Union would recognize it as the legitimate representative of the Algerian people. What Khrushchev did not stop with the cynicism that characterized him, stating that the victory of the Algerian people was due to the policy of "peaceful coexistence." (note of Alexandré Garcia)
25 Respecto de la ayuda prestada por la Unión Soviética a la India de Nehru, W.A. Harriman, Secretario de Estado para asuntos de Lejano Oriente de la administración Kennedy, diría en una entrevista por televisión el 9 de diciembre de 1962 que esta ayuda “responde muy bien a nuestros intereses”. Regarding the assistance from the Soviet Union to India of Nehru, WA Harriman, Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs of the Kennedy administration, say in a television interview on December 9, 1962 that the aid was "very responsive to our interests." (note of Alexandré Garcia)
27 Hecho histórico que los palestinos mencionan desde entonces como la “Declaración Balfour soviética”. The historical fact, which the palestinians called from that moment “the soviet Balfour declaration”. (note of Alexandré Garcia)
28https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B251oYOXh6QgR3RmZGNUSjlESDA/edit, “En defensa del pueblo chino. Respuesta a Elisseos Vagenas (1ª parte)”; Alexandré Garcia.
30 See the paragraph “ Some questions about china” of the Report to the plenary of the Central Comitee of the PCE (m-l), Februari 2011 http://www.pceml.info/2012/02/14/informe-aprobado-por-el-pleno-del-comite-central-del-pce-m-l-extractos/ (note of Alexandré Garcia)
31 In its report to the VII Congress of the Workers Party of Albania (PTA) in 1976, Enver Hoxha said: "The historic victories that the Chinese people have achieved in their glorious revolution and socialist construction, the establishment of the new China Popular and high prestige of the world are directly linked to the name, to the teachings and guidance of the great revolutionary who was Comrade Mao Zedong. The work of this eminent Marxist-Leninist represents a contribution to the enrichment of the theory and revolutionary practice of the proletariat. " years later, at the Eighth Congress of PTA in 1981, Hoxha argued instead that: "The Chinese revisionism is an opportunist trend in the world communist movement, and thought-Mao Zedong ... is its foundation, an ideology of archaic [...] outlining a hegemonic ideology that tends to world domination ... The theory by which the new China is guided was not Marxism-Leninism. [...] Under the habit of 'revolution' counter-revolution hid ... under the habit of thought-Mao Zedong hid anti-Marxism, a current of modern revisionism was hiding ... The scope of the struggle of the Party of Labor of Albania lies into that what has toppled two myths, that of China as a country in which to build socialism, and Mao Zedong Thought and Marxism-Leninism of our era." (note of Alexandré Garcia)
32 http://www.cpgb-ml.org/ (note of Alexandré Garcia)
33https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B251oYOXh6QgR3RmZGNUSjlESDA/edit, “En defensa del pueblo chino. Respuesta a Elisseos Vagenas (1ª parte)”; Alexandré Garcia.
34 Specialists who indeed were paid in U.S. dollars. It is worth emphasizing that, although this also would result in a heavy burden for the Chinese economy, China ended up paying the entire debt to the Soviet Union, and thus making it a world market prices, this being fully settled in 1964 debt (ie even after having consumed the Sino-Soviet split). (note of Alexandré Garcia)
35The soviet-leaders are the biggest scisionists of our epoch” the People Daily 4 Februari 1963. (note of Alexandré Garcia)
36https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B251oYOXh6QgR3RmZGNUSjlESDA/edit, “En defensa del pueblo chino. Respuesta a Elisseos Vagenas (1ª parte)”; Alexandré Garcia.
37 Certainly Peng's letter was not merely an innocent statement of opinion, since Peng had written to the Soviet Communist Party three months earlier, criticizing the great leap forward policies' (Lois Dougan Tretiak, Far Eastern Economie Review, November 30, 1967). (note of Han Suyin)

38Text (and notes) out of “Wind in the tower – Mao Tsetung and the Chinese revolutioon 1949-1976”, by Han Suyin, Triad/Panther Books 1978.

Geen opmerkingen:

Een reactie posten