20-10-2013

About the contribution of the WPB on the 13th European Communist Meeting: Economism and so REFORMISM

On 30 September 2013, there was an European Communist Meeting in Brussels, organised by the KKE with as theme:The role of the communist and workers’ parties of Europe in order to strengthen the struggle of the working class and popular strata against the EU and the strategy of capital, for the pro-people way out from the capitalist crisis, the overthrow of capitalism, socialism”.
The Workers Party of Belgium - WPB (PVDA/PTB) – apparently still recognised as a Communist Party in international circles had a “contribution”: “The crisis of capitalism and the 'Working Class Recovery' ”, in which is written (emphasising with italic-fat by me):
(T)he capitalist economy remains stuck in a systemic crisis of overproduction and over-accumulation. Major parts of the capitalist world are in recession. No amount of public money, recovery plans, neoliberal or Keynesian recipes can change the basic laws of capitalism. The drive for maximum profits leads to the insoluble contradiction between the growing production capacity and the diminishing purchasing power of the masses. And the private ownership of the means of production stands in contradiction with the ever more social character of production.
Short from going to war, as it did with the crisis of the 1930s, the capitalist class tries to save its system by shifting the burden of the crisis to the workers and the people, domestically and internationally. (...) In the EU member States, more than 80% of national legislation in the social and economic domain is the direct implementation of EU directives. This is an efficient way for the European bourgeoisie to hammer down harsh anti-worker and anti-people measures, with the aim of restoring the profit rate of its capitalist companies. This way, the race to the top – of corporate profits – goes hand in hand with a race to the bottom - of the living and working conditions of the workers and the people. (....)
Capitalists are not just at war with the workers, they are also at war among themselves. They compete worldwide for cheap labour, for markets, for raw materials and their transport routes. Under the pretext of safeguarding the competitiveness and viability of its companies and the employment they generate, the bourgeois class and their parties succeed, to a certain extent, to rally the workers and the people behind their projects, and to pit workers against workers and people against people, thus enhancing narrow nationalism, racism, fascism and war.

It is a fact that a majority of people in Europe today recognize the current social order as the only one possible.
European communists should adapt their tactics accordingly. A revolutionary process requires tactical flexibility, adaptation to political reality, an accurate assessment of the aim of each battle, exact knowledge of the class contradictions and power relations involved, and broad alliances. In Belgium, we have the particular situation that to the left of classical social-democracy, there is no political project other than our Party that is capable of capturing the workers and the voters who have turned their back on social-democracy, in disgust of its pro-capitalist policies and bourgeois character. Unlike in many other European countries, in Belgium we are not confronted with another, renovated and more Leftist social-democratic party of coalition to compete with in the class struggle and in electoral battles. This gives us the opportunity and the responsibility to attempt to fill in the entire gap to the left of classical social-democracy, and to adapt our tactics accordingly. As a revolutionary party, we have to take the actual level of consciousness into account, make the problems and concerns of the common people our own, speak an understandable language and seek unity in struggle with the broadest possible group.
Over the past few years,
we have had some success with this approach, in local and nationwide class struggles, in local elections and political battles, with an enlarged Party membership and an increasingly broad participation in the annual solidarity festival ManiFiesta, which last week gathered almost 10,000 people, with a strong participation of trade unions and social movements. After years of waging campaigns on very concrete issues – cheaper medicines, a lower VAT on energy prices, a millionaires' tax – we are now working on a more comprehensive alternative plan for much-needed social and democratic renewal, for a “Working Class Recovery” as opposed to the “Rich Man's Recovery”.

But a revolutionary party also needs to consolidate its ranks and ensure that it does not dilute or give up its basic principles.
We have therefore started to put more emphasis on Marxist education in all ranks of the Party, and on an enhanced ideological commitment of its cadres and militants. While assisting, guiding and leading the workers in their struggle for reforms, it is also our duty to introduce the long-term perspective of socialism in these day-to-day battles. We try to bring into the political debate such basic ideas as “it is the workers who create the wealth” or “the youth are the future, not the problem”, in order to win over the vanguard to socialist ideas and break the bourgeois consensus that there is no alternative. We try to advance the perspective of a society where there is no exploitation of man by man, no private ownership of the basic means of production, in which the working people are truly free, and with a state that protects the freedom of the vast majority against the oppression of the minority. Because only socialism can bring about genuine democracy, social progress, sustainable development and lasting peace.1

Talking about “tactics” without formulation of revolutionary strategy has to mask reformism
Whatever “a revolutionary process requires” is a revolutionary STRATEGY. Without that “tactical flexibility, adaptation to political reality, an accurate assessment of the aim of each battle, exact knowledge of the class contradictions and power relations involved, and broad alliances”..is empty talk, just in order to recuperate all forces which begin to have revolutionary aspirations and are seeking revolutionary theory and analysis)method.

Although they present themselves on the ECM as a “revolutionary” and “communist” party, the “strategy” of the WPB is just that of a “social-democratic party” trying to take profit of the failure of the “old” social-democratic party:

In Belgium, (...) to the left of classical social-democracy, there is no political project other than our Party that is capable of capturing the workers and the voters who have turned their back on social-democracy, in disgust of its pro-capitalist policies and bourgeois character. (...) (I)n Belgium we are not confronted with another, renovated and more Leftist social-democratic party of coalition to compete with in the class struggle and in electoral battles. (...) (We) attempt to fill in the entire gap to the left of classical social-democracy, and to adapt our tactics accordingly. As a revolutionary party, we have to take the actual level of consciousness into account, make the problems and concerns of the common people our own, speak an understandable language and seek unity in struggle with the broadest possible group.
Over the past few years, we have had some success with this approach, in local and nationwide class struggles, in local elections and political battles, with an enlarged Party membership (...) waging campaigns on very concrete issues – cheaper medicines, a lower VAT on energy prices, a millionaires' tax – we are now working on a more comprehensive alternative plan for much-needed social and democratic renewal, for a “Working Class Recovery” as opposed to the “Rich Man's Recovery”
. 2
But as they are now speaking on a meeting of the 13th European Communist Meeting they have to explain something:
But a revolutionary party also needs to consolidate its ranks and ensure that it does not dilute or give up its basic principles. (...) Marxist education in all ranks of the Party, and on an enhanced ideological commitment of its cadres and militants. While assisting, guiding and leading the workers in their struggle for reforms, it is also our duty to introduce the long-term perspective of socialism in these day-to-day battles. We try to bring into the political debate such basic ideas as “it is the workers who create the wealth” or “the youth are the future, not the problem”, in order to win over the vanguard to socialist ideas and break the bourgeois consensus that there is no alternative. We try to advance the perspective of a society where there is no exploitation of man by man, no private ownership of the basic means of production, in which the working people are truly free, and with a state that protects the freedom of the vast majority against the oppression of the minority. Because only socialism can bring about genuine democracy, social progress, sustainable development and lasting peace3.
So their “day to day work” is still “assisting, guiding and leading the workers in their struggle for reforms,” But now they affirm that from now on they “try to advance the perspective of a society where there is no exploitation of man by man, no private ownership of the basic means of production, in which the working people are truly free, and with a state that protects the freedom of the vast majority against the oppression of the minority. Because only socialism can bring about genuine democracy, social progress, sustainable development and lasting peace.
But these are just empty phrases in order to mislead the participating communist parties

But when you are searching all documents or all website-pages (on
pvda.be or even on marx.be) you will not find any idea or any idea of concept of what is in fact “socialism” or “socialist ideas” about which they are writing in the text of their “Contribution...”: “it is also our duty to introduce the long-term perspective of socialism in these day-to-day battles. We try to bring into the political debate such basic ideas as “it is the workers who create the wealth” or “the youth are the future, not the problem”, in order to win over the vanguard to socialist ideas and break the bourgeois consensus that there is no alternative.”


The WPB (2013): “ We have therefore started to put more emphasis on Marxist education in all ranks of the Party.” OK, let us study Lenin....
Well, what is concerning “
Marxist education in all ranks of the Party”, I remember formation in Marxist analysis (in the years when I as member an certainly before 1995), for example on the book of Lenin :”What is to be done?” A political line as the WPB is developing TODAY would be judged as “economism” in earlier days.

Here a long p
art out of “HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE SOVIETUNION (BOLSHEVIKS)”, a book EVERY candidate-member had to study in the days when I entered the WPB (emphasising with italic-fat by me compare these parts with the “emphasised” parts in the WPB-text):
The “Economists” showed no delay in launching an attack on Lenin’s plan.
They asserted that the general political struggle against tsardom was a matter for all classes, but primarily for the bourgeoisie, and that therefore it was of no serious interest to the working class, for the chief interest of the workers lay in the economic struggle against the employers for higher wages, better working conditions, etc. The primary and immediate aim of the Social-Democrats should therefore be not a political struggle against tsardom, and not the overthrow of tsardom, but the organization of the “economic struggle of the workers against the employers and the government.” By the economic struggle against the government they meant a struggle for better factory legislation. The “Economists” claimed that in this way it would be possible “to lend the economic struggle itself a political character.”

The “Economists” no longer dared openly to contest the need for a political party of the working class. But they considered that it should not be the guiding force of the working-class movement, that it should not interfere in the spontaneous movement of the working class, let alone direct it, but that it should follow in the wake of this movement, study it and draw lessons from it.

The “Economists” furthermore asserted that the role of the conscious element in the working-class movement, the organizing and directing role of Socialist consciousness and Socialist theory, was insignificant, or almost insignificant; that the Social-Democrats should not elevate the minds of the workers to the level of Socialist consciousness, but, on the contrary, should adjust themselves and descend to the level of the average, or even of the more backward sections of the working class, and that the Social-Democrats should not try to impart a Socialist consciousness to the working class, but should wait until the spontaneous movement of the working class arrived of itself at a Socialist consciousness.

As regards Lenin’s plan for the organization of the Party, the “Economists” regarded it almost as an act of violence against the spontaneous movement.

In the columns of
Iskra, and especially in his celebrated work What is To Be Done?, Lenin launched a vehement attack against this opportunist philosophy of the “Economists” and demolished it.
1) Lenin showed that to divert the working class from the general political struggle against tsardom and to confine its task to that of the economic struggle against the employers and the government, while leaving both employers and government intact, meant to condemn the workers to eternal slavery. The economic struggle of the workers against the employers and the government was a trade union struggle for better terms in the sale of their labour power to the capitalists. The workers, however, wanted to fight not only for better terms in the sale of their labour power to the capitalists, but also for the abolition of the capitalist system itself which condemned them to sell their labour power to the capitalists and to suffer exploitation. But the workers could not develop their struggle against capitalism, their struggle for Socialism to the full, as long as the path of the working-class movement was barred by tsardom, that watchdog of capitalism. It was therefore the immediate task of the Party and of the working class to remove tsardom from the path and thus clear the way to Socialism.
2) Lenin showed that to extol the spontaneous process in the working-class movement, to deny that the Party had a leading role to play, to reduce its role to that of a recorder of events, meant to preach khvostism (following in the tail), to preach the conversion of the Party into a tall-piece of the spontaneous process, into a passive force of the movement, capable only of contemplating the spontaneous process and allowing events to take their own course. To advocate this meant working for the destruction of the Party, that is, leaving the working class without a party—that is, leaving the working class unarmed. But to leave the working class unarmed when it was faced by such enemies as tsardom, which was armed to the teeth, and the bourgeoisie, which was organized on modern lines and had its own party to direct its struggle against the working class, meant to betray the working class.

3) Lenin showed that to bow in worship of the spontaneous workingclass movement and to belittle the importance of consciousness, of Socialist consciousness and Socialist theory, meant, in the first place, to insult the workers, who were drawn to consciousness as to light; in the second place, to lower the value of theory in the eyes of the Party, that is, to depreciate the instrument which helped the Party to understand the present and foresee the future; and, in the third place, it meant to sink completely and irrevocably into the bog of opportunism.

“Without a revolutionary theory,” Lenin said, “there can be no revolutionary movement. . . . The role of vanguard can be fulfilled only by a party that is guided by the most advanced theory.” (Lenin, Selected Works, Vol. II, pp. 47, 48.)

4) Lenin showed that the “Economists” were deceiving the working class when they asserted that a Socialist ideology could arise from the spontaneous movement of the working class, for in reality the Socialist ideology arises not from the spontaneous movement, but from science.

By denying the necessity of imparting a Socialist consciousness to the working class, the “Economists” were clearing the way for bourgeois ideology, facilitating its introduction and dissemination among the working class, and, consequently, they were burying the idea of union between the working-class movement and Socialism, thus helping the bourgeoisie.

“All worship of the spontaneity of the labour movement,” Lenin said, “all belittling of the role of ‘the conscious element,’ of the role of the party of Social-Democracy, means, altogether irrespective of whether the belittler likes it or not, strengthening the influence of the bourgeois ideology among the workers.” ˜(Ibid., p. 61.)

And further:

“The only choice is: either the bourgeois or the Socialist ideology. There is no middle course. . . . Hence to belittle the Socialist ideology in any way, to turn away from it in the slightest degree means to strengthen the bourgeois ideology.” (Ibid., p. 62.)

5) Summing up all these mistakes of the “Economists,” Lenin came to the conclusion that they did not want a party of social revolution for the emancipation of the working class from capitalism, but a party of “social reform,” which presupposed the preservation of capitalist rule, and that, consequently, the “Economists” were reformists who were betraying the fundamental interests of the proletariat.

6) Lastly, Lenin showed that “Economism” was not an accidental phenomenon in Russia, but that the “Economists” were an instrument of bourgeois influence upon the working class, that they had allies in the West-European Social-Democratic parties in the person of the revisionists, the followers of the opportunist Bernstein. The opportunist trend in Social-Democratic parties was gaining strength in Western Europe; on the plea of “freedom to criticize” Marx, it demanded a “revision” of the Marxist doctrine (hence the term “revisionism”); it demanded renunciation of the revolution, of Socialism and of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Lenin showed that the Russian “Economists” were pursuing a similar policy of renunciation of the revolutionary struggle, of Socialism and of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Such were the main theoretical principles expounded by Lenin in What is To Be Done?

As a result of the wide circulation of this book, by the time of the Second Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Party, that is, within a year after its publication (it appeared in March 1902), nothing but a distasteful memory remained of the ideological stand of “Economism,” and to be called an “Economist” was regarded by the majority of the members of the Party as an insult.

It was a complete ideological defeat for “Economism,” for the ideology of opportunism, khvostism and spontaneity.

But this does not exhaust the significance of Lenin’s What is To Be Done?

The historic significance of this celebrated book lies in the fact that in it Lenin:

1) For the first time in the history of Marxist thought, laid bare the ideological roots of opportunism, showing that they principally consisted in worshipping the spontaneous working-class movement and belittling the role of Socialist consciousness in the working-class movement;

2) Brought out the great importance of theory, of consciousness, and of the Party as a revolutionizing and guiding force of the spontaneous working-class movement;

3) Brilliantly substantiated the fundamental Marxist thesis that a Marxist party is a union of the working-class movement with Socialism;

4) Gave a brilliant exposition of the ideological foundations of a Marxist party.

The theoretical theses expounded in What is To Be Done? Later became the foundation of the ideology of the Bolshevik Party.

Possessing such a wealth of theory, Iskra was able to, and actually did, develop an extensive campaign for Lenin’s plan for the building of the Party, for mustering its forces, for calling the Second Party Congress, for revolutionary Social-Democracy, and against the “Economists,”revisionists, and opportunists of all kinds.

One of the most important things that Iskra did was to draft a program for the Party. The program of a workers’ party, as we know, is a brief, scientifically formulated statement of the aims and objects of the struggle of the working class. The program defines both the ultimate goal of the revolutionary movement of the proletariat, and the demands for which the party fights while on the way to the achievement of the ultimate goal. The drafting of a program was therefore a matter of prime importance.

During the drafting of the program serious differences arose on the editorial board of
Iskra between Lenin, on the one hand, and Plekhanov and other members of the board, on the other. These differences and disputes almost led to a complete rupture between Lenin and Plekhanov. But matters did not come to a head at that time. Lenin secured the inclusion in the draft program of a most important clause on the dictatorship of the proletariat and of a clear statement on the leading role of the working class in the revolution.4

1http://inter.kke.gr/en/articles/Contributions-to-the-ECM-2013/, European Communist Meeting, “The role of the communist and workers’ parties of Europe in order to strengthen the struggle of the working class and popular strata against the EU and the strategy of capital, for the pro-people way out from the capitalist crisis, the overthrow of capitalism, socialism” , Brussels, European Parliament, 30 September 2013, “The crisis of capitalism and the 'Working Class Recovery' ”, , contribution of the Workers' Party of Belgium (PTB)
2http://inter.kke.gr/en/articles/Contributions-to-the-ECM-2013/, European Communist Meeting, “The role of the communist and workers’ parties of Europe in order to strengthen the struggle of the working class and popular strata against the EU and the strategy of capital, for the pro-people way out from the capitalist crisis, the overthrow of capitalism, socialism” , Brussels, European Parliament, 30 September 2013, “The crisis of capitalism and the 'Working Class Recovery' ”, , contribution of the Workers' Party of Belgium (PTB)
3http://inter.kke.gr/en/articles/Contributions-to-the-ECM-2013/, European Communist Meeting, “The role of the communist and workers’ parties of Europe in order to strengthen the struggle of the working class and popular strata against the EU and the strategy of capital, for the pro-people way out from the capitalist crisis, the overthrow of capitalism, socialism” , Brussels, European Parliament, 30 September 2013, “The crisis of capitalism and the 'Working Class Recovery' ”, , contribution of the Workers' Party of Belgium (PTB)
4Chapter Two FORMATION OF THE RUSSIAN SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC LABOUR PARTY. APPEARANCE OF THE BOLSHEVIK AND THE MENSHEVIK GROUPS WITHIN THE PARTY: - 2. Lenin’s Plan for the Building of a Marxist Party. Opportunism of the “Economists.” Iskra’s Fight for Lenin’s Plan. Lenin’s Book What Is To Be Done? Ideological Foundations of the Marxist Party”. Out “H I S T O R Y O F T H E C O M M U N I S T P A R T Y O F T H E S O V I E T U N I O N ( B O L S H E V I K S ) Short Course. E D I T E D B Y A C O M M I S S I O N O F T H E C E N T R A L C O M M I T T E E O F T H E C. P. S. U. (B.) A U T H O R I Z E D B Y T H E C E N T R A L C O M M I T T E E O F T H E C. P. S. U. (B.) I N T E R N A T I O N A L P U B L I S H E R S , N E W Y O R K Copyright, I 9 3 9, by INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHERS CO., INC. Printed in the U. S. A. From Marx to Mao ML © Digital Reprints 2006

Geen opmerkingen:

Een reactie posten