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.
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."
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.
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?"
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."
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."
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.
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.
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.”
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.”
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 ”
“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.”
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.”
“
Further:
“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.”
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” conglomerate,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'
“.
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.“
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.
Further:
“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”. “
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.”
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.”(...)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 time,
because they would be the subject of another article.”
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."
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 Brezhnev,
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
victory;
as was the economic aid to the anti-communist regime and hostile to
China of Nehru of India;
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 weapons;
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 1947
and the subsequent military aid to the Zionist forces in the first
Arab- Israeli war in 1948-49.”
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.”
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 Maoísm
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 extreme.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
Brar
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 China
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.
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.
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.
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.
