In
”The
International role of China”,
Elisseos
Vagenas, member of the CC of KKE, responsible for the international
section of the CC made an analysis about the actual character of
China.
Almost
three years later Alexandré Garcia wrote a critic on this
analysis:
“En
defensa del pueblo chino (1a parte)”.
I
wrote first my opinion about the original reasons why Elisseos
Vagenas (or the KKE) produced his analysis, in:
Will
the WPB/PVDA/PTB join the accusation that the KKE is (still) not free
of 'Chruchov-Breznjevian “left”-formulated, revisionism'?(1)
Later
I analysed the “critic” of Alexandré Garcia in: Will
the WPB/PVDA/PTB join the accusation that the KKE is (still) not free
of 'Chruchov-Breznjevian “left”-formulated, revisionism'?(2)
I concluded that the critic-article of Alexandré Garcia is
not a consequent Marxist analysis. In fact where he is accusing the
KKE-cadre Elisseos Vagenas of dogmatism he, himself, is not free of
dogmatism!
Alexandré
Garcia is referring several times to the Workers Party of Belgium
(WPB/PVDA/PTB) or/and to its former president Ludo Martens.
Well,
I am glad for this! It give me the opportunity to prove (with the
example of the negative teacher) to what opportunism can lead.
Dogmatism, proof with presumed historical analogy, eclecticism, it is
all used as Marxist-sounding phraseology, in order to submit the
party to a revisionist ideology which lead the WPB from a
revolutionary communist party to a reformist (so bourgeois,
capitalism preserving/protecting) party.
The
references of Alexandré Garcia to the WPB and/or its former
president Ludo Martens
I
translated the Spanish into English:
The
"official" communist parties of the pro-Soviet,
participating at the International Meeting of Communist and Workers
Parties (IMCWP)1,
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 "Maoist" inspiration which not broke
relations with China after the coming to power of Deng), or
the Communist Party of Spain, which during their "euro-communist"
stage, wove ties of brotherhood with the CPC by a series of
historical circumstances, motivated by alliance policy of the CPC in
its fierce confrontation with the Soviet Union. But generally, apart
from certain organizations, of euro-communist origin, it seems that
most of the parties attending the IMCWP share in more or less the
critics of the leadership of KKE against China.
Moreover,
the hoxhist parties (which are also present in Greece), hate anything
that smells of China or Maoísm due to his blind suivism of the
lurches which had Enver Hoxha in those days, who first had sympathy
for the " Mao Zedong Tought " but ended in most extreme
anti-Maoism2.
As
the nostalgic Maoists of the Cultural Revolution, which are not
exactly in favor of China today, (even if the leadership of the KKE
and other related "pro-Soviet" parties try to cram
everything what seems "pro-Chinese "in the same bag), if
not practically disappeared in most countries (with few exceptions),
are those who hate the most the new China which has taken off with
Deng. In fact, we can say that the Marxists who, recognizing
the positive role played by Mao Zedong in the past, are defending a
greater or lesser extent actual China and the political decisions of
Deng Xiaoping, are a rarity. As I said, the rare exceptions in the
international communist movement, are for example the Workers Party
of Belgium (WPB/PVDA/PTB) or the PC of Great Britain
(Marxist-Leninist) led by Comrade Harpal Brar.3.
(....)
I
should therefore first make a brief reminder of the revisionist
distortions of the Marxist-Leninist theory made by the leaders of the
CPSU after the death of Stalin, and which did so much damage to the
cause of communism in the world. These are some issues already known
by many Communists in Spain, but probably not so for certain sectors
of the communist movement, especially the younger communist movement.
Therefore, I regret to not dwell much on these issues, I will discuss
very sucintamente.1 Therefore, regretting not to dwell much on these
issues, I will discuss very briefly.4
(the NOTE is pointing at the book which in fact assembled the
CONGRESSDOCUMENTS of the 4th
congress of the WPB in 1991:”The USSR, the velvet
contrarevolution”, - Nico Oldenhof)
In
the XX Congress of the CPSU (1956), in which the group Khrushchev
took power, and clearly in contrast to the previous policy headed by
Stalin:
-
A complete and unilateral denial of Stalin, who was condemned as a
criminal and despotic leader, lancing towards his person a series of
slanderous and baseless accusations. Something like what the comrade
Vagenas is doing with the People's Republic of China. With that
denial of Stalin which did Khrushchev in his famous "secret
report", resulting in a first mortal blow to the dialectics,
since on Stalin was put all the blame of the developments of evils
that could happen to the Soviét Union5,
so breaking with the Bolshevik tradition of criticism and
self-criticism, and making the way for the complacency that so
characterized the Soviet leaders after Stalin's death.(...)
Later,
under the period of Brezhnev, between 1965 and 1982 (the period with
which Comrade Vagenas clearly identified himself, as can be inferred
from reading his article), minor changes were made to the political
line of the CPSU, without giving up the revisionist essence that
characterized it. Other aspects of the revisionist line remained
intact.
Indeed,
to the discontent which generated in the lower levels of the Party
the historical revision of the figure of Stalin and the rightist line
which Khrushchev brought in international politics, with Brezhnev
open attacks on Stalin ceased6.
Also stopped the obsessively talking about the advantages of
"peaceful coexistence" as a panacea that would solve all
the world's problems. Instead, the foreign policy of the Soviet Union
was directed towards a major confrontation with imperialism and
towards greater cooperation with socialist and anti-imperialist
struggles of the peoples of the world (the radical shift from the
Soviet Union in 1965 to decide to support militarily Vietnam, as well
as examples of Ethiopia, Angola, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, etc..,
attest to this). Moreover, the new policy of confrontation with
imperialism adopted a radical different way then the previous policy
of Khrushchev, from the "peaceful competition" to a frantic
arms race in order to overcome military capacity to imperialism, as
Brezhnev stated was"impotent before the march of history "7.
A policy which only served to accelerate the self-collapse of the
Soviet Union.
However,
in regard to the theses about the peaceful transition to socialism8,
the "state of the whole people" and the "party of the
whole people," Brezhnev not refuted them the least, and even
developed them9.
And although in international politics a left turn seemed to occur,
in domestic politics deepened, at an incomparably faster rithm,
measures to the restoration of capitalism. Thus the "Kosygin
reform"10
in the year 1965, the key, which torpedoed central planning, stating
that the five-year plans were not mandatory but were simply a set of
"guidelines" and that each state enterprise taken
separately should seek maximum profit and profitability. Among other
measures, was demanded that state enterprises had to pay for the
means of production. Thus, state enterprises were in fact functioning
as capitalist enterprises. From there the black market went through
the roof and proliferated further capitalist elements who had already
distanced from the people and occupied positions of privilege with
Khrushchev, and later became known as the "Nouveau Riches of
Brezhnev".11
Alexandré
is accusing the KKE of a Breznjev-like-revisionism because the KKE is
- according to him - “softer” against the Soviet-Union in the
Breshnev-years as the KKE is judging TODAY China. Because the CCP was
very critical against the developments under the Breshnev-regime, it
is clear for Alexandré Garcia, that China would never apply
TODAY, what it criticized THEN.
(...)
(W)ith Brezhnev, although the foreign policy of the Soviet Union had
taken a turn to the left with respect to the revisionist line of
Khrushchev, leaving aside the obsessive advocacy of "peaceful
coexistence", that policy continued to maintain the same
reactionary line, the same chauvinist nature of great power.
Great-power chauvinism which with Brezhnev reached greater heights.
If the nuclear weapon became for Khrushchev to be the new engine of
history, to Brezhnev the engine of history is the socialist camp with
the Soviet Union to the head. But for both, the Soviet Union is the
"driving force" that by itself advances the cause of
socialism in the world. In his report to the XXIV Congress of the
CPSU in 1971, Brezhnev said: "The world socialist system is
the decisive force in the struggle against imperialism [...] Each
time it takes to help the victims of aggression, the Soviet soldier
appears before the world as a selfless and courageous patriot, as an
internationalist willing to overcome any difficulty. " But
despite all the fine words and all the good intentions, this
statement represented a distortion of the Marxist-Leninist theory of
revolution.
As
Ludo Martens said, criticizing the same thesis: "By saying
that the Soviet Union is the" decisive force "in the
struggle against imperialism, Brezhnev tends to place countries and
anti-imperialist peoples under his " protection." He
rejects the starting point of any revolutionary vision of the world:
it are the people who make history; the working masses of the third
world are the architects of their own liberation; the
anti-imperialist consciousness, the organizational capacity and the
power of struggle of the peoples of the third world are the main
factor in the struggle against imperialism. "12(this
quote could also had come out of the by the 4th
WPB-congress apporoved document :”The URSS, the Velvet
Contra-revolution”, - Nico Oldenhof) And not the"
world socialist system ", as claimed by the Soviet revisionists.
(...)
Therefore,
to Brezhnev the victory of socialism in the world would not occur by
a number of qualitative leaps that would be the sum of "concrete,
imperfect and varied attempts to create one or another socialist
state" but would be the result of small quantitative
increases of the "sphere of influence" to Soviet throughout
the world (including military interventions). And so is lost out of
sight of an elementary law of dialectics, which is the priority of
the qualitative jumps over quantitative leaps. This growth in the
trend toward hegemonism is what gave rise to a theoretical
formulation made by Brezhnev, which was the theory of "non-capitalist
development." Following a thread of continuity with
Khrushchevite revisionism, Brezhnev considered a number of third
world countries under Soviet "protection" as
"socialist-oriented countries," despite the fact that those
countries were feudal, semi-feudal regimes or simply bourgeois. This
was the case of countries with social and economic conditions as
disparate as Angola, Mozambique, Syria, Burma, Ethiopia, Afghanistan
and South Yemen.13
14
In
fact, the conclusion of the analysis of Alexandré Garcia is:
“A
lot of communist parties (in the IMCWP) followed the KKE in its
revisionist attacks on socialism in China and on the CCP. Only a few
communist parties remain on the correct Marxist course of refuting
chruchevian revisionism (of attacks on Stalin) and so defending the
achievements of the October-revolution, defending the achievements of
socialism under Mao after the Chinese revolution AND defending the
continuing of real building of socialism after the death of Mao and
the coming to power of Deng Xiaoping. In fact there are just the
CPB(ml)....and the WPB/PVDA/PTB.”
My
analysis (knowing the WPB from the inside): the positions of the WPB
and those of its former president Ludo Martens are not automatically
identical and even - more and more - OPOSING each other
Well,
as someone who know the WPB from the inside (I was militant in the
WPB almost from its founding in 1979, lead several basis-”cells”,
participated in the “study-service”, and worked my whole
“working-career” as a production-workers in two multinationals
with production-base in Belgium (where I was two times an elected
union-steward,....in 2005 expelled by the self-installed REVISIONIST
leadership) I am well placed to comment this statement. But I will
PROVE this with texts of the WPB itself!
First,
the most analyses, for which the WPB is known and appreciated in the
IMCWP, are the analyses made by her former president Ludo Martens.
What apparently NOT is known that those analysis are “just” the
analyses by “just” Ludo Martens, although they FORMALLY were
approved on the 4th and the 5Th congress,
so getting (but just formally) the label of party-statement. But they
are NEVER assimilated by the majority of party-militants and -cadres.
A lot of the positions taken once by Ludo Martens are TODAY even
refuted by the (leadership of the) WPB/PVDA/PTB or “replaced”
by OPPOSING positions.
Some
of the positions taken by the (leadership of the) WPB TODAY, and
which are “supported” by communists as
Alexandré Garcia, are NOT positions once taken by Ludo
Martens.....I will prove that THOSE positions are similar to
positions.....once taken by chruchevian-revisionists. ALSO is
there a similarity between the positions taken by the CCP under
Deng Xiaoping and the positions taken by.....Chruchev.: “state
of the whole people”, “party of the whole people”,
“end of the class struggle”, “peaceful
coexistence”...... The Russian translation of the title of
Dengs program “Reform and Opening” is .......”Glasnost
and Perestroika”.
Positions
of Ludo Martens which ought to be (because approved on 4th
or 5th WPB-congress) positions of the WHOLE WPB. (ACTUAL
WPB-leadership takes OPPOSING positions)
It
is now, today, that I realise how the actual revisionist leadership
once manipulated the congresses in preparation of a later
“revisionist transformation”.
Important
political analyses (compared with analyses made in the KKE and then
submitted to the 19th congress) made by Ludo Martens -
when he was still on congresses elected president of the WPB –
should have normally been discussed, eventually amended and then
voted in order to be a party-point-of view which had to be
assimilated by alle party-members.
But
those analyses, presented as “books written by Ludo Martens”
are integrally – but very formally – presented as
“party-points-of view” in reports ABOUT
the congresses. And - in the beginning – everybody was urged “to
buy, read and promote around him or her “ those books. But this
“guideline” quiet down and now (while those books are not printed
and sold anymore by EPO itself) the new leadership can take
OPPOSING positions whith former positions.
So
for example there is the book (not existing in English) “From
Tien An Men to Timisoara - struggle and debates inside the PVDA(WPB)
(1989-1991)”, (EPO, 1994, ISBN 90 6445 898 7)
In
the book “Party of the revolution” (compilation of
the documents of the 5th
congress in 1995) there is made references to the book “From
Tien An Men to Timiisoara...”:
“Inside
the Workers Party of Belgium is existing a huge consensus on decisive
political questions on which a lot of organisations have split.
These
consensus is the result of broad debates: and is formulated in
definitive documents.(...) “From Tien An Men to Timisoara”
(...)”The USSR, the velvet contra-revolution” (...)
”Another view on Stalin”...”15
I
will give some CONCRETE examples about these OPPOSED positions of the
“earlier” WPB and of the ACTUAL WPB, in the next article.
1Alexandré
Garcia meant here the IMCWP as they are organised yearly since 1999,
see here: http://www.solidnet.org/1st-imcwp/1999-1st-imcwp
2
See
section "Some questions about China" report to the Plenum
of the Central Committee 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/
3
http://www.cpgb-ml.org/
4
For
those who want to be more documented on the break with
Marxism-Leninism as became a fact on the XX and XXII Congress of the
CPSU, I recommend reading “the
Polemic about the general line of the international communist
movement”
(http://marxists.org/espanol/tematica/china/documentos/pol.pdf)
published
in 1963 in People's Daily (organ
of the CCP) and the work of the leader of the PTB, Ludo Martens The
USSR and the velvet contrarevolution,
Edited by EPO, 1995
http://es.scribd.com/doc/56763029/La-URSS-y-la-contrarrevolucion-de-terciopelo-Ludo-Martens
5
In
the same way, being too lenient with the ineffectiveness of many
Western Communists, and especially the Greek communists, Comrade
Vagenas lays the guilt by China blaming it for countless misfortunes
suffered by the Greek people, while the responsibility is only and
exclusively bu the Western Communists themselves, incapable of
making revolution in their own countries, as is the KKE still after
95 years.
6
Indeed,
in a speech in 1965 in commemoration of the 20th anniversary of the
defeat of Nazi Germany, Brezhnev mentioned Stalin positively, which
had not happened in over a decade.
7
L.I.
Brézhnev, report to the XXIII Congress of the CPSU, 1965.
8
In
1973, after the Pinochet coup in Chile, which shattered any
illusions about a peaceful road to socialism, Brezhnev declared,
with all the tranquility of the world: "The tragedy of Chile in
no way ruled out the deduction of the Communists that different
paths are possible to revolution, including the peaceful one, if the
conditions required exist for this." condition. "The less
daring and unfortunate statement after the tragedy, overlooking the
damage done to the revolutionary movement by the pacifism and
reformism of Khrushchev.
9
In
its report to the XXIII Congress of the CPSU (1965), Brezhnev
stated: "In all these years, the CPSU, inspired by the line
emanating from the XX and XXII Congress party, firmly guided the
Soviet people in the path of construction of communism. "Later
in the Report to Congress XXV (1976), you can read things like the
following: "In our country a developed socialist society is
built which progressively transformed into a communist society. Our
state is the state of the whole people. In our nation is built a
new historical community - the Soviet people - resting on the
indestructible alliance of the working class, the peasantry, the
intelligentsia, the friendship among all nations and nationalities
of the country."
10
More information about the economical reforms in the Soviet Union
after the XX Congress of the CPSU in Harpal Brar's: “Perestroika:
the complete failure of revisionism”,
Ed. Progressive Printers, 1992.
11https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B251oYOXh6QgR3RmZGNUSjlESDA/edit,
“En defensa del pueblo chino. Respuesta a Elisseos Vagenas (1ª
parte)”; Alexandré Garcia.
12Ludo
Martens, “Los
años Brézhnev, ¿estalinismo o revisionismo?”,
Études Marxistes nº8, 1991,
http://marx.be/fr/content/%C3%A9tudes-marxistes?action=get_doc&id=7&doc_id=354
13
Of
course, needless to say that it may seem shocking that superficially
seen, the "pro-Soviet" tradition define these countries as
"socialist" without anyone tear the clothes for it, while
some "pro-Soviet" communists as Elisseos Vagenas ad
eternum denied to China the status of a socialist country. But it
must be borne in mind that those third world countries under Soviet
influence were, "Friends", a very important detail.
14https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B251oYOXh6QgR3RmZGNUSjlESDA/edit,
“En defensa del pueblo chino. Respuesta a Elisseos Vagenas (1ª
parte)”; Alexandré Garcia.
15“Partij
van de Revolutie”, EPO, 1996, ISBN 60 6445 933 9.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten