Will the WPB/PVDA/PTB join the accusation that the KKE is (still) not free of 'Chruchov-Breznjevian “left”-formulated, revisionism'?(5)

In 2003 appeared Boudewijn Deckers' “analysis” about(although it is more “some reflections about....”) actual socialism in China in Marxist Studies. It was called “Questions about the development of socialism in China”.¹ Marxist Studies (with its website marx.be ) should be (as was said on the 8^th WPB-congress in 2008 ) an important instrument for the formation in Marxism of the members and sympathizers of the WPB.

Boudewijn Deckers was “historically” the number 2 in the party. He had been already earlier in a (I think several) party-delegation(s) in China. As his analysis appeared in Marxist Studies (and a summarizing article in Solidair) one can consider it as a - to study and to assimilate - party-point-of-view.

In 2003 (while not having studied all party-documents, as I should have....., but on China I had studied a lot from the moment of the Tien An Men “happenings” in 1989), I realised already, that the point of view developed by Boudewijn was (at least) “different” compared with the original (WPB-)party-point-of-view about the policy of the CCP under leadership of Deng Xiaoping...... About my reaction on Boudewijn Deckers' article in Marxist Studies (and his answer) you can read in the downloadble pdf-file I made“About revisionism being anti-Marxism”.

I will now show – based on the translation from certain parts of his text, how Boudewijn Deckers in fact “erased” out of the collective memory of the party, the original party-statements and on congresses voted party-points of view.

Boudewijn Deckers not “answering questions” but just repeating official actual CCP-line

Boudewijn Deckers, in his “answers” on questions about China - you will see that he is NOT in ANYWAY really answering - he is just repeating the official actual view of the CCP. So INDIRECTLY he is saying in fact, that, the by him repeated official view of the CCP, is now ALSO the “actual official” point of view of the WPB:

“A delegation of the Central Committee of the Workers Party of Belgium (WPB/PVDA/PTB) was in China 16-25 February 2003, invited by the Communist Party of China (CPC). Boudewijn Deckers was leading the delegation. He is answering a number of frequent asked questions about China.

China experienced during the last thirty years serious reforms. Does this not leas to an aberration of socialism?

(...) In the beginning of the eighties, the Chinese Communist Party thought that an accelerated development of the economy, which she considered as absolutely necessary, was impossible to conform with the strict principles of the collectivisation which were ruling until that moment, although they had given China a solid base.(...)Socialism and communism as they were described by Marx and Engels, remained the final objectives. But, as the CPC was saying, the founders of scientific socialism had not worked out an answer of the question, how, from an outspoken backward situation, after two-thousand years feudality, make the step to socialism, in such a big country of the third world, with more than a billion inhabitants, and without the presence elsewhere of strong developed socialist countries?It is clear that China is building socialism in very different conditions than what is waiting us in the old capitalist countries or in the just industrialised countries

“To build socialism in a poor third world country, a certain development of capitalist enterprises is normal and necessary”² Researchers of the CPC are referring to the New Economic Policy of Lenin which, according to them, allowed the development of capitalism after the devastations caused by the imperialist war (Boudewijn probably means here: the intervention war in the Soviet-Union by the imperialist powers, NICO) of 1981-1921.

It is impossible for us to judge all aspects of this matter. We do not know why the experience of the industrialisation, the collectivisation and the central planning of the thirties in the Soviet Union could not, one way or another, been applied in China today. We are neither able to make a complete review of the Chinese experience until the seventies, neither that of the years after then, by the way.

But we have to be objective and we have to learn to know the policy of the CPC and the Chinese government very well. We have to recognise as well as the problems for the country, as the undeniable successes, which are brought by the reform.”³

So Boudewijn, co-founder of AMADA (in 1970) and later the WPB(in 1979), who was part of a “WPB-delegation visiting China” several times, has not any notion about the history of the Chinese revolution and the building of socialism and has not any notion about the contradictions in the CPC. For what has he been in China, in the name of all the members of the WPB, if he is not been able to analyse and to take a stand as a leader of a communist party? So he went to China in February 2003 as an empty blank piece of paper. He is just able to repeat the argumentation of the CPC and to propagate it as a “correct Marxist-analysed policy”.

And very subtile he is by giving a very limited quote out of an article (see note:”Ludo Martens, Solidair, nr. 23, 7 June 1989” - this article was on itself just a part, just the beginning, of a whole analysis), ERASING the original analyses and point of views of the WPB, about China and the developments and contradictions in the CPC, mostly formulated by Ludo Martens but AFTERWARDS affirmed on congresses (as I revealed in this article and this article). And while probably NO ONE party-member studied and assimilated those congress-documents, NOBODY (...but me,as you can see in the emails between me and Boudewijn Deckers in “About revisionism being anti-Marxism”) remarked the incorrect political attitude of Boudewijjn Deckers......In fact by his – as a leader of a communist party - unworthy attitude, he “allowed” other cadres -as Peter Franssen – to develop a REVISIONIST analysis about China.(I will analyse this in a next article, but I did it already earlier in this downloadable document)
Further Boudewijn Deckers (in a empiric/dogmatic way):

According to Deng Xiaoping and other important Chinese leaders, the CPC wanted to skip certain stages, with a fast, large-scale collectivisation which did not correspond with the backward situation of the production-forces. The socialist collectivisation demands a material base, and that should be a large industrial production and a mechanised agriculture.

The Great Cultural Revolution (1966-1976) has taught us, young western revolutionaries, the principles on which is founded our party, like the critic on the main-characteristics of Chruchov-revisionism, the transformation of the conception of the world which stays always necessary for communists, the bond with the masses and so much more. But in China itself, there were made, in that same period, important mistakes. According to the Chinese leaders was that period the climax of voluntarist and leftist policies, which was linked to wrong conceptions of egalitarianism and a negation of the principle of socialism “each according his work”. In that period there was a to extreme attention for class-struggle, while the priority under socialism should normally be, development of the economy. You can not abolish classes within the frame of a backward economy. The objective of socialism is giving the people a better and better level of living. The CPC is making the analysis that not any party can stay into power when she is not able to fulfil that task successfully.⁴

By a subtile formulation Boudewijn Deckers erased the lessons of the 4^th congress of the WPB(1991) formulated in the document “USSR, the velvet counterrevolution”:

The analysis which Mao Zedong made in the sixties, is the best reflection of the reality of the socialist countries. Today this analysis can be made sharper in the light of the recent events in Eastern Europe, in the Soviet-Union and in China. But this analysis was somehow invalidated by certain leftist exaggerations during the Cultural Revolution. This made it easier for Deng Xiaoping to reject it totally in the eighties.

Mao Zedong saw the future of socialism as follows:

“Socialist society covers a very long historical period. Classes and class struggle continue to exist in this society, and the struggle still goes on between the road of socialism and the road of capitalism. The socialist revolution on the economic front (in the ownership of the means of production) is insufficient by itself and cannot be consolidated. There must also be a thorough socialist revolution on the political and ideological fronts.Here a very long period of time is needed to decide "who will win" in the struggle between socialism and capitalism. Several decades won't do it; success requires anywhere from one to several centuries. (...) During the historical period of socialism it is necessary to maintain the dictatorship of the proletariat and carry the socialist revolution through to the end if the restoration of capitalism is to be prevented, socialist construction carried forward and the conditions created for the transition to communism.” “Before Khrushchov came to power, they did not occupy the ruling position in Soviet society. Their activities were restricted in many ways and they were subject to attack. But since Khrushchov took over, usurping the leadership of the Party and the state step by step, the new bourgeois elements have gradually risen to the ruling position in the Party and government and in the economic, cultural and other departments, and formed a privileged stratum in Soviet society.” “ Even under the rule of the Khrushchov clique, the mass of the members of the CPSU and the Soviet people are carrying on the glorious revolutionary traditions nurtured by Lenin and Stalin, and they still uphold socialism and aspire to communism.(....) Among the ranks of the Soviet cadres, there are many who still persist in the revolutionary stand of the proletariat, adhere to the road of socialism and firmly oppose Khrushchov's revisionism.” “Class struggle, the struggle for production and scientific experiment are the three great revolutionary movements for building a mighty socialist country. These movements are a sure guarantee that Communists will be free from bureaucracy and immune against revisionism and dogmatism, and will forever remain invincible. They are a reliable guarantee that the proletariat will be able to unite with the broad working masses and realize a democratic dictatorship. If, in the absence of these movements, the landlords, rich peasants, counter-revolutionaries, bad elements and ogres of all kinds were allowed to crawl out, while our cadres were to shut their eyes to all this and in many cases fail even to differentiate between the enemy and ourselves but were to collaborate with the enemy and become corrupted and demoralized, if our cadres were thus dragged into the enemy camp or the enemy were able to sneak into our ranks, and if many of our workers, peasants, and intellectuals were left defenceless against both the soft and the hard tactics of the enemy, then it would not take long, perhaps only several years or a decade, or several decades at most, before a counter-revolutionary restoration on a national scale inevitably occurred, the Marxist-Leninist party would undoubtedly become a revisionist party or a fascist party, and the whole of China would change its colour.⁵”⁶

Without analysis, comment, critic Boudewijn Deckers is just reporting (an in fact defending....)

First China encouraged a de-collectivisation on the countryside. The soil remains in ownership of the state or the community. The private production developed quickly. From 1985 until 2002 the average income of peasants increased from 397,60 yuan to 2475,60 yuan.⁷

In 1983 the CPC⁸ decided that the main contradiction in China was, the increasing needs of the people and the backwardness of the production-forces. In 1989 the CPC⁹ lanced a policy of reforms and an opening on the outside world.(...)

The CPC seemed us to be really united on the actual reform-policy. The surprising results should have comforted the most doubters. The reform is still getting fully attention, she is considered not yet to be completed.¹⁰

Boudewijn Deckers is suffering from amnesia

The whole analysis made, mostly by Ludo Martens (but considered to be the point of view of the party) in 1989 (and the years after) about the contradictions in the CPC, the obvious development of revisionism, the stimulation of restoring capitalist production-relations (by Deng Xiaoping the only way in order to “develop the backwardness of the productive forces” ...... and the working class is the most important productive force for Marx...but not for Deng Xiaoping), is erased out of the collective memory of the WPB and replaced by: “The CPC seemed us to be really united on the actual reform-policy.” That whole analysis is “summarised” by just ONE sentence out of the first article of a series;“To build socialism in a poor third world country, a certain development of capitalist enterprises is normal and necessary”¹¹ Remark: Of this “presumed amnesia” of Boudewijn Deckers I began in 2007-2008 with an elaborated abalyses based on the series of articles written by Ludo Martens. You can read it HERE (but it is still in Dutch....)

As a kind of pr-man of the CPC, instead as cadre of the WPB he is further reporting and defending the policy of the CPC, without any comment or critic:

“China imported private-capital, allowed private ownership, lanced the slogan 'Enrich yourself': is that still socialism?

According to the analysis of the CPC, China is today in the first stage of socialism and that will last for several decades, maybe yet tot the end of this century. In this whole period the emphasis has to be put on the development of the production-forces, because they are completely backward.”¹²

And Boudewijn Deckers did not notice the pseudo-Marxist phrases of Deng Xiaoping about “primary stage of socialism”. Marx spoke about communism as alternative of capitalism, of which the first stage (of communism) was also called “socialism”....But that the first stage of communism (so socialism...) would on itself also have a “first stage”...., that is a”revision” of Marxism, so revisionism!

And then about “productive-forces”.... Well Deng Xiaoping talked on september 5 and sepember 12 1988 about “productive forces” in Science and technology constitute a primary productive force – excerpt from a talk with Gustave Husak of Czechoslovakia and excerpt from remarks made after hearing e report on a tentative program from the reform of prices and wages :

“Marx said that science and technology are part of the productive forces. Facts show that he was right. In my opinion, science and technology are a primary productive force.(.....)When I met with Husak, recently, I mentioned that Marx was quite right to say that science and technology are part of the productive forces, but now it seemed his statement was incomplete. The complete statement should be that science and technology constitute a primary productive force.”¹³

What Marx really said was that the working-class was the most important productive force.....Deng Xiaoping is even does not mention the working class as productive force.....and Boudewijn Deckers is not noticing it!

Further...

“China has privatised a lot of its state-enterprises, China is developing in a capitalist direction, is there already a class of capitalists?

In 1989, after the events of Tien An Men, we had the impression that capitalism was clawing around rather wildly and threatened to become the main-aspect in China.¹⁴

But today the socialist state can use a growing number of laws and regulation to control very well the development of capitalist enterprises and to orient them towards a mixed economy.”¹⁵

For a second time Boudewijn Deckers made reference to an article of which he quoted one sentence (see further above): “To build socialism in a poor third world country, a certain development of capitalist enterprises is normal and necessary”¹⁶) By this second reference to the same article he is in fact insinuating that the analysis then was wrong ( “In 1989, .... we had the (wrong?....)impression that ....”) Of course not many members in 2003 had still that article of 1989 and could not notice how they were mislead by Boudewijn Deckers and how the original point of view was just erased out of the collective memory of the WPB.....:

Out “De oorzaken van het bloedige drama in Bejing”, (“The causes of the bloody drama in Bejing”) editorial , Solidair nr 23, 7 juni 1989.

(This article was the first reaction of the WPB on the events on Tien An Men. I am not sure that THIS is written by Ludo Martens himself. But this was the start of a whole series of articles analysing the situation in China .... written by Ludo Martens.)

“During the 10 years of reforms, which were started by Deng Xiaoping in 1978, a lot of capitalist enterprises were been able to develop strongly.. To build socialism in a poor third world country, a certain development of capitalist enterprises is normal and necessary. But In China this process proceeded in a exaggerated, uncontrolled way and was linked to a growing cheerful sounding propaganda for capitalism and imperialism.

The responsibility for these negative events is laying by the actual leadership of the Chinese Communist Party. The capitalist powers have used the student-movement in order to demand “freedom” and “democracy” for themselves, which means a complete withdrawal of control of the socialist state.(....)

The development of capitalist powers in China is causing more and more outspoken differences between the Chines provinces. Imperialism is actively involved in increasing this division with the objective to make China explode and to submit her to its neo-colonial control.(...)

With the pro-capitalist ideas has also corruption entered the Chines Communist Party by the wide-opened front-door. So has become undermined the revolutionary spirit of the party. The ties of the CP with the masses deteriorated and the skills of the party in striving with determination for the interests of the masses diminished.

The corruption was the problem which moved most the masses.(...)

The leadership of the party has allowed the development of a capitalist sector and supported a trivial pragmatism, which was the reason of not being anymore able to stimulate the youth with a socialist ideal.”

Further Boudewijn Deckers “answering” questions:

“How is it possible that now also capitalists can become member of the communist party in China?

Jiang Zemin has developed the theory about the “three representations” and the CPC sees it as a expansion of Marxist-Leninism, the Thought Mao Zedong and the theory of Deng Xiaoping. Abroad is just remembered one aspect of that theory, namely that capitalists from now can become member of the Communist Party; But that is a simplistic forgery.

What are those “three representations”? The demands of the development of the advanced productive forces, the orientation of the advanced Chinese culture and the interests of the large majority of the Chinese people. (...)

This theory puts the power of the CPC in another light: the CPC has to be the vanguard of here time, she has to be the core of the Chinese people, the leading centre of the modernisation of China. (....)

So has the CPC proposed to expand her mass-base. She registered six new social categories in the Chinese society, which are a consequence of the policy of modernisation and reform: the personnel of high technological enterprises (engineers and technicians), the entrepreneurs and managers of enterprises with mixed capital, entrepreneurs of private enterprises, employees of intermediary organisations (auditing, etc..), the self-employed (China counts 35 million intellectuals.”¹⁷

A “theory which is developed as a expansion of Marxist-Leninism”, and by no one rings the bell of ...revisionism? A theory which is a “copy” of the “theory of the party of the entire people” of .....Chruchov, a theory qualified by the CPC ( and by AMADA, co-founded by Boudewijn Deckers, in those days) as revisionist....
Boudewijn is now (suffering of amnesia?) saying: “It is impossible for us to judge all aspects of this matter. (...) We are neither able to make a complete review of the Chinese experience until the seventies, neither that of the years after then, by the way.(....)The CPC seemed us to be really united on the actual reform-policy.”

Boudewijn Deckers is saying, also: “The Great Cultural Revolution (1966-1976) has taught us, young western revolutionaries, the principles on which is founded our party, like the critic on the main-characteristics of Chruchov-revisionism....

And in the beginning in AMADA and of the WPB (in both Boudewijn Deckers was among the FOUNDERS and one of the national cadres study was promoted about Chruchev-revisionism with the study of the Polemic between the CPC and the CPSU. Well, Boudewijn Deckers has forgotten what “The Great Cultural Revolution” taught him “like the critic on the main-characteristics of Chruchov-revisionism”. Because otherwise he would be alarmed by what is now happening with the CPC when he would remember...:

REFUTATION OF THE SO-CALLED PARTY OF THE ENTIRE PEOPLE

At the nd Congress of the CPSU Khrushchov openly raised another banner, the alteration of the proletarian character of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. He announced the replacement of the party of the proletariat by a “party of the entire people”. The programme of the CPSU states: As a result of the victory of socialism in the U.S.S.R. And the consolidation of the unity of Soviet society, the Communist Party of the working class has become the vanguard of the Soviet people, a party of the entire people.

The Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU says that the CPSU “has become a political organization of the entire people”. How absurd!

Elementary knowledge of Marxism-Leninism tells us that, like the state, a political party is an instrument of class struggle.

Every political party has a class character. Party spirit is the concentrated expression of class character. There is no such thing as a non-class or supra-class political party and there never has been, nor is there such a thing as a “party of the entire people” that does not represent the interests of a particular class.

The party of the proletariat is built in accordance with the revolutionary theory and revolutionary style of Marxism-Leninism; it is the party formed by the advanced elements who are boundlessly faithful to the historical mission of the proletariat, it is the organized vanguard of the proletariat and the highest form of its organization. The party of the proletariat represents the interests of the proletariat and the concentration of its will.

Moreover, the party of the proletariat is the only party able to represent the interests of the people, who constitute over per cent of the total population. The reason is that the interests of the proletariat are identical with those of the working masses, that the proletarian party can approach problems in the light of the historical role as the proletariat and in terms of the present and future interests of the proletariat and the working masses and of the best interests of the overwhelming majority of the people, and that it can give correct leadership in accordance with Marxism-Leninism.

In addition to its members of working-class origin, the party of the proletariat has members of other class origins. But the latter do not join the Party as representatives of other classes.

From the very day they join the Party they must abandon, their former class stand and take the stand of the proletariat.

Marx and Engels said: If people of this kind from other classes join the proletarian movement, the first condition must be that they

should not bring any remnants of bourgeois, petty-bourgeois, etc., prejudices with them but should whole-heartedly adopt the proletarian outlook.^{18 19}

Further Boudewijn Deckers defending all “expansions” of Marxist-Leninism:

“To what will lead this policy of reforms?

Our trust in the CPC is based of her earlier and actual realisations. The CPC was able to preserve her unity after the counterrevolutionary movement of Tien An Men. She could regain the control on the developments and the enormous economic growth could be preserved.(...)

The 16^th Congress underlined the necessity of the study of Marxism-Leninism and the Thought Mao Zedong ( and the theories of Deng Xiaoping and Jiang Zemin). The future will show if there were taken concrete measures to organise a thorough study of Marsism-Leninism on a sufficient large scale.”²⁰

The CPC which was “able to preserve her unity” the final party-line depended on which line was “winning” the struggle between two lines: sometimes it was the “social-democratic” line formulated by Liu Chaochi, sometimes it was the revolutionary line, formulated by Mao Zedong. AFTER the death of Mao Zedong the “social-democratic” line was re-taken by Deng Xiaoping, formulated in phrases of “remaining loyal to Marxism-Leninism and the Thought Mao Zedong”. (This statement I will prove concretely in a coming article)

Boudewijn Deckers is forgotten all what ”The Great Cultural Revolution (1966-1976) has taught us, young western revolutionaries”

It is interesting that Boudewijn said see above):”The Great Cultural Revolution (1966-1976) has taught us, young western revolutionaries, the principles on which is founded our party, like the critic on the main-characteristics of Chruchov-revisionism, the transformation of the conception of the world which stays always necessary for communists, the bond with the masses and so much more.”.

In the book “Party of the revolution” which is composed out of the discussed, amended and voted documents of the 5^th WPB-congress (1995) there is “Chapter 1. The organisation of a party of the Bolchevic type”, in which the 5^th part is called “The transformation of the conception of the world” (“Omvorming van wereldopvatting”, in Dutch):

The transformation of the conception of the world, the critic on the bourgeois conceptions and the acquisition of a proletarian conception of the world, are fundamental matters for each communist and that during his whole life.(....) The moment that our party obtained a certain political and organisational consolidation, transformation of the conception of the world has become an abstract given, and are they not anymore working for their transformation of their conception of the world through study, their work and the daily practice.(....)

The transformation of the conception of the world demands special efforts of the cadres. Until the end of his life, a communist cadre has to be committed to increase his knowledge and to ameliorate his abilities and to correct his ideological and political weaknesses.

Let get a closer look on the experiences of the communist parties of China and the Soviet-Union. (...)

In 1922 lenin criticised Bukharin. He stated that “his theoretical views can be classified as fully Marxist only with great reserve, for there is something scholastic about him (he has never made a study of the dialectics, and, I think, never fully understood it).”²¹ During the discussion about the peace of Brest-Litovsk, Bukharin was already conjuring with the social-democracy against Lenin. In 1927-1929, during the debates about the collectivisation, Stalin made several pertinent critics on the rightist, social-democratic positions of Bukharin. Bukharin never used all these correct critics as departure to transform his conception of the world. In 1936 he made conspiracies with social-democratic counter-revolutionaries.

Mao Zedong has criticised thoroughly the political mistakes of Deng Xiaoping. He emphasised the fact that Deng has participated in the revolution, not founded on a Marxist conception of the world, but founded on a revolutionary anti-feudal anti-imperialist position. Deng has made several formal self-critics, but after the death of Mao he returned to his bourgeois and petty-bourgeois conceptions.”²²

1 Marxistische Studies no 64, Publicatiedatum: 2003-11-01,“Vragen over de ontwikkeling van het socialisme in de Chinese Volksrepubliek”, Boudewijn Deckers. Een delegatie van het Centraal Comité van de Partij van de Arbeid van België (PVDA) was van 16 tot 25 februari 2003 in China, op uitnodiging van de Communistische Partij van China (CPC). Boudewijn Deckers, verantwoordelijk voor de Internationale Betrekkingen van de PVDA, leidde de delegatie.

2 Ludo Martens, Solidair, nr. 23, 7 juni 1989.

3http://marx.be/nl/content/archief?action=get_doc&id=60&doc_id=278, nummer 64, Publicatiedatum: 2003-11-01 Copyright © EPO, IMAST en auteurs. Overname, publicatie en vertaling zijn toegestaan voor strikt niet-winstgevende doeleinden “Vragen over de ontwikkeling van het socialisme in de Chinese Volksrepubliek door Boudewijn Deckers. (“questions about the development of socialism in the Chinese Peoples Republic”, by Boudewijn Deckers)

4 http://marx.be/nl/content/archief?action=get_doc&id=60&doc_id=278, nummer 64, Publicatiedatum: 2003-11-01 Copyright © EPO, IMAST en auteurs. Overname, publicatie en vertaling zijn toegestaan voor strikt niet-winstgevende doeleinden “Vragen over de ontwikkeling van het socialisme in de Chinese Volksrepubliek door Boudewijn Deckers. (“questions about the development of socialism in the Chinese Peoples Republic”, by Boudewijn Deckers)

5http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/KPC64.html, ON KHRUSHCHOV'S PHONEY COMMUNISM AND ITS HISTORICAL LESSONS FOR THE WORLD - COMMENT ON THE OPEN LETTER OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE CPSU (IX), by the Editorial Department of Renmin Ribao (People's Daily ) and Hongqi (Red Flag ), July 14, 1964. Foreign Languages Press Peking 1964. Prepared © for the Internet by David J. Romagnolo, djr@cruzio.com (July 1997)

6Translated by me, Nico, out of “USSR, de fluwelen contrarevolutiie”(“USSR, the velvet counterrevolution”) by Ludo Martens, EPO, 1991.This book forms the document of the 4^th congress of the WPB in 1991.

7 www.china.org.cn, cijfers van het Chinese Bureau voor statistiek (China Statistical Data).

8 Derde Plenum van het 11e Centraal Comité van de Communistische Partij van China.

9 Vierde Plenum van het 13e Centraal Comité van de Communistische Partij van China.

10http://marx.be/nl/content/archief?action=get_doc&id=60&doc_id=278, nummer 64, Publicatiedatum: 2003-11-01 Copyright © EPO, IMAST en auteurs. Overname, publicatie en vertaling zijn toegestaan voor strikt niet-winstgevende doeleinden “Vragen over de ontwikkeling van het socialisme in de Chinese Volksrepubliek door Boudewijn Deckers. (“questions about the development of socialism in the Chinese Peoples Republic”, by Boudewijn Deckers)

11 Ludo Martens, Solidair, nr. 23, 7 juni 1989.

12http://marx.be/nl/content/archief?action=get_doc&id=60&doc_id=278, nummer 64, Publicatiedatum: 2003-11-01 Copyright © EPO, IMAST en auteurs. Overname, publicatie en vertaling zijn toegestaan voor strikt niet-winstgevende doeleinden “Vragen over de ontwikkeling van het socialisme in de Chinese Volksrepubliek door Boudewijn Deckers. (“questions about the development of socialism in the Chinese Peoples Republic”, by Boudewijn Deckers)

13http://dengxiaopingworks.wordpress.com/2013/03/18/science-and-technology-constitute-a-primary-productive-force/

14 Ludo Martens, Solidair, nr. 23, 7 juni 1989.

15http://marx.be/nl/content/archief?action=get_doc&id=60&doc_id=278, nummer 64, Publicatiedatum: 2003-11-01 Copyright © EPO, IMAST en auteurs. Overname, publicatie en vertaling zijn toegestaan voor strikt niet-winstgevende doeleinden “Vragen over de ontwikkeling van het socialisme in de Chinese Volksrepubliek door Boudewijn Deckers. (“questions about the development of socialism in the Chinese Peoples Republic”, by Boudewijn Deckers)

16 Ludo Martens, Solidair, nr. 23, 7 juni 1989.

17http://marx.be/nl/content/archief?action=get_doc&id=60&doc_id=278, nummer 64, Publicatiedatum: 2003-11-01 Copyright © EPO, IMAST en auteurs. Overname, publicatie en vertaling zijn toegestaan voor strikt niet-winstgevende doeleinden “Vragen over de ontwikkeling van het socialisme in de Chinese Volksrepubliek door Boudewijn Deckers. (“questions about the development of socialism in the Chinese Peoples Republic”, by Boudewijn Deckers)

18 “Marx and Engels to A. Bebel, W. Liebknecht, W. Bracke and Others (“Circular Letter”), Sept. 17-18, 1879”, Selected Works of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1951, Vol. II,

19Out “THE POLEMIC ON THE GENERAL LINE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNIST MOVEMENT”, FOREIGN LANGUAGES PRES, , Printed in the People’s Republic of China.. From Marx to Mao ML© Digital Reprints. 2006: ” REFUTATION OF THE SO-CALLED PARTY OF THE ENTIRE PEOPLE”.

20http://marx.be/nl/content/archief?action=get_doc&id=60&doc_id=278, nummer 64, Publicatiedatum: 2003-11-01 Copyright © EPO, IMAST en auteurs. Overname, publicatie en vertaling zijn toegestaan voor strikt niet-winstgevende doeleinden “Vragen over de ontwikkeling van het socialisme in de Chinese Volksrepubliek door Boudewijn Deckers. (“questions about the development of socialism in the Chinese Peoples Republic”, by Boudewijn Deckers)

21http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/dec/testamnt/congress.htm, Lenin volume 36 Collecte Works, “Letter to the Congress (...) II Continuation of the notes. December 24, 1922.

22Translated by me, NICO in English out“Party of the Revolution”, chapter 1, part 5. Transformatiion of the concption of the world (“Omvorming van wereldopvatting”), EPO, ISBN 60 6445 933 9.