I got some reactions of militants of the WPB (they are still member, while I am expelled in 2005). They react on the analyse I made, of what I see as conscious developed revisionism in the actual WPB, turning the party from a revolutionary party into a reformist party. Those militants are convicted communists and believe still that they are member of, and working for, a true communist party. Therefore they differ with me, as you can see in their reactions. (The names are not their real names)
In the analyse that I will make, of the documents of the 5th Congress of the WPB in 1995, I will use and discuss these reactions,
« Ron » emailed (in 2008 in reaction of my critics on the 8th congress of the WPB):
« Dear,
As communist you have to know that theory and practice go hand in hand. I am confronted with this fact in my daily political work: How you can bring communism in the year 2008 in the minds of the workers? As a party we are learning this already many years how to do this, and this with ups and downs. I think we have made progress the last years: « more flexible to the outside, more Marxist Leninist inside ». We have gained some authority on that point. But it stays difficult. We can use everybody who wants to break his brains on this.
You are criticising the party and are arguing that she is no more communist, basing yourself on quotes out of popular brochures and out of Solidair. But than I ask myself, based on which practice are you doing this?
How much workers or even intellectuals you have been able to organise, since you have been fired, on the base of your conceptions how a communist party should work?
As far as I know, as far as I can see basing myself on your mails, you are nowhere on the point of practice (…)
I am certain that you can have a conversation with someone of the party that is best placed for that. I am hoping that you will take your place again IN THE PARTY again, so you can involve yourself in THE PRACTICE of the constructing of a (real) communist party, with all the fundamental discussions coming forth out of it.
I can very well answer your remarks in your mail, but will not do this here (…) I shall not comment your text (…) because I give priority to my own communist work.
Greetings. »
« Roger » emailed (also in 2008):
Dear comrade,
I should, if I were you, (…) really study the texts of the 8th Congress.
The essential fact is: the WPB has to become a broad, popular workers party were the workers are feeling home. I was already member in the seventies, but this is still not the case. Far from it.
This is forcing us to question ourselves. Someone who live to see Marxism Leninism as a religion crying out loud al day: « Revolution, revolution » following the very correct conceptions of « Party of the Revolution » (and that book is absolutely still our base and the author of it lays on the base of the actual renewal with his critic on the period « Resist ») but can not organise people in a popular workers party is not using -as I see it - Marxism Leninism in a correct way.
When it is possible at the other hand with the « kiwi-model » - how reformist this model is itself - I think this is more Marxism Leninism. Lenin was not against reformist demands. The question is what you are doing with them, where do you want to go with them. You can attract with it the vanguard of the workers movement, organise them in the party and to educate them in Marxism Leninism. Just with a sufficient strong Marxist Leninist organisation you can develop the class struggle in the right direction. Two years now we have studied mainly « the left wing…. » to strengthen our ties with the masses (against leftism in the party)
To the inside we stay as earlier, Marxist Leninist and revolutionary. In the formation we still study the same works, also « Party of the Revolution ». But we adapt our tactic to become a broader workers party. We begin no more discussions about communism with workers who are not interested in it at the moment and are leaving us therefore.
We have to avoid this last thing. We are not able to counter all the influence of anticommunism on the masses to confront this directly and frontally. This way is not building a broad workers party, by chasing so many workers away. (There for the leaving of the hammer and sickle in the party logo. These are tactical questions, not touching the main objective of the party). Only with a long detour we can win the broad masses for our politic of the revolution. The communists have to experience this as positive in their struggle for a better live.
Only this way we can put communism on the map again for the broad masses. We have to create bounds with the workers as much as possible by struggling for their reformist demands and for solutions for their little and big problems. There is no other way. The way of working in Zelzate is a good example.
There were on the Congress long and broad discussions, for example about the quote « to embrace the unions ». This would be a difficult thing for you, I presume. And also your points of views - as far I can presume - were matter for discussion. But they were refuted at the end by the larger majority. We will never sleep in the same bed with Cortebeeck or De Leeuw, but without the working of revolutionaries in the unions and with certain compromises with the formers, we can never bring the masses to revolution.
You should not judge us so quickly. Really not. The renewal is asking for a serious attentive study before making a correct judgment. You are not thinking that we all are so naïve letting to be led by our nose by a leadership of traitors of Marxism Leninism. Marxism Leninism has as ideology dialectical materialism. So there is needed a lot of dialectics and a lot of materialism. It is a method of thinking. These are not revolutionary slogans that are staying forever the same in all circumstances. Where are we now with Marxism Leninism after 40 years in the world? As good as nowhere. There has to be still al lot of analysing and of thinking. I am certain that our 8th Congress has done this really. We are really convicted that the SP in the Netherlands and Die Linke in Germany are opportunist, you know. We are not going on that way, how much however we can learn from them.
Comradely greetings. »
Out of another email of Ron (in 2007 as a reaction of an analyse (« Antimertens ») of a book of Peter Mertens on my web log. (Peter Mertens becoming president of the WPB in 2008):
« You are busy with pure book- « wisdom ». You lock yourself down behind your computer and are considering yourself as the new Lenin with your « Anti-Mertens ». But you are no Lenin, far from it. You can not even compare yourself in any way with your big example Ludo Martens. And why? You have not any bound with practice. The WPB is trying to build a communist party in the practice in an imperialist country of the 21st century and in the context of a world situation as she is today. You are claiming that she is no more revolutionary and maybe you have arguments for it. But what are worth those arguments if they are not tested in the practice? Nothing, zero, absolutely zero…. You have the pretension that a party with 3.000 members who have all their practice, has to listen to your lonely person behind your computer. Now you can read some quotes - also from you dear Ludo Martens - to freshen up for you the unbreakable bound between Theory and Practice.
So when you really mean it well and you are really concerned about the future of the WPB, stop with that « book wisdom » and take practice as base for your theory. Try to build yourself to build in the practice a revolutionary group of workers.
Out of « the Manifest, 150 year young in a history that counts in centuries » by Ludo Martens:
« Marx was a person, just like Engels, for whom practice is closely tied with the revolutionary theory. Two months after ending the editing of the Manifest, in Paris breaks out the Februarirevolution of 1848. Also in Brussels the revolutionary and republican environments are planning an insurrection for the construction of the republic. Marx is not staying at the sidelines. When we can believe a report of the police of Brussels, Marx had just received the sum of 6.000 francs as a heritage of his father. Marx, who shall live almost his whole life in poverty, is not doubting one moment to spend 5.000 francs of it for the buying of weapons mend for the workers of Brussels. »
Out of “Foundations of Leninism” (April 1924) Out: Source: Works Volume 6, pages 71-196. , “II. Method”[1]:
« This is why Lenin said that "revolutionary theory is not a dogma," that it "assumes final shape only in close connection with the practical activity of a truly mass and truly revolutionary movement" ("Left-Wing" Communism[2]); for theory must serve practice, for "theory must answer the questions raised by practice" (What the "Friends of the People" Are[3]), for it must be tested by practical results. »
Out of t: Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung: ON PRACTICE, “On the Relation Between Knowledge and Practice, Between Knowing and Doing”[4]:
Marxists hold that man's social practice alone is the criterion of the truth of his knowledge of the external world. What actually happens is that man's knowledge is verified only when he achieves the anticipated results in the process of social practice (material production, class struggle or scientific experiment). If a man wants to succeed in his work, that is, to achieve the anticipated results, he must bring his ideas into correspondence with the laws of the objective external world; if they do not correspond, he will fail in his practice. After he fails, he draws his lessons, corrects his ideas to make them correspond to the laws of the external world, and can thus turn failure into success; this is what is meant by "failure is the mother of success" and "a fall into the pit, a gain in your wit". The dialectical-materialist theory of knowledge places practice in the primary position, holding that human knowledge can in no way be separated from practice and repudiating all the erroneous theories which deny the importance of practice or separate knowledge from practice. Thus Lenin said, "Practice is higher than (theoretical) knowledge, for it has not only the dignity of universality, but also of immediate actuality."
The Marxist philosophy of dialectical materialism has two outstanding characteristics. One is its class nature: it openly avows that dialectical materialism is in the service of the proletariat. The other is its practicality: it emphasizes the dependence of theory on practice, emphasizes that theory is based on practice and in turn serves practice. The truth of any knowledge or theory is determined not by subjective feelings, but by objective results in social practice. Only social practice can be the criterion of truth. The standpoint of practice is the primary and basic standpoint in the dialectical materialist theory of knowledge.
Leaving aside their genius, the reason why Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin could work out their theories was mainly that they personally took part in the practice of the class struggle and the scientific experimentation of their time; lacking this condition, no genius could have succeeded.
All knowledge originates in perception of the objective external world through man's physical sense organs. Anyone who denies such perception, denies direct experience, or denies personal participation in the practice that changes reality is not a materialist. That is why the "know-all" is ridiculous. There is an old Chinese saying, "How can you catch tiger cubs without entering the tiger's lair?" This saying holds true for man's practice and it also holds true for the theory of knowledge. There can be no knowledge apart from practice.”…”
Out of an email from « Richard » (2008):
« Dear Nico,
(…) I agree with you on the fact that the working people should have their own « representation ». A Workers Party we want to make that engagement clear en to propagate it to everybody. That is difficult and so it is creating problems. It is our engagement since the reorientation that the party is going forward with this. Kicking in the back is good, but touching ground is better. So I remembered your engagement in the struggle round Solvay in Montignies in 1991. (…)
Now you want a discussion about your points of view an as long that there is now compromise possible for you, you are staying on criticising (…)
In was your decision to turn your back to your party of earlier days and to show no more engagement for her. My way is not yours…. »
[1] I give here the English translation of the French version of « Ron’s » quote: Out of “Foundations of Leninism” (April 1924) Out: Source: Works Volume 6, pages 71-196. , “II. Method”. Published: Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow: 1953. Online Version: Marxists Internet Archive, May 2008
[2] V.I. Lenin, "Left-Wing" Communism, an Infantile Disorder (see Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 31, p. 9).
[3] V.I. Lenin, What the "Friends of the People" Are and How They Fight the Social-Democrats (see Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 1, pp. 278-79).
[4] Here « Ron » is giving himself the quote in English.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten